Amptech, Inc

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 2004

342 N.L.R.B. 1131 (N.L.R.B. 2004)

AMPTECH, INC.
342 NLRB No. 117
1131
Amptech, Inc. and International Union, United
Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, AFL–CIO, CLC.
Cases 7–CA–44416 and 7–CA–44638
September 22, 2004
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS SCHAUMBER, WALSH, AND MEISBURG
On August 26, 2002, Administrative Law Judge Law-
rence W. Cullen issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions, a supporting brief, and a Re-
quest for Oral Argument.1 The General Counsel filed an
answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and record in
light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to af-
firm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions as
discussed below, and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified and set forth in full below.3

1 The Respondent’s request for oral argument is denied as the record,
exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of
the parties.
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d. Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
3 We have modified the judge’s recommended Order in accordance
with Ferguson Electric Co., 335 NLRB 142 (2001), and to conform to
our findings and the Board’s standard remedial language. We have also
substituted a new notice. In addition, we do not believe that a broad
cease-and-desist order is warranted under the test set forth in Hickmott
Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979), and we shall modify the judge’s rec-
ommended Order and notice accordingly.
In reaching this conclusion, Member Schaumber relies additionally
on NLRB v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U.S. 426, 433 (1941) (“It
would seem . . . clear that the authority conferred on the Board to re-
strain the practice which it has found the employer to have committed
is not an authority to restrain generally all other unlawful practices
which it has neither found to have been pursued nor persuasively to be
related to the proven unlawful conduct.”); see also NLRB v. Southwire
Co., 352 F.2d 346, 349 (6th Cir. 1965) (denying enforcement of Board
order seeking to restrain employer from violating the Act “in any other
manner” in the future); NLRB v. Process & Pollution Control Co., 588
F.2d 786, 792 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (to justify restraint of other violations,
“it must appear that they bear some resemblance to that which the
employer has committed or that the danger of their commission is to be
anticipated from the course of [the respondent’s] conduct in the past.”);
see generally Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d) (establishing specificity requirements
for cease and desist orders).
Member Walsh agrees with the judge’s recommended broad cease-
and-desist order under Hickmott Foods, supra, on the grounds that the
Respondent has engaged in such egregious and widespread misconduct
as to demonstrate a general disregard for the fundamental statutory
rights of its employees. Trus Joist MacMillan, 341 NLRB No. 45, slip
I. INTRODUCTION
This case concerns the Respondent’s response to a un-
ion organizing drive that took place at the Respondent’s
facility in late September 2001.
The judge found, and we agree, that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discriminatorily lay-
ing off 13 production employees—most of whom were
known or suspected union supporters or associates
thereof—in the wake of this organizing drive. However,
for the reasons discussed below, we find that the layoff
of one of these employees, Gayle Vallad, was unlawful
on the basis of a different rationale than that applied by
the judge. The judge also found, and we agree, for the
reasons described below, that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by failing and refusing to recall
certain of the laid- off employees to their former posi-
tions, and by issuing employee Kathy Reimann-Ruba a
disciplinary warning notice because of her union support
and activities.
Further, for the reasons discussed below, we agree
with the judge’s conclusions that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) by, inter alia, stating to employees
at a management-organized meeting that the Respondent
considered the union organizing drive to be a “personal
attack” and that the Respondent would “keep [its] op-
tions open”; maintaining a rule prohibiting individuals
other than on-duty employees from entering the Respon-
dent’s grounds; and instituting an employee advocacy
program and distributing an employee survey for the
purpose of discouraging its employees from supporting
the Union. We discuss these items, in turn, below.4
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
As more fully set forth in the judge’s decision, the
relevant facts are as follows. The Respondent is a corpo-
ration in Free Soil, Michigan, engaged in the manufac-

op. at 6; JD slip op. at 25 (2004); cf. United Parcel Service, 340 NLRB
No. 89, slip op. at 1 fn. 3 (2003) (an unlawful discharge).
4 We adopt the judge’s findings that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(3) and (1) by laying off employees Kent Babcock, Brad Block,
Jennifer Ely, Kathy Heard, Sandy Krusniak, Vicki Renner, Kathy Re-
imann-Ruba, Paul Schlaud, Rose Shedd, Merle (Sue) Stewart, Judy
White, and Rose Zimmer, and by placing employee Barbara Cormany
on probation and issuing her a disciplinary warning because of her
union support and activities.
We also adopt the judge’s findings that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(1) by: making threats of plant closure and retaliation through Alice
Patulski Wilson and Supervisor Trudy Thomas; making statements
regarding plant closure to employees and interrogating employees
regarding their union sympathies through outside ISO Consultant Mary
Schlattman; maintaining and enforcing an unlawful confidentiality rule;
and discharging Supervisor Thomas because she gave an affidavit to
the Board. Further, in the absence of exceptions, we adopt the judge’s
finding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by making threats of
plant closure through Supervisor Dave Honomichl.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

1132
ture of circuit boards. During the period in question, the
Respondent employed approximately 110 permanent
employees and 40 temporary employees. The Respon-
dent is owned by two brothers, Jeff Patulski (J. Patulski),
who is the president of the Respondent, and Stacey
Patulski (S. Patulski), who is the Respondent’s vice
president and human resources director. The Respon-
dent’s plant is owned by a separate corporation, which is
co-owned by the Patulskis’ mother, Alice Patulski Wil-
son (A. Patulski).
A. The Union Organizing Drive
In September 2001,5 the Union began an organizing
drive at the Respondent’s facility. All of the employees
who were either involved in the organizing drive or who
supported the Union were first shift production employ-
ees; second shift production employees generally did not
support the Union. The Respondent learned of the orga-
nizing effort on September 21, when employees Barbara
Cormany, Kathy Reimann-Ruba, Kathy Heard, and Vicki
Renner engaged in handbilling outside of the Respon-
dent’s plant during the shift change. One of the handbills
they passed out was a notice for a union organizational
meeting on Sunday, September 23.
Over 20 employees attended that meeting. On Mon-
day, September 24, S. Patulski conducted his own meet-
ing with employees. Reading from a written statement,
Patulski told employees that the Respondent viewed the
union organizing effort as a “personal attack,” and cou-
pled that statement with a warning to employees that, in
light of the organizing drive, the Respondent would con-
tinue to “explore all of [its] options for the future of
Amptech.”
Following this meeting, several of the Respondent’s
officials, including the Respondent’s general manager,
Jerry Overla, began to observe employees and listen to
information regarding which employees supported the
Union and which employees associated with the union
supporters. Beginning on or about Wednesday, Septem-
ber 26, and continuing through Friday, September 28, the
Respondent held a series of additional mandatory meet-
ings with small groups of employees. Known union sup-
porters were not invited to these meetings.
On Thursday, September 27, the Union held another
meeting attended by over 50 employees, including most
of the known union supporters, as well as, Merle (Sue)
Stewart, Rose Zimmer, Sandy Krusniak, and Brad Block.
Also in attendance were several of the Respondent’s
managers and front office employees, who came to the
meeting to express their opposition to unionization.
During this meeting, several employees who were not

5 All dates herein are in 2001, unless otherwise noted.
already known as union supporters, including Block and
Krusniak, expressed their support for the Union.
B. The September 28 Layoffs
On September 28, the Respondent instituted, without
any prior notice, indefinite layoffs of both permanent and
temporary production employees. In total, the Respon-
dent laid off 13 permanent employees and 32 temporary
employees; 9 temporary employees were not laid off.
All of the layoffs involved employees on the first shift.
Those selected for layoff included four of the six Sep-
tember 21 union handbill signers—Babcock, Heard,
Renner, and Reimann-Ruba. The other permanent em-
ployees who were laid off were Block, Jennifer Ely,
Krusniak, Paul Schlaud, Shedd, Stewart, Vallad, White,
and Zimmer.
C. October No-Access Policy
The Respondent’s “Visitors in the Workplace” policy
states that all visitors to the Respondent must enter in the
reception area, and upon receiving authorization to enter
the plant, they will be escorted to their destination by an
official of the Respondent. At an employee meeting on
October 15, shortly after the layoffs, the Respondent an-
nounced that, pursuant to this policy, no one was to be
“on the grounds” except for “working Amptech employ-
ees.”
D. Employee Advocacy Program
Also after the September 28 layoffs, the Respondent
instituted an employee advocacy program. The Respon-
dent solicited employees to participate in this program by
acting as advocates for other employees who wanted to
bring concerns and/or suggestions to the attention of
management, and wished to have someone accompany
them when they did so. The volunteer sign-up list for the
program, which was posted by the timeclock and com-
pany bulletin board, stated that the role of the employee
advocate is to be a “neutral third party to help [employ-
ees] feel comfortable, to serve as a witness, and to help
find a resolution to the concern,” and that “management
has agreed to do this to help resolve employee issues.”6
(Emphasis added.)
E. The Recall of Laid-Off Employees
During the time the aforementioned employees were
on layoff, the Patulskis told Supervisor Trudy Thomas
that they were sorry that the laid-off employees who

6 After several individuals had volunteered to act as employee advo-
cates, the Respondent posted another document entitled “Employee
Advocate Program,” which listed the employee advocates and included
statements similar to those on the volunteer sign-up list. The employee
advocacy program was still in effect, and this document was still
posted, as of the date of the hearing.
AMPTECH, INC.

