Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

May 29, 2020

07-CA-207685 (N.L.R.B. May. 29, 2020)

JD-24-20
Saginaw, MI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
BANNUM PLACE OF SAGINAW, LLC
and CASES 07–CA–207685
07–CA–215356
LOCAL 406, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS (IBT)
and CASE 07–CA–211090
ERNIE AHMAD, an Individual
Donna Nixon, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Clifford L. Hammond and Robert A. Hamor, Esqs.,
(Foster Swift Collins & Smith, PC), for the Respondent.
Michael L. Fayette, Esq., (Pinsky, Smith, Fayette &
Kennedy, LLP), for Charging Party Teamsters.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Ira Sandron, Administrative Law Judge. This matter is before me on a
consolidated complaint and notice of hearing (the complaint) issued on October 20, 2019,
arising from unfair labor practice charges that Local 406, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters (IBT) (the Union) and Ernie Ahmad (Ahmad), an individual, filed against Bannum
Place of Saginaw, LLC (the Respondent or the Company), concerning conduct at the
Respondent’s Saginaw, Michigan facility (the facility) occurring before and after the Union’s
certification on November 15, 2017.1
Pursuant to notice, I conducted a trial in Detroit, Michigan on February 24–26, and by
telephone on March 4, 2020, at which I afforded the parties a full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence.
1 All dates hereinafter occurred in 2017 unless otherwise indicated.
JD-24-20
2
At trial, I granted the General Counsel’s motion to withdraw paragraphs 17, 18, and 20
of the complaint, which related to employee Melanie Turner (Turner), because the General
Counsel and the Respondent entered into an informal settlement agreement resolving them. I
also granted the General Counsel’s later motion to withdraw paragraphs 10(d) and (l) of the 5
complaint. I further grant the General Counsel’s motion to withdraw paragraphs 10(e), (j),
and (k) (GC Br. at 1 fn. 3).
The Respondent filed a pretrial motion to dismiss on January 27, 2020, arguing that
the complaint should be dismissed because the Board lacks jurisdiction inasmuch as the 10
Respondent is a joint employer with the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of
Prisons (BOP).
On the first day of hearing, I explained my reasons for denying the motion, and I will
not repeat them in detail. To summarize, the Respondent’s joint-employer argument was 15
considered and rejected in Case 07–RC–205632, and the Union was certified as the
collective-bargaining representative of the petitioned-for unit on November 15, 2017. I stated
that the Respondent would be allowed to present evidence of (1) any changed facts since
October 3, 2017, when the representation case (R case) hearing concluded; (2) any changes in
the law since October 31, 2017, when the Regional Director issued a Decision and Direction 20
of Election; and (3) any other evidence for which it could show good cause why it was not
presented at the R case hearing. The Respondent did not present any such evidence, and I
adhere to my earlier order denying the motion.
Issues25
(1) Did the Respondent, through Facility Director Kenneth Schram (Schram), violate
Section 8(a)(1) by the following:
(a) On August 21, 2017, interrogated an employee about his union membership, 30
activities, and sympathies and the union membership, activities, and sympathies of
other employees?
(b) On August 21, threatened an employee that the Respondent would shut down
operations at the facility and open a new facility in a different geographical location if 35
employees selected the Union as their bargaining representative?
(c) In August, told an employee that he would be able to run his business how he
saw fit even if employees selected the Union to be their bargaining representative, and
that it would be futile for employees to select the Union as their bargaining 40
representative?
(d) About September 20, told employees that they were supposed to communicate
with him and tell him what was going on regarding the union organizing campaign?
45
JD-24-20
3
(e) In late October or early November, threatened employees that the Respondent
would shut down the facility if the employees selected the Union as their bargaining
representative?
(f) In late October or early November, threatened employees that he would have 5
to act like a boss and strictly enforce policies and/or rules if the employees selected the
Union as their bargaining representative?
(g) On November 5, told an employee that a certain employee was strongly
opinionated and that he did not want that particular employee to fill her head with 10
(union) propaganda?
(2) Did the Respondent violate Section 8(a)(1) by paying employees to attend union
organizational meetings during work times from June 19 until August 31?2
15
(3) Did the Respondent violate Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) by discharging case manager
Gregory Price (Price) on September 28 because he engaged in protected union activity and
because he attended the R case hearing in Case 07–RC–205632 on September 27?3
(4) Did the Respondent violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by taking the following actions 20
against part-time counselor aide (CA) Ernest Ahmad (Ahmad) because he engaged in
protected union activity:
(a) About November 7 and 8, denied his vacation requests for November 12 and
18;25
(b) On November 12, required him to submit a doctor’s note when requesting sick
leave;
(c) About mid-November, scheduled him to work on the second shift; and30
(d) On November 21, discharged him?
(5) Did the Respondent’s conduct described in paragraph 4(a) and (b) violate Section
8(a)(5) 35
and (1) because they constituted unilateral changes in terms and conditions of
employment
made without first affording the Union prior notice and a meaningful opportunity
to bargain
over the decision and its effects?40
2 The complaint alleged this also violated Section 8(a)(3), but the General Counsel has
moved to amend out the 8(a)(3) allegation (GC Br. at 29).
3 The Respondent uses the nomenclature “termination” for discharges for cause.
Consistent with the parties’ briefs, I will use “discharge” unless “termination” was
used in testimony or in the Respondent’s documents.
JD-24-20
4
(6) Did the Respondent also violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by changing its vacation
request policy, in about November, to require that employees complete vacation forms when
requesting vacation days, without affording the Union prior notice and a meaningful
opportunity to bargain over the decision and its effects?4 5
Witnesses and Credibility
The General Counsel called Price; Ahmad; Marian Novak (Novak), union organizer
for Teamsters Joint Council 43; former part-time CA Sharda Nash (Nash); and, as a rebuttal 10
witness, Matthew Call (Call), oversight specialist for the BOP. The Respondent called
Schram and John Rich (Rich), the president and corporate counsel of Bannum, Incorporated,
the Respondent’s parent company.
Because credibility resolution is key to deciding the issues in this case, I will set out how I
have arrived at my conclusions.15
Novak testified about Price’s role in union organizing at the facility. Her testimony
was corroborated by Price, Ahmad, and Nash.
Nash’s testimony was appropriately detailed and consistent with that of other 20
witnesses of the General Counsel and with General Counsel’s Exhibit 8, the transcript of
Schram’s November 5 voice mail message to her. Although the Respondent characterizes
Nash as a “disgruntled” former employee (R. Br. 18), the mere fact that she quit is insufficient
to draw such a conclusion or to show bias against the Company, and nothing in her testimony
demonstrated that she was skewing her testimony because of hostility to Schram. 25
Price testified in a straightforward and confident manner, and his testimony was quite
detailed and substantially consistent on direct and cross examination. Any
uncertainties and imprecisions in his testimony were within reasonable bounds and did
not undermine his overall credibility. 30
Ahmad was at times vague in testifying about particular incidents and was clearly
reluctant to explain the personal reasons behind his leave requests. Nevertheless, he made no
apparent efforts to overstate the facts in his favor, other witnesses corroborated him, and he
appeared generally sincere.35
Call was a third-party witness with no stake in the proceeding, and he showed no
apparent attempts to slant his testimony against Schram or the Respondent in general.
Moreover, Schram was not a fully credible witness. Accordingly, I credit Call’s testimony
regarding his conversation with Schram about the Union on about September 20. In this 40
regard, the Respondent chose not to take the opportunity that I offered to recall Schram to
rebut Call’s testimony. I also credit Call’s testimony that the Department of Labor wage
4 The complaint inadvertently omitted to allege this conduct as a unilateral change in
paragraphs 23 and 24, but the wording of the allegation connotes a unilateral change,
and the matter was fully litigated.
JD-24-20
5
determinations referenced in the BOP contract represented a floor or the minimum benefits
that the Respondent had to pay employees and did not prevent the Respondent from paying
them more; I find that he was a more reliable witness than Rich, who testified to the contrary.5
Rich was not a credible witness. His testimony was markedly evasive, nonresponsive, 5
and generalized. Although he testified that he decides all terminations, he vacillated on
whether Manager Katrine Teel (Teel), Schram’s supervisor, brings all disciplinary matters to
his attention and the role she plays in deciding disciplines, and he equivocated on his
knowledge of the disciplinary policies in effect at the facility. Moreover, I find incredible his
testimony that he could not say whether Teel, who attended the R case hearing, informed him 10
that Price was also there because “I didn’t pay attention to who else was at the hearing, other
than Katrina Teel.”6 Rich testified that employees at the facility who call in sick for 1 day
(even on a Sunday) are required to obtain a doctor’s note that they were ill. This assertion
was contradicted by Schram, is not contained in any written policies of the Respondent or any
other evidence of record, and on its face flies in the face of reason. I find ridiculous his 15
further testimony that Ahmad should have gone to a clinic on Sunday, November 12, when
his doctor’s office was closed, to obtain documentation of his illness.
Schram was an unreliable witness on pivotal matters for the following reasons. He
was quite often vague and/or equivocal, especially in testifying about his conversations with 20
Price about the Union and Price’s attendance at union meetings and the R case hearing, and
about attendance and leave policies and practices at the facility. He often answered in
summary fashion rather than providing specific details on his conversations with Price, and in
general. General Counsel’s Exhibit 8 directly contradicted his testimony that he did not tell
employees that Ahmad was filling their heads with union propaganda. Schram directly 25
contradicted himself on whether Teel told him after she left the R case hearing that Price had
been there, changing his testimony on direct examination that she did not mention Price to
testifying on cross-examination that she did. His testimony that he was unaware that Price
was going to attend the R case hearing on September 27 and did not approve Price’s going
there on the clock was unbelievable in light of the fact that he admittedly was informed that 30
morning that Price had punched in much earlier than his scheduled shift and written “Court
versus Bannum” in the logbook.
Nor do I find credible Schram’s testimony that he concluded that Ahmad had a
“pattern” of calling off from work for days for which he had been denied vacation leave 35
(November 12 and 18). Schram testified that this “pattern” was the reason that he asked
Ahmad on November 12 for a doctor’s note for calling in sick that day. Thus, Ahmad’s
November 18 call in for a “family emergency had not yet occurred, and Schram could not
have considered it in reaching his conclusion. A “pattern” of one occurrence is an oxymoron.
5 In support of its joint employer argument, the Respondent points out (R. Br. at 38)
Call’s testimony on cross-examination that he reviews personnel matters and
compliance issues of every aspect of the Respondent’s operation. This very
conclusionary statement did not fit within any of the three criteria that I set out for
receiving additional evidence on the issue.
6 Tr. 398.
JD-24-20
6
Significantly, Ahmad had an otherwise perfect record in his year-plus employment. Finally,
when Schram was asked why he changed the scheduling policy in about mid-November,
adversely affecting Ahmad, he responded that he firmly believed that it would benefit the
staff’s mental health. Schram had been at the facility since April and offered no explanation
for why he waited until shortly after the Union was certified to institute the change—to 5
Ahmad’s detriment—or the bases on which he concluded that employees’ mental health
would benefit.
The “missing witness” rule allows a judge to draw an adverse inference against a party
that fails to call a witness who is under the control of that party and is reasonably expected to 10
be favorably disposed towards it. Natural Life, Inc. d/b/a Heart & Weight Institute, 366
NLRB No. 53, slip op. at 1 fn. 1, citing Electrical Workers IBEW Local 3 (Teknion, Inc.), 329
NLRB 337, 337 fn. 1 (1999); Reno Hilton, 326 NLRB 1421, 1421 fn. 1 (1998), enfd. 196
F.3d 1275 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
15
As counsel for the Respondent represented, and Rich’s and Schram’s testimony
confirmed, Schram played no role in the decisions to discharge Price or Ahmad; rather, Rich
was the decision-maker, and he had no discussions with Schram regarding the underlying
events. Instead, Rich relied solely on the information that Teel provided to him. Significantly,
Schram testified that he always brought employee behavioral issues to Teel’s attention and 20
that she made the decisions as to discipline and told him the language to use in the
disciplinary write-ups. Moreover, in other situations, Schram has made recommendations to
Teel to discharge employees, but he did not do so with respect to Price; instead, Teel sua
sponte initiated Price’s discharge without any complaints from Schram. She thus would have
been in the best position to explain what triggered her investigation of Price’s activities on the 25
day of the R case hearing, and to explain the Respondent’s disciplinary policies in general. In
sum, Teel was the critical link in the management hierarchy with respect to the two discharges
at issue, and I draw an adverse inference from the Respondent’s failure to call her.7 The same
holds true for the absence of testimony from Sandra Allen (Allen), vice president of
operations, who Rich testified was involved in discussions related to Price’s discharge.30
Finally, I do not believe that the General Counsel’s witnesses collectively fabricated
their accounts of Schram’s statements and actions in connection with employees and the
Union. I will not speculate on why Schram exhibited contradictory behavior toward prounion
employees, as the Facts section will show.35
In sum, for the above reasons, I credit the General Counsel’s witnesses where their
testimony diverged from that of Schram and Rich.
40
7 Teel was engaged in a BOP audit of the Company in South Carolina the week of the
trial, and the Respondent had made a request for a postponement on that basis, which
Deputy Chief Judge Amchan denied. However, the Respondent’s counsel declined
my offer to accommodate her schedule to allow her to testify, stating that he did not
need to call her as a witness.
JD-24-20
7
Facts
Based on the entire record, including testimony and my observations of witness
demeanor, documents, written and oral stipulations, and the thoughtful posttrial briefs that the
General Counsel and the Respondent filed, I find the following.5
The Respondent’s Operation
The Respondent, a limited liability company with an office and place of business in
Saginaw, Michigan, is engaged in providing residential reentry services for Federal inmates 10
under a contract with the BOP. The Respondent has admitted Board jurisdiction as alleged in
the complaint, and I so find.
Bannum, Incorporated, the Respondent’s parent company, operates three other
facilities in other states. Rich has authority over all of them, and Allen reports directly to him. 15
Their offices are in Florida. Teel, whose office is in South Carolina, oversees the four facility
managers, who are the only onsite supervisors. Schram was the facility director at the facility
from April 2017 to December 2019, when he voluntarily resigned.
The Respondent’s contract with the BOP includes a statement of work (SOW) (R. 20
Exh. 3) that sets out staffing and other personnel requirements that the Respondent must
follow.
Union Organizing at the Facility
25
By all accounts, including Schram’s, Price spearheaded union organizing efforts at the
facility and informed Schram of his union sympathies and activities.
Thus, prior to June, Price initiated a conversation with Schram in the latter’s office. Price
asked Schram about seeing if the staff could get a pay raise. Schram responded that the 30
Company would not give one. Price then said, “Well, what about forming a union?” Schram
replied, “[D]o what you have to do.”8
Thereafter, Price talked with other employees, including Ahmad, Nash, and Turner,
and determined that there was support for a union. He then contacted the Union in June and 35
arranged for a meeting on June 19 at 3 p.m. at the union office in Zilwaukee (about a 15-
minute drive from the facility).
On June 18, Price advised Schram that he and Turner planned to go to the June 19
meeting. Schram replied that he was for it because, if the employees got a pay raise, he in 40
turn would ask for one. He stated that they could leave on the clock at 2:30 p.m. and come
back afterward, and he would just call in their lunch hour (lunch was at no fixed time). Price
mentioned that Ahmad, who was not working that day, would be meeting him and Turner at
8 Tr. 87.
JD-24-20
8
the meeting.9 On June 19, Price left work at 2:30 p.m., attended the meeting, and returned to
the facility at 4:15 p.m. Upon arriving back, Price went into Schram’s office and told him
about the meeting and the better wages, benefits, and working conditions that the employees
sought to obtain from the Union. Price’s timecard report does not show any punching out that
day, and he was paid for all of his hours on the clock (R. Exh. 4 at 3; GC Exh. 13).5
Novak held three meetings with the Respondent’s employees, on August 7, 21, and 31,
at the Union’s office.10 Approximately 4–10 employees, including Price, attended each of
them. All lasted for an hour or two.
10
Both Price and Ahmad testified about an incident when they and Turner stayed in the
conference room after a staff meeting, to discuss union organizing efforts (Ahmad was not
scheduled to work that day but came in for the meeting). Their accounts were not inconsistent
other than for the date. I credit Price’s more detailed account, and, based on the substance of
what was said, his testimony that it was prior to the August 7 meeting, as opposed to Ahmad’s 15
September or October timeframe. As Price, Ahmad, and Turner were discussing the
upcoming August 7 union meeting, Schram came over. He stated that he supported their
efforts and that he would allow Price and Turner to attend union meetings on the clock.
On August 7, Price came in at noon and reminded Schram that he and Turner had to 20
attend the union meeting that day. Price’s testimony that he and Turner punched out at 1:45
p.m. and returned at 4 p.m. is not supported by their timecard records (R. Exh. 4 at 5, R. Exh.
9 at 2; see also R. Exh. 11, facility log for that day). Rather, the timecard records show that
both clocked in in the morning, clocked out at 4:13 p.m., and were back at 5 or 5:13 p.m.
25
I find it more likely that they attended the meeting on the clock. I base this on Price’s
other testimony, Schram’s equivocal testimony, and Ahmad’s and Novak’s corroborating
testimony. In this regard, Novak testified that both Price and Turner told her that their
manager allowed them to attend the union meetings on the clock. The Respondent’s counsel
objected on the grounds of hearsay, but the Board does “not invoke a technical rule of 30
exclusion of hearsay evidence but rather allows hearsay if it is ‘rationally probative in force
and if corroborated by something more than the slightest amount of other evidence.’”
