CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORPORATION

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 11, 2017

365 NLRB No. 68 (N.L.R.B. 2017)

365 NLRB No. 68
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
CSC Holdings, LLC and Cablevision Systems New York
City Corporation and Andres Garcia and Paul Murray
and Bernard Paez. Cases 02–CA–138301, 02–CA–
138302, and 02–CA–138303
May 11, 2017
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS PEARCE
AND MCFERRAN
On September 23, 2016, Administrative Law Judge
Mindy E. Landow issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the
General Counsel and the Charging Parties filed answer-
ing briefs, and the Respondent filed reply briefs. The
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting
brief, the Respondent filed an answering brief, and the
General Counsel filed a reply brief.1
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions,
cross-exceptions, and briefs and has decided to affirm the
judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions only to the
extent consistent with this Decision and Order, and to
adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth
in full below.3
The primary issue in this case is whether the judge cor-
rectly found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act by involuntarily transferring employ-
ees Andres Garcia, Paul Murray, Bernard Paez, Wayne
Roberts, Ezequiel Lajara, and Mike Vetrano because of
their union or suspected union activity and/or other pro-
tected concerted activity. For the reasons set forth be-
low, we affirm the judge’s conclusion.4

1 The Respondent has requested oral argument. The request is de-
nied as the record, exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs adequately
present the issues and the positions of the parties.
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
3 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Remedy and Order and
substitute a new notice in accordance with our decision in Kentucky
River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010), and to conform to the
judge’s findings and to the Board’s standard remedial language.
4 We affirm the judge’s finding that the allegations regarding Rob-
erts, Lajara, and Vetrano are not time barred under Sec. 10(b). The
Respondent transferred them within the 6-month period before the
timely charge regarding Garcia, Paez, and Murray, and the allegations
are closely related. See Redd-I, 290 NLRB 1115 (1988).
Facts
The Respondent provides cable television and com-
munications services at various locations throughout the
United States. The six discriminatees worked as outside
plant (OSP) technicians at the Respondent’s Bronx, New
York facility. After an unsuccessful 2012 organizing
campaign at the Bronx facility by the Communications
Workers of America (CWA) for separate units of OSP
technicians and field service (FS) technicians, the Re-
spondent closely monitored its employees for signs of
interest in unionization, as reflected by its repeated em-
ployee questioning and numerous internal communica-
tions.
In June 2013, Supervisor Ewan Isaacs questioned dis-
criminatee Murray about his union activity. Isaacs tele-
phoned Murray, asked where he was working, and drove
out to meet him in the field. Isaacs asked Murray
“what’s up with you and the union?” Isaacs then told
Murray that Executive Vice President (VP) of Field Op-
erations Barry Monopoli believed that Murray and dis-
criminatee Paez were “behind all of this.” Murray, who
was not an open union supporter or aware of organizing
at the time, replied, “I don’t know what you’re talking
about.”
The Respondent also tracked union sentiments ex-
pressed by OSP technicians at meetings held by Human
Resources (HR) Director Hector Reyes and HR Manager
Gina Grella. In a summary of a June 2013 meeting,
Reyes and Grella noted that an employee stated that “the
Union is gearing up” and that many wanted to sign au-
thorization cards. In an email to Director of Area Tech-
nical Operations Robert Kennedy, Reyes summarized a
September 2013 meeting in which employees—after
expressing numerous workplace concerns—stated “that
they are the reason the Union is not in the Bronx and
they want to be recognized and appreciated for their ef-
forts.” Reyes’ summary was circulated to multiple man-
agers, including Senior VP of HR Paul Hilber, VP of
Technical Operations Lou Riley, and Senior VP of Net-
work Management Operations Pragash Pillai.
Some of the discriminatees openly questioned the Re-
spondent’s changes to terms and conditions of employ-
ment. In late 2013 and early 2014,5 the Respondent an-
nounced that it would cease contributing to the Cash
Balance Pension Plan and change the manner in which
overtime would be calculated. Discriminatees Murray,

We find it unnecessary to pass on the General Counsel’s cross-
exception to the judge’s failure to find that the Respondent inde-
pendently violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by involuntarily transferring Garcia,
Murray, and Paez. An independent 8(a)(1) violation would be cumula-
tive of the 8(a)(3) finding and would not materially affect the remedy.
5 All subsequent dates are in 2014 unless otherwise indicated.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
Paez, and Garcia discussed these changes among them-
selves. And at team meetings in March and April, Garcia
questioned Executive VP of HR Sandy Kappell at length
about the elimination of the pension plan benefit and
Murray raised similar concerns to the OSP supervisors.
The Respondent responded to the threat of unioniza-
tion with mandatory “union awareness” meetings for
supervisory and managerial personnel, internal commu-
nications, and employee meetings where unionization
was discussed. On March 12, Executive VP of Opera-
tions Rob Comstock sent an email to the Respondent’s
official Kristin Dolan and Kappell entitled: “Union Ac-
tivity—Update,” reporting, in relevant part, that:
[E]mployee 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. . . . My sense is that the
threat is real, coming primarily from a portion of the
OSP techs who are the most long tenured employees[6].
. . . Although concerned, Barry [Monopoli] does not
feel a union vote would be successful at this point.
That same day, Director of Area Technical Operations Ken-
nedy held a meeting with the OSP technicians in which he
stated, “we need to discuss the elephant in the room” as he
pointed to the whiteboard bearing prounion messages. Dis-
criminatee Lajara admitted to writing “IBEW” on the
whiteboard and explained that he was interested in organiz-
ing partly based on safety concerns regarding the assign-
ment of electrical work that the OSP technicians were not
certified to perform. Discriminatee Vetrano spoke up in
support of Lajara. Kennedy stated that he would “look into”
the matter and “develop a procedure,” and, as they were
leaving the meeting, Kennedy asked discriminatee Murray,
“What can I do better?” On March 31, Kennedy emailed
VP of Technical Operations Riley regarding a meeting that
he and HR Manager Grella held with four of the OSP tech-
nicians, including discriminatee Garcia, reporting in rele-
vant part that an employee
stated that this group was instrumental in keeping the
CWA out. They stuck out their necks 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.
. . . .
Claimed that the group is ready to go to war. They said
CWA is not for them but the group is ready to go
across the river to Local 3 IBEW.