1133
supported the Union would soon be recalled because they
“just [didn’t] want to deal with them.” Nevertheless, the
Respondent began to sporadically recall the laid-off em-
ployees on November 8. It did not, however, recall some
of these employees to their former positions. And, some
of the employees who were among the first to be re-
called—namely, Reimann-Ruba and White—testified
that, when they returned to work, they witnessed tempo-
rary employees working while permanent employees
remained on layoff.7
F. The Disciplinary Warning of Kathy
Reimann-Ruba
On January 8, 2002, S. Patulski issued union supporter
Reimann-Ruba, who had recently been recalled from
layoff, an “Employee Warning Notice” because she had
accumulated nine unexcused absences within the preced-
ing 12 months. The notice stated that she would be
placed on probation if she incurred any further absences.
One of the absences cited as unexcused on the notice was
a request from February 15 of the preceding year for an
absence without pay on May 11 of that year. After Re-
imann-Ruba had put in a written request for this absence,
Renner, her team leader at that time, verified with Office
Manager Kim Graczyk that the absence would be ap-
proved. After Graczyk had told Renner that the absence
would be approved, Renner relayed this message to Re-
imann-Ruba. However, at some point thereafter, S.
Patulski crossed out that the absence was excused on the
request form and did not inform Reimann-Ruba that he
had done so; he issued Reimann-Ruba the warning notice
based, in part, on this incident.8
G. Employee Survey
Finally, on February 1, 2002, at an employee meeting,
S. Patulski informed employees that the Respondent
would soon be distributing survey forms in order to find
out what employees “wanted” from the Respondent. The
survey, which was distributed on February 4, 2002,
asked employees to provide their opinions and sugges-
tions regarding such subjects as communications, em-
ployee benefits, and employment policies. There is no
evidence that the Respondent had conducted such a sur-
vey on any prior occasion.
III. DISCUSSION
1. The judge found, and we agree, that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by laying off employees
Kent Babcock, Brad Block, Kathy Heard, Sandy Krus-

7 As of the date of the hearing, the Respondent had recalled all but
two of the laid-off employees.
8 It is not clear from the record when S. Patulski crossed out the ex-
cused absence.
niak, Vicki Renner, Kathy Reimann-Ruba, Rose Shedd,
Merle (Sue) Stewart, Judy White, and Rose Zimmer be-
cause of their union support and/or activities, or because
of their association with known union supporters; and by
laying off employees Jennifer Ely and Paul Schlaud, who
were not known union supporters or associates thereof,
to conceal its unlawful motive for laying off the other
employees. The judge also found that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by laying off employee
Gayle Vallad, who was not a known union supporter, for
the same reason it had laid off Ely and Schlaud, namely,
to conceal its unlawful motive for the other layoffs.
While we adopt the judge’s conclusion that the Re-
spondent’s layoff of Vallad was unlawful, we do so for
different reasons. Although it was not mentioned in the
judge’s decision, there is undisputed evidence that Val-
lad, unlike Ely and Schlaud, was regarded by manage-
ment officials of the Respondent as a close associate of
known union supporters. In this regard, Overla testified
that he was aware that Vallad associated with known
union supporters. Consistent with Overla’s testimony,
Vallad testified that, at the time in question, she was
closely associated with known union supporters Cor-
many, Heard, Renner, and Reimann-Ruba.
In Martech MDI, 331 NLRB 487, 488 (2000), enfd. 6
Fed. Appx. 14 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the Board held that “the
discharge of an employee who is not known to have en-
gaged in union activity, but who has a close relationship
with a known union supporter may give rise to an infer-
ence of discrimination.” Consistent with this holding,
the judge, in this case, inferred that the Respondent laid
off certain of the employees, such as White, based on
their association with known union supporters. Given
that Vallad was also recognized as an associate of known
union supporters, and was regarded by the Respondent’s
management as such, an inference of discrimination on
the basis of this association is also appropriate with re-
spect to her layoff.
2. The judge further found, and we agree, that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by failing and
refusing to recall certain of the discriminatorily laid-off
employees to their former positions. The Respondent
has excepted generally to this finding; however, we find
no merit in this exception. For the reasons described
below, we find that the Respondent unlawfully failed and
refused to recall certain laid-off employees to their for-
mer positions in order to discourage their continued em-
ployment and to thwart future union organizational ef-
forts.
In Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662
F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989
(1982), the Board established its test of causation for
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

1134
cases alleging violations of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
First, the General Counsel must prove, by a preponder-
ance of the evidence, that an employee’s protected con-
duct was a motivating factor in the employer’s adverse
employment decision. Manno Electric, Inc., 321 NLRB
278, 280 (1996). Once this showing has been made, the
burden of persuasion shifts to the employer to demon-
strate that it would have taken the same action even in
the absence of the protected conduct. Wright Line, 251
NLRB at 1089.
In this case, the judge properly found that the General
Counsel met his initial burden of proving that protected
conduct was a motivating factor in the Respondent’s de-
cision not to return certain recalled employees—
particularly, Reimann-Ruba, Heard, and Renner—to their
former positions. The Respondent does not dispute that
it had knowledge of the union activities of these employ-
ees, who were members of the core group of union or-
ganizers at the Respondent and whose signatures had
appeared on a union handbill that was viewed by S.
Patulski.
Further, as discussed more fully herein, the recalls of
these employees took place against the background of
numerous unfair labor practices that demonstrated the
Respondent’s antiunion animus, the most significant of
which was the Respondent’s discriminatory layoff of the
union supporters in the first place. See Novartis Nutri-
tion Corp., 331 NLRB 1519, 1520 (2000) (recognizing
that the employer’s commission of other unfair labor
practices around the time of the unlawful termination of
a prounion employee constituted evidence of the em-
ployer’s animus toward prounion employees). Both be-
fore and during the recalls, the Respondent also commit-
ted several other unfair labor practices that evidenced its
animus toward the union organizing drive and union
supporters, including, inter alia, the unlawful discipline
of union supporters, threats of plant closure and retalia-
tion, and the unlawful solicitation of employee griev-
ances.
The circumstances surrounding the recalls themselves
also evidence the Respondent’s animus toward the Union
and its supporters. In this regard, before the recalls, the
Patulskis expressed regret that the laid-off union sup-
porters would be recalled, because they “just [didn’t]
want to deal with them.” As previously noted, the Re-
spondent began to sporadically recall employees after
November 8. It did not, however, return all of the re-
called employees to their former positions. For example,
Reimann-Ruba, who was one of the first employees to be
recalled on November 8, was placed in a position on the
second shift—a shift she had told S. Patulski she did not
want to work on—and she remained on that shift until it
was eliminated in December.9 In addition, Heard, the
most senior production employee, who could perform
most of the jobs at the plant, was offered a basic assem-
bly position paying $5 less per hour than her former posi-
tion. Heard rejected this offer and did not receive an
offer of work similar to her former position until January
2002. Likewise, Renner, another senior employee, was
offered, and eventually accepted, a basic assembly posi-
tion paying $1 per hour less than her former position.
Further, as noted above, when certain recalled employees
returned to work, they noticed that temporary employees
were working while permanent employees were still on
layoff.
In light of these circumstances, we find that the Gen-
eral Counsel met his initial burden of proving that the
union activity of employees such as Ruba, Heard, and
Renner was a motivating factor in the Respondent’s fail-
ure to recall them to their former positions. We further
find that the Respondent, having offered no explanation
to justify the method it employed in recalling these em-
ployees, has failed to demonstrate that it would have re-
called them in the same manner even in the absence of
their union activities.
Accordingly, on this basis, we agree with the judge’s
conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) by failing and refusing to recall certain laid-off
employees to their former positions.
3. The judge also found, and we agree, that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by issuing Re-
imann-Ruba a disciplinary warning because of her union
support and activities. The warning was issued to Re-
imann-Ruba in January 2002, 2 months after she had
been recalled from layoff, purportedly because she had
accumulated nine absences in a 12-month period. In its
exceptions, the Respondent argues, inter alia, that it had
established an informal practice of warning employees
who had accumulated close to 10 unexcused absences
that they would be subject to disciplinary action if they
accumulated any more absences.10 The Respondent ar-
gues that these “warnings” were not discipline; instead,
they were merely designed to prevent employees from
violating the Respondent’s attendance policy. Thus, the
Respondent argues that its warning to Reimann-Ruba,
who had accumulated nine absences, did not violate the
Act. The Respondent contends that the warning was
consistent with existing practice and that it did not con-

9 As noted above, second-shift production employees at the Respon-
dent were generally opposed to the Union.
10 As noted above, the Respondent’s formal disciplinary process, as
set forth in the employee handbook, is invoked when an employee has
reached 10 unexcused absences in a 12-month period.
AMPTECH, INC.

1135
stitute discipline. For the reasons set forth below, we
find no merit in the Respondent’s exceptions.
Preliminarily, we disagree with the Respondent’s con-
tention that the “warning” issued to Reimann-Ruba did
not constitute discipline. We note that the form used by
the Respondent to “warn” Reimann-Ruba that she was
close to the threshold of formal discipline—the “Em-
ployee Warning Notice”—was the same form that the
Respondent used when it actually issued formal disci-
pline. Thus, the Respondent issued Reimann-Ruba, who
was on the threshold of violating the Respondent’s atten-
dance policy, a warning using the same form that an em-
ployee who had actually violated the policy would re-
ceive. Moreover, in the course of issuing the warning,
the Respondent converted an excused absence incurred
by Reimann-Ruba on May 11 to an unexcused absence.
The Respondent has offered no explanation for its deci-
sion, well after the fact, to reclassify this absence as “un-
excused.” By increasing the number of unexcused ab-
sences charged to Reimann-Ruba, the Respondent moved
her a step closer to being placed on probation. Under
these circumstances, we agree with the judge’s finding
that the warning issued to Reimann-Ruba constituted
discipline.
Having established that the warning was discipline, we
now turn to the judge’s finding that this discipline was
unlawful. Applying the analysis set forth in Wright Line,
supra, the judge found, and we agree, that the General
Counsel met his initial burden of proving that Reimann-
Ruba’s union activity was a motivating factor in the Re-
spondent’s decision to issue her a disciplinary warning.
The evidence showed that Reimann-Ruba’s union activ-
ity was well known to the Respondent, as demonstrated
by her status as a core union supporter and organizer and
her signature on a union handbill that was viewed by S.
Patulski.
In addition, as discussed above, Reimann-Ruba’s dis-
ciplinary warning occurred against the background of
unfair labor practices showing that the Respondent bore
substantial animus toward the Section 7 activities of its
employees. Some of these unfair labor practices, includ-
ing the discriminatory layoff and subsequent recall of
union supporters to positions different from their former
positions, involved Reimann-Ruba.11 Under these cir-
cumstances, we agree with the judge that the General
Counsel has met his burden of proving that Reimann-
Ruba’s union activity was a motivating factor in the Re-
spondent’s decision to issue her a disciplinary warning.