Midland Hilton & Towers, 324 NLRB 1141, 1141 fn. 1 (1997), enf. denied on other grounds,
598 F.2d 1267 (2d Cir. 1979), citing Alvin J. Bart & Co., 236 NLRB 242, 242 (1978).
35
In any event, the timecard records are not necessarily inconsistent with their having
attended a 2 p.m. union meeting on the clock, and Price was paid for the entire day (GC Exh.
13). At this meeting, Price and Turner submitted signed authorization cards to the Union.
9 Whether Ahmad actually attended the June 19 meeting is unclear because he did not
mention it in his testimony. He testified that he did not attend union meetings on the
days that he worked at his full-time job.
10 Novak, who handles organizing throughout Michigan, testified that the first meeting
was held on August 1, but I believe that Price would have had a better recollection of
the date and credit him that it was August 7.
JD-24-20
9
Price and Turner attended the August 21 meeting. Price told Schram of the meeting
the day before but could not recall specifics other than telling him that they had to leave at
1:45 p.m. On August 21, Schram called them into the conference room and stated that he had
just hired another prounion employee, who wanted to become part of the committee. He told
Price and Turner to come right back after the meeting was over. They returned at 4 p.m. 5
Price did not testify about whether they punched out for this meeting; their timecard reports
show that they both clocked in in the morning and clocked out at 3:48 p.m. (R. Exh. 4 at 5, R.
Exh. 9 at 2). Although Price’s testimony (and the statement in his affidavit) that they returned
from the meeting at 4 p.m. may have been in error, their timecard records are not necessarily
inconsistent with their having attended the 2 p.m. meeting on the clock. 10
When Price returned from the August 21 meeting, Schram asked what was discussed,
and Price substantially repeated what he had told Schram after the June 19 meeting. Schram
shook his head and said that the employees were asking way too much; Rich would not
approve any of it; and Rich would just shut the place down, and he (Schram) would do the 15
same. Schram then solicited Price’s suggestions on how to deal with a problem employee.
I note that Schram’s timecard report (R. Exh. 10 at 3) and the log for August 21 (R.
Exh. 5) show that Schram left at 2:23 p.m. on August 21. However, on cross-examination,
Schram conceded that it was possible that he could have stayed past that time if something 20
came up. Inasmuch as he was the sole supervisor at the facility, that would not seem
surprising. Even assuming that Price was mistaken on the date, and the conversation was on
August 7 or August 31 rather than August 21, I am satisfied that such a conversation took
place and that Price’s recollection of its contents was reliable. I note that other witnesses
attributed similar statements to Schram about what Rich would do were the Union to be voted 25
in.
Price attended the August 31 meeting but was not scheduled to work that day and did
not discuss it with Schram. They did have another conversation at some point in August, in
Schram’s office. Schram stated that he wanted to work with Price if the Union passed 30
because he did not want Price to file grievances against him for covering shifts for CAs
instead of giving them more hours. He further stated that he believed he still had the right to
run the day-to-day operations as he saw fit.
R Case Proceedings 35
On September 5, the Union filed a petition in Case 07–RC–205632 (the petition) (GC
Exh. 4) to represent all regular full-time and part-time social service coordinators, case
managers, and CAs (the unit).
40
The R case hearing was originally scheduled for September 21 but was postponed to
September 22 and finally to September 27 (GC Exh. 5). The day before either September 21
or 22, Price told Schram that Business Agent Grant Hemenway (Hemenway) wanted to meet
him at 6 a.m. the next day and go together to the hearing, because Price was a potential
witness for the Union. On September 26, Price went to Schram and said that he would be 45
attending the hearing. Schram did not respond. I will later describe the events of September
JD-24-20
10
27.
Following the R case hearing on September 27 and October 3, the Regional Director
issued a decision and direction of election on October 31 (GC Exhs. 5, 6). On November 15,
following an election on November 7, the Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining 5
representative of the unit (GC Exh. 7).
Alleged 8(a)(1) Postelection Violations
In late October, Ahmad had a conversation with Schram in the latter’s office. Schram 10
asked if he could talk to him because the petition had been filed. Schram told him that if the
employees formed a union, the facility would be shut down. Ahmad could not recall how he
responded.
In late October or early November, Schram called Ahmad and Nash into his office 15
during the midnight or third shift. Ahmad’s and Nash’s accounts of what he said were very
similar, with no inconsistencies. I credit Nash’s more detailed version. Schram asked them
how they were going to vote in the election. He said that they should vote against because if
the Union got in, (1) the facility probably would be closed down; (2) their wages probably
would drop because they would have to pay union dues; and (3) he would have to be stricter 20
on them as a boss. Nash did not say how she was going to vote but said that it was not up to
Schram to know. She recalled Ahmad stating something to the effect that he was for the
Union.
Schram called Nash on November 5 and left a message on her cell phone (see GC 25
Exh. 8, a transcript of the call). During the call, he stated that he did not want her to go with
the Union, did not want Ahmad to fill her with propaganda, and wanted to help the employees
and could do so as a boss.
Employee Handbook Provisions30
The following provisions in the employee handbook (Jt. Exh. 1) are relevant to Price’s
and Ahmad’s discharges:
Progressive discipline (at 75)—provides for four steps: verbal warning, 35
written warning, suspension with or without pay, and termination. Depending on the
severity of the problem and the number of occurrences, one or more steps may be
bypassed.
Employee conduct and work rules (at 63)—unacceptable conduct that may 40
result in disciplinary action includes excessive absenteeism or any absence without
notice and unauthorized absence from the workstation during the workday.
Employment termination (at 40)—one of the circumstances for termination is
job abandonment–failure to appear at work at the scheduled time and date.45
JD-24-20
11
Attendance (at 68)—“[A] poor attendance record or excessive lateness may
lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.”
Price’s Employment and Discharge
5
Price was employed as a full-time case manager from January 27–September 28,
2017, when he was discharged. He worked a set schedule: Sunday through Tuesday, noon to
9 p.m. (second shift); and Wednesday and Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. (first shift). One of his
duties was conducting home confinement checks on homes where inmates had been or were
going to be released. Security service coordinators such as Turner also performed such 10
checks. Price testified that prior to his discharge, he received one written warning, in March
2017 from an acting facility director before Schram arrived, but it is not contained in the
Respondent’s records.
On about September 20, Schram gave Price a copy of the Respondent’s contract with 15
the BOP, which Price had requested to provide to the Union. Call of the BOP was at the
facility that day, conducting monitoring. He had a conversation with Schram in the latter’s
office in the midday. Schram stated that “they” were not going to negotiate with the Union,
whether the Union passed or not. Call asked who the “they” were, and Schram replied Rich.
Schram further said that if the Union passed, the Company was not going to bid on the 20
upcoming contract and would cease doing business in the area. There is no evidence that
Price or any other employee overheard these statements.
At around this date, Schram called Price to his office and provided him with financial
records (company revenues from 2007–2017) that Price had requested to provide to the 25
Union.11
The sole reason that the Respondent has advanced for Price’s discharge was his
alleged job abandonment on September 27, the day he attended the R case hearing.
30
Events of September 27
Price was scheduled to work from noon to 9 p.m. on September 27 (see GC Exh. 2 at
Bannum 827). He clocked in at 5:31 a.m. that day (R. Exh. 4 at 6) and wrote in the logbook,
“Court versus Bannum.” Schram testified that when he came to work that morning at 35
approximately 7:45–8, a midnight shift employee showed him that Price had signed in at 5:31
a.m. and written the above notation. Schramm did not explicitly approve this, but Price
testified that he clocked in and then left for the meeting because Schram had previously given
him permission to go to union meetings on the clock.
40
After leaving the facility, Price went to the Union’s office and drove with Hemenway
to the Detroit Regional Office, about 1-1/2 hours’ drive from Saginaw. Teel was the sole
11 Although the testimony of Call and Price might be deemed to reflect inconsistent
conduct on Schram’s part, I have no reason to doubt their respective accounts and will
not surmise what Schram’s motivations were.
JD-24-20
12
witness to testify at the R case hearing, which concluded at 11:03 a.m. Thereafter,
Hemenway and Price returned to Saginaw, where they had lunch and talked. Price returned to
the facility at 2:38 p.m. (ibid). He made eye contact with Schram, but they said nothing to
one another. Price punched out because he already had 9 hours in (1 hour of overtime), and
the Company was cutting down on overtime. Schram said nothing to him about his activities 5
that day, and Schram made no recommendations that he be disciplined for them.
A DHO hearing was scheduled at the Bay County Jail that day to determine if an
inmate should be removed from the program because of violation of the rules. There was no
fixed time, but it was to be before 3 p.m. I credit Price that he advised Schram of the R case 10
hearing the previous day and that he could not accompany Schram to the jail because I do not
believe that Price would have failed to show up for the assignment had he not been given
prior permission to be excused. In this regard, when Price returned to the facility in the
afternoon on September 27, Schram said nothing to him about that hearing. No one from the
facility went to the jail that day because Schram had no one available to go. Schram testified 15
that he did not know whether the hearing was ever rescheduled.
Schram contradicted himself on whether Teel mentioned Price when she called him
after the R case hearing was over and stated that she was waiting at the airport for her flight
back to South Carolina; testifying “no” on direct examination, and “yes” on cross-20
examination. In any event, in the afternoon, after arriving back in South Carolina, Teel again
called Schram. Schram testified that he could not remember the whole conversation but that
Teel asked either whether Price was at the facility (direct-examination) or what Price’s
schedule was for the day (cross-examination). She did not tell Schram why she wanted this
information. He told her about Price’s early punch in and “Court against Bannum” notation 25
in the logbook, and his coming back, signing out, and leaving. Teel stated that she would
have to make a call.
Price’s Discharge
30
Rich, who made the decision to discharge Price, testified that Teel informed him on
September 27 that Price had been at the hearing prior to the time that his shift was to start,
failed to show up for his shift and did not work at all that day, arrived back at approximately
2:30 p.m., and punched out and left. Rich further testified that he also had a discussion with
Teel and Allen and found out that there was the DHO hearing that day and that Schram had to 35
find someone else to cover it. Rich testified that Price’s conduct was severe enough to
warrant termination, especially since Price, as a case manager, was designated as key staff in
the SOW (R. Exh. 3 at 11). Rich never spoke with either Schram or Price. His equivocation
about whether Teel told him that Price was at the R case hearing was not believable.
40
On September 28 at 8:15 a.m., Schram called Price on his cell phone, which
automatically recorded their conversation (see GC Exh. 10, the transcription). Schram stated
that Teel had called him the previous evening, and “[t]hey are terminating your employment
for abandoning work yesterday, not working 9–12.” Price responded that was not true
because Schram knew he had the appointment in Bannum (the R case hearing). Schram 45
repeated what “they” said about Price’s conduct on September 27. Price asked why Schram
JD-24-20
13
had not called him as he usually did for everybody else.12 Price became irate, and Schram did
not respond to the question but ended by saying that Price would be mailed his final check.
Price received nothing in writing concerning his discharge.
Ahmad’s Employment and Discharge5
Ahmad was employed as a part-time CA from October 20, 2016–November 2017,
when he was discharged. At the time of his hire, and at all times during his employment, he
worked full-time, 8 a.m. –5 p.m., at the Saginaw County Mental Health as a salaried support
employment specialist. I credit his unrebutted testimony of what was said at his interview. 10
Thus, he informed the interviewer (an acting director, whose name is not in the record) of his
daytime job and that he could therefore only work the night shift (midnight to 8 a.m.). When
he filled out the employment application (R. Exh. 8), he checked that he was available to
work full-time because she told him that would assure his getting hired.
15
I further credit Ahmad’s unrebutted testimony of his conversation with Schram in
Schram’s office in April, a couple of weeks after Schram came to the facility, as follows.
Schram asked if he had another job, and Ahmad replied that he worked at the mental health
facility. Schram asked what he did, and Ahmad told him. Schram asked if there was a union,
and Ahmad said yes. Schram then asked if Ahmad was involved in the union, and Ahmad 20
replied that he was the union’s chapter president. Schram asked his duties, and Ahmad told
him.
Until about mid-November, Ahmad’s schedule was working three consecutive night
shifts Friday through Sunday (see GC Exh. 2), although he occasionally switched with other 25
employees and worked a night shift on a different day. He usually worked with Nash or
another CA. Prior to his termination, he had no disciplines or attendance violations.
Change in Ahmad’s Schedule
30
By SOW rules, two staff have to be on duty, one male and one female. Schram posted
schedules at least 2 to almost 4 weeks in advance. In approximately mid-November, Schram
posted a new staff schedule, stating that starting December 3, all CAs would have at least 2
consecutive days off (GC Exh. 14). Schram offered no cogent explanation for the need or
timing of this change, vaguely alluding to employees’ mental health. He conceded that the 35
Union was never notified beforehand.
Ahmad testified that he saw a posted schedule showing that he would work two third
shifts and one second shift (4 p.m. to 12 a.m.) the week of December 3 (GC Exh. 15).13 After
seeing General Counsel’s Exhibits 14 and 15, Ahmad went to see Schram. He asked why 40
Schram was changing his schedule to a second shift when Schram knew that he could not
12 General Counsel’s Exhibit 3, which I will later discuss, reflects that Schram called
employees who did not report to work for their scheduled shifts.
13 The dates for the week are handwritten. Ahmad testified that he was not the one who
handwrote them in, and Schram did not address the document.
JD-24-20
14
work it and was hired for third shift. Schram responded, “Oh, well.”14 Ahmad mentioned that
he had spoken to CA Ramesse Amegah (Amegah), who could switch with him and work a
second shift.
Use of Vacation Request Forms5
Prior to November 2017, Ahmad would tell Schram verbally if he needed a day off,
and he was unaware of any written vacation request form. CA Nash was employed from
January 2017 to February 2018, when she quit. Prior to the election, she told Schram verbally
if she needed a day off. After the election, and she learned that Ahmad had a request denied, 10
she submitted a note on about December 16 and left it at Schram’s door (GC Exh. 9).
Therein, she confirmed her oral request of November 16 to have off January 7, 2018, and
asked for days off on February 10 and 11, 2018. Schram accepted it. Schram testified that
although employees were supposed to submit vacation requests on the vacation request form,
he did accept handwritten notes and sometimes took the request verbally.15
On or shortly before November 3, Schram told Ahmad that employees now had to
submit written requests to take time off. Ahmad asked where the form was, and Schram
directed him to a cabinet in the conference room. Schram offered no testimony on their
conversation, and I credit Ahmad’s unrebutted account.20
General Counsel’s Exhibit 12 represents all written vacation requests submitted for
calendar years 2017 and 2018; leaving aside Ahmad, there are two; one from April 2017, the
other from January 2018. Respondent’s Exhibit 6 additionally contains 17 vacation request
forms, from April 2015–December 2016.25
Ahmad’s Vacation Requests and Denials
Employees are not paid during the year for time not actually worked; instead, they
accrue paid vacation time during the year for which they receive a lump sum payment the first 30
full period following the end of the calendar year.
Nash was never denied a vacation request. Prior to the election, she tried to find
someone to take her scheduled shift; if she could not, she so informed Schram verbally.
When Schram could not get someone to cover for her absence, he worked with her. All of the 35
vacation requests contained in General Counsel’s Exhibit 12 and Respondent’s Exhibit 6 were
approved, with the exception of Ahmad’s November 12 and 18 requests.
On November 3, Ahmad submitted a form requesting Saturday, November 11, and Sunday,
November 12 (GC Exh. 16; also, GC Exh. 12 at 2). His request for November 11 was
approved on November 8, with the notation that Ahmad switched with Amegah; however, the 40
request for November 12 was denied on a date uncertain, with the notation that Amegah and
(Bill) Watkins (Watkins) were unavailable. Also on November 3, Ahmad submitted a
vacation request form for November 18 (GC Exh. 12 at 3), which Schram denied on
November 7, with the notation that Amegah and Watkins were unable to cover the shift.
14 Tr. 279.
JD-24-20
15
The Respondent does not provide paid sick leave to employees. On November 12,
Ahmad called in before his shift started and told Schram that he was not coming in because he
was sick. Schram said okay. Later, at about 6 p.m., Schram called him and said that he
needed to bring in a doctor’s slip for November 12 because he had earlier been denied the day 5
off.
Ahmad’s doctor’s office was closed Sunday, November 12 and on Monday,
November 13 (Veterans’ Day), so he went there on November 14 and obtained a note from
NP Janet Ader of Central Michigan University Health (GC Exh. 17). It stated that Ahmad 10
was seen on November 14; that he had an illness on November 11 and had been contagious;
and to contact her with any questions (GC Exh. 17).
On November 15, Ahmad, who was not working, came in and provided Schram with
the above note. Schram said that he would not accept it but gave no reason. Ahmad asked 15
why he had asked Ahmad to go to the doctor’s office if he was not going to accept it. Ahmad
could not recall if Schram responded.
Ahmad worked his next scheduled day, November 17. On November 18, shortly
before his shift was to start, Ahmad called Schram and said that he was having a family crisis 20
and would not be able to come in. Schram said okay. Ahmad testified that the crisis involved
his son going out of control and “tearing up the house and everything.”15
Ahmad’s Discharge
25
On November 21, Schram left a phone message to call him, and Ahmad returned his
phone call the same day. Schram told him that he was terminated, effective immediately.
Ahmad never received a termination letter.
Schram filled in for Ahmad on November 12. He testified that he was upset about 30
having to do this and discussed what had occurred with the facility director in Wilmington,
North Carolina, who responded that Schram could request that Ahmad provide a doctor’s
note. However, Schram testified on cross-examination that he asked for the note because
Ahmad “created a pattern of calling off when requests were denied.”16 I credit Nash’s
testimony that Schram would work with her if he could not get someone else to be the second 35
person on her night shift. Furthermore, on cross-examination, Schram testified that if an
employee called in sick, Schram had to find someone else to fill the shift or work it himself
and that the employee would not be required to bring in a note (contrary to Rich).
Schram testified that he found the note unsatisfactory because Ahmed did not go to the 40
doctor until after November 12. Schram’s testimony that Ahmad responded that he was not
wasting his time at the doctor’s and paying money was not credible inasmuch as November
15 Tr. 295.
16 Tr. 552. This was based solely on Ahmad’s calling in sick on November 12 and, as I
previously stated, a “pattern” based on a single occurrence is oxymoronic.
JD-24-20
16
12 was a Sunday, and Ahmad did go to the medical office to get a note at the first opportunity.
Schram further testified that when Ahmad called out on November 18 for a family
emergency, he drew up a memo requesting that Ahmad be terminated (GC Exh. 20). Schram
referenced Ahmad’s calling out sick on November 11[sic] and calling out for the family 5
emergency on November 18, after having been denied vacation leave for those days. He
concluded by asking that Ahmad be terminated “as this is becoming a pattern and it is directly
affecting the moral[sic] of the staff in the building.”
Rich testified that Teel and Allen (neither of whom testified) communicated to him 10
what had occurred and that he made the decision to terminate Ahmad because he called in
sick on two of the days for which he had been denied vacation leave and that this was “an
integrity issue.”17
Other Disciplines15
General Counsel’s Exhibit 3 contains all (26) written attendance disciplines for
calendar years 2017 and 2018 (including one from 2019). They include non-attendance
misconduct. I will summarize them by employee, starting with those with the most
attendance violations. All were written warnings and occurred in 2017 unless otherwise 20
stated. I will use initials in lieu of employees’ names in the interest of protecting their
privacy.
(A) MT:
25
Insubordination (February 9).
Improper notification for calling out for shift (June 30).
Arrived 40 minutes late without calling (August 30).
Arrived to work 22 minutes late (September 13).
Did not come into work and claimed unaware that she was scheduled when Schram 30
called her (September 18).
Arrived 22 minutes late (September 27).
Suspended for arriving 22 minutes late and clocking out early without notifying
Schram (September 30).
Insubordination when presented write-up for being late (October 2).35
General Counsel’s Exhibit 6, Schram’s recommendation that MT be terminated, states that
she also arrived late eight times between June 6–September 26, between 7 minutes and 52
minutes, and that when informed on October 3 of her suspension, she walked out and stated,
“Fuck this shit.” 40
I note that despite Rich’s testimony that he is the decision-maker in all terminations,
including MT’s, he could not recall whether he had ever received any information relating to
17 This was inaccurate. Ahmad called in sick on only 1 of the 2 days; the other was for a
family emergency.
JD-24-20
17
MT’s conduct. Significantly, there are only four terminations of facility employees in the
record: Price, Ahmed, MT, and an employee who quit after not showing up (AM, below).
(B) JM:
5
Called out for scheduled shift (June 2, 2018).
Called out for scheduled shift (June 3, 2018.
No call/no show for scheduled shift (June 9, 2018).
Called out for scheduled shift (June 10, 2018).
10
(C) AM:
Called off 45 minutes before scheduled shift, the third time in 3 weeks (May 11).
Dismissal for not showing up on May 15 and stating that she was quitting when
Schram called her (May 15). 15
(D) SM:
Failed to report or give notice (February 26).
Failed to report or give notice (April 15 and 16).20
(E) TP:
Arrived 1 hour late for shift (November 13).
Arrived 28 minutes late after calling and saying she would be late due to having a 25
migraine (December 18).
(F) YH:
Left work an hour early without informing the on call, after previous counselings 30
(December 28, 2018)
Unsatisfactory performance, including improper punching out (January 22, 2019).
(G) BS:
35
Did not report, Schram called her, and she arrived 48 minutes late (September 25).
She also received five warnings for unsatisfactory performance, from December 4, 2017–
January 25, 2018, including working on personal matters instead of her assigned work, for
which she had previously been warned several times (GC Exh. 19). 40
(H) JK:
Arrived 24 minutes late (December 26).
He also received three warnings for unsatisfactory conduct, from January–March 45
2018, including sleeping on the job for the second night in a row, for which he had
JD-24-20
18
been counseled the day before (GC Exh. 18).
Three other employees arrived 16 minutes, 38 minutes, and 1 hour and 13 minutes late
(2018), respectively; and another employee called out 1 hour before the start of the shift.
5
Analysis and Conclusions
8(a)(1) Allegations
(a) On August 21, 2017, interrogated Price about his union membership, activities, and 10
sympathies; and the union membership, activities, and sympathies of other employees.
(b) In the same conversation, threatened Price that the Respondent would shut down
operations at the facility and open a new facility in a different geographical location if
employees selected the Union as their bargaining representative.15
(c) About August, told Price that he would be able to run his business how he saw fit even
if employees selected the Union to be their bargaining representative, and that it would be
futile for employees to select the Union as their bargaining representative.
20
I. (a) and (b). When Price returned from the August 21 meeting at the Union’s office,
Schram asked what was discussed, and Price recited the better benefits and working
conditions that the employees were seeking from union representation. Schram shook his
head and said that the employees were asking way too much; Rich would not approve any of
it; and Rich would just shut the place down, and he (Schram) would do the same. 25
Interrogations of employees do not per se violate Section 8(a)(1); instead, the Board
uses a totality-of-circumstances test to determine whether an interrogation is coercive of
employees’ rights under the Act. Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176, 1177 (1984), enfd. sub
nom HERE, Local 11 v. NLRB, 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Emery Worldwide, 30
309 NLRB 185, 186 (1992). Factors to be considered include any background unfair labor
practices (ULPs), the nature of the information sought, the level of the questioner (how high
in the supervisory chain), the place and method of interrogation, and the truthfulness of the
reply. Westwood Health Care Center, 330 NLRB 935, 939 (2000); Bourne v. NLRB, 332
F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964). Other considerations are whether the employee is an open and 35
active union supporter (Sunnyvale Medical Clinic, 277 NLRB 1217, 1218 (1985), and
whether the employer has a legitimate reason justifying interrogation concerning protected
activities. Foamex, Inc., 315 NLRB 858 (1994).
In the absence of any coercive statements, I would conclude that Schram’s 40
interrogation did not violate the Act. Schram already knew that Price was the leading union
organizer, had given him permission to go the meeting, and did not ask him which other
employees had attended.
However, I find that Schram violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening Price that the 45
facility would be shut down in connection with the employees seeking union representation.
JD-24-20
19
See Shearer’s Foods, Inc., 340 NLRB 1093, 1094 (2003). This overt threat tainted the
attendant interrogation and made it similarly coercive. See Emery Worldwide, above at 186–
187; see also Hoffman Fuel Co., 309 NLRB 327, 327 (1992) (questioning accompanied by a
veiled threat found unlawful even when the interrogated employee was an open and active
union supporter).5
II. (c). Schram stated that he wanted to work with Price if the Union passed because
he did not want Price to file grievances against him for covering shifts for CAs instead of
giving them more hours. He further stated that he believed he still had the right to run the
day-to-day operations as he saw fit.10
The General Counsel contends (GC Br. at 27) that Schram’s statements conveyed a
sense of futility for voting for the Union. I disagree. In Queen of the Valley Medical Center,
368 NLRB No. 116, slip op. at 2 (2019), the Board addressed a director’s statement very
similar to Schram’s (“[u]nion or no union, I’m going to run this department as I see fit”) and 15
concluded that it was “too vague to suggest that the Respondent would not comply with its
duty to bargain in good faith if the Union was certified as the employees’ representative.”
Similarly, Schram’s statement that he believed he still had the right to run the day-to-day
operations was couched in terms of his own opinion (as a first-line supervisor) and in no way
implied that he was speaking on the Company’s behalf. Accordingly, I find no merit to this 20
allegation.
(d) About September 20, told employees that they were supposed to communicate
with him and tell him what was going on regarding the union organizing campaign.
25
No evidence supports this allegation, and I therefore recommend its dismissal.
(e) About late October or early November, threatened Ahmad and Nash that the
Respondent would shut down the facility if the employees selected the Union as their
bargaining representative.30
(f) About late October or early November, threatened Ahmad and Nash that he
would have to act like a boss and would strictly enforce policies and/or rules if the
employees selected the Union as their bargaining representative.
35
In late October, in Schram’s office, Schram asked if he could talk to Ahmad because
the petition had been filed and stated that if the employees formed a union, the facility would
be shut down.
In late October or early November, Schram called Ahmad and Nash into his office. 40
He asked them how they were going to vote in the election and said that they should vote
against the Union because if the Union got in, (1) the facility probably would be closed down;
(2) their wages probably would drop because they would have to pay union dues; and (3) he
would have to be stricter on them as a boss.
45
JD-24-20
20
I find that these statements of negative consequences should the employees choose
union representation reasonably tended to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights. See Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, 363 NLRB
No. 112, slip op. at 1 fn. 1 (2017) (stricter enforcement of work rules); Shearer’s Foods,
above (facility closure); and Ernst Enterprises, Inc., 289 NLRB 565, 565 fn. 1 (1988) 5
(reduction of wages). Therefore, these allegations are sustained.
Schram asked Ahmad and Nash how they were going to vote. This is not alleged in
the complaint. However, under well-established precedent, the Board may find a violation
not alleged in the complaint, even where the General Counsel has not filed a motion to 10
amend, if the issue is closely related to the subject matter and has been fully and fairly
litigated. Enloe Medical Center, 346 NLRB 854, 854, 854 fn. 3 (2006), citing Desert
Aggregates, 340 NLRB 289, 292–293 (2003). Here, the violation was contained in the same
conversation in which Schram made other statements that violated the Act, and Schram had
an opportunity to testify thereon. Accordingly, I find that Schram further violated the Act by 15
interrogating Ahmad and Nash about their union sympathies.
(g) On November 5, interfered with employees exercising their Section 7 rights by
telling Nash that Ahmad was strongly opinionated and that he did not want Ahmad to
fill her head with propaganda.20
Schram called Nash on November 5 and left a message on her cell phone, during
which he stated that he did not want her to go with the Union, did not want Ahmad to fill her
with propaganda, and wanted to help the employees and could do so as a boss.
25
In Baker Concrete Construction, Inc., 341 NLRB 598, 598 (2004), the Board held that
a superintendent’s warning to an employee to stay away from union supporters, or “you
[could] have trouble” was too vague to constitute a threat of reprisal and was not an indicum
of antiunion animus. Here, although Schram’s statement reflected antagonism toward
Ahmad, it did not direct or suggest that Nash refrain from any union activity, and it carried no 30
express or implicit threat of reprisal against her, Ahmad, or any other employee.
I therefore conclude that this allegation has not been sustained.
The Respondent cites (R. Br. at 37, et. seq.) Yellow Ambulance Service, 342 NLRB 35
804, 810 (2004), for the proposition that any statements that Schram made were de minimis
and did not rise to the level of unfair labor practices. However, that decision is inapposite
because it involved an alleged 8(a)(3) violation in requiring employees to fill out new
applications to switch from full-time to part-time status, not coercive statements. On the
contrary, the Board in AT Systems, West, Inc., 341 NLRB 57, 62 (2004), reversed a judge’s 40
finding that a threat (“clearly a coercive statement”) was de minimis.
(h) Allowing Price and Turner to Attend Union Organizational Meetings.
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by 45
allowing Price and Turner to attend union organizational meetings during work times from
JD-24-20
21
June 19 until August 31.
An employer violates the Act by conferring employee benefits during the pendency of
a representation election for the purpose of inducing employees to vote against a union. Medo
Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 678, 679, 686 (1944); Shamrock Foods Co., 369 5
NLRB No. 5 (2020), cited by the General Counsel (GC Br. at 30) (extra pay to employees for
attending company’s annual banquet).
Those cases are inapposite. Here, the benefit that Schram bestowed aided the efforts
of employees who were seeking to organize, and I can see no way in which it reasonably 10
could have induced employees to vote against the Union. This was not a situation where
competing unions were seeking to represent unit employees and Schram was showing
partiality to one over the other. Accordingly, I find no merit to this allegation.
The 8(a)(3) and (4) Analytical Framework15
In cases in which the issue is the motive behind an employer’s action against an
employee (was it legitimate or based on animus on account of the employee’s union or
protected concerted activities?), the appropriate analysis is provided by Wright Line, 251
NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982); see20
Mondelez Global, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 46, slip op. at 1 (2020); Auto Nations, Inc., 360
NLRB 1298, 1301 (2014), enfd. 801 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2015).
Under Wright Line, the General Counsel bears the initial burden of establishing that an
employee’s union or other protected concerted activity was a motivating factor in the 25
employer’s adverse employment action. Wright Line, above at 1089. The Board has held that
the General Counsel can meet this burden by establishing (1) union or other protected activity
by the employee, (2) employer knowledge of that activity, and (3) antiunion animus, or
animus against protected activity, on the employer’s part. See, e.g., Consolidated Bus
Transit, 350 NLRB 1064, 1065 (2007), enfd. 577 F.3d 467 (2d Cir. 2009). In Tschiggfrie 30
Properties, Ltd., 368 NLRB No. 120, slip op. at 5–8 (2019), the Board clarified the animus
element of this test, explaining that the General Counsel “does not invariably sustain his
burden of proof under Wright Line whenever, in addition to protected activity and knowledge
thereof, the record contains any evidence of the employer’s animus or hostility toward union
or other protected activity.” Id., slip op. at 7 (emphasis in original). “Instead, the evidence 35
must be sufficient to establish that a causal relationship exists between the employee’s
protected activity and the employer’s adverse action against the employee.” Id., slip op. at 8.
Once the General Counsel makes out a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the respondent to
show that the same action would have taken place even in the absence of the protected
activity. Wright Line, above at 1089; Manno Electric, Inc., 321 NLRB 278, 280 fn. 12 40
(1996). To establish this affirmative defense, an employer cannot simply present a legitimate
reason for its action but must persuade by a preponderance of the evidence that the same
action would have taken place even in the absence of the protected activity. East End Bus
Lines, Inc., 366 NLRB No. 180, slip op. at 1 (2018); Consolidated Bus Transit, 350 NLRB
1064, 1066 (2007). Where the General Counsel has made a strong showing of discriminatory 45
motivation, the employer’s defense burden is substantial. Bally’s Park Place, Inc., 355
JD-24-20
22
NLRB 1319, 1321 (2010), enfd. 646 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 2011); East End Bus Lines, ibid.
The Wright Line analysis also applies to alleged violations of Section 8(a)(4). Freightway
Corp., 299 NLRB 531, 532 fn. 4 (1990); P.I.E. Nationwide, 295 NLRB 382 (1989). Section
8(a)(4) covers the conduct of an employee who appears at a Board hearing even though he or
she did not testify. Belle Knitting Mills, Inc., 331 NLRB 80, 103 (2000); Virginia-Carolina 5
Freight Lines, Inc., 155 NLRB 447, 452 (1965).
Price’s Discharge
Price spearheaded the union organizing campaign at the facility and attended union 10
organizing meetings, and Schram had actual knowledge of this. Schram and Teel also had
actual knowledge that Price attended the R case hearing on September 27 on behalf of the
Union.
Turning to animus, Schram committed several violations of Section 8(a)(1) both 15
before and after Price’s discharge. On August 21, he threatened Price that the Respondent
would shut down the facility if the employee unionized. On two occasions in late October or
early November, he made the same threats to Ahmad and Nash, as well as threatening them
with stricter enforcement of work rules if the Union was voted in.
Several factors directly relating to Price’s discharge are evidence of implied animus against 20
him for his union/protected activity.
(1) Timing.
Price was discharged almost immediately after attending the R case hearing on 25
September 27. Such timing evidences a causal link between that protected activity and his
loss of employment. Mondelez Global, above, slip op. at 1; Velox Express, Inc., 368 NLRB
No. 61, slip op. at 10–11 (2019).
(2) Cursory Investigation.30
Rich made the decision to discharge Price without ever having afforded Price an opportunity
to respond—and without even inquiring of Schram, Price’s supervisor, the circumstances
surrounding Price’s conduct that day. A truncated investigation of alleged misconduct,
without affording an employee a reasonable opportunity to respond, amounts to a failure to 35
conduct a meaningful investigation and is evidence of unlawful motive. Mondelez Global,
above, slip op. at 1; Airgas USA, LLC, 366 No. 104, slip op. at 3 fn. 12 (2018).
(3) Disparate treatment.
40
Of the four terminations in the record, two were of Price and Ahmad. One of the
others was a voluntary quit, and the last was of employee MT.
The Respondent demonstrated an incredibly lenient policy toward employees who
violated attendance and other policies. The best example of this was MT. Prior to her 45
termination in October 2017, after she walked out and said, “Fuck this shit,” she had received
JD-24-20
23
written warnings for the following:
Insubordination (February 9).
Improper notification for calling out for shift (June 30).
Arrived 40 minutes late without calling (August 30).5
Arrived to work 22 minutes late (September 13).
Did not come into work and claimed unaware that she was scheduled when
Schram called her (September 18).
Arrived 22 minutes late (September 27).
Suspended for arriving 22 minutes late and clocking out early without 10
notifying director (September 30).
Insubordination when presented write-up for being late (October 2).
Moreover, she had arrived late eight times between June 6–September 26, from 7
minutes to 52 minutes. 15
The following employees received repeated written warnings but were not suspended
or terminated. JM called out for his scheduled shift on June 2, 3, and 10, and was a no call/no
show on June 9. SM failed to report or give notice on February 26, and April 15 and 16. BS
received one warning for arriving 48 minutes late on September 25 and 5 warnings for 20
unsatisfactory performance, from December 4, 2017–January 25, 2018, including working on
personal matters instead of her assigned work, for which she had previously been warned
several times. Finally, JK arrived 24 minutes late (December 26) and received three warnings
for unsatisfactory conduct, from January–March 2018, including sleeping on the job for the
second night in a row, for which he had been counseled the day before.25
Clearly, the discharge of Price was far out of proportion to the way the Respondent
disciplined other employees, some of whom had repeated instances of misconduct. Disparate
treatment of the alleged discriminatees, i.e., disciplining them more severely than other
employees who engaged in similar or more egregious misconduct, is evidence of unlawful 30
motive. Mondelez-Global, ibid.; Tschiggfrie, supra, slip op. at 5; Ozburn-Hessey Logistics,
LLC v. NLRB, 833 F.3d 210, 223–224 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Based on the above factors, I conclude the General Counsel has satisfied the animus
prong of Wright Line and therefore made out a prima facie case.35
The Respondent contends that Price’s conduct on September 27 amounted to job
abandonment. For a number of reasons, I further conclude that the Respondent has not shown
that it would have discharged Price other than for his protected activities.
40
Granted, Price could have exercised better judgment and returned to work
immediately after the R case hearing concluded. However, Schram condoned or tacitly
approved Price’s conduct that day. Schram knew on the morning of September 27 that Price
clocked in at 5:31 a.m. and was going to the R case hearing (“Court versus Bannum”), took
no steps to reach Price at any time during the day, said nothing to Price when he returned in 45
the afternoon, and did not recommend any discipline against him. Despite the Respondent’s
JD-24-20
24
failure to call Teel, it is clear from Schram’s and Rich’s testimony that she initiated the
investigation into Price’s activities that day after she saw him at the R case hearing. For
reasons I stated, I draw an adverse inference against the Respondent for not having called her.
The Respondent contends that Price was supposed to accompany Schram to the Bay 5
County Jail hearing that day. I credit Price—supported by Schram’s conduct—that he had
told Schram he was going to the R case hearing and could not go to the jail. In any event, the
Respondent’s argument fails. Schram testified that he could not get someone else to go with
him on September 27, so he did not go, but he could not recall if he ever went for that hearing
on any subsequent day. I have to conclude from this testimony that either the jail hearing 10
never took place or that the Respondent’s attendance was not required.
Significantly, Price had previously received only one written warning at most (there is
nothing in the Company’s records). In contrast, numerous other employees, MT in particular,
received written warnings for repeated attendance violations and/or unsatisfactory 15
performance, including not showing up for work (SM, for example, failed to report or give
notice on 3 days, 2 of which were in a row), insubordination, and not properly performing job
duties.
Because the Respondent has failed to rebut the General Counsel’s prima facie case, I 20
conclude that Price’s discharge violated Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) of the Act.
Actions Taken Against Ahmad
Ahmad supported the Union and prior to the August 7 union meeting, he discussed it 25
with Price and Turner in the conference room. Schram came over during their discussion and
said that he supported their efforts, thus establishing employer knowledge of Ahmad’s union
sympathies and activities. Moreover, shortly after Schram’s arrival, Schram questioned
Ahmad concerning whether there was a union at Ahmad’s full-time job, and during the course
of their conversation, Ahmad said that he was the union’s chapter president. 30
Express animus is demonstrated by Schram’s voice mail to Nash on November 5 (the
same month that all of the alleged discriminatory conduct against Ahmad took place).
Schram stated that he did not want her to vote for the Union or for Ahmad to fill her with
(union) propaganda. 35
Implied animus can be found in the following:
(1) Timing.
40
The above voice mail, in which Schram demonstrated animus toward Ahmad for his
union activities or sympathies, occurred only a week or two before the Respondent made
changes to Ahmad’s schedule in about mid-November. Furthermore, Schram committed
further 8(a)(1) violations in late October and early November toward Ahmad and Nash.
8(a)(1) violations occurring close in time to an adverse action against an employee are 45
“particularly relevant” as far as showing unlawful motivation. East End Bus Lines, above at
JD-24-20
25
slip op. at 9; see also St. Mary Medical Center, 339 NLRB 381, 381 (2003).
(2) Cursory investigation before Ahmad’s discharge.
As was the case with Price, Rich made the decision to discharge Ahmad without ever 5
having afforded Ahmad an opportunity to respond and without speaking to Schram. See the
cases cited above.
(3) Disparate treatment in discharging Ahmad.
10
For the same reasons that I set out for Price, the discharge of Ahmad was way out of
proportion to the discipline meted out to other employees, particularly those who engaged in
repeated attendance and/or other derelictions. See the cases cited above. It is noteworthy that
Ahmad previously had no disciplines of any kind in the over 1-year period that he worked for
the Respondent. 15
Accordingly, I conclude that the General Counsel has established a prima facie case
that the actions that the Respondent took against Ahmad in November were for his union
sympathies or activities. I now turn to each specific action and whether the Respondent has
rebutted the presumption that they were improperly motivated.20
(a) About mid-November, 2017, scheduled Ahmad to work on the second shift.
Schram offered only a vague, unsupported reason for his mid-November
announcement that all CAs such as Ahmad would now have at least 2 consecutive days off, 25
and he gave no reason whatsoever for the timing of that change. At around this time, Schram
assigned Ahmad to work a second shift the week of December 3, knowing that would conflict
with Ahmad’s full-time job. When Ahmad asked why Schram did this, Schram did not
respond.
30
Based on the above, I conclude that the Respondent did not rebut the presumption that
changing Ahmad’s schedule was motivated by his union activities or sympathies.
(b) On about November 7 and 8, denied Ahmad’s November 12 and 18 vacation
requests.35
Nash, who was employed for over a year, never had a vacation request denied, and she
testified that Schram assumed the position of the second staff member on duty when he could
not find another CA to work with her on the third shift. Schram confirmed that he filled in
when neither he nor the employee who wanted leave could find someone to substitute. It is 40
impossible to know how many vacation requests have been denied because the large majority
of them were verbal; General Counsel’s Exhibit 12 contains only five vacation request forms
from April 2017 to April 8, 2019. Two of them were from Ahmad, who was denied two of
the three requested days. The other two employees requested one, five consecutive, and seven
consecutive days, and nothing on the forms indicates that any of them were denied. In sum, 45
the Respondent provided no evidence, either testimonial or documentary, that any employees
JD-24-20
26
other than Ahmad have had their vacation requests denied. The Respondent has therefore
failed to rebut the presumption that its conduct was improperly motivated.
(c) On November 12, required Ahmad to submit a doctor’s note when requesting
sick leave.5
Contrary to Rich, Schram testified that doctor’s notes are not ordinarily required for
employees who call in sick. An employee’s calling in sick on a day for which he was denied
leave might raise a reasonable suspicion, but Schram testified that he required Ahmad to
produce a doctor’s note because Ahmad engaged in a “pattern” of calling in sick when his 10
leave request had been denied. Ahmad had no previous disciplines of any kind, either for
attendance or otherwise, in his over 1 year of employment. Therefore, Schram would have
had to base his conclusion on Ahmad’s calling out sick on only 1 day, November 12. This is
patently unbelievable. Demanding that an employee with an unblemished attendance record
get a note for being sick 1 day is not within reasonable norms, especially when November 12 15
was a Sunday. Accordingly, I conclude that the Respondent has failed to rebut the
presumption that this conduct was improperly motivated.
(d) On November 21, discharged Ahmad.
20
The Respondent discharged Ahmad for his calling out on November 12 on sick leave
and on November 18 for a family emergency, when Schram had previously denied him
vacation leave for those days. Rich testified that he considered Ahmad’s conduct of calling in
sick twice on days that he had been denied vacation leave (a factual error) an “integrity issue”
justifying termination. 25
Ahmad was sick on a Sunday, and the following day was a holiday. On November 14,
he went to his doctor and received a note stating that he was seen that day, that he had had a
contagious illness on November 12, and to contact the doctor with any questions. He
submitted it to Schram. Schram testified that he found the note unsatisfactory because it was 30
after the fact. How he could have expected Ahmad to go to a doctor on a Sunday, when he
was sick, is beyond my comprehension. Moreover, Schram failed to take the opportunity to
call the doctor if he wanted more information about the nature of Ahmad’s illness on
November 12. I reject out of hand as absurd Rich’s testimony that if Ahmad was ill on
November 12, he should have gone to a clinic that same day and obtained proof that he was 35
sick and could not work.
Ahmad called in shortly before his scheduled shift on November 18 and said that he
could not come in because of a family emergency. Schram simply said okay. At no time did
Schram, Teel, or Rich give Ahmad an opportunity to provide any elaboration (Ahmad 40
testified that his son was “tearing up” the house).
I further note Rich’s testimony that he made the decision to discharge Ahmad based
solely on his conversations with Teel and Allen. Thus, by his own testimony, he neither
talked to Schram nor saw Schram’s written recommendation. 45
JD-24-20
27
I conclude that the Respondent has failed to rebut the presumption that Ahmad’s
discharge was based on his union sympathies and activities. I emphasize here that prior to his
discharge, Ahmad had a perfect record as far as discipline, and that the Respondent continued
to issue written warnings to employees who repeatedly committed violations of its attendance
and other policies, even those who repeatedly failed to report for their shifts and/or did not 5
call in or report. Accordingly, Ahmad’s discharge violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Alleged Unilateral Changes
An employer violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally making 10
substantial changes on subjects of mandatory bargaining; to wit, employees’ wages, hours, or
other terms and conditions of employment, without first affording notice and a meaningful
opportunity to bargain to the union representing the employees. NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736
(1962); United Cerebral Palsy of New York City, 347 NLRB 603, 608 (2006).
15
The Board has held that an announcement of a unilateral change in benefits can in
certain situations constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) in and of itself and
regardless of implementation. Those decisions generally concern scenarios in which an
employer has threatened and implemented a unilateral reduction in employee benefits in
conjunction with the commission of other ULPs. See Kurdziel Iron of Wauseon, Inc., 327 20
NLRB 155, 156 (1998), enfd. 208 F.3d 214 (6th Cir. 2000); ABC Automotive Products Corp.,
307 NLRB 248, 250 (1992). Similarly, in UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., 346 NLRB 62
(2016), following a union’s certification, the employer announced unilateral reduction in
health insurance benefits and then refused to bargain prior to implementation.
25
(1) Requiring Ahmad to Submit Vacation Request Forms.
This is not alleged as an 8(a)(3) violation but as an 8(a)(5). However, there is no
indication that this change was applied to any other employees; rather, it appears that Ahmad
was targeted. Indeed, Schram accepted Nash’s December 16 handwritten vacation request in 30
lieu of a vacation request form, and there are only five vacation request forms for the 2-year
period starting in April 2017. The form was in existence before union organizing began at the
facility, and its use has continued to be minimal thereafter. Accordingly, I do not find that the
Respondent’s requiring Ahmad to use the form constituted a unilateral change in employees’
terms and conditions of employment. 35
(2) Denying Ahmad’s Vacation Requests.
I have found that this violated Section 8(a)(3). The Respondent’s conduct was
discriminatory because Ahmad was targeted on account of his union sympathies and 40
activities. Finding it also constituted a unilateral change in policy toward all employees
would be inconsistent with such a finding. In any event, the denial of Ahmad’s vacation
requests was particular to him and did not implicate any other employees. Therefore, I find
that it was not a unilateral change and recommend dismissal of this allegation.
45
JD-24-20
28
(3) Announced Changes in Ahmad’s Schedule.
Ahmad’s schedule was never in fact changed because he was discharged before any
announced change were effectuated. The General Counsel contends that the announced
change in mid-November that starting December 3, all CAs would have at least two 5
consecutive days off, was a unilateral change. However, there is no evidence that it adversely
affected any employees other than Ahmad or that the policy was in fact implemented and
applied to other employees after Ahmad’s discharge. Accordingly, I conclude that the
General Counsel has not established that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) with
respect to changing work schedules. 10
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.15
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By discharging Gregory Price, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor 20
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and
violated Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) of the Act.
4. By the following conduct toward Ernie Ahmad, the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the 25
Act and violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act:
(a) Scheduled him to work on the second shift.
(b) Denied his vacation requests.
(c) Required him to submit a doctor’s note for calling in sick.30
(d) Discharged him.
5. By the following conduct, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act:35
(a) Interrogated employees about their union activities or sympathies.
(b) Threatened employees with closure of the facility, wage reductions, and
stricter enforcement of rules if the employees voted in the Union.
40
REMEDY
Because I have found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.45
JD-24-20
29
The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged Gregory Price and Ernie Ahmad,
it must offer them full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed, and to make them whole for any losses of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of their discharges. Backpay shall be computed in accordance 5
with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New
Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River
Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010).
In addition, the Respondent shall compensate Price and Ahmad for the adverse tax 10
consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award and to file a report with the
Regional Director for Region 7, within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed,
either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the backpay award to the appropriate
calendar years. See Advoserv of New Jersey, Inc., 363NLRB No. 143 (2016); Don Chavas,
LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB 101 (2014). The Respondent shall compensate 15
Price and Ahmad for their search-for-work and interim employment expenses regardless of
whether those expenses exceed interim earnings. Search-for-work and interim employment
expenses shall be calculated separately from taxable next backpay, with interest at the rate
prescribed in New Horizons, above, compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River
Medical Center, above.20
The General Counsel also seeks an order requiring the Respondent to provide W-2
forms to the Regional Director (GC Br. at 45, et. seq.). The General Counsel argues that this
will assist in the effective administration of the Social Security Administration (SSA)-
allocation remedy set out in Tortillas Don Chavas, above, by ensuring accuracy and 25
consistency between the W-2 forms and the reports that the Regional Director receive from
respondents and transmits annually to SSA. I am not in a position to judge the merits of this
argument because I am obliged to follow existing Board precedent. See Pathmark Stores,
Inc., 342 NLRB 378, 378 fn. 1 (2004); Waco, Inc., 273 NLRB 746, 749 fn. 14 (1984).
Inasmuch as the Board has not ordered this remedy, I must deny the General Counsel’s 30
request for such.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended18
35
ORDER
The Respondent, Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC, Saginaw, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
40
1. Cease and desist from
18 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in
Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
JD-24-20
30
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employee for engaging
in union activity.
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees for
attending NLRB hearings or otherwise participating in NLRB proceedings.5
(c) Interrogating employees about their union activities or sympathies.
(d) Threatening employees with facility closure, wages reductions, or
stricter enforcement of work rules because of their support for Local 406, International 10
Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT).
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
15
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Gregory Price
and Ernie Ahmad full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to 20
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Price and Ahmad 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 25
remedy section of the decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its
files any reference to the unlawful discharges of Price and Ahmad, and within 3 days
thereafter notify them in writing that this has been done and that the discharges will not be 30
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 designated
by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, 35
personnel records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such
records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in 40
Saginaw, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”19 Copies of the notice,
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 National Labor Relations Board” shall
read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.”
JD-24-20
31
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. The Respondent shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If during the pendency of these 5
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the Saginaw, Michigan
facility, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
August 21, 2017.
10
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional
Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 29, 202015
____________________20
Ira Sandron
Administrative Law Judge
Q9J
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 (NLRB) has found that we violated Federal labor law
and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
Local 406, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) (the Union) represents a unit of our
all regular full-time and part-time social service coordinators, case managers, and counselor
aides.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against you because you engage in union
activity.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against you because you attend NLRB
hearings or otherwise participate in NLRB proceedings.
WE WILL NOT interrogate you about your union activities or sympathies.
WE WILL NOT threaten you that the facility will be closed, with wage reductions, or with
stricter enforcement of work rules because of your support for the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of your rights under Section 7 of the Act, as set forth at the top of this notice.
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Gregory Price and Ernie
Ahmad full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Price and Ahmad whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as
a result of our discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of
the decision.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to our unlawful discharges of Price and Ahmad,
and within 3 days thereafter notify them in writing that this has been done and that the
discharges will not be used against them in any way.
BANNUM PLACE OF SAGINAW, LLC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to
enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine
whether employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor
practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how
to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the
Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s
website: www.nlrb.gov
477 Michigan Avenue, Room 300, Detroit, MI 48226-2543
(313) 226-3200, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-207685 or
by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the
Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH
ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER (616) 930-9165.