Charter Communications

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 2018

366 NLRB No. 46 (N.L.R.B. 2018)

366 NLRB No. 46
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.
Charter Communications, LLC and Jonathan French
and Raymond Schoof and James Debeau. Cases
07–CA–140170, 07–CA–145726, and 07–CA–
147521
March 27, 2018
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PEARCE, MCFERRAN, AND EMANUEL
On November 10, 2016, Administrative Law Judge
Arthur J. Amchan issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent and the General Counsel each filed exceptions
and supporting, answering, and reply briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions1 and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings,2 findings,3 and conclusions
only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Or-
der.4

1 No party excepts to the judge’s dismissal of complaint paragraphs
8(e), (f), and (g)(ii)-(iv), 9(b) and (c), and 11(b) and his failure to rule
on paragraph 8(g)(i).
The General Counsel excepts to the judge’s dismissal of complaint
paragraph 9(a) without stating in his exceptions or supporting brief any
grounds on which the judge’s purportedly erroneous dismissal should
be reversed. We shall disregard this bare, unsupported exception pur-
suant to Sec. 102.46(a)(1)(ii) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
(formerly Sec. 102.46(b)(2)). See New Concept Solution, LLC, 349
NLRB 1136, 1136 fn. 2 (2007) (citing Holsum de Puerto Rico, Inc.,
344 NLRB 694, 694 fn. 1 (2005), enfd. 456 F.3d 265 (1st Cir. 2006)).
2 The Respondent requests that we take administrative notice of a
complaint that Terry James Teenier II filed under the Family and Medi-
cal Leave Act in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan. Because that complaint is not relevant to this case, we
deny the Respondent’s request.
3 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.
4 We shall amend the remedy and modify the judge’s recommended
Order to conform to our findings and the Board’s standard remedial
language. We shall also substitute a new notice to conform to the Or-
der as modified.
Complaint paragraph 6 alleges that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(1) by maintaining a number of provisions in its Professional Con-
duct policy. The judge dismissed that allegation on Sec. 10(b) grounds.
The dismissal was erroneous because the Respondent stipulated at the
hearing that it had continuously maintained the Professional Conduct
policy since May 31, 2014. See Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC, 362
NLRB No. 27, slip op. at 2 (2015) (“The Board has held repeatedly that
the maintenance of an unlawful rule is a continuing violation.”), enf.
We affirm the judge’s findings that the Respondent vi-
olated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by creating the impres-
sion that employee Jonathan French’s union activities
were under surveillance on July 16, 2014,5 coercively
interrogating French on July 16, subjecting French to
close scrutiny on July 17, creating the impression that
French’s union activities were under surveillance on Sep-
tember 30, and threatening to discharge French on Sep-
tember 30. We also affirm the judge’s findings that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by reassign-
ing employees French, Raymond Schoof, and James
DeBeau to rural areas and discharging French. Contrary
to the judge, we additionally find that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) by surveilling the handbilling
activity on July 15, threatening French with closer super-
vision on July 16, and soliciting grievances from French
on July 16. We also find, contrary to the judge, that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharg-
ing Schoof and DeBeau.
Background
On the morning of July 15, representatives of the In-
ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (the Un-
ion) handbilled outside the Respondent’s Saginaw, Mich-
igan facility. Before the handbilling commenced, a un-
ion representative coordinated with employee French.
During the handbilling, three supervisors stood at the
entrance gates to the Respondent’s parking lot and ob-
served the handbilling. One of the supervisors, Shawn
Felker, alerted his superior, Manager of Plant Security
and Technical Quality Assurance (TQA) Terry James
Teenier II, about the handbilling, and Teenier drove from
the Respondent’s facility in Bay City, Michigan, to the
Saginaw facility to observe the handbilling. In turn,
Teenier called his superior, Regional Plant Security Di-
rector Greg Culver, and informed him about the handbill-
ing. Culver instructed Teenier to note which employees
were taking flyers. While employee Kent Payne was
walking through the Saginaw parking lot, Supervisor
Felker asked him if he had taken a flyer. In general, the
Respondent reacted to the handbilling with management
telephone conferences, union avoidance meetings, and
individual conversations with employees whom it sus-
pected to be union supporters.
During the first telephone conference, the managers
identified French as someone who was potentially in-
volved with the Union, and Regional Vice President Jo-
seph Boullion instructed Teenier to speak to French. On
July 16, Teenier asked French if he knew about the

denied on other grounds 824 F.3d 772 (8th Cir. 2016). We shall sever
complaint paragraph 6 and retain it for further consideration.
5 All dates hereinafter are in 2014 unless otherwise indicated.
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
handbilling or anyone involved with the Union. French
answered that he did not have any information. Teenier
responded that French’s name had come up as someone
who was involved with the Union and that management
was looking at French very closely. Teenier added that if
French had any concerns about Teenier, other managers,
or supervisors, or any other concerns, French could come
to him with those concerns. On July 17, Culver went on
a “ride-along” with French.6
During a telephone conference later in July, Technical
Manager Bob Morgan stated that he had heard that
French was the main union instigator and that employees
Schoof, DeBeau, and Payne were also involved with the
Union. In response, Vice President Boullion instructed
Teenier to isolate French, Schoof, DeBeau, and Payne
from the other employees. Teenier thereupon reassigned
the four employees to rural areas outside Saginaw.
On September 19, Supervisor Rob Lothian informed
Human Resources Generalist Stephanie Peters that Felk-
er told him that Teenier, Schoof, and DeBeau were lay-
ing sod at Schoof’s house during worktime. Lothian
added that Teenier was instructing employees to com-
plete other nonwork-related “special projects” during
worktime. Peters investigated Lothian’s allegations. She
interviewed a number of employees and instructed each
to not discuss the interview or the investigation with an-
yone else (the confidentiality directive).
On September 30, Lothian conducted a safety check of
French’s work truck, during which he asked French if he
“knew what was going on.” French said no. Lothian
stated that French had been “outed as the union master-
mind.” French “was taken aback,” denied involvement,
and added that he “wasn’t going to rat anyone out.” Lo-
thian asked if he “could trust” French, and French an-
swered affirmatively. Lothian proceeded to tell French
that he, Lothian, had complained to HR about employees
laying sod during worktime, and that “the landscape of
the department was going to change.” Lothian added
that considering that French had been “outed as the union
mastermind,” French “should get on [Lothian’s] side
with this because people were going to get fired,” and
that “years ago, he became a supervisor by squashing a
union drive.”
Peters concluded her investigation with written reports
on October 13. On October 14, the Respondent dis-
charged Teenier, Felker, Schoof, DeBeau, and French.
The 10(b) Issues
The complaint alleges a number of violations that are
predicated on charges that were filed more than 6 months

6 During a ride-along, also referred to as a “ride-out,” a manager ac-
companies an employee on work assignments.
after the allegedly unlawful conduct occurred. The Re-
spondent contends that those allegations are time barred
by Section 10(b).
An otherwise untimely complaint allegation is not
barred by Section 10(b) if the allegedly unlawful conduct
occurred within 6 months of a timely-filed charge and is
closely related to the allegations in that charge. See Al-
ternative Energy Applications, Inc., 361 NLRB 1203,
1203 (2014). The Board’s test for determining whether
the otherwise untimely allegation is closely related to the
timely charge is set forth in Redd-I, Inc., 290 NLRB
1115 (1988). Under Redd-I, the Board considers the
following factors: (1) whether the otherwise untimely
allegation and the allegations in the timely-filed charge
are of the same class, “i.e., whether the allegations in-
volve the same legal theory and usually the same section
of the Act” (legally related); (2) whether the otherwise
untimely allegation and the allegations in the timely-filed
charge arise from the same factual situation or sequence
of events (factually related);7 and (3) whether the re-
spondent would raise the same or similar defenses to the
otherwise untimely allegation and the allegations in the
timely-filed charge. See Alternative Energy, 361 NLRB
at 1203 (citing Redd-I, 290 NLRB at 1118).
The judge found that the otherwise untimely allega-
tions in complaint paragraphs 7 (surveillance of handbill-
ing), 8(a) (impression of surveillance) and (d) (coercive
interrogation), 10 (closer scrutiny), 12 (confidentiality
directive), and 13 (reassignment of French, Schoof, and
DeBeau) are closely related to allegations in the timely-
filed charges and thus are not barred by Section 10(b).
The Respondent excepts to those findings. Additionally,
the judge dismissed complaint paragraphs 8(b) (solicita-
tion of grievances) and (c) (threat of closer supervision)
on 10(b) grounds. The General Counsel excepts to those
findings. As explained below, we agree with the judge
that paragraphs 7, 8(a) and (d), 10, and 13 are closely
related to the timely allegations, but we disagree with his
finding that complaint paragraph 12 is closely related to
the timely allegations.8 Further, we disagree with the

7 The Board will find that the second factor has been satisfied when
the timely and untimely allegations (1) “demonstrate similar conduct,
usually during the same time period with a similar object,” (2) share a
causal nexus and “are part of a chain or progression of events,” or (3)
“are part of an overall plan to undermine union activity.” Carney Hos-
pital, 350 NLRB 627, 630 (2007) (internal quotations omitted); see also
Continental Auto Parts, 357 NLRB 840, 842 (2011). The Board will
not find that the second factor is satisfied “merely because timely and
untimely allegations pertain to events that occurred during or in re-
sponse to the same union campaign.” Carney Hospital, 350 NLRB at
630.
8 The allegedly unlawful conduct in the otherwise untimely com-
plaint paragraphs discussed above occurred within 6 months of the
timely charges filed by French on November 3 and 18, 2014. Thus,
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 3
judge’s dismissal of complaint paragraphs 8(b) and (c)
on 10(b) grounds.9
I. COMPLAINT PARAGRAPHS 7, 8(A)-(D), 10, AND 13:
SURVEILLANCE, IMPRESSION OF SURVEILLANCE,
SOLICITATION OF GRIEVANCES, COERCIVE
INTERROGATION, THREATENED AND ACTUAL CLOSER
SCRUTINY, AND REASSIGNMENT OF FRENCH, SCHOOF,
AND DEBEAU
The relevant timely-filed charges by French on No-
vember 3 and 18 allege that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) by discharging French on October 14 and
violated Section 8(a)(1) on September 30 by telling
French that it was aware of his union activities and
threatening French with discharge for those activities.
We find that the otherwise untimely allegations in com-
plaint paragraphs 7, 8(a)-(d), 10, and 13 are closely relat-
ed to the timely-filed charges. Complaint paragraph 7
alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by
surveilling the handbilling activity on July 15. Com-
plaint paragraphs 8(a)-(d) allege that the Respondent,
through Manager of Plant Security and TQA Teenier,
violated Section 8(a)(1) on July 16 by (a) creating the
impression of surveillance of French’s union activities,
(b) soliciting grievances from French, (c) threatening
French with closer supervision, and (d) coercively inter-
rogating French about union activity. Complaint para-
graph 10 alleges that the Respondent, through Culver,
violated Section 8(a)(1) on July 17 by subjecting French
to closer scrutiny. Complaint paragraph 13 alleges that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by reassigning
French, Schoof, and DeBeau to rural areas because of
their suspected union activity. As detailed below, these
otherwise untimely allegations satisfy the Board’s Redd-I
test for determining whether they are closely related to
the timely-filed charges.
Under the first factor of the Redd-I test, complaint par-
agraphs 7, 8(a)-(d), and 10 are legally related to the time-
ly allegations that the Respondent, through Lothian, cre-
ated the impression of surveillance of French’s union
activities and threatened to discharge French for those
activities; both the timely and untimely allegations allege
that the Respondent’s conduct discouraged employees
from engaging in protected activities in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1). See Metro One Loss Prevention Services
Group, 356 NLRB 89, 100 (2010). Complaint paragraph