6 The discriminatees were all long-tenured employees.
Murray separately told his supervisor that he intended to
contact IBEW Local 3.
In early April, the Respondent held numerous meet-
ings and conference calls with the OSP supervisors re-
garding employees’ union activities. At an April 3 meet-
ing, Kennedy asked the supervisors whether they had
“heard anything or seen anything” and one supervisor
reported that employee Nicasuis (Nick) Felix was “going
around and asking guys if they want to join a union.”
Later that same day, Executive VP of Field Operations
Monopoli held a conference call regarding the Union. At
a meeting the next morning led by Reyes, Grella, Kenne-
dy, and Monopoli, the supervisors received an “aware-
ness letter” describing the “dos and don’ts regarding the
union” and a letter from Comstock urging employees not
to sign authorization cards. The supervisors were in-
structed to distribute Comstock’s letter to employees and
report their reactions. Grella, Reyes, Monopoli and other
managers held followup meetings with the supervisors
later in the day.
Also on April 4, Director of OSP Operations Alex
Torres held a meeting with OSP supervisors in which he
went through a list of the OSP technicians and asked the
supervisors whether each employee would vote yes, no,
or was on the fence regarding unionization. The senti-
ment of each employee was charted, using baseball-
themed code words. The list reflects that the prounion
employees outnumbered the procompany employees and
employees who were on the fence, with 27 prounion em-
ployees (listed as Boston Red Sox) versus 9 procompany
employees (listed as Yankees) and 16 on the fence em-
ployees (listed as Mets). All six discriminatees were
identified as prounion/Boston Red Sox.
The Respondent similarly monitored its FS technicians
for signs of interest in unionization. For example, in a
November 2013 email sent to Managers Monopoli, Grel-
la, and Reyes, FS Director Lester Mahon reported that
“[t]he guys are asking questions. I believe some of the
usual union promoters are discussing the recent changes
. . . .” The Respondent also created a list of the FS tech-
nicians using the same baseball-themed code words to
describe their union sentiments. However, unlike the
OSP technicians, the Respondent believed that the major-
ity of its FS technicians were procompany/Yankees and
on the fence/Mets.
On April 23, the Respondent received a letter regard-
ing alleged misconduct by OSP technician Felix, includ-
ing threatening and physically aggressive behavior. Af-
ter interviewing approximately 45 other OSP technicians
and 5 supervisors, Grella determined that many employ-
ees were aware of, witnessed, or had been subject to Fe-
lix’s inappropriate conduct. Thereafter, the Respondent
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC AND CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORP. 3
discharged Felix and his supervisor. However, the Re-
spondent purportedly determined that these actions were
insufficient to address the problem of OSP technicians
believing that such behavior would be tolerated or that
they could not report problems to management. Thus,
the Respondent claimed that it decided to transfer three
supervisors, voluntarily transfer one of the employees
who had reported Felix’s misconduct, and involuntarily
transfer the six discriminatees. Eight managers were
involved in the decision-making process, including two
who testified: HR Manager Grella and Senior VP of HR
Hilber.7 They testified that the discriminatees’ transfers
were nondisciplinary and intended to improve the work
environment at the Bronx facility and give the employees
a “fresh start.” They also claimed that the Respondent
considered the transfers’ impact on the discriminatees’
commutes. However, Grella’s notes indicate that the
decision makers had selected the discriminatees for trans-
fer by May 5 but had not yet finalized all of the locations
to which they would be transferred.
On May 7, the Respondent informed the discrimi-
natees that as a result of the investigation, they were be-
ing transferred and were to immediately report to their
new work locations.8 Murray and Paez, who were trans-
ferred to Connecticut, explained that they had commuted
to the Bronx facility with their spouses and children.
The Respondent did not give them any time to make
commuting arrangements for their families, and instead
required them to immediately vacate the Bronx facility
and report to their new facilities in Connecticut. Garcia,
who lived 5 minutes from the Bronx facility, complained
that his transfer to a facility in Connecticut would result
in a much longer commute. Security escorted Murray
and Garcia from the premises.
Thereafter, the Respondent denied Garcia’s request to
leave his truck at the Bronx facility while on stand-by
duty. Instead, Director of OSP for the Hudson Valley
and Connecticut Region Jeff Stigers told Garcia that he
could leave his truck at two other New York facilities
that were further from his home. The Respondent also
denied Paez’ request to return to the Bronx facility to
speak with HR about the transfer. Paez’ new supervisor
Ben Spielman initially permitted him to return to the
Bronx facility, but called him while he was driving there

7 The other decision-makers were HR Director Reyes, Executive VP
of Field Operations Monopoli, Director of Area Technical Operations
Kennedy, VP of Technical Operations Riley, Senior VP of Network
Infrastructure Pillai, and Senior VP of Field Operations Mike Kaplan.
8 Paez was transferred to Litchfield, Connecticut; Murray to Nor-
walk, Connecticut; Vetrano to Mamaroneck, New York; Garcia to
Stamford, Connecticut; and Roberts and Lajara to Yonkers, New York.
Paez and Murray live in Connecticut; Vetrano lives in New Rochelle,
New York; and Garcia, Roberts, and Lajara live in Bronx, New York.
and told him that he would have to contact HR in Con-
necticut instead. Finally, the Respondent denied Paez’
subsequent request to transfer to a facility with a more
favorable commute. On May 9, Senior VP of HR Hilber
emailed HR Manager Grella, Director of Area Technical
Operations Kennedy, HR Director Reyes, and VP of
Technical Operations Riley regarding Paez’ request, and
Riley replied, “I don’t think we should be giving into
these guys they were moved for a reason.”
Discussion
Applying Wright Line,9 the judge found that the Re-
spondent knew or believed that the discriminatees en-
gaged in union and/or protected concerted activity. We
agree. The Respondent knew that the discriminatees
engaged in union and protected concerted activity be-
cause they spoke out about the Union and their working
conditions to supervisors and at meetings with manage-
ment who made the transfer decision. For example, in
response to questioning by Director of Area Technical
Operations Kennedy concerning prounion messages on a
whiteboard, discriminatee Lajara admitted that he wrote
“IBEW” beneath “We Need a Union Now” and Vetrano
spoke up in support of Lajara. Garcia also participated in
a meeting led by Kennedy and HR Manager Grella in
which a fellow employee stated that “the group is ready
to go to war . . . [and] across the river to Local 3 IBEW,”
and Kennedy shared a summary of that meeting with VP
of Technical Operations Riley. Further, Murray told his
supervisor that he intended to contact IBEW Local 3, and
Supervisor Isaacs told Murray that Executive VP of Field
Operations Monopoli believed that Murray and discrimi-
natee Paez were behind the union effort. Additionally,
Garcia questioned Executive VP of HR Kappell about
the elimination of the pension plan benefit at a meeting
led by Kappell and Senior VP of HR Hilber, Lajara and
Vetrano expressed concerns about the safety of OSP
technicians performing electrical work in lampposts at a
meeting led by Kennedy, and Murray raised concerns
regarding recent changes to the pension plan benefit to
the OSP supervisors. The six discriminatees were also
identified by their supervisors as union supporters on
Director of OSP Operations Torres’ list.
For the reasons that follow, we also agree with the
judge that the General Counsel demonstrated the Re-
spondent’s animus toward the discriminatees’ union and
protected activities. That animus is compellingly
demonstrated by the fact that the Respondent’s involun-
tary transfers of the six discriminatees flipped the bal-

9 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 889 (1st Cir. 1981), cert.
denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation
Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
ance of the OSP technicians from a majority of prounion
(Red Sox) supporters to a majority of procompany (Yan-
kees) and on the fence (Mets) employees.10 Before the
transfers, there were 27 prounion employees versus 25
proemployer and on the fence employees. After the
transfers, there were 20 prounion employees versus 25
proemployer and on the fence employees.11 These trans-
fers addressed the Respondent’s concern, articulated in
March by its executive vice president of operations, that
the unionization “threat is real, coming primarily from a
portion of the OSP techs who are the most long tenured
employees.”12 The Respondent therefore acted on its
demonstrated concern by diluting union support among
OSP technicians to a point at which it believed that a
union vote would be unsuccessful.13 See, e.g., Temp
Masters, Inc., 344 NLRB 1188, 1188 fn. 2 and 1193–
1194 (2005) (finding discriminatory motive based on
transfer of four union supporters soon after respondent
learned of union petition), enfd. 460 F.3d 684 (6th Cir.
2006); Hedison Mfg. Co., 249 NLRB 791, 792–793
(1980) (finding discriminatory motive based on imposi-
tion of restrictions on transfer of press department em-
ployees where respondent identified press department as
stronghold of union support and its actions were intended
to undermine the organizing campaign), enfd. 643 F.2d
32 (1st Cir. 1981). Further, we agree with the judge that
the Respondent’s identification of prounion employees as
Boston Red Sox (i.e., not part of the home team) is addi-
tional evidence of animus. Cf. Philips Petroleum Co.,
339 NLRB 916, 924–925 (2003) (finding code words,
such as “attitude,” constitute evidence of animus).
Additionally, we find that two events that occurred
outside the 10(b) period provide background evidence of

10 Notably, the Respondent does not have an involuntary transfer
policy, and there is an extremely limited history of prior involuntary
transfers. The Respondent’s primary example of employees being
involuntarily transferred involved the far different circumstance of a
site closure on Long Island. Indeed, the record reflects only one invol-
untarily transferred employee from the Bronx facility since 2011, and
the Respondent failed to explain the circumstances of that transfer.
11 In addition to the six discriminatees, the Respondent voluntarily
transferred prounion/Red Sox employee Amerigo Rodriguez.
12 As noted above, all the discriminatees were long-tenured employ-
ees.
13 There is no merit to the Respondent’s contention that if its goal
was to dilute union support it would have transferred many more em-
ployees because 350 employees work at the Bronx facility. Contrary to
the Respondent, the only relevant employees are the OSP technicians.
The Respondent stipulated to Board elections in separate units of OSP
technicians and FS technicians during the 2012 organizing campaign.
Further, based on its close monitoring of employees’ union sentiments,
the Respondent had determined that a majority of its FS technicians
were procompany/Yankees and on the fence/Mets, thus obviating any
need to suppress organizing in that potential unit.
the Respondent’s animus.14 See Wilmington Fabrica-
tors, Inc., 332 NLRB 57, 58 fn. 6 (2000). In June 2013,
Supervisor Isaacs interrogated Murray when he asked
him “what’s up with you and the union?” Although
Isaacs was a low-level supervisor and not Murray’s di-
rect supervisor, he told Murray during the interrogation
that Executive VP of Field Operations Monopoli be-
lieved that discriminatees Murray and Paez were “behind
all of this.” Murray, who was not an open union sup-
porter and was not aware of organizing at the time, de-
nied any knowledge. Additionally, Director of Area
Technical Operations Kennedy solicited grievances and
promised to remedy them at a March 2014 meeting with
the OSP technicians. Kennedy invited employees to dis-
cuss their concerns when he stated, “we need to talk
about the elephant in the room” as he pointed to the
whiteboard bearing prounion messages. After discrimi-
natees Lajara and Vetrano expressed interest in organiz-
ing based in part on their concerns regarding the safety of
performing electrical work, Kennedy promised to reme-
dy their grievances by saying he would “look into” the
matter and “develop a procedure.” Kennedy also solicit-
ed grievances and implicitly promised to remedy them
when he asked Murray “what can I do better?”
In agreement with the judge, we also find strong evi-
dence that the Respondent’s proffered reasons for select-
ing the discriminatees for transfer were pretextual. HR
Manager Grella and Senior VP of HR Hilber testified
that the transfers were intended to improve the work en-
vironment at the Bronx facility and to give the discrimi-
natees a “fresh start.” However, many employees told
Grella that they had witnessed Felix’s misconduct and
declined to report it, and some even admitted to engaging
in aggressive behavior themselves. Yet, the Respondent
transferred only prounion employees, none of whom had
engaged in aggressive behavior, and only one of whom
(Roberts) even worked the same shift as Felix. And HR
Manager Grella told Garcia that his transfer had nothing
to do with the Felix investigation. The only other reason
proffered by the Respondent for the selection of the dis-
criminatees was their commutes. However, as found by
the judge, Grella’s and Hilber’s testimony was incon-
sistent, vague, and undermined by the fact that the result-
ing commutes were more difficult for some of the dis-
criminatees. And, at further odds with its stated purpose,
the Respondent transferred discriminatees Lajara and

14 The General Counsel filed cross-exceptions to the judge’s failure
to rely on these events. These incidents were fully litigated because the
General Counsel made clear at the hearing that events outside of the
10(b) period would be relied upon as background evidence of animus;
the General Counsel was not required to plead these incidents in the
complaint as they are not alleged as unfair labor practices.
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC AND CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORP. 5
Roberts to its Yonkers, New York facility when they
lived nearer to the Bronx facility, rather than transfer to
Yonkers three other employees (identified as procompa-
ny/Yankees or on the fence/Mets) who actually resided
in Yonkers.
Also undermining Grella’s and Hilber’s testimony that
the transfer decisions were guided by improving the em-
ployees’ commutes are Grella’s notes, which indicate
that the Respondent selected the discriminatees for trans-
fer before finalizing the locations to which they would be
transferred. Therefore, the Respondent failed to provide
a credible explanation for its suspicious decision to trans-
fer the six discriminatees just 1 month after they were all
identified as union supporters and in the context of the
Respondent’s growing concerns about the threat of un-
ionization. See American Wire Products, 313 NLRB
989, 994 (1994) (“[T]he Board and the courts have long
held that, absent a reasonable explanation, the dispropor-
tion between the number of union and nonunion employ-
ees laid off or discharged may be persuasive evidence of
discrimination.”).15
Moreover, we agree with the judge that the Respond-
ent’s harsh execution of the transfers pointedly contra-
dicts the Respondent’s assertion that the transfers were
non-disciplinary and nondiscriminatory. The Respond-
ent ordered the discriminatees to immediately report to
their new work locations and did not give discriminatees
who commuted with spouses and children any time to
make alternative arrangements. Moreover, security es-
corted some of the discriminatees from the premises.
After the transfers, the Respondent so thoroughly en-
forced their exclusion from the Bronx facility that it did
not allow Garcia or Paez to return to speak to HR or even
to park a vehicle during stand-by duty. Finally, VP of
Technical Operations Riley’s email in response to Paez’
request for a subsequent transfer, stating “I don’t think
we should be giving into these guys they were moved for
a reason,” constitutes circumstantial evidence of animus
and supports finding that the real reason for the transfers

15 We also affirm the judge’s drawing of an adverse inference
against the Respondent for failing to present testimony from any of the
other six managers who, in addition to Grella and Hilber, participated
in the transfer decisionmaking process. As the judge explained, Grella
and Hilber were “less than persuasive.” “[W]hen 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. In particu-
lar, it may be inferred that the witness, if called, would have testified
adversely to the party on that issue.” International Automated Ma-
chines, 285 NLRB 1122, 1123 (1987) (internal citations omitted), enfd.
861 F.2d 720 (6th Cir. 1988). Thus, we infer that if the other deci-
sionmakers had been called, they would have further undermined the
Respondent’s claim that the discriminatees were selected for transfer
for a nondiscriminatory reason.
was the discriminatees’ union and other protected con-
certed activities.16
Having found that the Respondent’s stated reasons for
the transfers were pretextual, we agree with the judge
that the Respondent failed by definition to meet its rebut-
tal burden of proving that it would have transferred the
six discriminatees in the absence of their protected con-
duct. See Golden State Foods Corp., 340 NLRB 382,
385 (2003).
Accordingly, we affirm the judge’s conclusion that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by involun-
tarily transferring the six discriminatees because of their
union or suspected union and/or other protected concert-
ed activity.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, CSC Holdings, LLC and Cablevision Sys-
tems New York City Corporation, Bronx, New York, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Involuntarily transferring employees because of a
belief that they have or because they have engaged in
union or other protected concerted activities.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, 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.

16 We find it unnecessary to rely on the antiunion views expressed by
the Respondent in its internal communications and in Executive VP of
Operations Comstock’s letter to employees as background evidence of
animus. We find that the record amply demonstrates the Respondent’s
animus for the other reasons stated above. See Coastal Sunbelt Pro-
duce, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 126, slip op. at 1 fn. 8 (2015).
Chairman Miscimarra finds merit to the Respondent’s exception to
the judge’s failure to consider whether there was a causal relationship
between the discriminatees’ protected conduct and the Respondent’s
transfer decision. In Wright Line, the Board stated that the General
Counsel must make “a prima facie showing sufficient to support the
inference that protected conduct was a ‘motivating factor’ in the em-
ployer’s decision.” 251 NLRB at 1089. Thus, under Wright Line, the
General Counsel must establish a link or nexus between the employee’s
protected activity and the employer’s decision to take the employment
action alleged to be unlawful. See Tschiggfrie Properties, Ltd, 365
NLRB No. 34, slip op. at 1 fn. 1 (2017) (collecting cases). Applying
this standard, however, Chairman Miscimarra finds the General Coun-
sel made the requisite prima facie showing required under Wright Line
in this case.
Contrary to the suggestion of their colleague, Members Pearce and
McFerran note that “proving that an employee’s protected activity was
a motivating factor in the employer’s action does not require the Gen-
eral Counsel . . . to demonstrate some additional, undefined ‘nexus’
between the employee’s protected activity and the adverse action.” See
Libertyville Toyota, 360 NLRB 1298, 1301 fn. 10 (2014) (collecting
cases), enfd. sub nom. AutoNation, Inc. v. NLRB, 801 F.3d 767 (7th
Cir. 2015).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Paul Murray, Bernard Paez, Mike Vetrano, Ezequiel La-
jara, and Wayne Roberts transfers to their former jobs at
the Brush Avenue facility, or if those jobs no longer ex-
ist, to substantially equivalent positions at the Brush Av-
enue facility, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed. Should
Andres Garcia wish to apply for employment with the
Respondent, he should be offered the opportunity to ap-
ply for employment at the Brush Avenue facility.
(b) Make Garcia, Murray, Paez, Vetrano, Lajara, and
Roberts whole for any increased commuting or other
expenses suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the
judge’s decision, as modified in this decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful transfers, and
within 3 days thereafter, notify the employees in writing
that this has been done and that the transfers will not be
used against them in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of reimbursement due
under the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Bronx, New York facility copies of the attached no-
tice marked “Appendix.”17 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such
as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site,
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent custom-
arily 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 cov-
ered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone
out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at

17 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since May 7, 2014.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 2 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 11, 2017
______________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra, Chairman
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT involuntarily transfer our employees be-
cause they engage in or we believe that they engaged in
union or other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer Paul Murray, Bernard Paez, Mike Vetrano,
Ezequiel Lajara, and Wayne Roberts transfers to their
former jobs at the Brush Avenue facility or, if those jobs
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC AND CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORP. 7
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions at
the Brush Avenue facility, without prejudice to their sen-
iority or any or rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
Should Andres Garcia wish to apply for employment, we
will offer him the opportunity to apply for employment
at the Brush Avenue facility.
WE WILL make Garcia, Murray, Paez, Vetrano, Lajara,
and Roberts whole for any increased commuting or other
expenses suffered as a result of our unlawful involuntary
transfers, plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful transfers of Garcia, Murray, Paez, Vetrano, Lajara,
and Roberts, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, noti-
fy each of them in writing that this has been done and
that the transfers will not be used against them in any
way.
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC AND CABLEVISION
SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORPORATION NEW
YORK CITY CORPORATION
The Board’s decision can be found at
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/02–CA–138301or by using the
QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Re-
lations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
Rachel F. Feinberg, Esq. and Nicole Oliver, Esq., for the Gen-
eral Counsel.
G. Peter Clark, Esq. and Kenneth A. Margolis, Esq. (Kauff,
McGuire & Margolis, LLP), of New York, New York. for
the Respondent.
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

1 Except as otherwise noted, all dates refer to the year 2014.
first of which was again amended on March 16, 2015.2
On May 29, 2015, a Consolidated Complaint and Notice of
Hearing (complaint) was issued by the Regional Director, Re-
gion 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, Laja-
ra 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 pro-
tected, concerted activity by discussing their working condi-
tions among themselves and with Company management.
Respondent filed an answer to the complaint and the amend-
ed 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 Man-
ager 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 de-
meanor of the witnesses,3 and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and the Respondent I make the follow-
ing
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

2 The amended and second amended charges were omitted from the
formal papers. Counsel for the General Counsel requested their admit-
tance into the record by letter dated December 16, 2015, without objec-
tion from Respondent. These documents are hereby admitted into the
record. As will be discussed in further detail below, the second amend-
ed charge in Case 02–CA–138301 added the involuntary transfers of
employees Wayne Roberts, Ezequiel Lajara, and Mike Vetrano as
violations of Sec. 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
3 My credibility resolutions herein are based upon context, demean-
or, 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), enfd. 56 Fed.Appx
516 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Moreover, while every apparent or nonapparent
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.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
and conduct of its business operations purchases and receives at
its New York City facilities goods and services in excess of
$5000 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
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Corporate and Supervisory Structure
Respondent operates depots throughout New Jersey, Con-
necticut, 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 Ken-
nedy. 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 manage-
rial personnel will be identified, as necessary, below.
The Witnesses
The witnesses who testified in this proceeding for the Gen-
eral 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 Vander-
bilt and director of OSP for the Hudson Vey and Connecticut
Region Stigers.

4 See, e.g., Electrical Workers Local 3 (Atlas Reid, Inc.), 170 NLRB
584 (1968); Eugene Iovine, Inc., 353 NLRB 400 (2008).
The OSP Work Force
Approximately 350 employees work out of the Brush Ave-
nue depot. As of about May, there were about 40 OSP techni-
cians, including the six that are at issue here, who were all em-
ployees of significant tenure with the Company. Roberts
worked the night shift, from 12 until 8:30 a.m.; Murray, Paez,
Lajara, and Vetrano all worked the day shift, from 8 a.m. until
4:30 p.m. and, at the time of his transfer, Garcia worked the
mid-shift, from 4 p.m. to 12 a.m. 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 em-
ployees at relevant times were: Andel Brady, Alejandro Ca-
rasquillo, Donovan Reid (until May 6, 2014), Jason Vanderbilt,
Ewan Isaacs, and Michael Mollica, the night supervisor. The
supervisors would rotate responsibility for making work as-
signments, but each supervisor had a team assigned to them for
purposes of annual evaluations.
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 vari-
ous 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 occa-
sion 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 en-
tered 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 orga-
nized 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 em-
ployees at various Cablevision facilities. During this confer-
ence, 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 compen-
sation. Thus, in May 2012, employees received wage increas-
es: according to Murray and Paez, these raises were significant-
ly greater than those which had been previously received based
upon annual evaluations.
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC AND CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORP. 9
Meetings with Employees in 20135
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 Ca-
blevision, Reyes encouraged employees to ask questions. Some
of the topics raised included ambiguity about career progres-
sion; 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 vari-
ous 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 possibil-
ity 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 entitle: “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.
In September 2013, HR Director Reyes wrote a memoran-
dum summarizing a meeting that he, along with Grella, held as
had been requested by the OSP technicians. The techs had re-
quested 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 ad-
dress 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 be-
hind “all of this.”

5 Although this evidence is outside of the 10(b) period, I find it ap-
propriate to rely upon it as background to the events under allconsidera-
tion here. See, e.g., Coastal Sunbelt Produce, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 126
slip op. at 2–3, 29(2015).
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 Ma-
hon sent an email to Monopoli, Grella, and Reyes entitled:
“The memo and the questions?” and providing, in part, as fol-
lows:
The guys are asking questions. I believe some of the usual un-
ion 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 dis-
cussed the changes among themselves and Murray testified that
he lodged a complaint with Supervisor Reid and his own super-
visor, 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:
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 ten-
ured 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 supervi-
sors. Murray, Paez, and Reid, who were present, testified that
Kennedy had gestured toward the whiteboard which bore the

6 At least, that is the record testimony regarding this matter. It is
otherwise unexplained.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
following messages: “IBEW” and “We need a Union Now” and
stated that “we need to discuss the elephant in the room.” Laja-
ra stated that he had written “IBEW” on the Board. Lajara went
on to state that the OSP technicians were being asked to per-
form 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 cor-
porate level.
Murray testified about a meeting held at a March 2014 meet-
ing led by Hilber and Kapell, where Garcia questioned Kapell
at some length about the elimination of the Cash Balance bene-
fit.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 at-
tended 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 4 p.m. 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 follow-
ing 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 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 tak-
ing 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

7 Garcia’s recollection was that this meeting occurred in about No-
vember 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.
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 Op-
erations 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, charac-
terized as “good guys,” stated:
They feel betrayed by Jim Dolan—as when the cam-
paign/election was occurring, he said to them—“please give
me another chance—we’ll make things right” which was fol-
lowed with changes in cable benefit, freezing of the cash bal-
ance 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 con-
ducted 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 any-
thing?” Supervisor Carasquillo stated that he had heard that
Felix “is going around asking guys if they want to join a un-
ion.” 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 a.m. 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 Kenne-
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC AND CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORP. 11
dy 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 au-
thorization 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, ex-
cept 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
procompany employees as “Yankees,” prounion employees as
“Red Sox” and those on the fence as “Mets.” In all, the supervi-
sors identified 27 “Red Sox,” 9 “Yankees” and 16 “Mets.” The
prounion supporters included Murray, Paez, Garcia, Lajara,
Roberts, and Vetrano.
On April 21, an employee named James Jones sent an email
to CEO James Dolan complaining of issues that were “nega-
tively affecting” the [Bronx OSP] department. Among other
things Jones complained of a decline in morale; unfair treat-
ment 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.
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 Techni-
cian Nick Felix. In particular, it was claimed that Felix had
engaged in:
Punching an employee in the ribs and shoulder area, forceful-
ly 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 em-
ployee 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 environ-
ment. . .’” 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. Grel-
la therefore scheduled interviews with employees and supervi-
sors 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 respons-
es to a series of questions drafted with input from Hilber con-
cerning 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, wit-
nessed 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 experi-
enced 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
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
spilling ink on his pants, Felix began punching walls and kick-
ing 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,
consisting of jabbing her in the ribs, slamming her desk, and
cursing and yelling at her, causing a security guard to investi-
gate the situation. Grella was told that Reid, and other supervi-
sors, were aware of Felix’s behavior but had done nothing to
correct it due to their personal relationships with him. In partic-
ular, 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 rela-
tionship 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. Gar-
cia 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 de-
scribed 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 previ-
ously 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 coun-
sel 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, New York, respectively. A third supervisor, Mike
Mollica, had already applied for a transfer and left the Bronx
depot in June. Supervisor Vanderbilt was given additional train-
ing 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, New York.8
In addition, Cablevision involuntarily transferred the six
technicians named in the complaint. Paez was transferred from
Brush Avenue to Litchfield Connecticut; Murray was trans-
ferred 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 Opera-
tions Monopoli, Director of Area Technical Operations Kenne-
dy, VP of technical Operations Riley, Senior VP of Field Oper-
ations Kaplan and Senior VP of Network Management and
Operations Pillai. By May 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 termina-
tions, that of Felix and Reid, were insufficient to address the
problems in the Bronx OSP in that they would not address em-
ployee 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 Discrimina-
tion 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
six 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 deto-
nated, 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 ac-
ceptance of events, coercion, physical intimidation was—as
far as I’m concerned—out of control and we needed to take

8 Rodriguez, one of the employees who delivered the original com-
plaint 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.
9 There is a limited history of involuntary transfers among Cablevi-
sion 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.
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC AND CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORP. 13
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 recog-
nize 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 specif-
ic 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 identi-
fied those addresses that they would check, Grella replied, “We
looked at everyone’s addresses. We looked at everyone’s ad-
dress from the perspective of—I’m 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 man-
agement 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 “re-
duce 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 re-
verse commute to his home in the Bronx.11
Hilber also offered some testimony as to why other techni-
cians were not transferred. Acevedo was on a leave of absence

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 Muniz, and Porfirio Guzman-Martinez live in Yon-
kers. 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.
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 de-
partment and thus not considered to be a part of the ”OSP envi-
ronment.”
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 Kenne-
dy’s office. Encarnacion had expressed a preference for a trans-
fer 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 Pil-
lai. Murray testified that Pillai told him that he was disappoint-
ed 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.
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 men-
tioned his wife and son, with whom he commuted from Con-
necticut and complained that he was not being given an oppor-
tunity 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 super-
visor 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 re-
port immediately. Paez informed the managers that he commut-

12 Encarnacion had been characterized by his supervisor as a
“Met”—that is, on the fence with regard to unionization.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
ed 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 es-
corted out of the facility by a safety manager. Paez also testi-
fied 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 re-
quest. 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 in-
stances, because of location resulting in shorter commutes.
Garcia stated that he lives “five minutes” from the Brush Ave-
nue facility and stated that he felt he was being punished. Grel-
la 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 Kenne-
dy and Grella and they provided him with certain transfer op-
tions, and he elected to go to Stamford, where he had previous-
ly 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.
Paez then spoke with Hilber and requested that he be trans-
ferred to a location that would allow him to commute, at least
in part, with his wife from their home in New Haven, Connecti-
cut. 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 documenta-
tion 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 contain-
ing the following message:
Bernie called me today and asked to move to a city environ-
ment . . . 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 Litch-
field 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 loca-
tions, but the Bronx was out of his area.
III. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The 10(b) Issue
Respondent contends that the complaint allegations regard-
ing the transfers of Lajara, Vetrano and Roberts should be dis-
missed 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 in-
clude 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 that the amendment is not time-
barred because the allegations are closely related to the allega-
tions 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 unequivo-
cal’ notice of a violation of the Act. Broadway Wolkswagen,
342 NLRB 1244, 1246 (2004), enfd. sub nom. East Bay Auto-

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 rea-
sons.”
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC AND CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORP. 15
motive Council v. NLRB, 485 F.3d 628 99th Cir. 2007). Re-
spondent argues that the record shows that Garcia was aware in
May 2014 that Lajara, Vetrano, and Roberts had been trans-
ferred 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 U.S. 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 vi-
olations 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” un-
der 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 un-
timely 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 proge-
ny have been met. The amended charge as filed by Garcia con-
tains 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 counters that
the transfers had nothing to do with any real or perceived ac-
tivities 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 At-
torney Laureano, and subsequently confirmed as a result of
Respondent’s investigation of the allegations. Respondent con-
tends that the transfers of the six employees at issue here were
not intended as a disciplinary measure, but were rather a com-
ponent 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 U.S. 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 analyti-
cal framework applies in those situations where the alleged
discriminatees are alleged to have engaged in conduct other-
wise protected by the Act. Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a 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 pro-
tected 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. 441 (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 dissi-
pate 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 repris-
al 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), enfd. 500 F.2d 597
(3d Cir. 1974), 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
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD16
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 pre-
vent them 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 moni-
toring 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 un-
ionization were reported as having been expressed at an em-
ployee-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 prounion sentiment (or employee
dissatisfaction with changes to terms and conditions of em-
ployment) ensued. On March 31, after a meeting with certain
employees (only one of which—Garcia—is an alleged discrim-
inatee 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 support-
ed 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 facili-
ty 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 supervi-
sors’ 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

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.
knowledge is imputable to Respondent generally absent evi-
dence 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 un-
ion activity, as noted above, there is some evidence of more
generalized concerted, protected conduct. Thus, Murray testi-
fied that he stated his concerns about the elimination of the
Cash Balance plan to his supervisor Brady during a team meet-
ing in about March. Garcia participated in an extended colloquy
on this issue with Kapell during a March meeting of OSP tech-
nicians and supervisors. Even though these comments were
made by a single employee, the fact that they occurred at gen-
eral meetings of other workers and concerned themselves of
matters of interest to all, 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 Hold-
ings, 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 Sep-
tember 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 Appropri-
ate Action. This Motion was approved by unpublished Order of
the Board dated July 14, 2016.17 Thus, absent some unantici-
pated difficulty with the settlement, the Board will not be issu-
ing a ruling on Judge Fish’s recommended decision and order.
In sum, due to the passage of time, various differences in lo-

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 me).
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC AND CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORP. 17
cation and supervisory personnel, the nature of the union activi-
ty 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 ele-
ments 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 state-
ments 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 commu-
nications.
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
union, which cannot be deemed a violation in and of itself, can
nonetheless be used as background evidence of antiunion ani-
mus 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); 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 antiunion 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 institu-
tional anti-union position. This conclusion is buttressed by the
various internal memoranda circulated among various supervi-
sory 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 Tech-
nical Operations Riley’s response upon learning that Paez had
requested a subsequent transfer to another location in Connecti-
cut. 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

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, 924–925
(2003)(“attitude,” “malcontent” and “political activist”).
openings were available at other facilities, the transfers were
nondisciplinary in nature, and the purpose was to give employ-
ees a “fresh start” as has been asserted, it remains unexplained
why Respondent could not make a reasonable attempt to ac-
commodate 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 repre-
sentatives 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 Respond-
ent.
It is well established that a discriminatory motive may be in-
ferred 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 circum-
stantial evidence may include including suspicious timing, 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),
enfd.705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1982) 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 circumstan-
tial 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 Respond-
ent’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 trans-
fers 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.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD18
Respondent further argues that events which occurred at organ-
izing 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 alleg-
edly 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 trans-
fers, 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 man-
agement 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 nas-
cent 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 em-
ployees 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).
Respondent further argues that the General Counsel’s reli-
ance 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 demean-
or, 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 sub-
poena by the General Counsel. On whole, I find Reid’s testi-
mony to be worthy of credit. Respondent has pointed to no
specific testimony which it contends should be rejected as ab-
jectly 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 fur-
ther 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 con-
tention 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 Cablevi-
sion’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 other-
wise expressed their concerns regarding their dissatisfaction
with Cablevision’s changes in terms and conditions of em-
ployment 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 selec-
tion 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., George A. Tomasso
Construction Corp., 316 NLRB 738, 742 (1995), enfd. 100
F.3d 942 (2d Cir. 1996) (“an employer’s failure to eliminate all
union adherents does not prove that its actions towards a few
were untainted by antiunion bias”); Master Security Services,
270 NLRB 543, 582 (1984).
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 (1998).19
In E&I Specialists, supra, the complaint alleged that the re-
spondent 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

19 The other cases relied upon by Respondent are largely distinguish-
able on their facts, which hold little application here.
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC AND CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORP. 19
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 rea-
sons, 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 legiti-
mate 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 Respond-
ent has failed to show why the transfer of the six specific indi-
viduals 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 ad-
vanced 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 evi-
dence of pretext; that certain headcount and certification argu-
ments seemingly advanced by the General Counsel during the
hearing do not evince pretext; that there was flexibility in mak-
ing 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 evidence of such transfers presented
by Respondent is sparse, vague, anecdotal and fairly insignifi-
cant 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 nondiscriminatory mo-
tive.
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 re-
port,21 and others acknowledged having participated in activi-
ties 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, de-
signed 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 com-
mutes 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 Re-
spondent has maintained that the transfers were not meant to be

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 employ-
ees Mouzon, Gill, and Cespides.
22 Grella’s notes in this regard reference OSP technicians Acevedo,
Borrero and Edwards, among others.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD20
disciplinary in nature, it cannot be overlooked that the manner
in which they were effectuated—immediately and with accom-
paniment 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; particu-
larly 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 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 credi-
ble, non-discriminatory reason for its selection of the six em-
ployees named in the complaint for involuntary transfer. Grel-
la’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 testi-
fied 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 testi-
fied that she didn’t know and didn’t believe they looked at eve-
ryone 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 evi-
dence 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 suf-
ficient for Cablevision to abandon its efforts to improve the
work environment by taking the various actions it had decided
on, including transferring employees.” Nonetheless, Respond-
ent 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

23 As Respondent notes, it did exhibit flexibility in its approach to al-
leged discriminatees Vetrano and Garcia who were allowed to move to
locations other than those originally selected by Cablevision. The cir-
cumstances involving Garcia are set forth above. Those involving
Vetrano are not fully set forth herein. Respondent asserts that its flexi-
In its posthearing brief, Respondent cites to Grella’s testimo-
ny 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 infer-
ence 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 720
(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
warranted by the unexpected failure of a witness to testify re-
garding 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 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 con-
certed, protected conduct. There is insufficient evidence to
meet Respondent’s burden of proof to show a nondiscriminato-
ry 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 Rob-
erts 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.

bility 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 part
of the decision-making team as identified by Grella and set forth in
Respondent’s brief are all agents of Respondent.
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC AND CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORP. 21
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act. Respondent should be required to
offer Murray, Paez, Vetrano, Lajara and Roberts the opportuni-
ty 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 re-
quired 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
ORDER
The Respondent, CSC holdings, LLC and Cablevision Sys-
tems New York City Corporation, Bronx, New York, its offic-
ers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Involuntarily transferring its employees because of a be-
lief that they have or because they have engaged in union or
other concerted, protected activities.
(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate 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 Rob-
erts 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 addi-
tional 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.

25 The termination of Garcia’s employment was not alleged as an un-
fair labor practice. Counsel for the General Counsel did not specifically
address what remedy was being sought for Garcia under these circum-
stances.
26 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility 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 Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous 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 electroni-
cally, such as by email, 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 in-
volved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respondent at
any time since May 7, 2014.
(d) 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
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 No-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT involuntarily transfer our employees employ-
ees 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,

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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD22
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 Re-
spondent, he will be offered the opportunity to apply for em-
ployment 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
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.