11 It is also significant that, in October of the preceding year, the Re-
spondent unlawfully placed fellow union supporter Cormany on proba-
tion and issued her a disciplinary warning because of her union support
and activities.
We also agree with the judge’s finding that the Re-
spondent has failed to demonstrate that the disciplinary
warning would have been issued absent Reimann-Ruba’s
union activity. The Respondent presented evidence that,
at the time it issued Reimann-Ruba the warning, it also
issued warnings to several other employees who were not
known union supporters because they, like Reimann-
Ruba, had accumulated close to 10 absences. However,
as discussed above, S. Patulski crossed out a previously
approved excused absence without pay requested by Re-
imann-Ruba, and he did not notify her of this change; he
relied, in part, on this absence in issuing Reimann-Ruba
the warning. The Respondent offered no explanation for
this change and there is no evidence that S. Patulski took
similar action with respect to any of the other employees
to whom warnings had been issued.
Thus, the Respondent’s conduct in connection with
Reimann-Ruba’s warning is particularly telling of its
unlawful motive. We, therefore, agree with the judge’s
finding that the Respondent’s asserted reason for issuing
Reimann-Ruba the disciplinary warning was pretextual
and that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate that it
would have issued the warning in the absence of Re-
imann-Ruba’s union activity. That being the case, we
agree with the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by issuing the warning to
Reimann-Ruba.
4. The judge further found, and we agree, that the
statements made by S. Patulski at an employee meeting
on September 24—in which he told employees that the
Patulskis considered the union organizing drive to be a
“personal attack” and that they would “keep [their] op-
tions open with respect to the future of Amptech”—
violated Section 8(a)(1). The judge reasoned that the
“personal attack” statement equated union activity with
disloyalty and was, therefore, unlawful; he also reasoned
that the statement concerning the Respondent’s plan to
“keep [its] options open” constituted an unlawful implicit
threat of plant closure.
In adopting the judge’s finding that these statements
violated Section 8(a)(1), we stress that the characteriza-
tion of unionization as a “personal attack” was followed
by, and inextricably linked to, an unlawful implicit threat
of plant closure that was made in the same speech, as
discussed above. In these circumstances, we agree with
the judge that the “personal attack” statement, when
viewed together with the threat of plant closure, violated
Section 8(a)(1).12

12 Member Walsh finds that S. Patulski’s characterization of unioni-
zation to the employees as a personal attack on the Patulski family (the
Respondent’s owners and chief executives), and his veiled threat to the
employees of plant closure in warning them that, in light of their at-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

1136
5. The judge further found that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining and enforcing an
unlawful no-access policy that prohibited individuals
other than on-duty employees from being on the Respon-
dent’s grounds. As previously discussed, S. Patulski
announced this policy during an employee meeting on
October 15, a few weeks after the September 28 layoffs.
In finding this policy to be unlawful, the judge reasoned
that the policy was overly broad, and that the Respondent
enforced this policy in order to keep laid-off union sup-
porters from entering its grounds.13
In excepting to the judge’s findings, the Respondent
contends that it was merely enforcing an “existing pol-
icy” for “legitimate security reasons,” in particular the
threat of terrorism. We find no merit in the Respon-
dent’s contention.14 In adopting the judge’s finding that
this policy violated Section 8(a)(1), however, we rely
only on the policy’s natural consequence of prohibiting
off-duty employees from being on the Respondent’s
grounds. As discussed below, we find, on this basis, that
the policy is overly broad and therefore unlawful.
In Tri-County Medical Center, 222 NLRB 1089, 1089
(1976), the Board held that an employer may maintain a
rule prohibiting off-duty employees access to the interior
of its plant and other working areas if the rule “(1) limits
access solely with respect to the interior of the plant and
other working areas; (2) is clearly disseminated to all
employees; and (3) applies to off-duty employees seek-
ing access to the plant for any purpose and not just to
those employees engaging in union activity.” The Board
further held that, “except where justified by business
reasons, a rule which denies off-duty employees entry to
parking lots, gates, and other outside working areas will
be found invalid.” Id.
In this case, the Respondent’s no-access policy is
overly broad under the principles set forth in Tri-County
Medical Center, supra, because it prohibits off-duty em-

tempt to obtain union representation, the Respondent was going to keep
its options open about the future of the Respondent, were independently
coercive and separately violated Sec. 8(a)(1).
13 In reaching this finding, the judge relied upon evidence in the re-
cord that union supporter Reimann-Ruba, following her layoff, had
come to the Respondent’s facility on several occasions to have lunch
with her friend Cormany, and that the Respondent’s no-access policy,
which was announced shortly thereafter, precluded her from continuing
to do so.
14 Contrary to the Respondent’s contention, the no-access policy an-
nounced by S. Patulski is inconsistent with—and wholly separate
from—its existing “Visitors in the Workplace” policy. As previously
noted, the “Visitors in the Workplace” policy states that “visitors” will
be allowed access to the facility if they check in at the reception desk.
It does not make the blanket statement that individuals not working at
the facility should not be there at all, as does the no-access policy.
Thus, the no-access policy was a new policy and not merely a reitera-
tion of the existing “Visitors in the Workplace” policy.
ployees from accessing the Respondent’s “grounds,”
which encompass the parking lot and other nonworking
areas. Further, the Respondent has not established a sub-
stantial business reason for maintaining this policy. The
Respondent generally cites “legitimate security reasons,”
particularly the threat of terrorism in the wake of Sep-
tember 11, as its justification for the policy. While we
recognize that in light of the events of September 11
some employers may have reconsidered their security
procedures, we find in light of all the evidence that the
Respondent failed to show that legitimate security con-
cerns were the substantial motivating factor in its adop-
tion of a no-access policy at its facility in Free Soil,
Michigan.
Indeed, even if the Respondent’s stated concern re-
garding terrorism was a tenable one, the Respondent has
presented no evidence as to how preventing its off-duty
employees from being on its grounds would contribute to
safeguarding its facility or employees. Thus, we find
that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate that pro-
hibiting off-duty employees from being on its grounds
was necessary to maintain safety and security. Conse-
quently, we find that the Respondent’s no-access policy
is overly broad and therefore unlawful, and we adopt the
judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) by maintaining it.
6. Finally, the judge found that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) by unlawfully soliciting employee
grievances and implicitly promising to remedy these
grievances through an employee advocacy program initi-
ated shortly after the commencement of the union orga-
nizing effort, and through an employee survey conducted
by the Respondent in February 2002. As discussed
above, the employee advocacy program permits certain
employees to volunteer as advocates for employees who
wish to bring a concern or suggestion to management’s
attention.
In excepting to these findings, the Respondent con-
tends that it did not unlawfully solicit grievances through
the employee advocacy program because the idea for the
program originated with employees, not with manage-
ment. With respect to the employee survey, the Respon-
dent contends that the fact that the survey was conducted
several months after the union organizing drive refutes
the theory that the Respondent’s reason for conducting
the survey was to discourage employees from supporting
the Union. We do not find merit in these contentions.
Instead, we agree with the judge’s findings that the Re-
spondent, through the employee advocacy program and
survey, unlawfully solicited grievances from employees
and, at least implicitly, promised to remedy them in order
AMPTECH, INC.

1137
to discourage its employees from seeking union repre-
sentation.
The Board has long held that, in the absence of a pre-
vious practice of doing so, the solicitation of grievances
by an employer during an organizational campaign vio-
lates the Act when the employer promises to remedy
those grievances. See, e.g., Uarco, Inc., 216 NLRB 1, 2
(1974). The solicitation of grievances alone is not
unlawful, but it raises an inference that the employer is
promising to remedy the grievances. This inference is
particularly compelling when, during a union organiza-
tional campaign, an employer that has not previously had
a practice of soliciting employee grievances institutes
such a practice. Reliance Electric Co., 191 NLRB 44, 46
(1971), enfd. 457 F.2d 503 (6th Cir. 1972).
In this case, there is no evidence that the Respondent
had a previous practice of soliciting employee griev-
ances. However, in late September, after the layoffs and
during the union organizing drive, the Respondent im-
plemented the employee advocacy program.15 Accord-
ingly, as in Reliance Electric, supra, the initiation and
timing of this program support an inference that the Re-
spondent was implicitly promising to remedy the griev-
ances it discovered from the concerns brought to its at-
tention through the program, impressing upon its em-
ployees that union representation was no longer neces-
sary. In addition to the evidence cited by the judge in his
decision, this inference is also supported by statements in
the documents the Respondent posted in connection with
the program. In particular, the volunteer sign-up list for
employees who wished to act as employee advocates
specifically states that the Respondent’s “management
has agreed to do this to help resolve employee issues.”
(Emphasis added.)
We also find that the Respondent has failed to rebut
this inference. There is no evidence that the Respondent
specifically disavowed remedying any of these concerns;
and, as discussed herein, the Respondent committed nu-
merous other unfair labor practices during the union or-
ganizing drive. We, therefore, adopt the judge’s finding
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by institut-
ing the employee advocacy program.
Turning to the employee survey, we note that this was
the first such survey ever conducted by the Respondent.