when we refer generally to “timely-filed charges” and “timely allega-
tions,” we are referring to French’s November 3 and 18 charges and the
allegations within them, respectively.
9 The judge did not explain why he drew a distinction between the
alleged 8(a)(1) violations in complaint paragraphs 8(a) and (d) and
those in complaint pars. 8(b) and (c), which occurred during the same
conversation.
13 and the timely allegation that the Respondent unlaw-
fully discharged French are legally related because they
both rely on the theory that the Respondent engaged in
discriminatory conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(3).
See Success Village Apartments, 347 NLRB 1065, 1067
(2006).
Under the second factor of the Redd-I test, complaint
paragraphs 7, 8(a)-(d), 10, and 13 are factually related to
the allegations in the timely-filed charges because the
timely and untimely allegations represent a progression
of events relating to the Respondent’s response to the
union campaign that culminated in the discharge of
French. The Respondent’s observation of the handbilling
activity on July 15 triggered the Respondent’s campaign,
during which it engaged in the conduct alleged to be un-
lawful in both the timely and untimely charges. The Re-
spondent’s immediate response to the handbilling was to
hold management telephone conferences. In the first of
these conferences, managers identified French as a po-
tential union supporter. In response, Regional Vice Pres-
ident Boullion instructed Teenier to have the July 16
conversation with French, during which Teenier commit-
ted the violations alleged in complaint paragraphs 8(a)-
(d). Culver’s July 17 ride-along with French, upon
which the allegation of closer scrutiny in complaint para-
graph 10 is based, occurred only 2 days after the hand-
billing, and it fulfilled Teenier’s July 16 threat to closely
monitor French because of his suspected union activity.10
Later in July, as alleged in complaint paragraph 13,
Boullion instructed Teenier to isolate French, Schoof,
and DeBeau from other employees in response to a tip
during a management telephone conference that those
three employees were involved with the Union. Alt-
hough the untimely allegations discussed above occurred
in July and early August, they all relate to the timely al-
legations that on September 30, Lothian told French that
he was “outed as the union mastermind” and threatened
that French could be discharged and to the October 14
discharge of French. Overall, the untimely allegations
and the timely allegations all relate to the Respondent’s
belief that French was the mastermind of the union activ-
ity and to the steps that it allegedly took to thwart that
activity. See Metro One Loss Prevention, 356 NLRB at
100 (dismissing a 10(b) defense where “the allegations in
the charges all relate[d] to the [r]espondent’s reaction to
the [u]nion’s campaign and [an employee’s] prominent
role therein, and its attempt to thwart that campaign”).

10 Culver was the ultimate decision maker for the alleged unlawful
discharge of French. See Alternative Energy, 361 NLRB at 1204 (find-
ing that the involvement of the same supervisor in both the timely and
untimely allegations supported a finding of factual relatedness).
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The third factor of the Redd-I test also supports finding
that complaint paragraphs 7, 8(a)-(d), 10, and 13 are
closely related to the allegations in the timely-filed
charges. This factor “is concerned, at least in part, with
whether a reasonable respondent would have preserved
similar evidence and prepared a similar case in defending
against the untimely allegations as it would in defending
against the timely allegations.” Fry’s Food Stores, 361
NLRB 1216, 1217 fn. 5 (2014) (internal quotations omit-
ted). Here, the General Counsel relies, in part, on the
allegedly unlawful conduct in complaint paragraphs 7,
8(a)-(d), 10, and 13 to show that the Respondent’s dis-
charge of French was motivated by union animus. Thus,
the Respondent had to defend against that conduct
whether or not it was properly alleged as separate viola-
tions.
II. COMPLAINT PARAGRAPH 12: CONFIDENTIALITY
DIRECTIVE
Complaint paragraph 12 alleges that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) by issuing the confidentiality
directive. We do not agree with the judge’s finding that
complaint paragraph 12 is closely related to the allega-
tions in the timely-filed charges, and, thus, we will dis-
miss complaint paragraph 12 on 10(b) grounds.11
While complaint paragraph 12 may be legally related
to the 8(a)(1) allegations in the timely-filed charges, it is
not factually related to the timely allegations. Unlike the
other untimely allegations discussed above, the Re-
spondent’s issuance of the confidentiality directive was
not allegedly in response or connected to the union activ-
ity. Further, the Respondent does not claim to have re-
lied on the confidentiality directive in discharging
French. Also, unlike the untimely allegations discussed
above, the Respondent would not have prepared to de-
fend against the allegedly unlawful conduct in complaint
paragraph 12 as part of its defense against the allegations
in the timely-filed charges.
The Merits of the Allegations
I. THE UNION HANDBILLING ON JULY 15
For the following reasons, we reverse the judge and
find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by en-
gaging in unlawful surveillance of the union handbilling
activity on July 15. “It is well established that manage-
ment officials may observe open and public union activi-
ty on or near the employer’s premises, so long as such
officials do not engage in behavior that is ‘out of the or-
dinary.’” PartyLite Worldwide, Inc., 344 NLRB 1342,
1342 (2005) (quoting Arrow Automotive Industries, 258
NLRB 860, 860 (1981), enfd. mem. 679 F.2d 875 (4th

11 Therefore, we find it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s discussion
of the merits of complaint par. 12.
Cir. 1982)). Manager of Plant Security and TQA Teenier
travelled from his office at the Respondent’s Bay City
facility to the Respondent’s Saginaw facility to observe
the handbilling; thus, Teenier’s presence was out of the
ordinary. Additionally, the Respondent “went beyond
the mere lawful observation of open union activity.”
Nashville Plastic Products, 313 NLRB 462, 463–464
(1993). As discussed above, according to Teenier’s un-
disputed testimony, Regional Plant Security Director
Culver instructed him to note which employees were
taking flyers from the union representatives. Employee
Payne testified without contradiction that two supervisors
were talking to employees while observing the union
handbilling and that Supervisor Felker asked him if he
had taken a flyer from the union representatives. In dis-
missing this allegation, the judge erred by focusing sole-
ly on whether the Respondent’s management officials
made written notes of the employees who accepted fly-
ers. Although the management officials did not make
written notes as instructed, their conduct went beyond
the mere lawful observation of public union activity.
Thus, the Respondent engaged in unlawful surveillance
in violation of Section 8(a)(1).12
II. TEENIER’S CONVERSATION WITH FRENCH ON JULY 16
We agree with the judge that the Respondent, through
Teenier, violated Section 8(a)(1) on July 16, by creating
the impression of surveillance and coercively interrogat-
ing French. Additionally, we find that the Respondent,
through Teenier, also violated Section 8(a)(1) on July 16,
by threatening French with closer supervision and solicit-
ing grievances from him.13
A. Impression of Surveillance
The Board’s test for determining whether an employer
has created an unlawful impression of surveillance is
whether, under all of the relevant circumstances, the em-
ployer’s statements or other conduct would lead reasona-
ble employees to assume that the employer has placed
their union activities under surveillance. See Durham
School Services, L.P., 361 NLRB 407, 407 (2014). Spe-
cifically, the Board has found that an employer unlawful-
ly creates the impression of surveillance when it “tells
employees that it is aware of their union activities, but
fails to tell them the source of that information” because
the “employees are left to speculate as to how the em-

12 In finding unlawful surveillance, Member Emanuel relies only on
the fact that Supervisor Felker questioned employee Payne about the
Union’s handbilling by asking if he had taken a flyer from the union
representatives.
13 As explained above, the judge dismissed the threat of closer su-
pervision and solicitation of grievances on 10(b) grounds and therefore
did not reach the merits.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 5
ployer obtained its information, causing them reasonably
to conclude that the information was obtained through
employer monitoring.” Stevens Creek Chrysler Jeep
Dodge, 353 NLRB 1294, 1296 (2009) (emphasis in orig-
inal), affd. and incorporated by reference 357 NLRB 633
(2011), enfd. mem. sub nom. Mathew Enterprise, Inc. v.
NLRB, 498 Fed. Appx. 45 (D.C. Cir. 2012); see also Cat-
erpillar Logistics, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 49, slip op. at 2
(2015), enfd. 835 F.3d 536 (6th Cir. 2016).14 Here, Tee-
nier told French that his name had come up as someone
who was involved with the Union, but did not say how
the Respondent learned this information. Therefore,
Teenier created the impression of surveillance in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1).
B. Interrogation
To determine whether an employer’s interrogation was
unlawful, the Board must evaluate whether under all of
the circumstances, it reasonably tended to interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their pro-
tected rights under the Act. Rossmore House, 269 NLRB
1176, 1177 (1984), enfd. sub nom. Hotel & Restaurant
Employees v. NLRB, 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985). In
making that determination, “the Board considers such
factors as the background, the nature of the information
sought, the identity of the questioner, the place and
method of interrogation, and whether or not the employ-
ee being questioned is an open and active union support-
er.” Southern Bakeries, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 64, slip op.
at 7 (2016), enfd. in relevant part 871 F.3d 811 (8th Cir.
2017). Teenier, who was French’s supervisor’s direct
superior, met French in the field and asked French to sit
in Teenier’s vehicle. Teenier then asked French if he
“had any information about what went on with the fly-
ering” or knew of any employees who were involved
with the Union. French replied that he did not have any
information. This interrogation occurred the day after
the union handbilling and during a conversation where
Teenier created the impression of surveillance, solicited
grievances from French, and threatened French with
closer supervision. Given the circumstances, we find
that Teenier coercively interrogated French in violation
of Section 8(a)(1).
C. Threat of Closer Supervision
“The Board has long held that employer threats of
closer supervision because of union activity violate Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.” Paul Mueller Co., 332 NLRB

14 Member Emanuel expresses no opinion on whether this standard is
correct, but he applies it here for institutional reasons. Under this
standard, he agrees that the Respondent created the impression of sur-
veillance of French’s union activity on July 16 and again on September
30, as discussed below, in violation of Sec. 8(a)(1).
312, 312 (2000). After stating that French’s name had
come up as someone who was involved with the Union,
Teenier told French that he was “being looked at closely
by members of upper management.” The context in
which Teenier made this statement clearly indicated that
management was looking at French closely because of
his suspected union activity. Thus, Teenier’s threat of
closer supervision violated Section 8(a)(1).
D. Solicitation of Grievances
An employer’s solicitation of grievances during a un-
ion campaign is unlawful when it “carries with it an im-
plicit or explicit promise to remedy the grievances and
‘impress[es] upon employees that union representation
[is] . . . [un]necessary.’” Albertson’s, LLC, 359 NLRB
1341, 1341 (2013) (quoting Amptech, Inc., 342 NLRB
1131, 1137 (2004), enfd. mem. 165 Fed. Appx. 435 (6th
Cir. 2006)), affd. and incorporated by reference 361
NLRB 761 (2014). The solicitation itself raises an infer-
ence that the employer is promising to remedy the griev-
ances, and that inference is particularly compelling when
the solicitation significantly deviates from the employ-
er’s established policy for addressing employee com-
plaints. See Albertson’s, 359 NLRB at 1342. During a
July 16 conversation, Teenier—who is two levels above
French in the Respondent’s hierarchy—told French that
if French had any concerns about Teenier, other manag-
ers or supervisors, or any other concerns, French could
come to him directly. The Respondent’s “Open Door
Policy” instructs an employee to discuss an issue “first
with the individuals directly involved and, if needed,
with your immediate supervisor.” The “Open Door Poli-
cy” further states that if the issue is not resolved to the
employee’s satisfaction, he or she should then “go to the
next higher level of management.” Thus, Teenier’s so-
licitation of grievances deviated from the Respondent’s
established policy for employee complaints and created a
compelling inference that Teenier was promising to rem-
edy any grievances that French might have had. Addi-
tionally, the solicitation of grievances occurred during a
conversation where Teenier created an unlawful impres-
sion of surveillance, threatened French with closer moni-
toring, and coercively interrogated French. See Sweet
Street Desserts, 319 NLRB 307, 307 (1995) (finding an
unlawful solicitation of grievances where “[the employ-
er’s manager] initiated a conversation with [an employ-
ee], inquired about her union sentiments, threatened ad-
verse consequences from unionization, then encouraged
[the employee] to discuss her problems with [the manag-
er] or a supervisor”), enfd. mem. 107 F.3d 7 (3d Cir.
1997). Given these circumstances, a reasonable employ-
ee would have interpreted Teenier’s solicitation of griev-
ances as an implied promise to remedy the grievances
6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that caused employees to consider union representation.
Therefore, Teenier’s solicitation of grievances violated
Section 8(a)(1).
III. CULVER’S RIDE-ALONG WITH FRENCH ON JULY 17
The judge found that Culver’s ride-along with French
on July 17 constituted unlawful surveillance. We do not
agree that the ride-along constituted unlawful surveil-
lance of French’s union activities because French did not
engage in any union or other protected activity during the
ride-along. However, we find that the ride-along was
coercive and violated Section 8(a)(1) because a reasona-
ble employee would have believed that Culver was moni-
toring French more closely because he suspected that
French was engaged in union activity. See, e.g., Stabi-
lus, Inc., 355 NLRB 836, 837, 864 (2010) (finding that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by closely moni-
toring union supporters), Gold Kist, Inc., 341 NLRB
1040, 1040, 1049 (2004) (same). Prior to July 17, Cul-
ver—who is three levels above French in the Respond-
ent’s hierarchy—had never previously had any one-on-
one contact with French, nor had he gone on a ride-along
with French or with any other field auditor in the Sagi-
naw system. In fact, no management official had ever
gone on a ride-along with French. Further, as discussed
above, only 2 days before the ride-along, the union
handbilling occurred, and only 1 day before the ride-
along, Teenier told French that his name had come up as
someone who was involved with the union and, most
significantly, that management officials were looking at
French closely. French would have reasonably under-
stood that Teenier’s threat of closer supervision had
come to fruition when Culver went on a ride-along with
him the very next day. Therefore, the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) by more closely monitoring
French.15
IV. TEENIER’S REASSIGNMENT OF FRENCH, SCHOOF,
AND DEBEAU
We agree with the judge that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by reassigning French, Schoof,
and DeBeau to rural areas. All three employees were
field auditors whose jobs required them to inspect resi-
dential property to determine whether the customers were
receiving any services for which they were not paying.
During a management telephone conference in July
2014, the Respondent’s Regional Vice President Boul-

15 Member Emanuel notes that ride-alongs are standard practice in
many industries and that they are not inherently coercive or unlawful.
He agrees, however, that the ride-along was unlawful under the particu-
lar circumstances of this case, specifically that Teenier had threatened
French with closer supervision because of his suspected union activity
only a day earlier.
lion, responding to a tip that French, Schoof, and DeBeau
were involved with the Union, instructed Teenier to iso-
late them from other employees. For several weeks,
Teenier reassigned French, Schoof, and DeBeau to rural
areas outside the Respondent’s Saginaw system where
they normally worked. This significantly increased their
daily commutes and made it less likely they would en-
counter their coworkers.
The Respondent argues that even absent any suspected
union activity by the three employees, it would have re-
assigned them because every area in Michigan needs to
be audited at least once per year, and the Saginaw system
had already been audited. However, the Respondent did
not establish that those specific rural areas had to be au-
dited at that specific time. In any event, Teenier’s credit-
ed testimony establishes that Boullion instructed him to
isolate French, Schoof, and DeBeau because they were
suspected union supporters and not for any other reason.
Thus, the reassignments violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
See, e.g., American Red Cross Missouri-Illinois Blood
Services Region, 347 NLRB 347, 348 (2006) (finding
that the employer violated Section 8(a)(3) by isolating
employees because of their union activities); Alamo
Rent-A-Car, 336 NLRB 1155, 1179 (2001) (same).
V. LOTHIAN’S CONVERSATION WITH FRENCH ON
SEPTEMBER 30
On September 30, Supervisor Lothian performed a
safety check of French’s vehicle. For the reasons that
follow, we agree with the judge that Lothian violated
Section 8(a)(1) during that safety check by creating the
impression of surveillance of French’s union activities
and by threatening French with discharge for engaging in
union activities.
A. Impression of Surveillance
As discussed above, an employer unlawfully creates
the impression of surveillance when it tells an employee
that it is aware of his or her union activities but does not
indicate the source of that information. See Caterpillar
Logistics, 362 NLRB No. 49, slip op. at 2. On Septem-
ber 30, Lothian told French that he had been “outed as
the union mastermind” without explaining how the Re-
spondent learned that information. Thus, the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) by creating the impression of
surveillance.
B. Threat of Discharge
During the same conversation, Lothian told French,
“[T]he landscape of the department [is] going to change.
You know, being as that you’re the––you know, you
were outed as the union mastermind, you know, you
should get on my side with this because people [are] go-
ing to get fired.” A reasonable employee would construe
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 7
Lothian’s statement to imply that the Respondent may
discharge French because of his union activities. The
statement therefore violated Section 8(a)(1).
VI. THE RESPONDENT’S DISCHARGE OF FRENCH
To prove that an employee’s discharge violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) under Wright Line,16 the General Counsel
must initially establish that the employee’s union activity
was a motivating factor in the employer’s discharge deci-
sion. More specifically, the General Counsel must show
that the employee engaged in union activity, the employ-
er had knowledge of that activity, and the employer har-
bored animus toward union activity. See Lucky Cab Co.,
360 NLRB 271, 273 (2014). If the General Counsel sat-
isfies his initial burden, the burden shifts to the employer
to establish that it would have discharged the employee
even in the absence of his or her union activities. See id.
at 275–276. The employer will not satisfy this burden if
its proffered reasons for the discharge are pretextual, i.e.,
false or were not in fact relied upon. See id. at 276.
We agree with the judge’s finding that the Respond-
ent’s discharge of French violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1). The Respondent does not dispute that French en-
gaged in union activity and that it had knowledge of that
activity. The numerous Section 8(a)(1) and (3) viola-
tions involving French discussed above demonstrate that
the Respondent harbored animus toward his union activi-
ty. The Respondent argues that the union activity and its
campaign in response, which began in mid-July, were
remote in time to French’s October 14 discharge. We
disagree. The Respondent discharged French within 3
months of learning of the union activity and committing
the 8(a)(1) and (3) violations discussed above during its
campaign in response. See, e.g., Dish Network, LLC,
363 NLRB No. 141, slip op. at 13 (2016) (finding that
“the close timing between [an employee’s] escalated
protected activity . . . and his firing, which all occurred
within 3 months,” supported a finding of animus), enfd.
___ Fed. Appx. ___ (10th Cir. Mar. 7, 2018). Addition-
ally, the record shows that the Respondent was still con-
cerned about and harbored animus toward union activity
near the time of French’s discharge. In early September,
Teenier reassigned French, Schoof, and DeBeau from
Felker’s team to Lothian’s team. Felker asked Teenier to
reassign French instead of Payne because Felker wanted
the union spotlight off of his team, and Lothian mumbled
that Teenier was “giving him the guy that caused all that
[sic] union problems.” Further, as discussed above, only
about 2 weeks before French’s discharge, Lothian told

16 251 NLRB 1083, 1089 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981),
cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation
Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983).
French that he had been “outed as the union mastermind”
and implied that French could be discharged as a result.
For the reasons stated by the judge, we agree that the
Respondent’s proffered reasons for discharging French
are pretextual, and that French’s discharge violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1).
VII. THE RESPONDENT’S DISCHARGES OF SCHOOF
AND DEBEAU
Because the Respondent’s discharges of Schoof and
DeBeau are closely connected, we will consider them
together. As with French, Wright Line is the applicable
framework. The judge found that the General Counsel
failed to establish his initial burden under Wright Line
and that, even if the General Counsel satisfied his initial
burden, the Respondent established that it would have
still discharged Schoof and DeBeau absent their union
activities. We disagree for the reasons that follow.
The General Counsel argues that the Respondent dis-
charged Schoof and DeBeau based on a mistaken belief
that they were involved with the Union. See Dayton
Hudson Department Store Co., 324 NLRB 33, 35 (1997)
(“In establishing that an employer’s opposition to union
activity was a motivating factor in an employer’s deci-
sion to discharge an employee, it is . . . immaterial that
the employee was not in fact engaging in union activity
as long as that was the employer’s perception and the
employer was motivated to act based on that percep-
tion.”) (emphasis in original); see also Remington Lodg-
ing & Hospitality, LLC, 363 NLRB No. 112, slip op. at 4
fn. 15 (2016) (“[T]he legality of the discharge does not
turn on whether [the employee] in fact engaged in pro-
tected concerted activity. Rather, the key point is that the
[r]espondent discharged her because it believed that she
had done so or would do so.”) (emphasis in original),
enfd. 847 F.3d 180 (5th Cir. 2017).
We find that the Respondent mistakenly believed that
Schoof and DeBeau were involved with the Union. As
discussed above, in response to a tip that Schoof and
DeBeau were involved with the Union, Boullion in-
structed Teenier to isolate Schoof and DeBeau from oth-
er employees, and Teenier did so by reassigning them to
rural areas. Thus, the Respondent was suspicious enough
of Schoof and DeBeau to reassign them in an effort to
prevent them from spreading the Union’s message. Ad-
ditionally, Schoof and DeBeau were on Felker’s team
with the suspected “union mastermind,” French, and,
during a telephone conference, Boullion pointed out that
all of the union activity seemed to have originated from
Felker’s team. The day after the handbilling occurred,
Culver had a conversation with Schoof, which he report-
ed in a management telephone conference. Also, Felker
told Schoof that Culver intended to go on a ride-along
8 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with Schoof on July 17, the same day on which he went
on a ride-along with French.17 Further, Teenier told
DeBeau that management was closely watching DeBeau
because of his suspected involvement with the Union,
asked DeBeau how he felt about the Union, and cau-
tioned DeBeau to steer clear of the Union.
The Respondent’s reassignment of Schoof and DeBeau
for the stated purpose of isolating them in order to pre-
vent them from talking to other employees about the Un-
ion is direct evidence of its animus toward their suspect-
ed union activity. The Respondent’s numerous contem-
poraneous Section 8(a)(1) violations discussed above
also support a finding of animus. See Bates Paving &
Sealing, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 46, slip op. at 3 (2016);
Lucky Cab, 360 NLRB at 274. As discussed above, in
our analysis of French’s discharge, the record shows that
the Respondent continued to harbor animus toward em-
ployees’ union activity close in time to its October 14
discharges of Schoof and DeBeau.
Our finding of animus is further supported by strong
evidence that the Respondent’s proffered reasons for
discharging Schoof and DeBeau are pretextual. See
Lucky Cab, 360 NLRB at 274. Schoof’s and DeBeau’s
discharge notices stated that they violated the Respond-
ent’s “Ethics Standards,” “Professional Conduct” policy,
and, in DeBeau’s case only, “Timekeeping” policy,
without specifying the conduct for which the Respondent
discharged them. The Respondent’s internal investiga-
tion reports stated that it discharged Schoof for being
dishonest during an investigation and DeBeau for that
same reason and for completing non-Charter work during
work time for the Respondent’s vendor Complete Auto.
Regarding the Respondent’s claim that DeBeau per-
formed work for Complete Auto during work time,
DeBeau admitted that he worked on Complete Auto’s
owner Pat Hozeska’s Halloween haunted house while he
was waiting for Complete Auto to fix his work vehicle,
and that he otherwise would have sat idle during that
time. Although DeBeau did not clock out when he
worked on the haunted house, he testified, without con-
tradiction, that he skipped his lunch that day and still
worked the required 8 hours. More importantly, the Re-
spondent knew that Teenier gave DeBeau permission to
work on the haunted house. In fact, Teenier regularly
gave the employees permission to vary their schedules or
to work through lunch.18 Thus, one of the asserted rea-
sons for DeBeau’s discharge is conduct that DeBeau had

17 Culver ultimately did not go on a ride-along with Schoof.
18 The Respondent argues that it began to more strictly apply its rules
and policies when Culver became Teenier’s superior in February 2013.
However, Teenier still allowed employees to vary their schedules up
until the time of his discharge.
permission to do at a time when he otherwise would have
been idly sitting and waiting for his work vehicle. The
Respondent’s justification suggests pretext.19
The Respondent’s claim that it discharged Schoof and
Debeau for dishonesty relates to the Respondent’s inves-
tigation of a claim that Schoof and DeBeau laid sod at
Schoof’s house during work hours. The Respondent
asserts that it concluded that Schoof and DeBeau were
dishonest based primarily on information it received
from Lothian, who did not testify at the hearing. Accord-
ing to the Respondent’s investigation reports, Lothian
told Human Resources Generalist Peters, who conducted
the investigation, that Felker said that he had witnessed
Teenier, Schoof, and DeBeau laying sod at Schoof’s
house during worktime, and showed Lothian pictures of
the three doing so. But Felker contradicted Lothian’s
claims, and Teenier, Schoof, and DeBeau all told Peters
that they laid sod at Schoof’s house only after work
hours. As explained below, we find that the Respond-
ent’s purported reasons for relying on Lothian’s
secondhand account suggest that its claim that it dis-
charged Schoof and DeBeau because it believed that they
lied about laying sod after work hours is pretextual.
The Respondent claims that it relied on Lothian’s
secondhand account because Lothian had nothing to gain
from the complaint, while the other four were trying to
avoid discipline. However, the record shows that the
Respondent was aware that Lothian was concerned that
Teenier had transferred French, Schoof, and DeBeau to
him in an attempt to “force him out” and feared that
those employees would hurt his productivity numbers.
Thus, the Respondent knew that Lothian had a motive for
damaging Teenier and the others and may have hoped to
use the complaint to gain job security.
The Respondent also claims that it relied on Lothian’s
secondhand account because Teenier, Felker, Schoof,
and DeBeau gave inconsistent stories. However, based
on the Respondent’s investigation reports, their stories
were fairly consistent, especially concerning the primary
allegation that they laid sod at Schoof’s house during
worktime. Schoof and DeBeau told Peters that after
work, at around 5:30 to 6 p.m., they started working on
the sod project at Schoof’s house. DeBeau and Teenier
told Peters that, at around 7 p.m., Teenier stopped by
Schoof’s house to help lay sod, and Schoof similarly
added that Teenier stopped by his house later in the even-
ing.

19 The Respondent argues that because it expected DeBeau to “know
right from wrong,” Teenier’s permission did not excuse DeBeau’s
conduct. Based on the above facts, the Respondent could not have
expected DeBeau to conclude that even with Teenier’s permission his
conduct was objectively “wrong.”
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 9
In addition, other evidence that Peters gathered during
the investigation contradicted a number of Lothian’s
claims. First, as noted above, Felker denied that he had
witnessed Teenier, Schoof, and DeBeau laying sod on
worktime and that he took pictures of them doing so.
Second, during the initial September 19 interview, Lothi-
an told Peters that he believed that Schoof and DeBeau
had worked on Teenier’s rental house during worktime,
but Teenier’s tenant, a Charter employee who was un-
connected to the sod project, told Peters that he had no
knowledge of Schoof, DeBeau, or any other employee
working on the rental house. Third, Lothian’s concern
that Schoof’s and DeBeau’s productivity numbers were
low because they regularly completed non-Charter work
during worktime was unfounded; Regional Plant Security
Director Culver pulled their productivity numbers and
emailed Peters that those numbers were “outstanding.”
Fourth, in a follow-up interview on October 3, Lothian
told Peters that he had not spoken to French that week
when in fact Lothian had spoken to French while he per-
formed a safety check of French’s vehicle a few days
earlier, as he later admitted. Finally, during that same
interview, Lothian added that he had not discussed the
investigation with anyone, but another Charter employee
who was unconnected to the sod project told Peters that
Lothian attempted to discuss the investigation with him
on October 1. The Respondent ignored the inconsisten-
cies in Lothian’s story.
In finding that the Respondent “had sufficient reason
to believe” that Schoof and DeBeau lied about laying the
sod after work hours, the judge relied heavily on the fact
that Felker did not show Peters the photograph of the
completed sod project that he testified he had taken with
his personal cellular telephone. While the judge is cor-
rect that the photograph would likely have indicated the
date and time that Felker took it, that information, con-
trary to the judge’s suggestion, would not have assisted
in determining whether Schoof and DeBeau laid the sod
during worktime because Felker took the photograph
approximately 2 weeks after Schoof and DeBeau fin-
ished laying the sod. The judge also seemed to fault
Schoof and DeBeau for failing to tell Peters the exact
date on which they laid the sod. During the September
30 interviews, Schoof said that he laid the sod about 4–5
weeks prior, and DeBeau said that he helped with the sod
“a few weeks ago.” The Respondent’s investigation re-
ports do not indicate that Peters asked if they could recall
the specific date. Schoof and DeBeau should not be
faulted for Peters’ failure to ask for a more specific date.
In any event, Schoof’s and DeBeau’s approximations put
the date of the project in the August 25–29 timeframe,
when the owner of Saginaw Valley Sod Farm, Thomas
Armstrong, testified that the sod was delivered to
Schoof’s house and when Schoof and DeBeau were both
working 8-hour shifts.20
Overall, the Respondent’s purported reasons for rely-
ing on Lothian’s secondhand account simply do not
withstand reasonable scrutiny and thus suggest pretext.21
Even assuming that the Respondent actually believed
that Schoof and DeBeau lied about laying the sod after
work hours, the General Counsel put forward compelling
evidence that the Respondent treated Schoof and DeBeau
disparately compared to employees who previously
committed similar offenses. Teenier testified about two
investigations that he conducted for the Respondent in
2012. Regarding the first one, Teenier noticed an em-
ployee’s work vehicle parked at his home prior to the end
of the employee’s shift. Teenier then began to keep a log
of what time he would see that employee at home and
compared that log to the employee’s timecard. He found
that the employee was clocking out at 6 or 7 p.m. on days
when he was home at 3 or 3:30 p.m. Teenier reported
the employee, but the Respondent did not discharge him.
In the second investigation, Teenier found that employ-
ees were falsifying their job scorecards by, in part, re-
porting that they did jobs at addresses that did not exist;
the Respondent did not discharge any of those employ-
ees.
Additionally, the General Counsel produced a number
of Corrective Action Reports (CARs) that the Respond-
ent had previously issued to employees for violations of
the Respondent’s Ethics Standards, Professional Conduct
policy, and/or Timekeeping policy.22 The following are
summaries of the most relevant of those CARs. An em-
ployee received a final warning for falsifying documents
at the direction of his supervisor, which resulted in an
inventory variance of 1.6 million. An employee received
a verbal warning when he submitted falsified documents
of a completed work order for a job that he did not actu-

20 Schoof’s and DeBeau’s testimony clearly establishes that they
worked together to lay the sod, not to prepare for the delivery of the sod
as the judge suggests. Also, Armstrong testified that the sod needed to
be laid within 48 hours of delivery, which suggests that the sod was laid
during the week of August 25–29.
21 The Respondent claims that it relied, in part, on Peters’ interview
of employee Lucas Watkins to conclude that Schoof and DeBeau lied
about laying the sod after work hours. However, Watkins did not testi-
fy at the hearing, and his information was even more attenuated than
Lothian’s information. In his interview, Watkins told Peters that he
learned from Complete Auto’s owner Hozeska that Felker had com-
plained to Hozeska about Schoof and DeBeau laying the sod during
worktime. But Hozeska denied this claim when the Respondent ques-
tioned him.
22 The CARs indicate that the Respondent uses the following forms
of corrective action (from least serious to most serious): (1) coaching,
(2) verbal warning, (3) written warning, (4) final warning, and (5)
termination.
10 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ally complete, and less than 2 months later he received a
final warning for providing false information to a super-
visor and for being dishonest when questioned about it;
this employee had previously received a coaching. An
employee received a written warning for falsely indicat-
ing on a work order that he had completed two discon-
nect jobs; this employee had previously received six
coachings, a verbal warning, and a final warning. An
employee received a written warning when he left work
early and left system outages for other teammates to
handle; this employee had previously received four ver-
bal warnings. An employee received a written warning
for improperly “statusing” and documenting a work or-
der; this employee had previously received a coaching.
An employee received a written warning for arriving late
for his first job of the day and for sleeping on the job,
and he subsequently received a final warning for not us-
ing company time appropriately while on the job; this
employee had previously received three coachings, five
verbal warnings, five written warnings, and a final warn-
ing.
The foregoing evidence shows that the Respondent
treated Schoof and DeBeau much more harshly than it
has treated similarly-situated employees in the past. The
Respondent simply has not previously discharged em-
ployees for allegedly engaging in dishonest conduct or
nonwork conduct during worktime, even when, in some
circumstances, those employees had lengthy disciplinary
records. Neither Schoof nor DeBeau had a record of any
prior discipline. Such strong evidence of disparate
treatment suggests pretext. See Bates Paving & Sealing,
364 NLRB No. 46, slip op. at 4; Lucky Cab, 360 NLRB
at 274.
In sum, we find that the General Counsel established
that the Respondent’s belief that Schoof and DeBeau
were involved with the Union was a motivating factor in
its decisions to discharge them. Further, based on the
overwhelming evidence discussed above, we find that the
Respondent’s proffered reasons for discharging Schoof
and DeBeau are pretextual, and that the Respondent thus
failed to establish that it would have discharged Schoof
and DeBeau even in the absence of its belief that they
were involved with the Union. See Austal USA, LLC,
356 NLRB 363, 364 (2010); Limestone Apparel Corp.,
255 NLRB 722, 722 (1981), enfd. 705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir.
1982). Therefore, we find that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging Schoof and
DeBeau.23

23 Because we find that the Respondent’s discharges of French,
Schoof, and DeBeau violated Sec. 8(a)(3), we find it unnecessary to
pass on the General Counsel’s contention that those discharges also
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Charter Communications, LLC, is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by engaging in the following conduct:
(a) Surveilling employees’ union activities.
(b) Creating the impression of surveillance of an em-
ployee’s union activities.
(c) Coercively interrogating an employee about his un-
ion activities.
(d) Threatening an employee with closer supervision
because of his union activities.
(e) Soliciting grievances from an employee and im-
pliedly promising to remedy them in order to discourage
the employee from supporting a union.
(f) Closely monitoring an employee because of his un-
ion activities.
(g) Threatening an employee with discharge for his un-
ion activities.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by engaging in the following conduct:
(a) Reassigning Jonathan French, Raymond Schoof,
and James DeBeau to rural areas.
(b) Discharging Jonathan French, Raymond Schoof,
and James DeBeau.
4. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
AMENDED REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and de-
sist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Specifically, having found that the Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging Jonathan
French, Raymond Schoof, and James DeBeau, we shall
order the Respondent to offer them full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those positions no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed, and to make them whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrim-
ination against them. Backpay shall be computed in ac-
cordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New Hori-
zons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as pre-
scribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6
(2010). In accordance with our recent decision in King
Soopers, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 93 (2016), we shall also

independently violated Sec. 8(a)(1). Finding such additional violations
would not materially affect the remedy.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 11
order the Respondent to compensate Jonathan French,
Raymond Schoof, and James DeBeau for their search-
for-work and interim employment expenses regardless of
whether those expenses exceed interim earnings. Search-
for-work and interim employment expenses shall be cal-
culated separately from taxable net backpay, with interest
at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, supra, com-
pounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medi-
cal Center, supra. Additionally, the Respondent shall be
required to compensate Jonathan French, Raymond
Schoof, and James DeBeau for the adverse tax conse-
quences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards,
and to file with the Regional Director for Region 7, with-
in 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed,
either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating
the backpay awards to the appropriate calendar
year(s). AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No.
143 (2016). Finally, we shall order the Respondent to
remove from its files any reference to the unlawful dis-
charges of Jonathan French, Raymond Schoof, and
James DeBeau, and to notify them in writing that this has
been done and that the unlawful discharges will not be
used against them in any way.24
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Charter Communications, LLC, Saginaw
and Bay City, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Placing employees under surveillance while they
engage in union or other protected activities.
(b) Creating the impression that it is engaged in sur-
veillance of its employees’ union or other protected ac-
tivities.
(c) Coercively interrogating employees about their un-
ion activities.
(d) Threatening employees with closer supervision be-
cause of their union activities.
(e) Soliciting grievances from employees and implied-
ly promising to remedy them in order to discourage em-
ployees from supporting a union.
(f) Closely monitoring employees because of their un-
ion activities.

24 The General Counsel additionally seeks a make-whole remedy
that includes reasonable consequential damages incurred as a result of
the Respondent’s unfair labor practices. The relief sought would re-
quire a change in Board law. We are not prepared at this time to devi-
ate from our current remedial practice. Accordingly, we decline to
order the requested relief at this time. See, e.g., Inverted Healthcare
Staffing, LLC d/b/a United MedSource, 365 NLRB No. 103, slip op. at
3 fn. 6 (2017); Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local
Union No. 91 (Council of Utility Contractors, Inc. and various other
employers), 365 NLRB No. 28, slip op. at 1 fn. 2 (2017).
(g) Threatening employees with discharge because of
their union activities.
(h) Reassigning employees to rural areas for support-
ing a union.
(i) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees for supporting a union.
(j) 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.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Jonathan French, Raymond Schoof, and James DeBeau
full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or priv-
ileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Jonathan French, Raymond Schoof, and
James DeBeau whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the
judge’s decision as amended in this decision.
(c) Compensate Jonathan French, Raymond Schoof,
and James DeBeau for the adverse tax consequences, if
any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards, and file
with the Regional Director for Region 07, within 21 days
of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by
agreement or Board order, a report allocating the back-
pay awards to the appropriate calendar year(s) for each
employee.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful discharges,
and within 3 days thereafter, notify Jonathan French,
Raymond Schoof, and James DeBeau in writing that this
has been done and that the discharges will not be used
against them in any way.
(e) 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 backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Saginaw and Bay City, Michigan facilities copies of
the attached notice marked “Appendix.”25 Copies of the

25 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-
12 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 07, after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. In addition to physical post-
ing of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electron-
ically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an in-
ternet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respond-
ent customarily communicates with its employees by
such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material. If the Respond-
ent has gone out of business or closed the facilities in-
volved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall dupli-
cate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since July 15, 2014.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 07 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that complaint paragraph 6,
which alleges that the Respondent has unlawfully main-
tained a number of provisions in its Professional Conduct
policy, is severed and retained for further consideration.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 27, 2018
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
______________________________________
William J. Emanuel, 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

ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT place you under surveillance while you
engage in union or other protected activities.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that we are en-
gaged in surveillance of your union or other protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate you about your
union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with closer supervision be-
cause of your union activities.
WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from you and implied-
ly promise to remedy them in order to discourage you
from supporting a union.
WE WILL NOT closely monitor you because of your un-
ion activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with discharge because of
your union activities.
WE WILL NOT reassign you to rural areas for support-
ing a union.
WE WILL NOT discharge you or otherwise discriminate
against you for supporting a union.
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 Jonathan French, Raymond Schoof, and
James DeBeau full reinstatement to their former jobs or,
if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any oth-
er rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Jonathan French, Raymond Schoof,
and James DeBeau whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits resulting from their discharges, less any
net interim earnings, plus interest, and WE WILL also
make such employees whole for reasonable search-for-
work and interim employment expenses, plus interest.
WE WILL compensate Jonathan French, Raymond
Schoof, and James DeBeau for the adverse tax conse-
quences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards,
and WE WILL file with the Regional Director for Region
07, within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 13
fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allo-
cating the backpay awards to the appropriate calendar
year(s) for each employee.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful discharges of Jonathan French, Raymond Schoof, and
James DeBeau, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter,
notify each of them in writing that this has been done and
that the discharges will not be used against them in any
way.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-140170 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.
Darlene Haas Awada and Judith A. Champa, Esqs., for the
General Counsel.
Henry E. Farber and Taylor S. Ball, Esqs. (Davis Wright Tre-
maine), of Seattle, Washington, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARTHUR J. AMCHAN, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Bay City, Michigan on April 26–29, May 31–June
3, and August 15–16, 2016. On January 26, 2016, the General
Counsel issued a consolidated complaint predicated on the
charges filed by Jonathan French, Raymond Schoof and James
Debeau. The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) by terminating the 3 charging parties. It
also alleges many 8(a)(1) violations that allegedly occurred
between July and October 2014.
Given Respondent’s contention that most of the 8(a)(1) alle-
gations in the complaint are barred by Section 10(b) of the Act,
an exposition of when the charges were filed and what they
alleged is warranted in this case. Jonathan French filed his
initial charge on November 3, 2014, stating that he was termi-
nated on October 14, 2014, and that two supervisors and a
manager told him that he was “outed” as the “mastermind”
behind union activity amongst Respondent’s employees. On
November 18, 2014, French filed an amended charge alleging
that Supervisor Rob Lothian told him that Respondent was
aware of his union activities and threatened him with termina-
tion to discourage these activities. French also alleged that
Respondent terminated him on October 14, 2014, in retaliation
for his organizing activities.
French filed a second amended charge almost a year later, on
October 29, 2015, alleging a host of 8(a)(1) violations by Re-
spondent, including unlawful surveillance, soliciting grievanc-
es, threats and interrogation between July and October 2014.
He also alleged that Respondent in July 2014, assigned him and
three other field auditors, Charging Parties Raymond Schoof
and James Debeau, and Kent Payne to remote areas to isolate
them from other employees in order to discourage union activi-
ty.
French alleged in this charge that in mid-July 2014, Manager
Greg Culver interfered with his Section 7 rights by subjecting
him to closer scrutiny, (complaint par. 10). French filed a third
amended charge on November 18, 2015, alleging among other
things, that Respondent violated the Act in maintaining an
overly broad professional conduct rule and instructing employ-
ees to not to discuss a disciplinary investigation with other
employees..
On February 3, 2015, Raymond Schoof filed a charge alleg-
ing that he also had been fired on October 14, 1014, due to
alleged union activity. On March 4, 2015, James Debeau filed
a charge alleging that he was discharged the same day for al-
leged union activity.
On the entire record,1 including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent provides video, internet and phone service to
customers throughout the United States. This case involves
employees working out of its offices in Saginaw and Bay City,
Michigan. In 2015, Respondent derived revenue in excess of
$500,000 and purchased and received goods valued in excess of
$5000 at its Saginaw, Michigan facility directly from points
outside of Michigan. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES2
On or about October 14, 2014, Respondent terminated the
employment of all three charging parties. At the same time, it
terminated one of their immediate supervisors, Shawn Felker
and his immediate boss, Terry James (TJ) Teenier, II, manager
for Plant Security and Technical Quality Assurance for the
entire state of Michigan. In their termination meetings, none of
these individuals were told specifically why they were being
fired.
The termination notices given to the charging parties stated
they were being fired for violations of Charter’s Code of Con-

1 Tr. 70, line 4 should read Darlene, not darling. Tr. 1473, line 11
should be Farber, not Haas-Awada.
2 I have not taken the testimony of any witness in this case at face
value. Each and every one of them has a bias. What I have credited is
often evidence that is corroborated by Respondent’s documents and
uncontradicted testimony by the General Counsel’s witnesses on what I
regard as the principal issues in this case.
14 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
duct and Employee Handbook and in Debeau’s case, Charter’s
timekeeping policy (GC Exhs. 6, 14, 16). When Jon French
asked human resources specialist Stephanie Peters how he vio-
lated these policies, she refused to be more specific (Tr. 77).
In Respondent’s internal investigation reports, which were
not give to the charging parties, the only specific reasons given
were dishonesty during an investigation, (Schoof) (Exh. R-10);
being disrespectful and uncooperative during an investigation
and lying with the intent of damaging another employee’s cred-
ibility (French) (Exh. R-11); and doing non-Charter work on
company time at the direction of Teenier and being dishonest
when questioned during an investigation (Exh. R-13) (Debeau).
Charging Parties French, Schoof and Debeau were three of
the four field auditors assigned to Respondent’s Saginaw,
Michigan office. Kent Payne was the fourth field auditor.3
Their jobs required them to inspect residential property to de-
termine whether the customers were receiving more services
from Respondent than those for which the customer was pay-
ing. Other field office employees working out of the Saginaw
office were broadband technicians who installed the hardware
necessary to receive Respondent’s services and performed ser-
vice calls. Several other employees were technical quality
assurances employees, whose job it was to check on the work
of the line technicians.
The Saginaw field auditors reported to Supervisor Shawn
Felker, whose geographic responsibilities included Saginaw
and points south, until sometime shortly after September 2,
2014, G.C. Exh. 9. Then they were reassigned to work under
Supervisor Rob Lothian, whose responsibilities included Bay
City, Michigan and points north. Felker and Lothian reported
to Terry Teenier, manager for plant security and technical qual-
ity assurance. Other supervisors in Michigan, responsible for
other geographic areas, also reported to Teenier. Since some-
time in 2013, Teenier began reporting to Greg Culver, director
of plant security and technical quality assurance. Culver’s
responsibilities extended beyond the State of Michigan.
Evidence of the Union and Other Protected Activities of the
Charging Parties
The record evidence with regard to the union and other pro-
tected activities of Jonathan French is much different than the
evidence regarding Ray Schoof and James Debeau. There is
substantial evidence of protected activity on the part of French,
Respondent’s knowledge of those activities and animus towards
French as a result. With regard to Schoof and Debeau there is
little evidence of any of the elements that generally support an
8(a)(3) violation.
Jonathan French’s Union Activities, Suspected Union Activi-
ties, Respondent’s Knowledge of Those Activities and Evi-
dence of Animus Towards him as a Result
From 2006 to 2009, Jonathan French worked for a contrac-
tor, RCH Cable of Saginaw, Michigan, which did work for
Respondent. In August 2012, Respondent hired French as a

3 Respondent issued Payne a disciplinary warning on October 15,
2014, as a result of its investigation of Teenier, Felker, Schoof and
Debeau. French’s termination was also a result of the investigation, not
the conduct being investigated.
field auditor. Respondent asserts that it fired French on Octo-
ber 14, 2014, for two reasons: 1) fabricating a story that Su-
pervisor Rob Lothian had told him all about a confidential in-
vestigation that Respondent was conducting, and 2) fabricating
a story that Lothian had a gun at work (Tr. 1426–1427).4
In about, or slightly before June 2014, French contacted Bri-
an Groom, an organizer for the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW). As a result of French’s discus-
sions with Groom, a friend of French, who was not an employ-
ee of Respondent, placed union flyers on cars parked in the lot
of Respondent’s Bay City office on June 17, 2014. A month
later, on July 15, 2014, Groom and two other union organizers
passed out union flyers just off company property at Charter’s
Saginaw office.
On July 15, several supervisors, including Chad Erskine and
Shawn Felker, went out into the parking lot to observe the dis-
tribution of flyers. Erskine asked Felker if Jonathan French
worked for him. Erskine told Felker that French’s name had
been dropped as one of the people orchestrating the distribution
of the flyers (Tr. 854).5
Respondent reacted to the July 15 hand billing by instituting
daily phone calls about union activity. Less frequent calls con-
tinued until August 7. While the calls were in part designed to
discover whether any employees were dissatisfied with their
working conditions, they were also clearly designed to deter-
mine which, if any, employees were in contact with the IBEW.
On July 15, participants in the call included Harth Goulette,
Human Resources Director for Field Operations Personnel in
Michigan, David Slowik, a vice-president for Michigan, Sean
Hayes, a vice-president for Michigan field operations, Joseph
Boullion, Regional vice-president, Greg Culver, Regional Plant
security director, and T.J. Teenier, manager for plant Security
and Quality Assurance for Michigan. Goulette’s notes indicate
that these participants discussed the flyers. Slowik noted that
they were identical to those passed on in Bay City on June 17.
The discussion at one point focused on John French. Goulette’s
notes (GC Exh. 23), indicate the following observations by
Sean Hayes:6

4 Stephanie Peters, a human resource generalist, testified that French
was terminated in part for knowing that other employees were doing
noncompany work on company time and not reporting it, Tr. 637–638.
There is absolutely no evidence that French knew anything about these
matters until Supervisor Rob Lothian told him about some of them on
September 30, 2014.
5 Erskine testified on August 15, 2016. He admitted to speaking to
Felker on July 15 and did not contradict Felker’s testimony regarding
his remarks about French.
6 Hayes is the direct supervisor of Greg Culver. He was part of a
collaborative effort in deciding to terminate French, Schoof, Debeau,
Felker and Teenier, Tr. 720, 1430, 1707, 1745. Hayes was provided
with Stephanie Peters’ investigative report, GC Exh. 40. Hayes, who
still works for Respondent, did not testify in this proceeding.
Greg Culver denied that Hayes played any role in the decision to
terminate the five employees. Culver testified that he kept Hayes in-
formed of why he was spending time in Bay City and nothing else.
Based on Goulette’s testimony, I find Culver’s testimony regarding
Hayes involvement incredible. What role Hayes played in the decision
making is a mystery as far as this record is concerned. There is no
indication, for example, with whom Hayes may have discussed the
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 15
French-Friends w/Sag techs *pull review & time card
Likes to stir the pot
Degree from CMU
Hayes also wanted the review and time card pulled for Ryan
Lange, a broad band technician.
Boullion said something about getting a “friendly list.”7
GC Exh. 23.
David Slowik made notes of a call the date of which is un-
clear (GC Exh. 34). I infer that despite the date of July 14, it is
from a conference call occurring on July 15 or 16. His notes
contain the following observations:
After a line from the name Shawn Felker (then French’s im-
mediate supervisor) Slowik wrote:
Jonathan French-a/ft/tqa8-is trouble-
Name was brought up-trying to get union
Ryan Lange-BBT9-trouble maker-listened to Jonathan
Further down the page is a note “TJ-talk to Jonathan
French”
VP Boullion instructed Teenier to talk to French because his
name came up as an instigator of the union flyers, Tr. 381.10
On July 17, Greg Culver rode with French on his route all
morning. Brian Rock, regional director for field operations,
rode with Ryan Lange, previously identified by Respondent’s
management as a “trouble-maker who listens to French.” Alt-
hough these “ride-a-longs” were not uncommon events, these
particular ones were related to the suspicions that French and
Lange might be union supporters. Culver was to report to
Harth Goulette as to the results of his “ride-a-long” with French
(GC Exh. 24, 26). There is no evidence that Culver made such
reports routinely after a “ride-a-long,” Tr. 1660–1669.
Goulette made notes of Culver’s report on July 17 (GC Exh.
29):
French- Arrogant-felt entitled to applied positions
Tech passed up for promo-Carl Makowski
No desire in BBT. TQA Documents in his pocket
Wants nothing to do with Union-seems to know a lot about
other areas
Asked if he was scheduled to be there today?
Ray Schoof-no concerns-loves Charter
Shane Robinson-Had lunch-pulled aside
Don’t think he is a union supporter.
Further down there is a note about Manager T.J. Teenier:

terminations. However, the record makes clear that Hayes, as well as
other top Charter managers, bore substantial animus towards French in
part due to his union and other potentially protected activities.
7 I infer that “friendly” means employees known to oppose unioniza-
tion.
8 This incorrectly identifies French as a full time TQA employee, ra-
ther than a field auditor.
9 Broad band technician
10 Boullion did not testify in this proceeding. Teenier’s testimony on
this point is uncontradicted.
Seems to be connected to Shane
After IBEW-TJ called Shane & French & told names
brought up.
In July 2014, TJ Teenier assigned French to work around
Cass City and Caro, Michigan, which are located east of Sagi-
naw, in the thumb of Michigan.11 Cass City is about 45 miles
from Saginaw; Caro is about 30 miles east. French had also
worked in the Cass City area in 2013. The other three Saginaw
field auditors were also reassigned to areas away from Sagi-
naw. James Debeau was assigned to work near Alma (west of
Saginaw);12 Kent Payne was assigned to work in Chesaning,
southwest of Saginaw and Ray Schoof was assigned to work in
St. Johns, further southwest of Saginaw. The General Counsel
alleges in complaint paragraph 13 that this was done for dis-
criminatory reasons in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
Shawn Felker testified that Greg Culver called and told him
that he should move Jon French as far away from the Saginaw
market as possible. Further, he testified that Culver told him to
move the other three field auditors to outlying areas as well, so
that moving French wouldn’t look suspicious and to keep the
four as far away as possible from each other (Tr. 860). If cred-
ible, this call would have been made on the evening of July 16,
the the evening before Culver rode with French on his route,
and would support the allegations in complaint paragraph 13.
After 2–3 weeks, the field auditors returned to the Saginaw
area to work. During the first week of September, Teenier
reassigned French, Debeau and Schoof to Rob Lothian’s super-
vision (GC Exh. 9). Lothian was unhappy in having French
assigned to him. He told Teenier and Felker that “you’ve given
me the guy that caused all the union problems” (Tr. 869).13
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014, Rob Lothian met French
in the field to do a safety inspection of French’s truck. After-
wards, they had a long conversation:
We talked for quite a while. He asked me if I
knew what was going on. And I told him no. And then he said
that, you know, I seemed like kind of a loner, like I really
don’t talk to the people in the department much or, you know,
hang out with them after work. And, you know, I told him,
you know, I come to work and do my job, go home.
Then he told me that I was outed as the union
mastermind. And I kind of was taken aback that, taken aback
by ––
Q. Did you say anything in response?
A. I told him that it wasn’t me, but I wasn’t going to rat
anyone out. He told me, he asked me again if he could trust
me. And I said, yeah, you know, what’s on your mind? He

11 Just as a map of Italy resembles a boot, a map of Michigan resem-
bles a mitten. The area north of Port Huron is often referred to as the
thumb.
12 There is some variation in the evidence as to where the field audi-
tors, other than French worked during this period. However, it is clear
they all worked some distance away from Saginaw. Debeau testified he
worked in Ithaca, Michigan, which is very close to Alma. Felker testi-
fied Debeau was assigned to work in Ovid, which is also close to Alma.
Schoof testified that he worked in St. Johns, Michigan.
13 I credit Felker’s testimony in this regard because Lothian said es-
sentially the same thing to Stephanie Peters on October 3, R-9, p. 12.
16 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
told me that he went to human resources with a story that
Shawn Felker had told him.
Shawn Felker told Rob that he discovered Ray Schoof, Jim
Debeau, and TJ Teenier apparently laying sod on company
time.
He told me that the landscape of the department was going to
change. You know, being as that you’re the -- you know, you
were outed as the union mastermind, you know, you should
get on my side with this because people were going to get
fired.
He told me that years ago, he became supervisor by
squashing a union drive, going around and asking people
what they really wanted. And he was shocked that all they
wanted were gloves and boots and stuff.
Q. Did you say gloves?
A. Yeah, like work gloves.
Q. Okay.
A. You know, he also went into like his finances, which I
thought was just weird. But not wanting to poke the bear, I
listened. Something to the effect of he makes $5,000 a month
now, and it doesn’t matter whether or not he–if he ends up
getting fired out of this, it won’t matter, because with his
IRA money and a part-time job or unemployment, he would
be right back at that mark.
And as a 43-year-cable employee, he was very upset that
he wasn’t going to receive free cable. He was not happy
about that at all. It was a pretty lengthy rant.
Tr. 67–68.14
On September 30 or October 1, French called Ray Schoof
and told Schoof about his conversation with Lothian. Schoof
called Stephanie Peters, who conducting an investigation of
Lothian’s allegations and told her about his call from French on
the evening of October 1.15

14 French’s testimony about this conversation is uncontradicted and
therefore credited. Although, I do not draw an adverse inference from
Respondent’s failure to call Lothian as a witness, he was available to
testify in this proceeding, Tr. 1739.
15 I do not fully credit Stephanie Peters’ testimony or her report en-
tries. The reports, however, Exhs. R-9 through 14, represent the basis
upon which Respondent made the termination decisions in this case.
Peters’ account of her phone calls with French, Schoof and Lothian on
October 1, Exh. R-9, p. 10, is particularly incredible. Unlike other parts
of her computer report, there are no corresponding handwritten notes
for these conversations. Moreover, this part of her report was altered
on October 13, GC Exh. 40. The fact that her entries regarding a con-
versation with French at 2 p.m. precede her account of her conversation
with Lothian at 12:30 p.m., also leads me to conclude the entries for
that date are unreliable.
Peters’ entry indicating that on October 1, she “reminded” French
that meetings were confidential is not credible. There is no evidence
that she had spoken to French about the investigation prior to October
1. I also do not credit the entry that indicates that Lothian told her that
he had not spoken to anyone about the investigation. There was no
reason for Lothian to make such a statement until after Peters’ inter-
view with French the next day.
There are also no handwritten notes of Peters’ conversation with
Rob Lothian on October 3. However, the important point regarding
this entry is that the managers who decided to fire French saw the entry
about French’s union involvement before they made that decision.
On October 1, Peters summoned French to an interview the
following morning, October 2.
The Investigation Leading to the Termination of Teenier,
Felker, Schoof, Debeau, and French
On September 19, 2016, Rob Lothian came to the office of
Stephanie Peters, a human resources generalist in Respondent’s
Bay City office. Lothian was very agitated and was worried
about being fired. A major concern was that Lothian under-
stood from Shawn Felker, that James Debeau and Raymond
Schoof were doing work that would detract from his productivi-
ty statistics, some of which was noncompany work on company
time. Lothian also told Peters that he was afraid that T.J. Tee-
nier would retaliate against him if he complained about this.
Lothian had other concerns as well. These are relevant in as-
sessing Respondent’s claim that Lothian had no reason to lie
when asked about assertions made about him by Jonathan
French.
First of all, Lothian may have been justifiably worried that
he was being set up to fail. Greg Culver had ordered Teenier to
switch employees from Felker’s team to Lothian’s team in or-
der to even out their workload. Teenier had resisted this order,
telling Culver that Lothian could not handle more direct reports
(Tr. 1691–1693, also see R. Exh. 15 pp.1017–1019, Tr. 525–
526).
There is also a rather cryptic note at the beginning of Peters’
investigatory notes as to other things that Lothian may have
been concerned about:
Rob first started off discussing a recent request of mine to
provide Jonell Davis with a copy of the receipt for Rich Les
Peance’s boot purchase. Rob stated that he forwarded my
email request directly to Manager, T.J. Teenier, as T. J. went
around the process by purchasing Rich’s boots with his T-
Card. Rob stated that he didn’t want to get into trouble for
going around the process so he wanted T. J. to respond to me.
I told Rob that I was copied on T. J’s email to Jonell, indicat-
ing that he approved the transaction. Rob seemed relieved
and I assumed that was the end of the conversation.16
Lothian then told Peters that Shawn Felker had shown him
photographs that showed T.J. Teenier, Ray Schoof and James
Debeau laying sod at Schoof’s home on company time.17 Lo-
thian reported that Felker was angry that Teenier pulled em-
ployees for “special projects.” Lothian also reported that an-
other “special project” was work done on a haunted house
owned by Pat Jozeska,18 whose business worked on Charter
vehicles.19 Lothian told Peters that he believed that Debeau

16 There are no handwritten notes by Peters correlating to this entry,
R. Exh. 15, pp. 1017–1019. However, at the bottom of p. 1018, there is
a note about Rich LesPeance and an audit having something to do with
drill bits. On p. 1019, Peters’ handwritten notes state [Lothian] “feels
TJ moved guys to him-only 2 ½ years from retirement. Don’t check up
on guys. Laid back.”
17 Felker, in this hearing, denied he took any such photographs, an
issue that I will address later.
18 Although referred to as Jozeska in the record, this man’s last name
may be Hozeska.
19 It is not clear from Peters’ notes that Felker mentioned the haunted
house to Lothian. Other than the sod-laying and the haunted house
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 17
fixed a drain in a rental unit owned by Teenier and leased to
another Charter employee. The only mention of Jonathan
French was that French had recently been transferred to Lothi-
an’s team from Felker’s. Lothian did not report any miscon-
duct on the part of French (R. Exh.-9, p. 2).
Peters told Lothian that he should not share their conversa-
tion with anyone at this time. Id. p. 4.20 There is no evidence
that she ever told Lothian that he was free to discuss it. This
“confidentiality” instruction is critical in assessing the General
Counsel’s allegation that Respondent terminated Jonathan
French in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
On September 24 and 26, Peters spoke to Lothian again. On
September 26, Lothian reported that James Debeau told him he
had been pulled for a “special project” to work on Jozeska’s
haunted house. Lothian reported that Debeau told him Felker
had approved this, but that Felker denied doing so. Peters re-
ported the content of this conversation to Greg Culver, Teeni-
er’s boss.
On September 29, Peters and Culver met with Felker. Peters
asked Felker about “special projects” and specifically about the
sod laying project. Peters’ notes on this point are not relevant
to the discharge of French, but are relevant to the discharges of
Debeau and Schoof.
At first, Shawn stated he knows nothing about this, but if it
was happening, it was after hours. I asked how he would
know that if he didn’t know it was even happening. Shawn
paused for a moment and then stated that TJ thought some
employees were cutting out early and TJ asked him to check
into it. Greg then asked Shawn when he checked into the
matter and Shawn stated “about 4 or 5 weeks ago” and that he
concluded this was being done after work.
Felker told Peters that sod was being laid at Schoof’s house.
According to Peters, Felker told her that Schoof had told him
that Debeau had helped him lay the sod and that he had heard
that Teenier also helped. Felker denied having photos of Char-
ter employees laying sod.
On Tuesday, September 30, Peters met with Schoof. Schoof
told Peters he had recently put down sod at his house and that
Debeau had helped him because he had ridden with Debeau
that day. Schoof told Peters that he and Debeau worked to-
gether that day because Schoof’s truck was being fixed. On at
least one occasion, however, Shawn Felker saw both Schoof
and Debeau’s trucks at Schoof’s house while they were laying
sod, Tr. 866. Schoof also told Peters the work was done after
work starting about 5:45 or 6 p.m. He also told Peters that

work, no other noncompany work was identified by any witness as a
“special project.”
20 At Tr. 1460 Peters testified that she told Lothian “that I prefer that
he talk with me only and not discuss it with other individuals.” I find
that Peters clearly instructed Lothian not to talk to anyone else about
the subject of the investigation. Otherwise, Respondent would not have
reacted so adversely to French’s statement that Lothian had told him
everything about it. At Tr. 1540, in response to my questions, Peters
conceded that if Lothian told French about the investigation, he would
have violated company policy and her instructions. Her computer entry
of October 3 states, “Rob said he knows he is not allowed to talk to
anyone about it and has not.” Exh. R-9 p. 12.
Teenier stopped by later in the evening and helped him and
Debeau lay the sod.
Peters asked Schoof if he knew anything about work done on
the Haunted House on Friday, September 26. Schoof said he
did not because he worked 4-10 hours shifts and did not work
on Fridays.21 Peters told Schoof he should not discuss his con-
versation with her or anything related to this matter with any-
one.
Peters also spoke with Debeau on September 30. Debeau
told Peters that he had helped Schoof lay sod at his house sev-
eral weeks ago. According to Peters, when she asked Debeau
what time they started, “Jim thought for a moment and then
said it was after work, so, around 5:30 or 6 p.m.” Debeau told
Peters that Schoof had ridden in his truck that day because
Schoof’s phone wasn’t working.
Debeau said that one time he had to do a sweep of an apart-
ment complex and another time drove around all day to verify
addresses. That, he said, is what he’d call a special project.
Debeau said he had worked for an hour at the Haunted House
while waiting for his vehicle to be repaired. He denied ever
doing plumbing work at Teenier’s rental unit.
On the evening of Wednesday, October 1, Schoof called Pe-
ters. He told her that French, who Peters had not interviewed
yet, had contacted him and wanted to talk to Schoof about the
investigation. Schoof told Peters that he informed French that
Schoof couldn’t talk about it. Schoof reported to Peters that
French told Schoof that Rob Lothian had sat down with him for
about 2 hours and had told him everything. Lothian had per-
formed a safety check on French’s vehicle the day before, Sep-
tember 30 (Tr. 143–144).22
This is very significant in that it establishes that French did
not, for the first time, come up with the story about Lothian
discussing the investigation with him when he met with Peters
the next day (Tr. 1198, R. Exh. R-9, p. 9–10). Moreover, the
fact that he called Schoof within a day and half after he had
been inspected by Lothian, suggests that he was not lying. In
fact, had not Peters ordered French to an interview the next day,
there is no evidence that French would have reported anything
about Lothian to Peters.23
On Wednesday, October 1, Peters summoned French to a

21 Schoof occasionally worked 5-8 hour shifts and did so the week of
August 25–29, 2014, which may or may not be relevant to whether he
was on company time when laying sod.
22 French testified the safety check was on September 30; but Re-
spondent’s records indicate it occurred on October 1. Since French told
Peters on Thursday, October 2 that the safety check took place on
Tuesday (September 30), I conclude that is the date it took place. The
fact that Respondent’s records indicated (incorrectly) that the safety
check occurred on October 1, confused me during the hearing. Howev-
er, now the chronology of events is quite clear. Lothian did a safety
check of French’s vehicle on September 30. On October 1, Peters
called French to come in for an interview on October 2.
23 Nobody had accused French of doing noncompany work off the
clock and Peters’ notes do not indicate that Lothian ever brought
French’s name up prior to October 2—other than to mention that
French had recently been transferred from Felker’s team to Lothian’s.
Nobody had suggested that French had any first-hand knowledge about
the noncompany work allegedly performed by other field auditors on
company time.
18 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meeting in her office at 8:30 a.m. Thursday, October 2. At that
interview, Peters started by telling French that their discussion
was confidential and should not be shared with anyone. Ac-
cording to Peters, French sat back in his chair, smiled and told
her he knew everything.
I asked Jon what he knew and he stated that Rob (Lothian)
told him everything about the investigation and then added
that Rob had a gun. I stopped Jon and repeated his statement
back to him, asking how he knew this and when he became
aware of this. Jon stated that on Tuesday when Rob did a
safety check, Rob told him about the gun.24
(Exh. R-9 at p. 10.)
I went back to the comment about the gun and asked if he had
seen it and he said he did not but, that he did see a gun that
Rob brought to work once, back when he was a contractor
and working for Charter. Jon said Rob brought a gun in his
personal car and showed him because he got it as a gift and
collected guns. I asked again if he saw the gun and he said no
but, Rob was acting “weird” and said he had a gun so I just
believed him. He said that Rob did a “weird” safety check on
him, talking about being fired and that he was just planning
on getting fired for things that were going on.25
French continued to tell Peters that Lothian had brought up
the investigation and told him about employees laying sod on
company time and somebody told Lothian that there were pic-
tures of this. French’s understanding was that the sod was laid
5–7 weeks prior. French did not have any material knowledge

24 Peters’ handwritten notes in the margins of the October 2 entry
have the words “contractor with Sag? with Rob.” Exh. R-15, p. 1027.
Her computer notes of October 10 state that French worked as a con-
tractor for RCH Cable (Saginaw, MI) between 07/2006-08/2009,”Also
see Tr. 110–111.
25 French’s statements are somewhat consistent with Peters’ notes of
her conversations with Lothian on September 19, indicating that Lothi-
an was in a very agitated state, actually crying at several points during
her interview and telling her that he feared he would be fired. Exh. R-4,
p. 4. He also appeared to be agitated when she spoke with him on
September 26.
French testified at the hearing that Lothian did not mention guns on
the day of the safety check, Tr. 227, but then retracted that at Tr. 245.
French’s testimony is somewhat confusing and/or contradictory about
what Lothian said about guns, when Lothian made these statements,
and when he saw Lothian with a gun, Tr. 232–245. However, I find
this immaterial. Respondent fired French in part for stating that Lothi-
an had had a gun at work at some time other than the incident for which
Lothian was disciplined. The record establishes that Respondent did
not have a reasonable belief that French was making up the story about
Lothian having a gun at work. I would note that Respondent could
have called Lothian to testify that he never talked to French about hav-
ing a gun and never had one at work anytime other than the occasion on
which he was disciplined in 2000, but did not do so. Thus, I find that
on September 30, 2014, Lothian discussed having a gun with French
and that he had a gun at work on at least one occasion other than the
one for which he was disciplined in 2000. I also find that Lothian had a
gun at work at some time when French was doing work for Charter.
French’s remarks about the gun on October 2, were gratuitous. This
cuts both ways because these remarks were irrelevant to whether the
accusations Lothian was making about, Teenier, Schoof, and Debeau
were true. They certainly did not impact Peters’ investigation.
about any other allegedly improper conduct. He reiterated that
everything he knew came from Lothian.
Peters interviewed Kent Payne on October 2, as well. Payne
was initially uncooperative but told Peters that he had per-
formed electrical work at the Haunted House after hours.
French’s name apparently did not come up in the interview.
French called Peters late in the afternoon of October 2. He
asked to be transferred back to Felker’s supervision. In re-
sponse to Peters’ inquiries, he said he did not feel threatened at
work and was not concerned with his personal safety. When
Peters told him she didn’t know where the request was coming
from, French said he just thought it would be better if he
worked for Felker.
On Friday, October 3, Peters called Lothian. Peters’ com-
puter notes (for which there are no corresponding handwritten
notes) reflect the following:
I asked if he had talked with Jon French this week and if so,
had he disclosed anything about the investigation to him. Rob
stated, “no” Rob said he seldom talks to Jon because of Jon’s
union involvement and he is always afraid of saying the
wrong thing to Jon and giving him anything to talk to the un-
ion about.
I asked Rob if he had brought a gun on company property or
had a gun in his Charter vehicle, this week. Rob stated that he
only did one time and it was not in a Charter vehicle but it
was in his personal car. Rob stated, years ago he got a new
gun for his birthday and was excited and wanted to show a
couple guys but that the gun was in a box (brand new) and in
the trunk of his personal car. Rob was concerned that Jon
would say that because it wasn’t true.
(R. Exh. 9, p. 12–13, Tr. 1498.)
It is noteworthy that Lothian did not mention that he had in-
spected French’s vehicle only 2 or 3 days earlier. Two signifi-
cant things about this are that 1) Respondent displayed no curi-
osity as to why French called Schoof within 2 days of the safety
check, and 2) French never said Lothian has shown him a gun
recently. The entry indicating that Lothian was concerned
about French talking about Lothian and a gun makes no sense
unless he did mention guns to French on September 30.
French testified he could not remember if he told Peters
when Lothian showed him a gun and thus would have to say he
did not. However, Peters’ handwritten notes establish that
French told her he saw Lothian with a gun when he worked for
Respondent as a contractor (Exh. R-15, pp. 1027–1028). That
is also confirmed by Peters’ entry for October 10, Exh. R-9, p.
19. Peters checked Respondent’s records to determine whether
French’s work as a contractor corresponded to the date on
which Lothian was disciplined for having a gun at work.
On October 3, Peters interviewed Aaron Rhode, a Charter
employee, who rented a home from Teenier. Rhode said no
company employee had performed repairs on the unit and that
he was frustrated by the fact that plumbing problems in the
house had not been fixed. This interview is significant in that it
contradicts some of the accusations made by Lothian to Peters
on September 19.
Peters called Lothian again on October 8, to talk to him
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 19
again about French.26 Lothian confirmed that he recently had
performed a safety check on French’s vehicle, which took
about a half hour. Lothian denied discussing the investigation
with Jon “during this time.”
Peters asked Lothian if he had a gun in a Charter vehicle or if
he showed a gun to French during this safety check or at any
time during this interaction with French. Lothian denied doing
so.
On October 10, Peters noted that she checked French’s em-
ployment records and the date that Lothian was disciplined for
having a gun at work. That discipline occurred on May 23,
2000, long before French worked for Charter as a contractor or
employee. While Peters obviously considered this very im-
portant, it begs the question as to whether French was lying. It
is possible he saw Lothian with a gun at work on another occa-
sion.
At this hearing French testified that Lothian showed him a
gun on one occasion in 2013, and that Lothian had not threat-
ened him.
On October 14, Peters summoned French to her office again.
She informed him that his employment with Respondent was
being terminated for violations of Respondent’s code of con-
duct and employee handbook. She refused to be more specific
than that. At the instant hearing, Respondent contends that it
fired French for lying in claiming that Lothian told him all
about Respondent’s ongoing investigation and stating that Lo-
thian told him that he had a gun on September 30, and that he
had seen Lothian with a gun on a previous occasion (Tr. 1425–
1426).
I credit French’s account of his conversation with Lothian
because it is uncontradicted. Although I do not draw an ad-
verse inference from Respondent’s failure to call Lothian as a
witness, he was clearly available to testify. Greg Culver spoke
to Lothian on the last day of this hearing, August 16, 2016, and
in July 2016 (Tr. 1739).
Secondly, I find that Respondent’s belief that French was ly-
ing was unreasonable. Respondent made no attempt to investi-
gate French’s assertion that Lothian told him about the investi-
gation or that Lothian had a gun—other than to ask Lothian,
who denied it. Respondent repeatedly stated that it credited
Lothian because he had nothing to gain from his accusations
against Teenier, Schoof, and Debeau (Tr. 1411). However, he
clearly had a motive to deny French’s accusations against him.
Lothian had been disciplined for having a gun at work many
years before, and he may have expected serious discipline and
even discharge if Respondent believed the accusations against
him. Similarly, if Lothian told French about Respondent’s on-
going investigation, he may have been subject to discipline or
even discharge.
While Respondent chose to reject the self-serving denials of
misconduct by Teenier, Felker, Debeau, and Schoof, it took
those of Lothian at face value. This was unreasonable. Some-
one obviously had told French about the sod incident since he
was not present. Respondent had no evidence that the someone

26 I note again that there are no handwritten notes of this conversa-
tion, or Peters’ conversation with Lothian on October 3, and no expla-
nation as to why such notes do not exist.
was anyone other than Lothian. It made no effort to find out
who other than Lothian may have told French about the inves-
tigation or the sod incident (Tr. 1427–1430).27
At the time French told Schoof that Lothian had told him
about the investigation and sod-laying incident, Peters had in-
terviewed Felker, Debeau, Schoof and Lothian. It is unlikely
that Schoof would have told French about the investigation and
then reported this to Peters. Respondent did not seek to deter-
mine whether Felker or Debeau had talked to French recently.
Before Respondent fired French, it knew that Lothian had face
to face contact with French on September 30.
There was also other evidence available to Respondent dur-
ing its investigation that corroborated French’s statements to
Peters about Lothian’s breach of her confidentiality instruc-
tions. When Peters interviewed Tom Schuetz from plant secu-
rity on October 6, Schuetz reported to her that on October 1,
Lothian had tried to talk to him about things he had reported to
HR (Exh. R-9, p. 16). This was the day after Lothian discussed
the investigation with French.
On October 6, Peters also interviewed Lucas Watkins, a
TQA tech.28 He told Peters that he pretty much knew most of
what was going on-second hand. Watkins indicated that he
knew that there was an ongoing investigation relating to the
laying of sod at Ray Schoof’s house. Peters apparently never
bothered to ask Watkins where he learned about the investiga-

27 At Tr. 1541 Peters raised the possibility that French had heard
about the investigation from Pat Jozeska. There is no evidence that
French saw or talked to Jozeska between the beginning of Peters’ in-
vestigation on September 19, and October 2, when Peters interviewed
French. French gave no indication that he had talked to Jozeska and
Peters did not ask Jozeska whether he had talked to French.
I would also note that in his interview with Peters, French was very
detailed about his conversation with Lothian, for example relating how
Lothian discussed his financial situation. Respondent had absolutely no
reasonable basis for concluding that French was lying about anything.
28 Greg Culver’s testimony that Watkins was interviewed because he
asked to speak to Peters and himself is incorrect. Peters told Watkins to
come in for an interview, Exh. R-9, p. 18.
Culver’s testimony is riddled with what are at best inaccuracies;
some benign, some material. At Tr. 1692, he testified that the charging
parties were transferred to Lothian’s team in July or August; the correct
month is September. At Tr. 1698, he testified that Felker locked his
phone when asked about photos of the sod laying. If this would be true,
it would be reflected in Peters’ notes. Exh R-9, pp. 6–7. At Tr. 1708,
Culver testified that he began considering disciplining or discharging
French after learning that French had reached out to Ray Schoof after
being told not to discuss the investigation. This assertion is either
simply incorrect or an outright fabrication. At Tr. 1710, Culver denied
discussing French with Sharon Farquhar (née Olds). She testified at Tr.
1381–1384, that she made a recommendation to Culver that French be
terminated. The discrepancy raises questions as to the credibility of
Respondent’s witnesses generally as to who was involved in the termi-
nation decisions and to what extent.
Finally, Culver testified at Tr. 1742 and 1744 that sought to review
the disciplinary records of French, Debeau, Schoof, Felker and Teenier
in June, July or August of 2014, but on recross examination testified
that he did not request these records until after Peters’ investigation
started September 19, 2014. On course, if Culver requested these dis-
ciplinary records between June-August, it would strongly suggest that
the discharges were pretextual and related to the union activity in June
and July.
20 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion (as opposed to the fact that sod-laying had occurred).29 I
find that Watkins acquired much or all of his information from
Lothian. This is something Peters and Culver could have de-
duced with the slightest exercise of some curiosity.
Watkins worked or had worked for Lothian. Lothian and
Watkins had a conversation between September 29 and October
3, apparently at Respondent’s Bay City office (Exh. R-9, p. 12,
17). During that conversation, Lothian told Watkins that he did
not approve Debeau’s work on a special project. This alone
would appear to violate Peters’ instructions to Lothian. More-
over, despite having been told about the confidentiality of the
investigation, Lothian, according to Watkins, carried on tele-
phone conversations with Debeau and Felker in Watkins’ pres-
ence that related to the subject of Peters’ investigation.
Respondent’s inquiry into French’s assertions about the gun
was similarly half-hearted. The fact that French did not work
for Charter when Lothian was disciplined for having a gun at
work does not mean that Lothian did not have a gun at work on
other occasions. Respondent made no effort to find out wheth-
er this was true or not.30 Indeed, Kent Payne, who of all the
witnesses in this case had the least reason to lie under oath,
testified that Lothian showed him a bolt-action rifle in the Bay
City office in 2012, and saw the outline of a derringer in Lothi-
an’s pocket in 2013 or 2014 (Tr. 1302–1303).31 Payne reported
seeing the outline of the derringer to Harth Goulette and Greg
Culver after French had been terminated. Tr. 1305–1306,
1353.32 Ray Schoof also testified that Lothian had showed him
a gun in his company vehicle (Tr. 1205–1207). There is no
evidence that Respondent made any further investigation as to
whether Lothian had ever had a gun at work at times when
French was working for Charter or its contractor.
All this is relevant to my conclusion that the reasons for
which Respondent fired French were pretextual. In its posttrial
brief, Respondent argues that it had a reasonable belief that
French was lying about Lothian having a gun at work. It com-
pletely avoids discussing its belief that he was lying about Lo-
thian violating Respondent’s confidentiality instruction on Sep-
tember 30, by telling him about the HR investigation. Indeed,
in its discussion of Lothian’s September 30, 2014 safety check
at pages 50–51 of its brief, Respondent argues that French’s

29 Watkins said he learned that employees were laying sod at
Schoof’s from Pat Jozeska. Jozeska denied this. Watkins did not assert
that Jozeska told him about the on-going investigation. Peters’ notes,
Exh. R-9, p. 17, recount that Watkins learned about the sod laying
before he knew there was an HR investigation.
30 At Tr. 1051, James DeBeau testified that Stephanie Peters asked
him if he had ever seen Rob Lothian with a gun in his office when she
interviewed him on September 30. This testimony is clearly incorrect
and the product of a faulty memory. Peters’ notes of her one and only
interview of DeBeau do not indicate that she asked DeBeau anything
about Lothian, R. Exhs. 9, 13, and 15. Moreover, the issue of whether
Lothian had a gun at work did not arise until French brought it up on
October 2, 2 days after Peters interviewed DeBeau.
31 Payne received a written warning for being uncooperative in the
investigation of October 2014, but left Charter’s employment voluntari-
ly.
32 Culver, who testified after Payne, made no attempt to contradict
Payne’s testimony that he told Culver that he saw the outline of a der-
ringer in Lothian’s pocket.
testimony that Lothian discussed French’s union involvement is
not credible. It makes no such claim about his testimony about
Lothian’s discussion about the sod incident and making a com-
plaint to human resources. Nor does it do so at page 52 in de-
fending Peters’ confidentiality instructions.
Respondent’s investigation report makes it absolutely clear
that this was a basis for French’s discharge. The second to last
entry in that report concerns Peters’ call to Lothian on October
8, asking him whether he had discussed the investigation with
French.
More importantly, one of the managers who participated in
the termination decision admitted, that French’s “lie” about
Lothian’s disclosures was a primary reason for his discharge.
When I asked Sharon Farquhar (née Olds), senior director,
regional human resources, to be specific about the dishonesty
that caused Respondent to terminate French, she replied, “It
was the statement that he [Lothian] had a gun at work and it
was a statement that he had spent 2 hours telling him all about
the investigation.” “Those were the primary reasons…” Tr.
1426–1427. I regard the absence of any discussion about its
reliance of this “lie” as opposed to “lie” about the gun as an
admission that Respondent has no reasonable basis for conclud-
ing that French was lying about his September 30 conversation
with Lothian. Thus, one of the two reasons for French’s dis-
charge is obviously pretextual.
Moreover, with regard to both reasons for French’s dis-
charge, it was unreasonable for Respondent to conclude that
French was lying simply on Lothian’s say-so. I also rely on the
fact that French’s assertions about Lothian did not in any way
interfere with Peters’ investigation into the conduct of Teenier,
Schoof and Debeau. They had no bearing on whether Lothian’s
accusations regarding “stealing time” were true or not.
In order to prove a violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1), the
General Counsel generally must show that union activity or
other protected activity has been a substantial factor in the em-
ployer’s adverse personnel decision. To establish discriminato-
ry motivation, the General Counsel must show union or pro-
tected concerted activity, employer knowledge of that activity,
animus or hostility towards that activity and an adverse person-
nel action caused by such animus or hostility. Inferences of
knowledge, animus and discriminatory motivation may be
drawn from circumstantial evidence as well from direct evi-
dence.33 Once the General Counsel has made an initial show-
ing of discrimination, the burden of persuasion shifts to the
employer to prove its affirmative defense that it would have
taken the same action even if the employee had not engaged in
protected activity. Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd.
662 F.2d 899 (lst Cir. 1981).
However, if it is determined that the reasons given by the
employer are pretextual, that defeats any attempt by the em-
ployer to show that it would have disciplined or discharged the
discriminatee absent his or her protected/union activities, Rood
Trucking Co., 342 NLRB 895, 897–898 (2004). In such cases
it is not necessary to engage in the second part of the Wright

33 Flowers Baking Co., Inc., 240 NLRB 870, 871 (1979); Washing-
ton Nursing Home, Inc., 321 NLRB 366, 375 (1966); W. F. Bolin Co. v.
NLRB, 70 F. 3d 863 (6th Cir. 1995).
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 21
Line analysis, i.e., whether Respondent met its burden of prov-
ing that it would have disciplined or discharged an employee
for nondiscriminatory reasons.
The General Counsel had met his burden under Wright Line
and Rood Trucking with regard to Jonathan French. I thus find
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) in terminating
his employment. On the other hand, I find the General Counsel
has not met this burden with regard to James Debeau and Ray-
mond Schoof.
Evidence Regarding James Debeau
Respondent hired James Debeau in March 2013, and fired
him on October 14, 2014. While employed at Charter, Debeau
generally worked five 8-hour days. Employees signed out from
work on a honor system. