CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORPORATION

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Sep 23, 2016

02-CA-138301 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 23, 2016)

JD(NY)-37-16
Bronx, NY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC and
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK
CITY CORPORATION
and
ANDRES GARCIA Case no. 02-CA-138301
and
PAUL MURRAY 02-CA-138302
and
BERNARD PAEZ 02-CA-138303
Rachel F. Feinberg, Esq. and
Nicole Oliver, Esq.,
for the General Counsel
G. Peter Clark, Esq. and
Kenneth A. Margolis, Esq.,
(Kauff, McGuire & Margolis, LLP,
New York, New York)
for the Respondent
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Mindy E, Landow, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to charges filed by Andres
Garcia, Paul Murray and Bernard Paez against CSC Holdings, LLC and Cablevision Systems of
New York City Corp., (Respondent) as a single employer on October 6, 2014,1 all of which were
amended on November 6 and the first of which was again amended on March 16, 2015.2

1 Except as otherwise noted, all dates refer to the year 2014.
2 The amended and second amended charges were omitted from the formal papers. Counsel for the
General Counsel requested their admittance into the record by letter dated December 16, 2015,
without objection from Respondent. These documents are hereby admitted into the record. As will be
discussed in further detail below, the second amended charge in Case No. 02-CA-138301 added the
involuntary transfers of employees Wayne Roberts, Ezequiel Lajara and Mike Vetrano as violations of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
On May 29, 2015 a Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing (complaint) was
issued by the Regional Director, Region 2. The complaint was amended by Order on August 25,
2015. The complaint as amended alleges that Respondent (also referred to as Cablevision or
the Company) violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by its involuntary transfer of the three
Charging Parties (named above) and employees Vetrano, Lajara and Roberts because they
supported Local 3, IBEW (Union) or because Respondent believed that they supported the
Union. The complaint further alleges that Respondent transferred the employees in violation of
the Act because they engaged in protected, concerted activity by discussing their working
conditions among themselves and with Company management.
Respondent filed an answer to the complaint and the amended complaint denying most
of the material allegations set forth therein. In addition, Respondent denied the agency status of
the following admitted supervisors: Chief Executive Officer James Dolan; Senior Vice President
of Human Resources Paul Hilber; Executive Vice President of Operations Rob Comstock;
Senior Vice President of Network Management and Operations Prigash Pillai; Director of Area
Technical Operations Robert Kennedy; Director of Outside Plant Operations (OSP) Alex Torres;
Bronx Field Operation Supervisors Donovan Reid, Jason Vanderbilt and Ewan Isaacs and
Human Resources Manager Gina Grella.
This case was tried before me in New York, New York on September 22, October 20
through 22 and November 9 and 10, 2015.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses,3 and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent I make the
following
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
Respondent is engaged in providing cable television and communications services in
various locations throughout the United States and maintains executive offices located at 1111
Stewart Avenue, Bethpage, New York. Annually, Respondent derives gross revenues in excess
of $500,000 and, in the course and conduct of its business operations purchases and receives
at its New York City facilities goods and services in excess of $5,000 directly from suppliers
located outside the State of New York. Respondent admits that for purposes of this proceeding
CSC Holdings LLC and Cablevision Systems New York City Corp. are a single employer within
the meaning of the Act, and I so find. I further find that Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act
I take administrative notice that Local 3, IBEW has been found to be and is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.4

3 My credibility resolutions herein are based upon context, demeanor, weight of the respective
evidence, established or admitted facts, inherent probabilities and reasonable inferences drawn from the
record as a whole. Double D. Construction Group, 339 NLRB 303, 305 (2003); Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB
622, 623 (2001). Moreover, while every apparent or non-apparent conflict in the evidence may not have
been specifically resolved below, my findings are based upon the factors described above. Accordingly,
any testimony which is inconsistent with or contrary to my findings should be deemed discredited.
4 See e.g. Local 3, Electrical Workers (Atlas Reid, Inc.), 170 NLRB 584 (1968); Eugene Iovine, Inc.,
Continued
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
Corporate and Supervisory Structure
Respondent operates depots throughout New Jersey, Connecticut, Long Island and New
York City, an area referred to as “the footprint.” Network operation services for New York City
are provided out of several depots including 500 Brush Avenue, located in the Bronx. This
facility includes Field Service (FS) and Outside Plant (OSP) departments. The charging parties
and other employees named in the complaint operated from the OSP department at the Brush
Avenue facility.
At relevant times, Gina Grella was the Human Resources (HR) Manager at the Brush
Avenue facility. She reported to Human Resources Director Hector Reyes. Reyes reports to
Director of Outside Plant Operations, Alex Torres. There are a number of other supervisory and
managerial personnel set forth in the complaint or as otherwise will be discussed in testimony.
Some of the managers most directly involved in the instant matter are: Senior Vice-President of
Human Resources Paul Hilber; Executive Vice-President of Human Resources Sandy Kapell
and Director of Area Technical Operations Robert Kennedy. Grella, Torres and Kennedy are
situated at the Brush Avenue depot. Hilber and Kapell work from the Company’s corporate
headquarters in Bethpage, Long Island and have oversight for various locations within the
footprint. Pragash Pillai is the Senior Vice President of Network Infrastructure and Jeff Stigers is
the Director of OSP for the Hudson Valley and Connecticut Region. Barry Monopoli is the
Executive Vice President of Field Operations. Other supervisory and managerial personnel will
be identified, as necessary, below.
The Witnesses
The witnesses who testified in this proceeding for the General Counsel were Charging
Parties Murray, Paez and Garcia, current employee Melvin Encarnacion, and former supervisor
Donovan Reid. Vetrano, Roberts and Lajara did not testify. Grella and Hilber were called to
testify for the General Counsel pursuant to FRE 611(c) and they additionally were called by, and
offered testimony on behalf of Respondent. Also testifying for Respondent were Brush Avenue
Supervisor Jason Vanderbilt and Director of OSP for the Hudson Valley and Connecticut Region
Stigers.
The OSP Workforce
Approximately 350 employees work out of the Brush Avenue depot. As of about May,
there were about 40 OSP technicians, including the six that are at issue here, who were all
employees of significant tenure with the Company. Roberts worked the night shift, from 12:00
am until 8:30 am; Murray, Paez, Lajara and Vetrano all worked the day shift, from 8:00 am until
4:30 pm and, at the time of his transfer, Garcia worked the mid-shift, from 4:00 pm to 12:00 am.
Another OSP technician, Nicasuis (Nick) Felix, an OSP technician whose employment status is
not directly at issue here, but will be discussed below, worked the night shift. The supervisors
overseeing OSP employees at relevant times were: Andel Brady, Alejandro Carasquillo,
Donovan Reid (until May 6, 2014), Jason Vanderbilt, Ewan Isaacs and Michael Mollica, the
night supervisor. The supervisors would rotate responsibility for making work assignments, but
each supervisor had a team assigned to them for purposes of annual evaluations.
_________________________
353 NLRB 400 (2008).
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
The Brush Avenue facility has a so-called “tech room” where employees would report at
the beginning of their shifts to collect their work assignments. According to both Murray and
Paez, employees would remain in the tech room for an overlapping period of time, perhaps as
long as 30 minutes, during contiguous shifts at which time they might discuss various work-
related and personal issues. The supervisors have offices in the tech room, and there is
testimony to the effect that they generally keep their office doors open, so may have occasion to
overhear discussions which may occur; but there is no specific evidence that this would have or
did occur regarding the allegations set forth in the complaint.
Prior Organizing Attempts at Brush Avenue
In early 2012, the Communication Workers of America (CWA) began an organizing effort
at the Brush Avenue depot. Initially two separate stipulated election agreements were entered
into: one seeking a unit of FS technicians and the other a unit of OSP technicians. This latter
petition was subsequently withdrawn and on June 28, 2012, the FS employees voted against
representation by the CWA by a significant margin. This election took place after the CWA had
successfully organized a unit of employees at Cablevision’s Brooklyn facility.
Shortly after the Brooklyn election and prior to the Bronx election, Respondent’s Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) James Dolan conducted a mandatory telephone conference with
employees at various Cablevision facilities. During this conference, Dolan stated that he
understood that there were problems in the employees’ working environment and that he
intended to make changes. During a follow-up teleconference held several months later, Dolan
announced changes to employee compensation. Thus, in May 2012, employees received wage
increases: according to Murray and Paez, these raises were significantly greater than those
which had been previously received based upon annual evaluations.
Meetings with Employees in 2013 5
In June and July 2013, Human Resources (HR) Director Reyes and HR Manager Grella
held “Meet and Greet” sessions with the OSP technicians at 500 Brush Avenue. After an initial
presentation regarding the benefits of employment with Cablevision, Reyes encouraged
employees to ask questions. Some of the topics raised included ambiguity about career
progression; unhappiness about the shift selection process; a perceived lack of communication
from management and dissatisfaction with how the HR team had operated in the past.
A meeting held on June 17, 2013, with employees and various supervisors was
described as “the most vocal,” and covered topics such as the role of HR and whether
complaints would be kept confidential; a perceived lack of respect from supervisors and
managers; the desire for updated training and the possibility of getting additional certifications;
uncertainty about the requirements for career progression; the procedures for shift selection; the
need for new tools in the field; safety procedures and certain friction over job assignments with
the Field Service technicians. Under a section entitled “Union,” it was noted that one tech
reported that the union was gearing up and a lot of people don’t want to say what is happening
but say that they want to sign a card. It was noted that the group of techs were divided on this
issue, with two stating that they did not want to sign a card for a union.

5 Although this evidence is outside of the Section 10(b) period, I find it appropriate to rely upon it as
background to the events under consideration here. See e.g. Coastal Sunbelt Produce, Inc., 362 NLRB
No. 126 slip op. at 2-3, 29(2015).
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
In September 2013, HR Director Reyes wrote a memorandum summarizing a meeting
that he, along with Grella, held as had been requested by the OSP technicians. The techs had
requested that no members of management be present. As Reyes noted, “[t]heir main concerns
harkened back to our Meet and Greet with the team in June and July. . .” Concerns included
procedures for requesting vacation resulting in lesser flexibility; a variety of safety issues and a
perception of a lack of trust and respect from supervisory and managerial staff. In this regard,
Reyes reported, “all of the items discussed above have driven the techs to feel as if they are not
trusted or respected by their supervisors and managers. They have gone so far as to attach
these changes and feelings specifically to [OSP Director] Alex Torres. They stated that they are
the reason the Union is not in the Bronx and they want to be recognized and appreciated for
their efforts. They are “demanding” something be done to address their concerns.” This
summary was circulated, between September and November 2013, to VP of Technical
Operations Riley, Director of Area Technical Operations Kennedy and Senior Vice President of
Network Management Operations Pillai.
Murray testified that in June 2013, as he was working in the field, he received a call from
OSP Supervisor Isaacs asking where he was working. According to Murray’s testimony, Isaacs
met him at his work location and asked him what was up with him and the union. As Murray
testified Isaacs went on to say that Barry Monopoli said that Murray and Paez were behind “all
of this.”
Changes to Terms and Conditions of Employment
In November 2013, Brush Avenue employees received a memorandum informing them
that, as of January, Respondent would cease contributing to a program referred to the Cash
Balance Pension Plan, which was considered by employees to be a benefit.
On November 16, 2013, Field Service Director Lester Mahon sent an email to Monopoli,
Grella and Reyes entitled “The memo and the questions?” and providing, in part, as follows:
The guys are asking questions. I believe some of the usual union promoters are
discussing the recent changes, especially the freezing of the pension plan. I’ve already
been asked if Cablevision will be taking away Christmas bonuses.
Thereafter, in early 2014, changes were announced as to the manner overtime would be
calculated; in particular, that sick leave and vacation time would no longer be included in the
formula to determine eligibility.6 The employees who testified asserted that they viewed the
foregoing changes as detrimental and they were unhappy about them.
Certain employees, including Murray, Paez and Garcia discussed the changes among
themselves and Murray testified that he lodged a complaint with Supervisor Reid and his own
supervisor, Andel Brady, during an April team meeting.
Evaluations of Employee Sentiment in 2014
On March 12, 2014, Executive Vice President of Operations Rob Comstock sent an
email to Cablevision official Kristin Dolan and Sandy Kapell entitled “Union Activity – Update,”
providing, in relevant part, as follows:

6 At least, that is the record testimony regarding this matter. It is otherwise unexplained.
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
We’ve had some Union related activity this week in Newark and the Bronx.
In Newark, IBEW representatives came on to our property in an effort to engage our
employees. They were politely asked to leave by FS Management before they were able
to strike a conversation with techs, which they did without incident. According to Charlie
and Kevin (RVP and AOM), this was a typical recruiting/canvassing effort and totally
unsolicited. We’ll stay close to see if we pick up any buzz.
In the Bronx, employee mentions of reengaging the union were picked up by
management this week and, this morning, “we need the IBEW now” was found written
on a whiteboard in the break room. After my tour of Soundview, I stopped by the Bronx
depot and spent some time with Barry and the team. My sense is that the threat is real,
coming primarily from a portion of the OSP techs who are the most long tenured
employees there and not thrilled about being managed based on performance. Although
concerned, Barry does not feel a union vote would be successful at this point.
The foregoing memorandum apparently makes reference to a meeting Kennedy had
called of OSP technicians and supervisors. Murray, Paez and Reid, who were present, testified
that Kennedy had gestured toward the whiteboard which bore the following messages: “IBEW”
and “We need a Union Now” and stated that “we need to discuss the elephant in the room.”
Lajara stated that he had written “IBEW” on the Board. Lajara went on to state that the OSP
technicians were being asked to perform electrical work – specifically going into lampposts in
the field – that they were not certified to perform. Vetrano, also present, supported Lajara.
Kennedy stated that he would look into the issue and come up with a procedure for dealing with
lampposts. Murray testified that, as he was leaving the building, Kennedy approached him and
asked him what he could do better. Murray responded that he felt the problem was at a
corporate level.
Murray testified about a meeting held at a March 2014 meeting led by Hilber and Kapell,
where Garcia questioned Kapell at some length about the elimination of the Cash Balance
benefit.7 Kapell ended the discussion stating that she was not going to argue with him about it.
Sometime about mid-March, Respondent held mandatory “union awareness” meetings
for supervisory and managerial personnel throughout the footprint. Reid testified that he
attended one such meeting, held on March 20, at the Radisson Hotel in New Rochelle, located
in Westchester County. Also attending were Director of OSP Torres, OSP Supervisor Brady and
Audit Supervisor Carasquillo. The meeting lasted for 5 hours and was conducted by an
attorney.
On March 31, Kennedy sent an email to Vice President of Technical Operations Lou
Riley entitled “recap of 4pm OSP meeting,” providing as follows:
We met with 4 techs from the mid-shift and Gina Grella at 4pm. We had a lot of
questions to clarify the policy. We used the white board to demonstrate multiple shift
scenarios. They had some concerns that we addressed. Once again, the following came
up in the initial conversation.
Why is this being done?
Is this to limit OT/DT?
Will overtime be available to me on my first day off so that I am eligible for DT on my

7 Garcia’s recollection was that this meeting occurred in about November 2013; however, Garcia and
Murray’s recollection of the content of the exchange with Kapell is similar, and I find that it occurred at the
time attested to by Murray, absent any rebuttal by Respondent.
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
second day off?
If I work a Monday to Friday shift is the Sunday before my shift my first day off and the
Saturday after my shift the DT day or is Saturday my first day off and the following
Sunday, my DT day?
About 4:30 Gina had to leave for another meeting. After Gina left the meeting the techs
began to speak more freely.
Amerigo Rodriquez was visibly upset. He stated that this group was instrumental in
keeping the CWA out. They stuck their necks out to tell the F/S techs that the company
offered a lot of benefits that are better than the CWA. Now we are taking these benefits
away one at a time.
20 year Lifetime Cablevision
Cash Balance – Pension Plan
Benefits – more money less coverage
OT/DT
Claimed that the group is ready to go to war. They said the CWA is not for them but the
group is ready to go across the river to Local 3 IBEW.
I asked if the issues were just from the OSP and [they] said no F/S us just as unhappy
and their main complaint is having to do installs.
They stated that Kip Mayo gave a presentation on the 401K plan the [sic] showed them
after 20 years they would have 2 million in the plan. They have been in the plan for a
while and only have $100,000 and that is more than most techs.
Techs that attended:
Amerigo Rodriguez
Andres Garcia
Jose Irizarry
Craig Banks
On April 3, Senior Vice President of Field and Network Operations Mike Kaplan received
an email from Tom Monaghan reporting on a conversation Monaghan had with a group of 10
OSP technicians regarding Respondent’s changes to benefits and overtime. In part, the email
states that the 10 techs, characterized as “good guys,” stated:
They feel betrayed by Jim Dolan – as when the campaign/election was occurring, he
said to them – “please give me another chance – we’ll make things right” which was
followed with changes in cable benefit, freezing of the cash balance plan and most
recently, the change in overtime.
The frustration is coming from OSP – as they felt like they were the major players in
turning around the FS techs from the union - specifically in getting the red bands off
their wrists – and replacing them with blue/black Cablevision bands – meaning they were
‘company guys’ – and were key players in helping the company win. Now they have the
‘pro union’ supporters from FS laughing at them – telling them ‘we told you so.’
The email goes on to state that the techs stated that they were not sure what is next and
that the “company” OSP techs feel that Cablevision has turned its back on them and that they
are not valued anymore from a leadership position in the shop.
Former OSP Supervisor Reid testified about meetings and conference calls held on April 3
and 4 at the Brush Avenue depot regarding union activity at that facility. On April 3, Reid
attended a meeting of all of the daytime OSP supervisors conducted by Director of Technical
Operations Kennedy. Kennedy discussed technical matters relating to the OSP operation and
then asked whether anyone had “heard anything or seen anything?” Supervisor Carasquillo
stated that he had heard that Felix “is going around asking guys if they want to join a union.”
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
Later that day, Reid was instructed to attend a conference call with Executive VP of Field
Operations Monopoli, which he participated in from Supervisor Vanderbilt’s office. The topic of
discussion was the Union. Thereafter, Reid was informed that there would be a meeting at 7:30
am o the following morning. This meeting was held in the main conference room at Brush
Avenue. Also present were Supervisors Brady and Isaacs, Director of Human Resources
Reyes, Human Resources Manager Grella, Director of Area Technical Operations Kennedy and
Monopoli.
Grella gave the supervisors two documents: one was a letter from executive Vice-
President of Operations Comstock urging employees not to sign authorization cards for Local 3
IBEW. This letter, among other things, stated that Cablevision has “been told union organizers
from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) may have been approaching
Cablevision employees in the Bronx about signing union authorization cards.” The letter goes on
advise employees that such cards are binding legal documents which are enforceable during
the life of a union’s organizing drive; that by signing a card employees may forfeit their right to
vote in a secret ballot election; that there are no automatic improvements just because someone
signs a card; that signing a card could “expose you to the risks of collective bargaining”; that
employees could end up with the same or less as a result of good faith negotiations and that
unions such as the IBEW have lost thousands of members and “would like nothing more than
[improving] their finances by getting your union dues.” The letter concludes by stating “we urge
you not to make a commitment to a union which you may later regret, based solely on the
union’s propaganda” (emphasis in original). It has not been alleged that any of the statements
set forth in this letter are unlawful.
The other document was an “awareness letter” addressed to supervisors setting forth
“dos and don’ts regarding the union.” Reid testified that Monopoli stated that he had been
brought there for this type of situation and told Supervisor Isaacs that he needed to talk to Felix
because the guys did not know what they were doing. The supervisors were instructed to
distribute the Comstock letter to their teams and report back with their reactions. Grella, Reyes,
Monopoli and other members of management met with the supervisors in groups later that day
to hear reports regarding their discussions with team members.
Later that day on April 4, Reid was called into a meeting with the Director of OSP Torres
and the other supervisors, except for Vanderbilt. Torres explained that the purpose of the
meeting was to ascertain whether, if the election were to be held that day, where everyone
stood: i.e. who was a “yes,” who was a “no” and who was on the “fence”. Torres went through a
list of OSP technicians and asked the supervisors to identify pro-company employees as
“Yankees,” pro-union employees as “Red Sox” and those on the fence as “Mets.” In all, the
supervisors identified 27 “Red Sox,” 9 “Yankees” and 16 “Mets”. The pro-union supporters
included Murray, Paez, Garcia, Lajara, Roberts and Vetrano.
On April 21, an employee named James Jones sent an e-mail to CEO James Dolan
complaining of issues that were “negatively affecting” the [Bronx OSP] department. Among
other things Jones complained of a decline in morale; unfair treatment of some team members
and lack of communication. The email additionally made favorable reference to a prior visit by
Kapell:
A few weeks ago we were fortunate to have had Miss Sandy Kapell visit us, that was so
good to have some one from the corporate office visiting us, but I think an immediate
solution could be to rotate the personnels (this seems to be the general sense) that had
brought with them it would seem the same methods that had push the workforce in
Brooklyn to bring in an outside group in the form of a union to help them.
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
A copy of this communication was sent to Kapell, Pillai, Hilber and Rob Comstock who
agreed to schedule visits to the Bronx based upon a promise that had made to employees that
they would visit regularly.
As all this was occurring, sometime in March, Murray and Felix decided to contact the
Union. Murray made a call, there was no answer and he left a message. Murray testified that he
attempted to reach the Union on several other occasions but never spoke with anyone from the
IBEW. He further testified that he had an informal meeting with several other employees to
discuss arranging a meeting with the Union. Former OSP Supervisor Reid testified that Murray
informed him that he intended to “reach out to Local 3 IBEW.” Ultimately, Murray’s attempts to
contact the Union proved to be unsuccessful.
Harassment Allegations and Cablevision’s Investigation
On April 23, two OSP Technicians, Amerigo Rodriguez and Derrick Gill, hand delivered
a letter of complaint drafted by attorney Robert Laureano to Regional VP for Field Operations
Monopoli and Regional Director of Outside Plant Department Kennedy. The letter asserted that
Laureano was writing on behalf of a few anonymous employees who had been subject to
threatening and physically aggressive behavior by OSP Technician Nick Felix. In particular, it
was claimed that Felix had engaged in:
Punching an employee in the ribs and shoulder area, forcefully jabbing his two fingers in
the torso and rib area of another [employee], physically picking up a supervisor off the
ground by grabbing him below the waist and placing another employee in a chokehold
causing him to gasp for air.
The letter concluded by saying that Felix’s actions were “not isolated and have created
an ‘unsafe and hostile work environment. . .’” and demanded that Cablevision “take . . .
immediate and swift action before . . . [a] tragedy occurs. . .”
The letter was forwarded to Grella who, in in turn discussed it with Hilber. Felix was
suspended pending an investigation and Hilber instructed Grella to investigate the allegations.
Grella therefore scheduled interviews with employees and supervisors in the Bronx OSP
Department and beginning on April 24, Grella interviewed approximately 45 OSP technicians
and 5 supervisors asking questions and taking notes on their responses to a series of questions
drafted with input from Hilber concerning threatening or aggressive conduct witnessed or
directly experienced by them in the workplace. As Grella testified, many of the employees she
spoke with were aware of, witnessed or had been subject to inappropriate conduct on the behalf
of Felix. In sum, over half the individuals interviewed reported either being direct victims of
Felix’s verbally and physically aggressive conduct or witnessing such conduct. Several
employees told Grella that they had observed or experienced Felix engage in inappropriate
physical or intimidating conduct including placing employees and Supervisor Reid in a choke
hold, aggressively poking an employee in the chest and ribs with his fingers, and picking up
Reid and slamming him into a wall. One employee reported an incident where, after spilling ink
on his pants, Felix began punching walls and kicking garbage pails. Employees specifically
named by Grella included Antonio Rosado, Amerigo Rodriguez, Derrick Gill, Andres Garcia,
(Supervisor) Donovan Reid, Tanesha Mozon, and Carmelo Acevedo.
Other employees reported that they heard that Felix had brought a machete to work and
threatened another employee with it. A machete was found in Felix’s Cablevision vehicle when it
was searched. Another employee claimed that Felix had shown him a gun, and there were
rumors to such effect. Felix allegedly also had a confrontation with a female employee,
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
consisting of jabbing her in the ribs, slamming her desk, and cursing and yelling at her, causing
a security guard to investigate the situation. Grella was told that Reid, and other supervisors,
were aware of Felix’s behavior but had done nothing to correct it due to their personal
relationships with him. In particular, Reid told Grella that Felix had picked him off the ground,
slammed him into a wall in front of other employees and placed him a choke hold. Reid
acknowledged he had a personal relationship outside of work and characterized Felix’s behavior
as horseplay.
Murray and Paez both had interviews which, according to their testimony, were short in
duration. This is confirmed by the notes Grella took while speaking with them. Paez told Grella
that he did not recall any recent incidents, and Murray reported that he had witnessed horseplay
but not to the extent of it being a problem. He additionally reported witnessing profanity. Garcia
recorded his meeting with Grella and it was significantly longer than those reported by the other
Charging Parties. Garcia described two incidents with Felix in or about the summer of 2013,
shortly after he transferred to the night shift. He described how Felix placed him in a choke hold
and he further described a heated argument in the field that had prompted him to request a
transfer back to the mid-shift, where he had previously worked.
Grella asked Garcia generally whether he felt that the HR department had failed to be
responsive to other situations he had brought to their attention. Garcia responded that HR had
failed to respond to his request that he be moved to a position that would not require him to
drive or be up at heights on a ladder or in the bucket of a truck due to an ongoing vertigo
condition. Grella mentioned that an inside plant position in the Bronx would be coming available
in a few weeks and there was a current opening in New Jersey. Garcia replied, “I’ve been [in the
Bronx] my entire career and would like to die here.” Garcia also indicated, however, that he was
interested in a position in Stratford, Connecticut in an “inside department” which did not require
driving, climbing ladders or getting into the bucket of a truck.
Grella testified that at the conclusion of her investigation she reported her findings and
recommendations to Company counsel and members of upper management. It was decided
that Felix and Reid would be discharged Supervisors Isaacs and Brady were issued final
warnings for their failure to address the situation and were transferred to Huntington Heights,
NY and Bethpage, NY, respectively. A third supervisor, Mike Mollica, had already applied for a
transfer and left the Bronx depot in June. Supervisor Vanderbilt was given additional training
through a Development Plan to improve the performance of his supervisor duties. In addition,
Amerigo Rodriquez, one of the most vocal victims of Felix’s aggression, was voluntarily
transferred to Wappinger’s Falls, NY.8
In addition, Cablevision involuntarily transferred the six technicians named in the
complaint. Paez was transferred from Brush Avenue to Litchfield Connecticut; Murray was
transferred to Norwalk, Connecticut; Vetrano was transferred to Mamaroneck in Westchester
County; Garcia was transferred to Stamford, Connecticut and Roberts and Lajara were
transferred to a depot in Yonkers, New York. Generally, Grella testified that the involuntary
transferees were selected through a series of conference calls by a group of people that
included herself, Director of HR Reyes, SVP of HR Hilber, VP of Field Operations Monopoli,
Director of Area Technical Operations Kennedy, VP of technical Operations Riley, Senior VP of
Field Operations Kaplan and Senior VP of Network Management and Operations Pillai. By May

8 Rodriguez, one of the employees who delivered the original complaint in the April 23 letter, had
asked to be transferred out of the Bronx during the investigation. However, Cablevision subsequently
denied his request to be returned to the Bronx.
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
5, the identities of those selected for transfer were known but the locations to which they were to
be transferred had not been finalized.
As a general matter, Respondent argues that the two terminations, that of Felix and
Reid, were insufficient to address the problems in the Bronx OSP in that they would not address
employee perceptions that such behavior would be tolerated or that they could not report such
problems to management. In this regard, Cablevision has a Harassment Prevention Policy and
another entitled “Sexual and Other Harassment and Discrimination are Prohibited.” As
Respondent argues, the transfers of the seven technicians and three supervisors both altered
the Bronx OSP workforce and gave the transferred employees a “fresh start” at other locations.9
Hilber testified that the decision to involuntarily transfer the 6 OSP technicians was
prompted by the conclusion that:
In general terms we’ve found this really bad behavior taking place, especially with Nick
Felix. But there’s an overall theme within OSP as a whole that the department had sort
of detonated, for lack of a better phrase. They were managing their own culture and
taking their own course of actions without engaging the appropriate channels within the
business.
With regard to the specific decision to transfer the OSP techs, Hilber testified:
The overall environment within the OSP Team in the Bronx was -- these are my words –
disgraceful. The – I used the phrase before – people went sort of native and they were
making their own decisions. The lack of -- the complete acceptance of events, coercion,
physical intimidation was – as far as I’m concerned – out of control and we needed to
take serious actions because we needed it.
In response to a question from Respondent’s counsel, Hilber testified that he
“absolutely” did not consider the transfers to be disciplinary measures. He continued:
[w]e had a work group that needed to be broken up. People needed to get an
opportunity to – and I’ve used the phrase in the past – to get a fresh start, not as it
relates to our Fresh Start Program, but fresh start, a clean page to start anew and
recognize that sometimes when you’re in a group environment with employees you need
to change the dynamic and quite frankly the people to start thinking differently and
managing through our policies and our values.
Hilber testified that he participated in the decision about where employees would be
transferred “to some extent,” and stated generally that Respondent didn’t want to compel techs
to cross bridges so they looked at Cablevision facilities in the Hudson Valley and Connecticut.
Cablevision further considered those areas where there was work, and where the headcount
could be absorbed, and where the commute would not be overly burdensome. Grella testified
that there was “not really a specific conversation that was focused on who lives where per se. It
was part of the conversation, but it wasn’t that we mapped out the entire department.” When
asked how the Company identified those addresses that they would check, Grella replied, “We
looked at everyone’s addresses. We looked at everyone’s address from the perspective of – I’m

9 There is a limited history of involuntary transfers among Cablevision facilities. For example, when a
site was closed on the East End of Long Island, employees were moved to other locations. In addition,
Vanderbilt testified that he had been involuntarily transferred from Bethpage to Freeport.
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
fairly certain from the Bronx to their home. I don’t know – I don’t believe we looked at everyone
– well, I know we didn’t look at everyone, it was impossible, from their home to every location
that we would have transferred people.”10 According to Hilber, other management personnel
participating in the decision to transfer the OSP technicians were Director of Area Technical
Operations Kennedy and VP of Technical Operations Riley in consultation with Director of OSP-
Hudson Valley Jeff Stigers and SVP of Network Management and Operations Pillai.
Hilber testified that Paez was transferred to Litchfield to “reduce his commute” and that
Murray was transferred to Norwalk because he is “from Connecticut. So it wasn’t going to be a
hardship from the commute perspective.” Vetrano and Garcia were originally transferred to
Yorktown but then reassigned, Vetrano to Mamaroneck due to childcare requirements and
Garcia to Stamford because he had previously informed Grella he would be willing to go to that
location. Hilber testified that Roberts was transferred Yonkers because he would have a reverse
commute to his home in the Bronx.11
Hilber also offered some testimony as to why other technicians were not transferred.
Acevedo was on a leave of absence due to medical issues; Melendez was in the process of
seeking a transfer to another location and Melvin Encarnacion was not considered because
technically he was assigned to another department and thus not considered to be a part of the
”OSP environment.”
The Employee Transfers and Subsequent Events
On May 7, a meeting was held for all OSP technicians at the Brush Avenue facility.
Management present included Pillai, Riley, Monopoli and Torres. Technicians were advised that
as a result of the investigation, there were certain personnel changes in the offing: in particular,
certain terminations and transfers of employees.
At the conclusion of this group meeting, employees were called into individual meetings
conducted by Grella, Hilber, Pillai, Kennedy and other members of management.
Melvin Encarnacion, called as a witness by the General Counsel, testified that he met
with Hilber and Pillai in Kennedy’s office. Encarnacion had expressed a preference for a transfer
to Connecticut, as he resides there. He was not transferred. Encarnacion testified that Pillai told
him he “was one of the good guys,” although Hilber denied that Pillai made such a comment in
his presence.12
Murray and Paez both met, individually, with Hilber and Pillai. Murray testified that Pillai
told him that he was disappointed things that had been going on in the department, and that
none of this had been brought up before. Murray recalled Pillai stating that more than half the
department members were afraid to come to work. Hilber told Murray he was being transferred.

10 Personnel records show that Paez, Murray and Encarnacion live in Connecticut: in New Haven,
Bridgeport and Fairfield, respectively. Carlos Melendez, Carmelo Acevedo and Amerigo Rodriquez live in
Wingdale, New York and Vetrano lives in New Rochelle. Employees Julian Rock, Luis Maize and Profirio
Guzman-Martinez live in Yonkers. All the other OSP technicians that were employed at the Brush Avenue
facility on May 5 live in the Bronx.
11 In actuality, due to Roberts’ work shift, he is required to travel from his home in Yonkers to the
Bronx during the morning rush hour.
12 Encarnacion had been characterized by his supervisor as a “Met” – that is, on the fence with
regard to unionization
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
First, he inquired whether Murray lived in Bridgeport. Upon receiving an affirmative answer, he
handed Murray a paper containing the name of his new supervisor and was informed that
henceforth he would be reporting to Norwalk. Murray asked why he was being transferred and
Hilber replied that they were giving everyone a fresh start. Upon realizing that he was being
asked to leave the facility immediately, Murray mentioned his wife and son, with whom he
commuted from Connecticut and complained that he was not being given an opportunity to
make arrangements. Murray was instructed to take his personal vehicle and report to his new
work location. Security escorted him from the facility.
When Murray reported to his new work location, his supervisor there introduced himself
and stated that he had just found out about the transfer and offered Murray the option of staying
for the remainder of the day or going home and returning on the following day.
Paez similarly testified that he was escorted (by Torres and another supervisor) to a
meeting where Pillai and Hilber were waiting for him. Pillai told Paez that he was disappointed
that this had been going on for two years and no one had reported anything. Paez was asked
whether he lived in Connecticut and he replied in the affirmative. Paez was then informed that
he was being transferred to Litchfield, and given the name of his new supervisor at that location.
He was told that he was to report immediately. Paez informed the managers that he commuted
with his wife, who he drove to the Bronx. Paez was told that he could go to his new location and
check in, take the rest of the day off and return to the Bronx to pick up his wife. Paez was told
that he was being given a "fresh start.” Paez was escorted out of the facility by a safety
manager. Paez also testified that he was informed by his new supervisor that he had just
learned of the transfer.
Garcia’s transfer meeting was with Grella and Kennedy. He recorded it on his cell
phone. Upon learning that he was being transferred to Yorktown, Garcia complained that he had
been trying to get into an inside plant job or somewhere where he was not in the field, indicating
that Grella knew of such a request. Kennedy replied that neither he nor Grella had made the
decision, but that it was made by the “senior management team.” Grella also said the decisions
were made, in some instances, because of location resulting in shorter commutes. Garcia
stated that he lives “five minutes” from the Brush Avenue facility and stated that he felt he was
being punished. Grella assured him that he had done nothing wrong and then further stated that
the transfer had nothing to do with the investigation. Garcia raised the issue of whether he
would simply refuse the transfer, which he assumed would result in his discharge. He was
encouraged to accept the transfer and see how it worked out for him. At some point during this
interview, Garcia began crying and was told he could go home for the remainder of the day. He
was escorted from the facility by security.
On the following day, Garcia spoke again with both Kennedy and Grella and they
provided him with certain transfer options, and he elected to go to Stamford, where he had
previously worked on a temporary assignment.
Shortly after his transfer, Paez spoke with Hilber about the difficulties posed by his
transfer because his wife, with whom he commuted, does not regularly drive. One day shortly
after the transfer, Paez had arrived at work upset because his wife had to drive in the rain. His
new supervisor, Ben Spielman, allowed Paez to take a personal day to return to Brush Avenue
to speak with the HR department regarding his concerns. Prior to leaving the office he called
Reyes, who was not in, and left a message. As Paez was proceeding toward home, where he
planned to change prior to going to the Bronx, Spielman called him and told him that he could
not go to the Bronx because as a Connecticut tech, he had to report to Connecticut HR.
Spielman then gave Paez Hilber’s phone number.
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
Paez then spoke with Hilber and requested that he be transferred to a location that
would allow him to commute, at least in part, with his wife from their home in New Haven,
Connecticut. According to Hilber, Paez contacted him and told him he was upset with the
transfer because he had commuted to the Bronx with his wife and the transfer had a significant
impact on his personal routine. According to Hilber, Paez stated that his wife was unable to
drive. Hilber asked for medical documentation of that fact and Paez then acknowledged that
while his wife did have a license, she did not drive. Hilber replied that if Paez supplied the
requisite medical documentation, the situation would be reviewed. Hilber testified that Paez did
not contact him after that conversation.
On May 9, Hilber sent an email to Grella, Kennedy, Reyes and Vice President of
Technical Operations Lou Riley containing the following message:
Bernie called me today and asked to move to a city environment . . . He asked about
Bridgeport, Stamford, etc. Any thoughts?
Riley replied:
Stamford could be a possibility its about 40 miles from his house. Norwalk is out Paul is
there. Bridgeport is about 20 miles from his house.
My concern is if we move him are we going to get the other guys calling. On Friday Paul
Murray spoke with HR and went home because he was upset, is he waiting to see what
happens with Bernie request!13
I don’t think we should be giving into these guys they were moved for a reason… Just
my thoughts.
Hilber replied that he would advise Paez that Litchfield would remain his assignment and
he could post for other positions as they became available.
Garcia testified that during the time he worked at Stamford,14 he contacted Stigers to
see if he could keep his assigned vehicle at the Bronx depot when he was on stand-by and told
that he could not. Garcia explained that a stand-by assignment meant he may be called into
work at any time and that it would have been easier for him to respond to such calls if he could
pick up his truck in the Bronx—“five minutes” – from his house and head out to a trouble spot
from there. Stigers replied that Garcia could leave his truck in either Mamaroneck or Yonkers,
but not the Bronx. Stigers testified that he had staff in the other locations, but the Bronx was out
of his area.
III. Analysis and Conclusions
The Section 10(b) Issue
Respondent contends that the complaint allegations regarding the transfers of Lajara,
Vetrano and Roberts should be dismissed prior to any consideration of the merits because the
transfers of these individuals were not included in a timely filed charge. In this regard, Garcia did
not amend his charge to include these individuals until he filed a second amended charge
March 16, 2015, well after the 10(b) period had run. Counsel for the General Counsel argues

13 Murray testified that, at the time, had been commuting with his wife and son, who attended day
care in the Bronx.
14 Garcia testified that in May 2015, he was “let go for medical reasons.”
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
that the amendment is not time-barred because the allegations are closely related to the
allegations of the original charge, as they arose contemporaneously out of the same factual
circumstances and as part of a single course of conduct. In support of the foregoing
contentions, General Counsel relies primarily upon on Redd-I, 290 NLRB 1115 (1988).
Section 10(b) provides that “no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor
practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge.” Moreover, it is
understood that the 10(b) period begins “when a party and ‘clear and unequivocal’ notice of a
violation of the Act. Broadway Wolkswagen, 342 NLRB 1244, 1246 (2004). Respondent argues
that the record shows that Garcia was aware in May 2014 that Lajara, Vetrano and Roberts had
been transferred because he spoke with them and with other technicians about the transfers.
Because no charge had been filed within six months of that date, Respondent argues, those
aspects of the complaint as relates to these employees must be dismissed.
In agreement with the General Counsel, I conclude that the allegations of the complaint
as they relate to Lajara, Vetrano and Roberts are not time-barred.
A complaint is not restricted to the precise allegations of a charge. A complaint may also
allege matters related to and growing out of the charged conduct. NLRB v. Fant Milling Co., 360
NLRB 301, 309 (1959). The test is stated in Redd-I, supra at 1115-1116 (1988). In applying the
applicable test the Board considers:
If a charge was filed and served within six months after the violations alleged in the
charge, the complaint (or amended complaint), although filed after the six months, may
allege violations not alleged in the charge if (a) they are closely related to the violations
named in the charge and (b) occurred within six months before the filing of the charge.
In evaluating whether the allegations are “closely related” under Redd-I, the Board considers:
(1) Whether the untimely allegation involves the same legal theory as the timely charge;
(2) Whether the untimely allegation arises from the same actual circumstances or
sequence of events as the untimely charge; and
(3) Whether the respondent would raise the same or similar defenses to the allegations.
See also Nickles Bakery of Indiana, 296 NLRB 927, 927-928 (1989)
In the instant case, the requirements of Redd-I and its progeny have been met. The
amended charge as filed by Garcia contains allegations which involve the same legal theory as
the allegations in the pending timely charge; the allegations arise from the same factual
circumstances and sequence of events and (as will be discussed in further detail below) it is
apparent that Respondent has raised a similar defense to the allegations. I conclude, therefore,
that the allegations of the complaint as they relate to Lajara, Vetrano and Roberts are not time-
barred.
The Wright Line Analysis
The General Counsel alleges that in the instant case, the Charging Parties and the three
additional transferees are alleged to have engaged in both union activity and perceived union
activity, and other concerted, protected conduct, and that this was a motivation behind
Respondent’s decision to involuntarily transfer them to other work locations. Respondent
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
counters that the transfers had nothing to do with any real or perceived activities protected by
Section 7 of the Act. Rather, the transfers were a legitimate, business-driven response to
allegations of inappropriate conduct and unsafe work environment that were first brought to
Respondent’s attention by a letter sent by Attorney Laureano, and subsequently confirmed as a
result of Respondent’s investigation of the allegations. Respondent contends that the transfers
of the six employees at issue here were not intended as a disciplinary measure, but were rather
a component of the various measures taken to improve the workplace environment in the Bronx
OSP department.
In cases turning on motivation, whether the allegations stem from Section 8(a)(3) or
8(a)(1) of the Act, the Board applies the analysis set forth in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083, 1089
(1980), enfd., 62 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved in NLRB
v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 NLRB 393 (1989).
Under the foregoing analysis, the General Counsel has the initial burden to show that
union activity was a substantial or motivating reason for the employer’s action. “The elements
commonly required to support a finding of unlawful motivation are union activity, the employer’s
knowledge of that activity and evidence of animus.” Hawaiian Dredging Construction Co., 362
NLRB No. 10, slip op. at 3 (2015). The same analytical framework applies in those situations
where the alleged discriminatees are alleged to have engaged in conduct otherwise protected
by the Act. Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB No. 10 (2014).
Union or other Protected Activity and Knowledge (or Suspicion) Thereof
Knowledge of an employee’s union, or other concerted protected activity may be
established by reasonable inference. Windsor Convalescent Center of North Long Beach, 351
NLRB 975, 983 fn. 36 (2007), enfd. in relevant part, 570 F.3d 354 (D. C. Cir 2009). It has also
been established that circumstantial evidence including the timing of alleged discriminatory
actions and the submission of pretextual reasons in support of it will support a finding of
employer knowledge even in the absence of direct evidence of such. See La Gloria Oil & Gas
Co., 337 NLRB 1120, 1123 (2002), affd. 71 Fed. Appx. 41 (5th Cir. 2003). As is relevant to this
case, the Board has held that a supervisor’s knowledge of union activities is imputed to an
employer absent a credible denial of such knowledge. See State Plaza, Inc., 347 NLRB 755,
756-757 (2006).
From the earliest days of the Board’s jurisprudence, it has been recognized that an
employer’s transfer of employees may constitute an unfair labor practice when it is intended to
dissipate or frustrate a union organizing drive or other concerted, protected activities on the part
of employees. See e.g. Empire District Electric Co., 21 NLRB 605 (1940); Lees-Bardner Co., 40
NLRB 1173, 1174 (1942). In Daylight Grocery Co., 147 NLRB 733, 738 (1964), the most active
union supporter, was transferred from the meat department of one of the respondent's stores to
the grocery department of another store. The transfer did not involve any change in pay.
Because there was proof of respondent's union animus, the administrative law judge found that
the transfer of the employee to grocery work was in reprisal for his union activity, and
presumably in the expectation that he would be less effective in promoting the union among the
meat department employees in a different store. In Triangle Publications, Inc., 204 NLRB 651
(1973), the Board agreed with the administrative law judge that the transfers of an employee
from the respondent's New Jersey plant to its New York City plant to frustrate union
organizational efforts violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. In Overload Hauling, Inc., 194 NLRB
1146 (1972), the Board found that by transferring two employees “from Respondent's Ocoee,
Florida, terminal to an operation at Immokalee, Florida, for a period of approximately 8 weeks in
order to isolate said employees from other of Respondent's employees, and to prevent them
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
from engaging in organizing activities in support of the Union, Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.”
In the present case, the evidence establishes that in 2013 and early 2014 Respondent
made changes to terms and conditions of employment which employees perceived as being
adverse to their interests. In November 2013, it was noted, as set forth in detail above, that
“some of the usual union promoters” were asking questions about such changes. There is
evidence that employees discussed these changes among themselves and, to a limited extent,
with supervisory personnel; in particular – as the evidence reflects – by Murray. By 2014,
Respondent was monitoring its workforce for signs of unionization. This is apparent from the
internal memoranda distributed by Comstock to two Cablevision officials summarizing what
Respondent knew about union activity in Newark, New Jersey and the Bronx. In this latter
location, overt messages expressing support for unionization were reported as having been
expressed at an employee-management meeting; one of which was left by Lajara and
discussed at the meeting, with Vetrano’ s apparent support. As Murray, testified, he was
approached after this meeting by Kennedy, who had convened the meeting, asking what could
be done better.
Other memoranda tracking pro-union sentiment (or employee dissatisfaction with
changes to terms and conditions of employment) ensued. On March 31, after a meeting with
certain employees (only one of which – Garcia—is an alleged discriminatee here), Kennedy
wrote that, “the group is ready to go to war. They said the CWA is not for them but the group is
ready to go across the river to Local 3 IBEW.” Another memorandum noted that members of the
OSP who felt that they had supported the Cablevision during the prior campaign involving the
CWA were being laughed at for being “company guys.”
Respondent’s awareness of union activity at its Bronx facility is further evinced by a
ramping up of its efforts to educate its supervisory personnel on the “do’s and don’t’s” and how
to communicate its thoughts regarding unionization to employees.
At a meeting convened with supervisory personnel on April 3, Director of OSP Torres
created a list reflecting the supervisors’ assessment of employee union sentiments. All six of the
alleged discriminatees were among the group of technicians identified as “Red Sox” – those
who supported unionization.15 Thus, not only is there testimony that the supervisors’ knowledge
of employee union sentiment was communicated to upper management at the time, but as a
matter of law such knowledge is imputable to Respondent generally absent evidence to show to
the contrary. State Plaza, supra; Pinkerton’s Inc., 295 NLRB 538 (1989). Here, there is no such
evidence to refute such a conclusion.
In addition to Respondent’s suspicions and monitoring of union activity, as noted above,
there is some evidence of more generalized concerted, protected conduct. Thus, Murray
testified that he stated his concerns about the elimination of the Cash Balance plan to his
supervisor Brady during a team meeting in about March. Garcia participated in an extended
colloquy on this issue with Kapell during a March meeting of OSP technicians and supervisors.
Even though these comments were made by a single employee, the fact that they occurred at
general meetings of other workers and concerned themselves of matters of interest to all,

15 If not known to the reader, it should be noted that the Bronx, where the Brush Avenue facility is
located, is also where the Yankees have their home stadium. The Mets’ home is in the borough of
Queens, also part of New York City. It is also widely acknowledged that the Red Sox, housed in Boston
Massachusetts, are traditional adversaries of the Yankees.
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
supports the conclusion that such comments were of a concerted nature. Whittaker Corp., 289
NLRB 933, 934 (1988). For similar reasons, I additionally find that Lajara and Vetrano were
engaged in concerted activity when they spoke at the March 12 meeting with Kennedy about
safety issues – in particular the requirement that they perform electrical work which they felt
they were not qualified to do.
Evidence of Animus
At the hearing in this matter, General Counsel requested that I admit into evidence a
lengthy excerpt from the underlying transcript of the case heard by Judge Steven Fish in CSC
Holdings, LLC and Cablevision Systems Corporation, Case 29-CA-097013 et al,16 and consider
his findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law to establish background evidence of union
animus. I declined General Counsel’s invitation to directly impute animus from the findings
made by Judge Fish in that matter, and the proffered material was the rejected exhibit file.
Although some of the findings made by Judge Fish in that matter involve charges filed
and alleged unfair labor practices occurring in the Bronx, most of them concern themselves with
the CWA’s organizing at Cablevision’s Brooklyn facility and occurred some time prior to the
events in question here. The hearing in that matter was based upon charges initially filed on
January 24, 2013 and amended thereafter on various dates. The hearing on all the charges,
amended charges and consolidated proceedings was conducted on numerous dates between
September and December 2013. I further note that since the hearing in the instant matter,
subsequent to the issuance of Judge Fish’s decision, the Charging Party (the CWA) and the
Respondent submitted a Motion for Approval of Non-Board Settlement Agreement and Remand
to the Regional Director for Appropriate Action. This Motion was approved by unpublished Order
of the Board dated July 14, 2016.17 Thus, absent some unanticipated difficulty with the
settlement, the Board will not be issuing a ruling on Judge Fish’s recommended decision and
order.
In sum, due to the passage of time, various differences in location and supervisory
personnel, the nature of the union activity involved, the scope and nature of the alleged unfair
labor practices, and the fact that it is unlikely that the Board will ever consider and issue a ruling
in Case 29-CA-097013 et al., I find it appropriate to rely primarily upon the evidence adduced by
the General Counsel in the instant matter to consider the elements of General Counsel’s prima
facie case.
Respondent argues that there is no evidence of animus here, and that whatever
statements it disseminated to employees, or are reflected in their internal memoranda are
statements that are not violative of the Act. Rather, it is argued that these statements
disseminated to supervisory personnel were instructions as to how to comply with the Act and
the material distributed to employees were well within the scope of permissible communications.
While it is the case that there are no independent allegations of Section 8(a)(1) here, the
Board has noted that it has found that an employer’s expression of views or opinions against a

16 Consolidated with cases 02-CA-085811, 02-CA-090823, 29-CA-097557, 29-CA-100175 and 29-
CA-110974.
17 The Board’s Order addressed the proposed settlement of two other administrative proceedings
involving this same Respondent. These are 29-CA 134419 et al. (including 29-CA-135428, 29-CA-
135822, 29-CA-136512, 29-CA-136759, 29-CA-137214, 29-CA-142425) and 29-CA-154544 (heard by
the undersigned).
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
19
union, which cannot be deemed a violation in and of itself, can nonetheless be used as
background evidence of antiunion animus on the part of the employer. See Affiliated Foods,
Inc., 328 NLRB 1107 (1999); Lampi, LLC, 327 NLRB 222, enf. denied 240 F.2d 931 (11th Cir.
2001) and Gencorp, 294 NLRB 717 fn. 1 (1989). For example, in Overnite Transportation Co.,
335 NLRB 372, 375 (2001), the Board found that a statement in a company handbook that “this
Company values union-free working conditions” evinced an anti-union motive on the part of the
respondent. Similarly in Affiliated Foods, Inc., supra, the Board found evidence of animus where
the handbook described the respondent as a “union free organization” and expressed the view
that “a union would be of no advantage to any of us … (and) would hurt the business on which
we all depend for our livelihoods.”
Here, I find that Respondent’s letter to employees urging them to refrain from making a
commitment to a union, which they may later regret, constitutes some evidence of its
institutional anti-union position. This conclusion is buttressed by the various internal memoranda
circulated among various supervisory and managerial personnel, as have been set forth above,
as well as by the apparent vigilance with which union sentiment among employees was tracked,
in particular in March and April, just prior to the transfers. I further infer animus from the
seemingly trivial, but not insignificant, characterization of those employees believed to support
unionization as “Red Sox,” as is obvious, not members of the “home team.”18
I further find evidence of animus in Vice President of Technical Operations Riley’s
response upon learning that Paez had requested a subsequent transfer to another location in
Connecticut. Even though Riley had identified certain locations to which Paez could be
relocated, he replied, “I don’t think we should be giving into these guys [ ] they were moved for a
reason.” If openings were available at other facilities, the transfers were non-disciplinary in
nature, and the purpose was to give employees a “fresh start” as has been asserted, it remains
unexplained why Respondent could not make a reasonable attempt to accommodate an
employee for whom the transfer caused family hardship. What was the “reason” for such an
abject refusal? Absent any explanation, I conclude that the “reason” was a discriminatory one.
Other than the above, I find that there is little direct evidence which would demonstrate
anti-union sentiment in the record. I find this less than surprising, however, given the extensive
litigation to which the Respondent had been subject (as has been noted above) and my
certainty that the various factors for establishing a prima facie case under Board law were
certainly well known and studied by their highly able and talented representatives and, as the
evidence reflects, communicated to their supervisory and managerial personnel.
Thus, it remains to be seen whether there is sufficient basis to further find, by inference,
that there is animus toward union or other concerted, protected activities on the part of
Respondent.
It is well established that a discriminatory motive may be inferred from circumstantial
evidence and the record as a whole, and that direct evidence is not required. See Sunshine
Piping, Inc., 351 NLRB 1371, 1390 (2007); Tubular Corp. of America, 337 NNLRB 99 (2001)
(and cases cited therein). Such circumstantial evidence may include including suspicious timing,

18 There are numerous Board cases where it has been found that the use of “code words” to
designate union supporters constitutes evidence of unlawful motivation. See e.g. KinderCare Learning
Centers, 299 NLRB 1171, 1175 fn. 27 (1990); Oak Ridge Hospital, 270 NLRB 918, 919
(1984)(“troublemaker”); Bronco Wine Co., 256 NLRB 53, 54 (1981)(“attitude”); Phillips Petroleum Co., 339
NLRB 916, 924-25 (2003)(“attitude,” “malcontent” and “political activist”).
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20
the lack of a plausible alternative or explanation or the finding that the reason given was
pretextual. Control Building Services, Inc., 337 NLRB 844, 845 (2002). Moreover, it has been
held that when the evidence establishes that the employer’s stated reasons for its actions are
pretextual, that is either false or not relied upon, a respondent will fail by definition to show that it
would have taken the same action absent the protected conduct. Limestone Apparel Corp., 255
NLRB 722, 722 (1981); Golden State Foods Corp., 340 NLRB 382, 385 (2003).
In addition to the direct evidence of animus noted above, I have concluded that in this
instance, there is other circumstantial evidence which establishes a discriminatory motive as to
the transfers of the six employees at issue here; in particular, evidence of pretext. The specifics
of this discussion are set forth in detail below, where I evaluate the merits of Respondent’s
proffered defenses to the allegations of the charges.
Based upon the foregoing, I find that the General Counsel has established the elements
of a prima facie case that the transfers of Garcia, Murray, Paez, Vetrano, Roberts and Lajara
were motivated, at least in part, by their actual or perceived union or other concerted, protected
activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. It now falls to Respondent to show, by
a preponderance of the credible, probative evidence that it would have taken such action
notwithstanding any conduct protected by the Act.
Respondent’s Asserted Defenses
The Respondent argues in the first instance that the General Counsel failed to produce
any evidence that Cablevision was aware that the three Charging Parties were union
supporters. Respondent further argues that events which occurred at organizing efforts which
occurred more than two years prior to the relevant events here are not relevant. In this regard, it
is argued that Cablevision was not aware of any protected activity allegedly engaged in by the
six transferees at any point close in time to the May 2014 transfers.
These contentions are belied by the record evidence, set forth above, which shows that
in April, within a month of their transfers, these individuals were identified as union supporters,
or at the least as those who would be interested in unionization, by their immediate supervisors
to company management. And, as discussed above, I have failed to find a sufficient evidentiary
basis to conclude that knowledge of the union sentiments of the Charging Parties, and the three
other individuals named in the complaint, could or should not be imputed to Cablevision
management on whole.
Respondent’s arguments generally are framed in terms of a more typical union
campaign, where there may be outspoken supporters, or individuals believed to be the impetus
for a nascent organizing drive. That is not what happened here: rather, it is apparent from the
record evidence that based upon what had occurred previously in the Bronx, and at its Brooklyn
facility, Respondent had been monitoring employee sentiment in an effort to forestall another
organizing effort. Respondent cannot reasonably deny that this was the case as it is evident
from the internal memoranda noted above that high-level managerial personnel were
communicating with each other regarding the discussions held with employees regarding their
dissatisfaction with changes to their terms and conditions of employment and views regarding
unionization. Moreover, while none of the six employees at issue here were proven to be
“ringleaders” of any organizing activity, discriminatory conduct which affects employees based
upon their real or supposed union sympathies, no matter how embryonic, is conduct which
violates the Act. There is no mandatory threshold for protection as long as it is shown that
protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in an employer’s decision. See e.g.
McLane Western, Inc., 251 NLRB 1396, 1398 fn. 11, 1403 (1980).
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
21
Respondent further argues that the General Counsel’s reliance upon former Supervisor
Reid’s testimony was misplaced inasmuch as he was discharged by the company for
misconduct in connection with allegations of wrongdoing by Felix, and that he is obviously a
disgruntled former employee. I have carefully considered Reid’s testimony and having observed
his demeanor, do not agree with this assessment. While it may well be the case that Reid bears
ill will toward his former employer, this was not apparent from the manner in which he testified
which was free from exaggeration and, I note, largely corroborated by other testimony as well as
the documents adduced through subpoena by the General Counsel. On whole, I find Reid’s
testimony to be worthy of credit. Respondent has pointed to no specific testimony which it
contends should be rejected as abjectly false. Rather, Respondent attempts to characterize
Reid’s testimony in a light most favorable to its theory of the case insofar as it can be argued
that it demonstrates a lack of knowledge or animus. In this regard, a fair argument can be made
that Respondent has actually adopted Reid’s testimony in significant part. Specific examples
cited by Respondent include the meeting with Kennedy where Lajara acknowledging writing
“IBEW” on the white board. Respondent does not contend that this did not occur, but relies upon
Murray’s testimony that Kennedy stated he did not care who wrote it. Respondent further argues
that this conduct was too remote in time to prove discriminatory motive. Respondent also
contends that Reid’s testimony regarding the series of meetings held on April 3 and 4 fails to
establish that he told Cablevision about or that the Company was otherwise aware of union
support or activity by the six transferees. While Reid may not have testified that he specifically
identified these individuals in his reports to Torres and Grella, as noted above, I have rejected
Respondent’s contention that it was unaware of the union sympathies of these employees.
Respondent generally argues that the events testified to by Reid, which occurred in
early-April, are too remote in time to show that the May 7 transfers were motivated by them. In
this regard, Respondent notes that the transfers did not take place until after Grella concluded
the investigation prompted by the April 23 letter from attorney Laureano. As Respondent
argues: “[t]he investigation is the significant intervening event that makes all of the prior events
irrelevant in determining Cablevision’s motive for the transfers.” Respondent also relies upon
Hilber’s testimony that Cablevision did not consider whether any individual had engaged in
protected activity in making the decision to transfer the six employees. Respondent advances
several additional arguments. Initially, it points to the fact that other identified union supporters
were not transferred; that employees who spoke out in meetings held in 2013 or otherwise
expressed their concerns regarding their dissatisfaction with Cablevision’s changes in terms and
conditions of employment were not transferred; and that these statements, some occurring as
early as November 2013 were too remote in time to establish a prima facie case.
With regard to Respondent’s arguments regarding the selection of employees for
transfer, I note that the Board has acknowledged that an employer’s failure to discriminate
against all union supporters does not establish that its actions toward the few were lawfully
motivated. See e.g. The George A. Tomasso Construction Corp., 316 NLRB 738, 742 (1995);
Master Security Services, 270 NLRB 543, 582 (1984)(“an employer’s failure to eliminate all
union adherents does not prove that its actions towards a few were untainted by antiunion
bias”).
As noted above, Respondent argues that its stated preference that the company remain
nonunion does not constitute animus. In support of the foregoing contention, Respondent relies
upon E&I Specialists, Inc., 349 NLRB446, 450 (2007) and J.O Mory, Inc. 326 NLRB 604, 605
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
22
(1998).19
In E&I Specialists, supra, the complaint alleged that the respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by refusing to consider for hire or hiring 23 individuals because of their
union and/or concreted activity. The Board’s dismissal of the complaint centered on the
conclusion that the General Counsel had failed to provide evidence of animus sufficient to meet
its initial burden of proof. In that instance the Board found that the only evidence of animus was
that the individuals were not hired, that the respondent’s hiring practices were generally
standard and applied across the board, any deviances from that practice were minor and,
moreover, that there was evidence negating any proof of animus. That is not the case here,
where various factors suggest animus, as has been outlined above.
J.O. Mory, supra, similarly involved allegations of refusal to consider or failure to hire
employees for discriminatory reasons, and the Board dismissed the complaint for a failure to
prove animus. There, the Board relied upon the administrative law judge’s finding that the
respondent’s hiring practices were facially valid and reasonably and plausibly connected to
legitimate business concerns. It was also noted that the judge had found no independent
evidence of animus, but had relied upon a single unexplained variance from its hiring practices
to infer animus. The Board did not agree. The Board noted that the respondent had interviewed,
hired or attempted to hire known union supporters. More to the point made by Respondent, the
Board also found that a strong preference to remain nonunion is, standing alone, not sufficient
evidence of animus.
I find these cases to be distinguishable because, as has been noted above, I find that
there is some independent evidence of animus from the undisputed facts which does not rely
solely upon any inference I may otherwise draw. Moreover, as will be discussed below, I find
that Respondent’s proffered defense to the charges to be pretextual in large measure because
Respondent has failed to show why the transfer of the six specific individuals at issue here was
necessary or warranted to cure the devolution of workplace culture in the Bronx.
Respondent has advanced a number of arguments as to why there is no pretext here. In
particular, it rebuts arguments advanced by the General Counsel that it sought to isolate union
supporters; and asserts that its reasons for the transfers have been consistent and not shifting;
the fact that other employees living outside the Bronx were not transferred is not evidence of
pretext; that the logistics on the day of the transfers is not evidence of pretext; that certain
headcount and certification arguments seemingly advanced by the General Counsel during the
hearing do not evince pretext; that there was flexibility in making transfer decisions; and that the
General Counsel’s criticism of its legitimate decision is unfounded and it cannot prevail with
mere suspicion or disagreement about the decision to transfer employees. In this regard I note
that Board law is clear that an employer remains free to take nondiscriminatory actions with
regard to their employees for good cause. Nevertheless, it is also well recognized that the Act
recognizes that an employer may adopt the practice of “watchfully waiting” for a reason or
pretext that can be seized upon as a means of eliminating or dissipating union supporters
because of that support. See Kut Rate Kid, and Shop Kwik, 246 NLRB 106 (1970) (and cases
cited therein); NLRB v. Lipman Bros., Inc., 355 F.2d 15, 21 (1st Cir. 1966). That seems to me to
be precisely what occurred in this case: Respondent was the beneficiary of fortuitous timing.
I note that there is no evidence of an official involuntary transfer policy and that the

19 The other cases relied upon by Respondent are largely distinguishable on their facts, which hold
little application here.
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
23
evidence of such transfers presented by Respondent is sparse, vague, anecdotal and fairly
insignificant given the number of employees within the Cablevision footprint.20 Nonetheless, the
evidence is clear that Respondent was confronting serious allegations of workplace impropriety
and had to take some actions to confront and cure the situation at the Brush Avenue depot. In
this regard, I am cognizant that it is well established that the Board does not substitute its own
business judgment for that of the employer in evaluating whether conduct was unlawfully
motivated. Rather, the issue is whether the Respondent would have transferred the three
charging parties and the three other employees named in the complaint absent their protected
activity. Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278, 280 fn. 12 (1996), affd. mem. 127 F.3d 34 (5th Cir.
1997). Here, I find that the evidence proffered in support of the various contentions raised by the
Respondent is insufficient to meet its burden of proof to establish a non-discriminatory motive.
I note that while Respondent has argued that the transfers stemmed from the
conclusions drawn from the investigation from Felix’s misconduct, Garcia was specifically told
by Grella that his transfer had “nothing to do with the investigation.” No explanation was offered
by Grella during her testimony as to what else that rather obvious comment might have meant.
While several of the transferees acknowledged either having seen or heard of misconduct, so
too did over half of the OSP technicians interviewed. Garcia, in particular, described being
subject to two incidents involving Felix, but the fact is that he was proactive in requesting a shift
change to remove himself from that environment. As Grella was able to recall during her
testimony and is otherwise shown by notes she took of these interviews, a number of
employees who were not transferred described being subject to misconduct that they failed to
report,21 and others acknowledged having participated in activities viewed as inappropriate
while at work.22 I further note that among all of the named discriminatees, only Roberts worked
the same shift as Felix.
Respondent’s defense fails insofar as it attempts to portray its decision to transfer the six
employees as a benign one, designed to minimize the adverse impact to those employees. Two
employees, Murray and Paez, had family circumstances which made their transfers more
difficult for them. Other commutes increased in length, in particular that of Garcia’s, whose
medical difficulties were known to Respondent, and who lived only 5 minutes from the Brush
Avenue depot. And, while Respondent has maintained that the transfers were not meant to be
disciplinary in nature, it cannot be overlooked that the manner in which they were effectuated –
immediately and with accompaniment from the premises by security and/or supervisory
personnel – would seem to imply otherwise. Respondent has proffered neither evidence nor an
explanation for any neutral, non-discriminatory reasons as to why such harsh measures were
necessary or appropriate under the circumstances; particularly since the transferees were
assured that they were not being disciplined. This suggests an attempt to remove the
transferees from the facility so as to preclude them from discussing their circumstances with

20 When asked about involuntary transfers, Hilber responded: “we had a site closure out on the East
End of Long Island. It was the SRC. We moved people to various other goals. We had -- -- the old
dispatch function was broken into, RCC and VDO, we moved people to the – we moved people from
[Hauppauge] to Bethpage. And then we moved people from -- I’m sorry – from [Hauppauge] to Melville
and then we moved people later from Bethpage to [Hauppauge]. In response to an objection from
General Counsel relating to Respondent’s response to her subpoena on this issue, Respondent’s counsel
acknowledged that there previously had been only one involuntary transfer from the Bronx facility and the
others involved transfers among facilities located on Long Island.
21 According to Grella’s testimony and notes, these include employees Mouzon, Gill and Cespides.
22 Grella’s notes in this regard reference OSP technicians Acevedo, Borrero and Edwards, among
others.
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
24
their coworkers.
The transferees were also precluded from returning to Brush Avenue, further suggesting
an attempt to isolate them from remaining employees. Thus, when Paez requested a personal
day to return to Brush Avenue to speak with HR, permission was initially granted and then
denied by his new supervisor at Litchfield. Garcia was not allowed to park his truck at the Brush
Avenue facility despite the fact it is mere minutes from his home, thereby increasing his
response time to an emergency call.
In sum, I find that Respondent has failed to advance a credible, non-discriminatory
reason for its selection of the six employees named in the complaint for involuntary transfer.
Grella’s testimony about the specifics of the selection process (as opposed to its ultimate
conclusion and stated rationale), which has been set forth above, is unpersuasive. Grella initially
testified that there was no specific conversation as to who lived where; she then said that they
looked at everyone’s addresses from the perspective of the Bronx to their home; she then
testified that she didn’t know and didn’t believe they looked at everyone and that would have
been “impossible.” As Grella was the management representative primarily responsible for the
investigation, and was an admitted participant in the selection process, I would expect her to
have a more concrete, specific and informed basis to support Respondent’s assertions as to the
methodology by which they selected certain employees for transfer apart from others. Hilber, for
his part, who testified that he participated in the decision-making “to some extent,” shed no light
on the reasons for the selection of the six employees other than vague assertions (again,
conclusions but not evidence of process) that they did not want the resulting commutes to be
too onerous. And, as it turns out, it was in various ways more onerous for the employees who
testified here. Respondent counters that neither Paez nor Murray “presented a reason sufficient
for Cablevision to abandon its efforts to improve the work environment by taking the various
actions it had decided on, including transferring employees.” Nonetheless, Respondent has
failed to show or prove exactly why the specific transfer Murray, Paez (or any of the other four
employees) was deemed essential to improving the work environment in the Bronx, especially
since their involvement in any alleged misconduct by Felix was largely tangential, at most.23
In its post hearing brief, Respondent cites to Grella’s testimony that the other managers
involved in the decision to transfer the employees were Monopoli, Kennedy, Riley, Senior Vice
President of Field Operations Mike Kaplan, Pillai, Hilber and Reyes. As discussed above, I find
both Grella and Hilber to be less than persuasive in supporting Respondent’s case, and it does
not appear from their testimony that they had a definitive role. To the extent other managers had
input into this decision, I draw an adverse inference from Respondent’s failure to present
testimony from these individuals. The Board has found that “when a party fails to call a witness
who may reasonably be assumed to be favorably disposed to the party, an adverse inference
may be drawn regarding any factual question on which the witness is likely to have knowledge.”
International Automated Machines, 285 NLRB 1122, 1123 (1987), enfd. 861 F.2d (6th Cir.
1988). This is particularly true where the witness is the Respondent's agent. Roosevelt
Memorial Medical Center, 348 NLRB 1016, 1022 (2006).24 Moreover, an adverse inference is

23 As Respondent notes, it did exhibit flexibility in its approach to alleged discriminatees Vetrano and
Garcia who were allowed to move to locations other than those originally selected by Cablevision. The
circumstances involving Garcia are set forth above. Those involving Vetrano are not fully set forth herein.
Respondent asserts that its flexibility involving these two employees constitutes “powerful evidence for
the absence of unlawful motive.” Here, I cannot agree.
24 Respondent has denied the agency status of various individuals named in the complaint. I find
such denials to be frivolous. Under all the circumstances, I conclude that the individuals named as being
Continued
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
25
warranted by the unexpected failure of a witness to testify regarding a factual issue upon which
the witness would likely have knowledge. See Martin Luther King, Sr., Nursing Center, 231
NLRB 15, 15 fn. 1 (1977) (adverse inference appropriate where no explanation as to why
supervisors did not testify); Flexsteel Industries, 316 NLRB 745, 758 (1995) (failure to examine
a favorable witness regarding factual issue upon which that witness would likely have
knowledge gives rise to the “strongest possible adverse inference” regarding such h fact).
Given the General Counsel’s prima facie case, and the lack of a credible substantiated
defense to rebut it, I find that the evidence supports the conclusion that the involuntary transfers
of Garcia, Murray, Paez, Vetrano, Roberts and Lajara were because of their union or suspected
union activity or other concerted, protected conduct. There is insufficient evidence to meet
Respondent’s burden of proof to show a nondiscriminatory motivation as to why these six
individuals were selected for transfer. Rather, the single common denominator is their actual or
perceived union support and other conduct protected by the Act.
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent, CSC holdings, LLC and Cablevision Systems New York City Corporation is
an employer in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act
2. By involuntarily transferring Andres Garcia, Paul Murray, Bernard Paez, Mike Vetrano,
Ezequiel Lajara and Wayne Roberts from its Brush Avenue facility to other work
locations, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Respondent should be required to offer Murray, Paez,
Vetrano, Lajara and Roberts the opportunity to transfer back to its Brush Avenue facility, without
loss of seniority or other benefits. As noted above, Garcia is no longer employed by
Respondent.25 Should he seek to be reemployed, he should be provided the opportunity to
apply for employment at the Brush Avenue facility. Respondent should also be required to
reimburse all of the alleged discriminatees for any increase in transportation or other costs
associated with the involuntary transfers with interest computed as set forth in New Horizons,
283 NLRB 1173 (1987). Respondent should also be required to post the requisite Notice to
Employees.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended26
_________________________
part of the decision-making team as identified by Grella and set forth in Respondent’s brief are all agents
of Respondent.
25 The termination of Garcia’s employment was not alleged as an unfair labor practice.
Counsel for the General Counsel did not specifically address what remedy was being sought for
Garcia under these circumstances.
26 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.
Continued
JD(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
26
ORDER
The Respondent, CSC holdings, LLC and Cablevision Systems New York City
Corporation, Bronx, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
a. Involuntarily transferring its employees because of a belief that they have or
because they have engaged in union or other concerted, protected activities;
b. In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining or coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.

2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
a. Within 14 days of the Board’s Order, offer Paul Murray, Bernard Paez, Mike
Vetrano., Ezequiel Lajara and Wayne Roberts the opportunity to transfer back to
the Respondent’s Brush avenue facility without prejudice to their seniority or any
or rights or privileges previously enjoyed. Should Andres Garcia wish to apply for
employment with Respondent, he should be offered the opportunity to apply for
employment at the Brush Avenue facility.
b. Reimburse Garcia, Murray, Paez, Vetrano, Lajara and Roberts for any increased
commuting or other related costs associated with their involuntary transfers, with
interest.
c. 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 records, including an electronic
copy of such records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the
amount of reimbursement due under the terms of this Order.
d. Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Bronx, New York
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”27 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region [number], after being signed
by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
_________________________
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
27 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(NY)-37-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
27
Respondent 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 notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In addition to the
physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such
as by e-mail, posting on an intranet or internet site and/or other electronic means,
if the Employer customarily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that,
during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current
employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since May 7, 2014.
e. 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. September 23, 2016
____________________
Mindy E. Landow
Administrative Law Judge
JD(NY)-37-16
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT Involuntarily transfer our employees employees because they engage in or we believe that they
engage in union or other concerted, protected activities;
WE WILL NOT In any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Paul Murray, Bernard Paez, Mike Vetrano, Ezequiel Lajara and Wayne Roberts the opportunity to
transfer back to the our Brush Avenue facility without prejudice to their seniority or any or rights or privileges
previously enjoyed. Should Andres Garcia wish to apply for employment with Respondent, he will be offered the
opportunity to apply for employment at the Brush Avenue facility.
WE WILL Reimburse Garcia, Murray, Paez, Vetrano, Lajara and Roberts for any increased commuting or other
related costs associated with their involuntary transfers, with interest.
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC and CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW
YORK CITY CORPORATION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
26 Federal Plaza, Federal Building, Room 3614
New York, New York 10278-0104
Hours: 8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.
212-264-0300.
JD(NY)-37-16
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/02-CA-138301 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, 212-264-0346.