15 The Respondent contends that the idea for this program originated
with Technology Manager Ray and Quality Assurance Manager Taylor,
not with management. The judge did not make a final determination as
to whether Ray and Taylor are employees or management officials of
the Respondent. However, it is undisputed that the Respondent imple-
mented the program, and the question presented is whether the Respon-
dent’s actions reasonably tended to interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the exercise of their Sec. 7 rights. The source of the idea
for the program is immaterial to this determination.
As discussed above, this survey specifically inquired about
employee satisfaction with communications, employee
benefits, and employment policies. The survey also
sought employee input and suggestions on changes to ex-
isting policies and the implementation of new policies.
Significantly, in asking employees for this informa-
tion, the questions in the survey were worded in such a
way as to indicate an implicit willingness on the part of
the Respondent to look into, and resolve, concerns ex-
pressed by employees who filled out the survey. The
survey asked these employees questions such as, “If you
could add one benefit, what would it be?”; “Is there any
company policy you feel is unreasonable and should be
reviewed by management”; and “Please list any topics
you would like to see a policy or procedures developed
to address and a reason why.” Other questions on the
survey asked employees to prioritize benefits such as
insurance, a 401(k) plan, and paid holidays and vaca-
tions, as well as fringe benefits. Employees responding
to the survey would reasonably conclude that the Re-
spondent was at least implicitly promising to remedy any
concerns they expressed.
This is especially true given the timing of the survey,
which was distributed on the heels of the numerous un-
fair labor practices committed by the Respondent in re-
sponse to the union organizing drive. The Respondent,
and our colleague, point out that the union organizing
drive ended in late September, and the survey was not
conducted until February of the following year. How-
ever, the passage of these few months does not sever the
nexus between the organizing drive and the survey.
First, we note that the organizing drive ended in Septem-
ber only because the Respondent caused it to end by lay-
ing off the vast majority of union supporters. Moreover,
as discussed above, during the months between the end
of the organizing drive and the distribution of the em-
ployee survey, the Respondent committed numerous
other violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) that evidenced
its ongoing campaign to preclude any further attempts at
union organization.16 In light of this continuous pattern
of unfair labor practices over the course of the months
between the union organizing drive and the employee
survey, we find that there is a clear nexus between these
two events, and, thus, there is a compelling inference that
the survey was designed to correct the discontent that led
up to the organizing drive and to ensure that no further
organizational efforts ensued.

16 These unfair labor practices included: unlawfully disciplining un-
ion supporters; discriminatorily recalling laid-off employees; instituting
an unlawful employee advocacy program; implementing an unlawful
no-access policy; and discharging a supervisor for giving an affidavit to
the Board.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

1138
Additionally, because the Respondent has not offered a
satisfactory contemporaneous explanation for conducting
this unprecedented survey—other than its desire to find
out what employees “wanted”—we also find that the
Respondent has failed to rebut this inference. See Villa
Maria Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, 335 NLRB
1345 fn. 2 (2001), affd. 49 Fed. Appx. 289 (11th Cir.
2002), cert. denied 538 U.S. 922 (2003).17 We, there-
fore, adopt the judge’s finding that the Respondent’s
distribution of the employee survey violated Section
8(a)(1).18
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified and set forth in full below and orders that the
Respondent, Amptech, Inc., Free Soil, Michigan, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining and enforcing an overly broad confi-
dentiality rule prohibiting employees from discussing
their wages.
(b) Threatening employees with job loss, plant closure,
and unspecified retaliation because of their union and/or
other protected concerted activities.
(c) Coercively interrogating employees concerning
their participation, or the participation of other employ-
ees, in union and/or other protected concerted activities.
(d) Instituting an employee advocacy program and dis-
tributing an employee survey for the purpose of soliciting
grievances and impliedly promising to remedy these
grievances in order to discourage employees from seek-
ing union representation.
(e) Maintaining and enforcing an overly broad no-
access policy prohibiting individuals other than on-duty
employees from being on its grounds.
(f) Discharging supervisors for giving affidavits to the
Board.
(g) Placing employees on probation and/or issuing dis-
ciplinary warnings to employees because of their partici-

17 In Villa Maria, supra, the Board found that the employer violated
Sec. 8(a)(1) by instituting an unprecedented employee survey during a
union organizational drive, which specifically inquired about employee
satisfaction with the employer’s handling of grievances. The Board
reasoned that the employer’s implementation of the survey constituted
an implicit promise to remedy the grievances elicited through the sur-
vey for the purpose of countering the organizational drive. The Board
further noted that the employer offered no contemporaneous explana-
tion of the survey’s purpose that would have rebutted the survey’s
reasonable tendency to interfere with employees’ Sec. 7 rights.
18 Unlike his colleagues, Member Schaumber would not find that the
Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by distributing the employee survey.
In Member Schaumber’s view, the relationship between the union
organizing drive, which ended in September, and the distribution of the
survey 5 months later, is too attenuated to warrant such a finding.
pation in union and/or other protected concerted activi-
ties.
(h) Laying off employees and failing and refusing to
recall them to their former positions because of their par-
ticipation, or the participation of other employees, in
union and/or other protected concerted activities.
(i) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
employees Kent Babcock, Brad Block, Jennifer Ely,
Kathy Heard, Sandy Krusniak, Vicki Renner, Kathy Re-
imann-Ruba, Paul Schlaud, Rose Shedd, Merle (Sue)
Stewart, Gayle Vallad, Judy White, and Rose Zimmer,
and Supervisor Trudy Thomas full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substan-
tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their sen-
iority or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed.
(b) Make employees Kent Babcock, Brad Block, Jen-
nifer Ely, Kathy Heard, Sandy Krusniak, Vicki Renner,
Kathy Reimann-Ruba, Paul Schlaud, Rose Shedd, Merle
(Sue) Stewart, Gayle Vallad, Judy White, and Rose
Zimmer, and Supervisor Trudy Thomas 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 the judge’s decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful layoffs, the
discharge of Supervisor Trudy Thomas, the unlawful
disciplinary warnings issued to Barbara Cormany and
Kathy Reimann-Ruba, and the unlawful placement of
Barbara Cormany on probation, and within 3 days there-
after, notify these individuals in writing that this has been
done and that the unlawful layoffs/discharge and disci-
pline, respectively, will not be used against them in any
way.
(d) 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 desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords 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.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Free Soil, Michigan, a copy of the attached
AMPTECH, INC.

1139
notice marked “Appendix.”19 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the no-
tices 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 Re-
spondent 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 September 24, 2001.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
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 vio-
lated 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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT maintain and enforce an overly broad
confidentiality rule prohibiting employees from discuss-
ing their wages.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with job loss, plant
closure, and unspecified retaliation because of their un-
ion and/or other protected concerted activities.

19 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees con-
cerning their participation, or the participation of other
employees, in union and/or other protected concerted
activities.
WE WILL NOT institute an employee advocacy program
and distribute an employee survey for the purpose of
soliciting grievances and impliedly promise to remedy
these grievances in order to discourage employees from
seeking union representation.
WE WILL NOT maintain and enforce an overly broad no-
access policy prohibiting individuals other than on-duty
employees from being on our grounds.
WE WILL NOT discharge supervisors for giving affida-
vits to the Board.
WE WILL NOT place employees on probation and/or is-
sue disciplinary warnings to employees because of their
participation in union and/or other protected concerted
activities.
WE WILL NOT lay off employees and fail and refuse to
recall them to their former positions because of their par-
ticipation, or the participation of other employees, in
union and/or other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their Section 7 rights.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order,
offer employees Kent Babcock, Brad Block, Jennifer
Ely, Kathy Heard, Sandy Krusniak, Vicki Renner, Kathy
Reimann-Ruba, Paul Schlaud, Rose Shedd, Merle (Sue)
Stewart, Gayle Vallad, Judy White, and Rose Zimmer,
and Supervisor Trudy Thomas reinstatement to their
former jobs, or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substan-
tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their sen-
iority or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed.
WE WILL make employees Kent Babcock, Brad Block,
Jennifer Ely, Kathy Heard, Sandy Krusniak, Vicki
Renner, Kathy Reimann-Ruba, Paul Schlaud, Rose
Shedd, Merle (Sue) Stewart, Gayle Vallad, Judy White,
and Rose Zimmer, and Supervisor Trudy Thomas whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the discrimination against them, less any net
interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL rescind the unlawful warnings issued to Bar-
bara Cormany and Kathy Reimann-Ruba and the unlaw-
ful placement of Barbara Cormany on probation.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order,
remove from our files any reference to the unlawful lay-
offs the aforesaid employees, the discharge of Supervisor
Trudy Thomas, the unlawful disciplinary warnings is-
sued to Barbara Cormany and Kathy Reimann-Ruba, and
the unlawful placement of Barbara Cormany on proba-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

1140
tion, and within 3 days thereafter, WE WILL notify these
individuals in writing that this has been done and that the
unlawful layoffs/discharge and discipline, respectively,
will not be used against them in any way.

AMPTECH, INC.

Gary w. Saltzgiver, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Timothy J. Ryan, Esq. and Elizabeth W. Lykins, Esq., for the
Respondent.
Michael L. Fayette, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
LAWRENCE W. CULLEN, Administrative Law Judge. These
cases were heard before me on May 8, 9, and 10, 2002, at Beu-
lah, Michigan. The complaint as amended at the hearing was
issued by the Regional Director for Region 7 of the National
Labor Relations Board (the Board) and is based on charges
brought by International Union, United Automobile Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL–CIO,
CLC (the Charging Party or the Union) and alleges that Amp-
tech, Inc. (the Respondent or the Company) has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). These in-
volve alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1) by interrogation and
threats and a discharge and alleged violations of Section 8(a)(3)
by written warnings issued to employees and unlawful layoffs
of employees. Respondent by its answer denied the commis-
sion of any violations of the Act.
On the entire record including testimony of the witnesses and
the exhibits received in evidence and after review of the briefs
filed by counsel for the General Counsel and the Respondent, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that at
all times material, Respondent has been a corporation with an
office and place of business in Free Soil, Michigan, engaged in
the manufacture and nonretail sale of electrical circuit boards,
that during the calendar year ending December 31, 2001, Re-
spondent in conducting its business operations sold and shipped
products valued in excess of $50,000 from its Free Soil facility
directly to customers located outside the State of Michigan and
has been an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that at
all times material, the Union has been a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

1 This decision contains a composite of the testimony which I have
credited. R. Exh. 33 is received.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Respondent is a corporation owned by two brothers, Jeff and
Stacy Patuliski. Jeff Patulski is president of Respondent and
Stacy Patulski is vice president of Respondent. The plant itself
is owned by a separate corporation of which the Patulski’s
mother, Alice Wilson Patulski, is a co-owner. Alice Wilson
Patulski formerly had stock in the Respondent but sold it to her
sons in June 2000. Stacy Patulski is responsible for personnel
and production while Jeff Patuliski is responsible for sales calls
and production. Jerry Overla is the general manager of the
plant and oversees all production. Connie Patulski, Jeff’s wife,
is the operations manager in charge of customer relations and
order changes. Jeff and Stacy’s offices are located in the front
of the plant as are the offices and work areas of Respondent’s
nonproduction personnel and support staff.
There are several different departments involved in the
manufacture of circuit boards. The surface mount department
assembles and solders various parts on flat boards. The
Through hole department also builds the circuit boards, but the
process involves putting pieces through a board and then sol-
dering them. The mechanical assembly department involves
the assembly of components. The prototype department in-
volves building new boards. Most of the layoffs in this case
involved either surface mount or testing employees. All layoffs
were of first-shift employees.
In September 2001, certain employees of Respondent be-
came interested in the formation of a union and met with the
Union. On Friday, September 21, 2001 in late afternoon em-
ployees Kathy Heard, Kathy Reimann-Ruba, Vicki Renner, and
Barbara Cormany engaged in the handbilling of employees at
shift change as first-shift employees were leaving and second-
shift employees were arriving. There were three different
handbills. One of these handbills was a notice for a union
meeting for employees on Sunday, September 23, and con-
tained the signatures of the six employee organizers, Barbara A.
Cormany, Glen E. Jenner, Kent C. Babcock, Vicki Renny,
Kathleen Reimann-Ruba, and Kathy Heard. The employee
organizers were all day-shift employees. The evening-shift
employees did not support the Union. Glen Jenner whose wife,
Patricia Jenner, is a supervisor subsequently withdrew his sup-
port for the Union. Vice President Stacy Patulski came out of
the plant, accepted handbills from Kathy Heard and then went
back inside. The meeting on Sunday was attended by over 20
employees and was the first open organizing meeting held.
On Monday, September 24, Respondent held a meeting of all
day-shift employees conducted by Stacy Patulski who told
them that he and Jeff Patulski and their mother, Alice Wilson
Patulski, regarded the organizing campaign to be a “personal
attack” on them. Thereafter the Patulskis’ gave stern, angry
and unsmiling looks to union organizers Kathy Heard, Vicki
Renner, and Kathy Reimann-Ruba and did not look at others.
Stacy Patulski walked through the shop but did not stop and
talk with employees as he normally did. After the initial large
meeting held by Respondent on Monday, September 24, Re-
spondent held a series of small group meetings in opposition to
the union campaign. Known union supporters were not asked
to attend.
AMPTECH, INC.

1141
General Manager Overla who testified on behalf of Respon-
dent conceded on the stand that he paid attention to which em-
ployees were associating with union supporters. Connie Patul-
ski also testified that she had observed employees and made
conclusions concerning their union sympathies after the em-
ployees returned from layoffs such as employees Rose Zimmer
and Brad Block based on their association with open union
supporters. Jeff Patulski also testified that he listens to infor-
mation concerning who was supporting the Union.
On Tuesday or Wednesday of that week approximately nine
employees in favor of the Union met at Cormany’s house.
Inventory Cage Supervisor Trudy Thomas appeared at the
meeting and told the employees in attendance including Kathy
Reimann-Ruba and Kent Babcock that she had been contacted
by Alice Wilson Patulski, who told her that employees who had
signed the union handbill would be sorry. Thomas also told
employees Kathy Heard, Vicki Renner, Barbara Cormany, and
other employees of Alice Wilson Patulski’s hostility to the
Union. Thomas testified at the hearing that she had been tele-
phoned by Alice Wilson Patulski following the handbilling on
Friday, September 21. Alice Patulski told her that she and her
sons Jeff and Stacy considered the move for a union to be a
personal attack on them and that she knew who had signed the
handbills and that they would be sorry. She also threatened to
close the plant down and told Thomas that she had better start
looking for another job. When Thomas told Wilson she would
keep what Wilson had said confidential, Wilson told her to tell
the employees what she had said. Following her direction
Thomas told a number of employees what Wilson had said and
Wilson’s comments were soon all over the plant. I credit Tho-
mas’ testimony which was unrebutted as Alice Wilson Patulski
did not testify.
In addition to the large meeting of employees held by Re-
spondent on Monday, September 24, the Respondent held small
meetings of 9 or 10 employees at a time concerning the Union
beginning on Wednesday, and concluding the last meeting on
the morning of Friday, September 28. Virtually all of the pro-
duction employees were told to attend with the exception of the
known union organizers who were excluded from the meetings.
Employees were given green and white ribbons to show their
support for the Company. Employee Merle (Sue) Stewart re-
vealed to Respondent’s Quality Control Consultant Mary
Schlaatman that she had worked in a UAW represented plant in
the past. Rose Zimmer also told Schlaatman of her interest in
the Union.
On Thursday, September 27, the Union held a large meeting.
Most of the union supporters attended as did Sue Stewart, Rose
Zimmer, Sandra Krusniak, and Brad Block. Over 50 employ-
ees were in attendance. In addition to the production employ-
ees, who attended, several of Respondent’s support staff and
managers attended to express their objections to a union. Dur-
ing this meeting several production employees expressed their
support for the Union in addition to those employees who had
signed the initial union meeting notice on the handbills distrib-
uted to employees on September 21. Respondent’s information
technology manager, Donna Ray, Quality Assurance Manager
Charleen Taylor, and Accounts Payable Manager Kathy Fair-
banks attended this meeting to find out about the Union’s cam-
paign and to speak out against the Union which they did. These
were managerial employees who work in the offices adjacent to
or in the same general area allotted to the office personnel and
management of Respondent including Jeff and Stacy Patulski.
They have little contact with the production employees who
work in the plant. Ray, Taylor and Fairbanks testified along
similar lines that they had gone on their own initiative to the
meeting to find out what was going on with the Union’s cam-
paign and to speak out as they believed they might themselves
be affected by the union campaign. They denied having been
prodded by management to attend this meeting or that they
were asked by Respondent’s management or reported to Re-
spondent’s management who attended and what the employees
had said at the meeting. Ray did testify that she had told the
Patulskis’ she was going to the meeting but testified that she
had only “general conversation” with the Patulskis’ about what
had occurred at the meeting and that they “probably discussed
different things” that had occurred at the meeting. Taylor de-
nied telling “management” who had attended the meeting or
what had occurred at the meeting but did testify she told Jeff
Patulski about yelling by employees at the meeting and that
nothing was accomplished. Fairbanks testified she considered
it part of her job duties to attend the meeting and to take note of
the individuals in attendance because the work could slow
down and employees, including herself, could lose their jobs if
the company cannot compete because of higher wages and
increased overhead. Fairbanks also testified that at the meeting
she offered to have a petition in her office to sign for employ-
ees who did not support the Union. She testified she discussed
the meeting with the other managers who had attended, but did
not report what had occurred at the meeting to the Patulskis or
other managers who had not attended the meeting.
Other employees who had not been known union supporters
also spoke out at the meeting of September 27. Employee Brad
Block spoke out at the meeting against unfair treatment of the
employees by the Company in the past and said he wanted a
union for security and respect. Employee Sandy Krusniak told
the employees she favored the Union. She also told the em-
ployees at the meeting that she had not been treated fairly by
the Company.
Respondent held its last small meeting of about 20 employ-
ees on Friday, September 28. Sue Stewart and Rose Zimmer
attended the meeting held by Jeff Patulski. Stewart voiced a
complaint about her wages and said that she had not received a
promised pay raise and said there should be a pay scale.
Zimmer complained about her treatment by Stacy Patulski and
Jeff Patulski called her a “bitcher.” Later that afternoon Re-
spondent instituted indefinite layoffs of both permanent and
temporary employees.
A. The Confidentiality Rule
Respondent maintains a confidentiality rule in its employ-
ment handbook which prohibits “Unauthorized disclosure of
business secrets or confidential information” which is defined
in the handbook as including “compensation data”. In addition,
Respondent also requires its employees to sign a Confidential-
ity Agreement which includes a prohibition of disclosure of
“compensation data.” Additionally, employees testified they
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

1142
understood this rule to bar discussion of their wages. Kathy
Heard testified that when she received a pay raise, Stacy Patul-
ski told her not to discuss it with anyone.
Analysis
I find Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the
maintenance and enforcement of the overly broad confidential-
ity rule which clearly includes a bar against employees discuss-
ing their wages which has a chilling effect on the exercise of
their Section 7 employee rights Lafayette Park Hotel, 326
NLRB 824, 825 (1998); Waco, Inc., 273 NLRB 746, 748
(1984); Pontiac Osteopathic Hospital, 284 NLRB 442, 446
(1987).
B. The Alleged Threats and Interrogations
I credit the unrebutted testimony of Inventory Cage Supervi-
sor Trudy Thomas that she told the employees of the threats
that had been made by Alice Wilson Patulski to close the plant
and to retaliate against the employees who had signed the union
handbill. I find that Alice Wilson Patulski was in a position of
at least apparent authority as the founder of the Company and
the owner of the plant which she leased to Respondent and that
the threats which were communicated to the employees by
supervisor Thomas were attributable to the Respondent. I find
that by the issuance of these threats by Thomas, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I further find that the September 24 speech delivered by
Stacy Patulski in which he told the employees that he and his
brother Jeff and mother Alice considered the organizing at-
tempt to be a personal attack on them was violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act as it equated the employees’ support of the
Union to being disloyal to the Company. This was an unlawful
interference with the employees’ Section 7 rights to support a
union. Workroom For Designers, 274 NLRB 840, 855 (1985).
Mary Schlaatman is the Company’s nonemployee outside
ISO 9000 consultant who generally performs her consulting
duties in the quality assurance area in the front office with Tay-
lor. She is retained by the Company to maintain its ISO 9000
certification and directs employees of Respondent as necessary
to perform this function. On either September 25 or 26,
Schlaatman and Supervisor Trudy Thomas approached three
employees who were eating lunch in the lunchbreak area of the
plant. Two of the three employees at lunch were Merle (Sue)
Stewart and Rose Zimmer. Thomas testified that Schlaatman
told her that she had heard in the front office that the Company
would close its doors if a union got in. Zimmer testified that
she observed from the conversation that neither Schlaatman nor
Thomas were in favor of a union at the Company. Schlaatman
told the employees that the Patulski’s were devastated by their
employees’ attempt to obtain union representation. Schlaatman
told the employees to talk to Jeff and Stacy Patulski as they
were not in favor of a union and discussed with the employees
whether there was any alternative to unionization. Zimmer
expressed that she was in favor of a union because of issues of
unfairness and problems she had with Stacy Patulski. Schlaat-
man remained at the lunch area with Zimmer and Stewart
throughout the lunch period although she did not eat lunch.
Ten minutes after the end of the lunchbreak, Schlaatman called
Stewart and Zimmer from their workstations to the receiving
dock to talk further to them. Both Thomas and Schlaatman
were at the receiving docks to meet Stewart and Zimmer.
Schlaatman and Thomas both urged them to talk to Jeff Patul-
ski since he did not want a union and did not want to close the
business. Schlaatman also asked the employees whether they
had ever worked for the UAW (United Auto Workers). Stewart
told her she had worked for the UAW downstate and Schlaat-
man ceased asking questions of her. The meeting lasted ap-
proximately 20 minutes.
Schlaatman admitted she was aware of union activity in Sep-
tember 2001, and had talked to Trudy Thomas about it. She
admitted she said on the day she initially learned of the union
activity, that she would not be surprised if the Company sold
the shop if a union came in. She testified that Jeff Patulski was
“ill about the whole thing” but denied she was influenced by
Respondent’s management in this regard. It is noteworthy and
I place great weight on the undisputed fact that Schlaatman was
not usually in the plant area and only rarely had contact with
the production employees. Stewart and Zimmer both testified
they had never had contact or talked with Schlaatman prior to
the day she and Thomas engaged them both in two separate
discussions regarding the Union.
Analysis
I find that the circumstances of these conversations and Re-
spondent’s overall animus against the Union give rise to an
inference supporting the conclusion that Schlaatman was acting
as an agent for Respondent in engaging these employees and
issuing threats of plant closure and in interrogating them con-
cerning their union sympathies and their support for the Union
as was Thomas in issuing the threat of plant closure. I further
find that at a minimum, Respondent had placed Schlaatman in a
position of apparent authority and that her expression of anti-
union sentiments, threats, and unlawful interrogation are attrib-
utable to Respondent. I find that the threat issued to employees
Sue Stewart and Rose Zimmer by Mary Schlaatman that it
would not surprise her if the Respondent sold the business if the
employees chose union representation was violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Although Schlaatman was an outside con-
sultant who advised on quality control, her participation in
conjunction with Supervisor Trudy Thomas in seeking out em-
ployees Stewart and Zimmer and threatening them with plant
closure and later interrogating them concerning their union
affiliation on September 26 support an inference and clearly
establish that she was acting as an agent of Respondent in mak-
ing these threats and engaging in this interrogation. Schlaat-
man had admittedly not previously spoken to either Stewart or
Zimmer who worked in the plant proper as opposed to the of-
fice where Schlaatman performed her consulting duties. Yet
she sought these employees out at their lunch area while they
were at lunch and after lunch on their worktime had them called
away from their assigned work area to interrogate them about
their support for the Union. Under all the circumstances, I find
the employees reasonably believed that Schlaatman was speak-
ing for Respondent and her actions are attributable to Respon-
dent and constituted unlawful interrogation and threats of plant
closure in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. House Calls,
Inc., 304 NLRB 311 (1991), citing Lovilia Coal Co., 275
AMPTECH, INC.

1143
NLRB 1358, 1372 (1985); MTR Sheet Metal, Inc., 337 NLRB
1358 (2002). Re: Threats of plant closures.
Kathy Reimann-Ruba testified that on about November 8,
2001, she returned to work after her layoff by Respondent and
was put on the second shift. At lunch, Second-Shift Supervisor
Dave Honomichl told the employees that employees in favor of
the Union were causing trouble and the plant would close as a
result. I credit Reimann-Ruba’s testimony which was unrebut-
ted as Honomichl was not called to testify and find that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act thereby. MTR
Sheet Metal, Inc., supra.
C. Employee Advocacy Program and Survey
At the apparent suggestion of Managers Donna Ray and
Charlene Taylor and with the acquiescence of Vice President
Stacy Patulski, Respondent instituted an employee advocacy
program sometime after the layoffs of September 28, wherein
certain employees and supervisors signed a list variously placed
by the timeclock and company bulletin board, to act as advo-
cates for any employee who wished to bring a “concern” or
“suggestion” to the attention of management and who desired
to have someone accompany them and serve as their advocate,
“to help find a solution to the concern.” This document had
remained posted as of the date of the hearing. Manager Ray
testified she has observed several employees use the employee
advocate program. This program was initiated by Respondent’s
managers after they attended the large union meeting the day
prior to the layoffs in response to complaints made by employ-
ees at that meeting with the intent to address them.
In addition, on Friday, February 1, 2002, Stacy Patulski met
with employees and informed them that Respondent would
distribute survey forms to learn what employees wanted at the
Company. On Monday, February 4, 2002, Respondent put out
these survey forms on tables in the lunch area. The forms so-
licit employees’ opinions regarding improved communications,
benefits priority and additional benefits, suggestions regarding
evaluations, and “any” other company policy. There was no
evidence presented of any prior survey at the Company.
Analysis
I find the employee advocate program and the Amptech em-
ployee survey were initiated in direct response to the advent of
the union campaign and were initiated to enable Respondent to
discover and remedy problems and address the employee dis-
content which had led to the union campaign. As such it was a
clear solicitation of grievances with the implied promise to
remedy them in order to defeat the union campaign in conjunc-
tion with deterrents to organizing instituted by management
such as the threats, interrogations, and layoffs of employees.
These actions were clear violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. Villa Maria Nursing Center, 335 NLRB 1345 (2001);
Astro Printing Services, 300 NLRB 1028, 1029 (1990).
D. Rule Prohibiting Off-Duty Employees from
Visiting the Plant
Following her layoff on September 28, Kathy Reimann-Ruba
met for lunch with her friend Barbara Cormany on successive
Fridays on the plant premises. Although there was a rule pro-
hibiting nonemployees on the plant floor it had admittedly not
been enforced in the past. Around October 15, 2001, Stacy
Patulski announced to employees at a meeting that no one was
to be “on the grounds” except for “working Amptech employ-
ees,” citing terrorism as a reason. At the hearing he testified
that he had concerns brought to him by other employees fol-
lowing the September 11 attack on the World Trade Towers
buildings and on the Pentagon. Thereafter, Reimann-Ruba no
longer lunched on the company premises. However, there was
testimony by Barbara Cormany that nonemployees were per-
mitted on the premises after this announcement.
I find that Respondent’s actions in enforcing this rule were
motivated by its desire to discourage laid off union supporters
such as Reimann-Ruba from returning to the plant rather than
because of safety concerns Tri-County Medical Center, 222
NLRB 1089 (1976). I further find that the rule was disparately
enforced in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Sim-
mons Industries, 321 NLRB 228, 248 (1996).
E. Discharge of Supervisor Trudy Thomas
Trudy Thomas was a 7-year employee who had attained the
supervisory position of inventory cage supervisor, a position
she had held for about 2 years. She had received awards in the
past and her most recent appraisal of September 6, 2000, had
been “very good.” She had carried Alice Wilson Patulski’s
message of threats to close the plant and that the signers of the
handbills on behalf of the Union would be sorry for what they
had done. She apparently was opposed to the union campaign
consistent with the management’s antiunion attitude in this
case. However, on October 15, 2001, she willingly gave an
affidavit to a Board agent outlining her role in the case and the
threats and animus of the Patulski’s concerning this. She told
Stacy and Jeff Patulski that she had given the affidavit and they
appeared to accept it without any display of anger or dismay
that she had done so. Respondent contends that the testimony
of Thomas should be rejected as the Board agent knew she was
a supervisor and did not afford her the opportunity to have a
management representative present and cites a recently issued
Memorandum OM 2-36 dated February 15, 2002, regarding
ethical guidance for attorneys. This memorandum is not retro-
active and I find no grounds for rejecting her testimony, par-
ticularly as she came forward at the trial and was subjected to
cross-examination and she herself had allegedly been the victim
of a violation of the Act. Stacy and Jeff Patulski both denied
that Thomas had told them she had given an affidavit to the
Board agent. I credit Thomas that she did disclose this to both
Stacy and Jeff Patulski. Shortly after Thomas disclosed to
Stacy and Jeff Patulski that she had given an affidavit to the
Board agent, she was moved in November 2001, to the back of
the inventory cage. She then went on vacation and less than a
week after her return she was moved to the production floor
presumably because of a need for greater production as a result
of the layoff. In early January 2002, she was assured by both
Stacy and Jeff Patulski that her job was safe and that she would
be returned to the inventory cage job once sufficient production
employees were recalled. However, on January 11, 2002, she
was terminated by Stacy Patulski who asserted she was not
giving 100 percent and was not contributing to the Company.
At the hearing, Stacy and Jeff Patulski and Production Manager
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

1144
Jerry Overla testified that there were continuing performance
problems with Thomas and that there were complaints of miss-
ing parts attributable to her poor performance. However, there
was no documentary evidence to back up this testimony and the
record shows that she had received “very good” appraisal and
was never counseled, warned or otherwise disciplined for poor
performance. I credit Thomas testimony in its entirety and find
that the asserted reasons for her discharge are pretextual. I find
that the discharge of Thomas was a direct result of her giving
an affidavit to the Board agent and that she was terminated in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Better Monkey Grip,
115 NLRB 1170 (1956), enfd. 243 F.2d 836 (5th Cir. 1957);
Elaine Powers Figure Salons, 227 NLRB 1307, 1310 (1977),
citing King Radio Corp., 166 NLRB 180, 184 (1967).
F. The Layoff of Employees on September 28, 2001
On September 28, 2001, Respondent laid off 32 temporary
manpower employees and 13 permanent employees sparing 9
temporary employees from the layoff. The General Counsel
and the complaint allege that the layoff was discriminatorily
motivated and a violation of the Act and that the selection of
the permanent employees for layoff was also discriminatorily
motivated and a violation of the Act. The unrebutted testimony
of the employees called by the General Counsel established that
in the past, layoffs had been for brief periods of a week or less
and employees were asked whether they wanted to volunteer
for layoff. Additionally Kathy Heard, a former supervisor,
testified that as a supervisor she attended management meetings
where the method of mandatory layoffs was to lay off the
newer and less experienced employees first and to shift remain-
ing employees from one line or position to another as required.
This was often done on a routine basis even when no layoffs
were involved. When one area of work was slow employees
would be routinely sent to work in another area of the plant.
Accordingly, most of the experienced permanent employees
were cross-trained on several jobs including assembly work
which is less skilled than building circuit boards, and on testing
and maintenance of computer and other equipment. In the in-
stant case, the layoff of September 28, 2001, was a large layoff
of 32 of the 41 temporary manpower employees and 13 of the
permanent employees. Most of the laid-off employees were
told the layoff was indefinite. Some employees were told the
layoff would be 2 weeks or less. The layoffs of September 28
followed a week of intense activity on behalf of the Union by
Respondent’s employees and against the Union on behalf of the
management of Respondent. On Friday, September 21, em-
ployees handbilled at Respondent’s plant entrance during a
shift change of the first and second shift. Employees Barbara
Cormany, Kathy Heard, Kathy Reimann-Ruba, and Vickie
Renner did the handbilling of the prounion literature, one of
which was a notice of an upcoming union meeting to be held on
Sunday, September 23. This handbill was signed by six of the
permanent day-shift employees. The employees were Barbara
Cormany, Kathy Heard, Kathy Reimann-Ruba, Vickie Renner,
Kent Babcock, and Glen Jenner. All but two of these employ-
ees (Cormany and Jenner) were included in the September 28
layoff. Apparently Jenner withdrew his earlier support of the
Union. It is noteworthy that his wife, Patricia Jenner, was re-
garded as a supervisor by employees. She called employees to
various antiunion meetings that were held by management with
small groups of employees during the week prior to the layoff
of Friday, September 28.
On the night of the handbilling of September 21, Inventory
Supervisor Trudy Thomas was called by Alice Wilson Patulski,
the former owner of Respondent who had sold the business to
her two sons, Jeff and Stacy Patulski, in 2000, and who owned
the plant in which the business was located. Alice Wilson
Patulski at least outwardly appeared to be and was regarded by
employees as an active member of Respondent’s management
who regularly appeared at the plant on Mondays and whose
name appeared in Respondent’s literature. In her telephone call
to Trudy Thomas, she told Thomas that she and her sons Jeff
and Stacey considered the employees support of the Union to
be a personal attack on them. She also threatened to close the
plant and said that she knew who had signed the handbills and
asserted that those employees would “be sorry.”
The announced union meeting was held on Sunday, Septem-
ber 23, and attended by over 20 employees. On Tuesday or
Wednesday of that week, Barbara Cormany held a meeting at
her house attended by about nine employees. Supervisor Tho-
mas appeared at the meeting and conveyed the threats issued by
Alice Wilson Patulski.
On Monday, September 24, Stacy Patulski held a meeting of
all employees and told them that he and his brother Jeff and his
mother, Alice Wilson Patulski, regarded the employees’ at-
tempt to obtain union representation as a personal attack on
them and that the management would consider their options.
During the week, Jeff and Stacy Patulski held a series of small
group meetings with the employees concerning the Union and
arguing against the union organization of the plant. Employees
who had been identified as union supporters were not invited to
these meetings.
On Thursday, September 27, the Union held a large meeting
attended by over 50 employees at which a number of employ-
ees spoke in favor of a union. In addition to the rank-and-file
plant employees who attended the meeting, it was attended by
management employees who work in the office area in offices
adjacent to or near the offices of President Jeff Patulski and
Vice President Stacy Patulski. These management employees
were Quality Assurance Manager Charlene Taylor, Accounts
Payable Manager Kathy Fairbanks, and Information Technol-
ogy Manager Donna Ray. The management employees spoke
out against the Union and observed and heard other employees
such as Barbara Cormany, Kathy Reimann-Ruba, Brad Block,
and Sandy Krusniak speak on behalf of the Union. On the next
day (Friday, September 28), Respondent instituted the layoffs
in the afternoon. It held a final small group meeting in the
morning concerning its response to the union campaign. At this
meeting of about 20 employees Jeff Patulski with Stacy Patul-
ski present asked the employees to inform him of any problems
in the shop. Employee Merle (Sue) Stewart complained about
her wages, failure to receive a raise, and said there should be a
pay scale. Employee Rose Zimmer complained about treatment
by Stacy Patulski and Jeff Patulski called her a “bitcher.”
There was no mention of layoffs at this meeting.
AMPTECH, INC.

1145
In the afternoon, Production Manager Jerry Overla and Stacy
Patulski used a list to lay off employees. The permanent em-
ployees laid off included four of the six signers of the handbill.
They were Kent Babcock, Vicki Renner, Kathleen Reimann-
Ruba, and Kathy Heard. Barbara Cormany (the leading union
advocate) and Jenner who had apparently abandoned his sup-
port for the Union, were not laid off. Additionally, the Re-
spondent laid off Rose Shedd whom Jerry Overla had heard
asking questions about the Union of union supporter Kathy
Reimann-Ruba in the presence of Judy White with whom Re-
imann-Ruba worked. It also laid off Sue Steward and Rose
Zimmer who had been interrogated by consultant Schlaatman
and Supervisor Trudy Davis and who complained about wages
and treatment of Zimmer by Stacy Patulski. It laid off Sandy
Krusniak who had complained of unfair treatment by Respon-
dent at the large union meeting on Thursday, September 27,
and Brad Block who also complained about the company
treatment of employees at this meeting. It also laid off Judy
White whom Respondent had apparently identified as a friend
of the union supporters. Additionally, Gayle Vallad, Jennifer
Ely, and Paul Schlaud were laid off although they were not
known as union supporters. All of the laid-off permanent em-
ployees worked on the day shift. The second shift did not sup-
port the union campaign and no second-shift employees were
laid off. Respondent had sporadically recalled all but two of
the laid-off employees as of the date of the hearing. Kathy
Heard who made $12 per hour and who was the most experi-
enced employee in the plant and a former supervisor was of-
fered a recall to an assembler’s job at a low pay rate of pay per
hour and refused this first offer. Subsequently, she was offered
a higher rate of pay and returned to work, where she saw tem-
porary employees working in her area.
Respondent has offered various reasons for the layoff such as
the slowdown of business as a result of the terrorist attacks of
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11,
2001, and a slowdown of orders from several of the 50 ac-
counts of regular customers that Respondent supplies products
to as testified to by Jeff Patulski and his wife, Connie Patulski,
who schedules the orders. Respondent also notes that the layoff
included most of its temporary manpower employees in addi-
tion to the permanent employees. Respondent through the tes-
timony of Jeff and Stacy Patulski and Jerry Overla, disparaged
the work performance of several of the laid-off employees and
also contended there was no need for them because of a lack of
orders in specific areas. However, with the exception of one
employee Brad Block, all of the employees laid off had very
good or excellent work records as documented by performance
appraisals in their files. Respondent otherwise produced no
documentation to support its contentions that the employees
were chosen for layoff because of their poor performance.
Respondent also produced no documentation to explain why it
had not followed its past practice of asking for volunteers and
retaining the most senior employees as it had in the past and
moving these employees to other positions in order to retain the
benefit of their experience. When Respondent did recall em-
ployees, it did not return them to their old positions in many
cases which were then filled by temporary or new employees.
Additionally, Supervisor Trudy Thomas testified that both Jeff
and Stacy Patulski told her they were unhappy that they were
going to have to recall the prounion employees back to work as
they just did not want to have to deal with them.
Analysis
I find that the layoffs of permanent employees Kent Bab-
cock, Brad Block, Jennifer Ely, Kathy Heard, Sandy Krusniak,
Vicki Renner, Kathy Reimann-Ruba, Paul Schlaud, Rose
Shedd, Merle Sue Stewart, Gayle Vallad, Judy White, and Rose
Zimmer were violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
The General Counsel has established prima facie cases of viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, by the layoff of
these permanent employees on September 28, 2001, and by its
failure and refusal to return all of the employees to their former
positions. Under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982),
the General Counsel has the initial burden to establish that:

1. The employees engaged in protected concerted ac-
tivities.
2. The Respondent had knowledge or at least suspicion
of the employees’ protected activities.
3. The employer took adverse action against the em-
ployees.
4. A nexus or link between the protected concerted ac-
tivities and the adverse action underlying motive.

It is clear from the record in this case that these four elements
have been established. All but two of the six employees who
were signers of the prounion handbill who had been specifically
threatened by Alice Wilson Patulski and which threat was car-
ried to the employees by Supervisor Trudy Thomas were laid
off. Other employees selected for layoff had been identified by
Respondent’s management and managerial employees as sup-
porters of the Union except for Paul Schlaud, Jennifer Ely, and
Gayle Vallad who were not shown on the record to be known
union advocates. I find that the evidence supports an inference
and a finding that the Respondent had knowledge or at least a
suspicion that the employees selected for layoff were support-
ers of the union campaign. The layoffs were adverse actions
taken against the employees and the record in this case clearly
establishes a nexus between the protected concerted activities
and the layoffs. I, thus, find that the General Counsel has es-
tablished a prima facie case that the selection of the permanent
employees for layoff was motivated in part by the employees’
participation in union activities. Consequently the burden has
shifted to the Respondent to prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that it took the adverse action for a legitimate nondis-
criminatory business reason and would have done so even in
the absence of the unlawful motivation. I find Respondent has
failed to rebut the prima facie case by the preponderance of the
evidence.
In this case the evidence is overwhelming that the layoff and
the selection of the permanent employees for layoff were dis-
criminatorily motivated. At the outset there had not been any
evidence of an impending layoff prior to the afternoon of the
layoff on September 28, 2001, when the layoff was executed by
management. The Respondent presented evidence of some
slowdown in business occurring in the time period from late
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

1146
August until the September 28 layoff. Connie Patulski testified
concerning cancellations and delays of some orders by several
customers that were occurring in this time frame. However,
she testified that Respondent has 50 regular customers. I have
taken judicial notice that the terrorist events of September 11,
impacted business generally in the American economy. I note
Trudy Thomas’ testimony that she was not surprised by the
layoff but that she was surprised by the employees who were
selected for layoff. I, thus, conclude that there was some evi-
dence presented which would indicate that a layoff of some
kind may have been imminent. However, the Respondent has
not demonstrated, that in the absence of the unlawful motiva-
tion for the layoff, it would have occurred on September 28,
without warning and that it would impact on permanent em-
ployees given the fact that several temporary employees were
retained while permanent employees were laid off. I further
find that Respondent has failed to demonstrate that the perma-
nent employees would have been selected for layoff in the ab-
sence of the unlawful motivation. Here, it is apparent that the
Respondent laid off employees known or suspected by Respon-
dent to be supporters of the Union in order to rid itself of these
employees. I find that it spared Barbara Cormany from the
layoff to conceal its unlawful motive by retaining a leading
union adherent. I further find that it added to the mix of union
supporters selected for layoff three employees not known to be
union supporters in order to conceal its antiunion motivation for
the layoff.
G. Disciplinary Warnings of Barbara Cormany and
Kathy Reimann-Ruba
Barbara Cormany was one of only two employees in the core
group of employee union organizers who was not laid off.
However, on October 18, 2001, Stacy Patulski issued her an
“Employee Warning Notice” and put her on probation for “em-
ployee harassment” by creating a “hostile and intolerable work
environment through intimidation as reported by other employ-
ees.” Stacy Patulski testified that he relied on complaints by
two employees including employee Pat Hammond concerning
his decision to issue this warning to Cormany. He testified he
initially had a complaint from the two employees and that a few
weeks thereafter he had another complaint against Cormany by
Hammond and that he told Hammond to put it in writing which
she did. At the hearing he produced an unsigned note which he
testified he had received from Hammond. The note speaks of
Cormany allegedly staring at Hammond, walking by her with
clinched fists and laughing loudly so as to intimidate. How-
ever, Hammond was not called to testify. On the basis of this,
he issued the disciplinary warning to Cormany without obtain-
ing her version of the events as to what had happened if any-
thing. Cormany had never been disciplined before. She testi-
fied that she was not aware of the events leading to this warn-
ing and did not act in the manner attributed to her by the note.
She protested the discipline when she received it.
Analysis
I find the issuance of the warning was violative of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act as Cormany had been the leading
employee organizer. She had not been laid off in an apparent
attempt by Respondent to cast off suspicion as to the true
unlawful nature of the layoff. However, Respondent by the
warning made clear that Cormany’s prounion support had not
been forgotten and subjected her to vulnerability concerning
her employment. I find Stacy Patulski’s reliance on
Hammond’s word and his failure to inquire of Cormany as to
what had occurred constituted a rush to judgment attributable to
Respondent’s unlawful motivation to take adverse action
against the leading prounion employee on the premises. I, thus,
find that the General Counsel has made a prima facie case of a
violation of the Act as the warning was discriminatorily moti-
vated. I find Respondent has failed to rebut the prima facie
case. Wright Line, supra.
Kathy Reimann-Ruba was also one of the core employee or-
ganizers on behalf of the Union. On January 8, 2002, she was
issued an “Employee Warning Notice” by Stacy Patulski for
nine absences within the last 12 months. However, one of the
absences cited was a February 15, 2001 request for an excused
absence to be taken without pay on May 11, 2001. Reimann-
Ruba had been informed by Supervisor Renner that Office
Manager Kim Graczh had told her the absence had been ap-
proved according to Stacy Patulski. However, subsequently
Stacy Patulski crossed out the excused absence on the form and
did not inform Reimann-Ruba of this, and issued her a discipli-
nary warning months later in February 2002, in part based on
this incident. Patulski testified that this was not discipline and
that this was only one case of several employees whom he had
issued these warnings to in order to alert them they were close
to a violation of the attendance policy which could subject them
to discipline.
Analysis
I find the General Counsel has established a prima facie case
of a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by the warn-
ing issued by Patulski to Reimann-Ruba. I conclude that it was
discipline and that the removal of the excused absence and
reliance on it to subject Reimann-Ruba to the warning was
discriminatorily motivated in order to retaliate against Re-
imann-Ruba, a known supporter of the Union. I find Respon-
dent has failed to rebut the prima facie case. Wright Line, su-
pra; MTR Sheet Metal, Inc., supra, Re: written warnings for
excused absences.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 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.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by:
(a) The maintenance and enforcement of the overbroad con-
fidentiality rules prohibiting discussion of employee compensa-
tion.
(b) The threats of retaliation and plant closure by Supervisor
Trudy Thomas.
(c) The interrogation of employees Merle (Sue) Stewart and
Rose Zimmer by Respondent’s agent, Mary Schlaatman.
(d) The threat issued by Respondent’s agent, Mary Schlaat-
man, that she had heard that Respondent would close its doors
if a union got in.
AMPTECH, INC.

1147
(e) The statement by Stacy Patulski that the union organizing
by its employees was a “personal attack” on the Patulskis’
which equated their support for the Union as being disloyal to
the Company.
(f) The threat of plant closure issued by Second-Shift Super-
visor Dave Honomichl.
(g) The institution of an employee advocate program and
survey.
(h) The adoption and disparate enforcement of a rule prohib-
iting off-duty employees from visiting the plant.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by its dis-
charge of Supervisor Trudy Thomas.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by:
(a) The issuance of a disciplinary warning to Barbara Cor-
many.
(b) The issuance of a written attendance warning to Kathy
Reimann-Ruba.
(c) The September 28, 2001 layoff of its permanent employ-
ees.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in numerous
violations of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative actions designed
to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act and post the
appropriate notice.
It is recommended that Respondent offer immediate full re-
instatement to employees Kent Babcock, Brad Block, Jennifer
Ely, Kathy Heard, Sandy Krusniak, Vicki Renner, Kathy Re-
imann-Ruba, Paul Schlaud, Rose Shedd, Merle Sue Stewart,
Gayle Vallad, Judy White, and Rose Zimmer who were unlaw-
fully laid off on September 28, 2001, and to Trudy Thomas
who was unlawfully discharged on January 11, 2002, and set
aside the unlawful warnings issued to employees Barbara Cor-
many and Kathy Reimann-Ruba. The laid-off employees and
Trudy Thomas shall be reinstated to their former positions or to
substantially equivalent ones if their prior positions no longer
exist. The employees shall be made whole for all loss of back-
pay and benefits sustained by them as a result of Respondent’s
unfair labor practices.
These amounts shall be computed in the manner prescribed
in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as
computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987), at the “short term Federal rate” for underpayment of
taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U.S.C. § 6621.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]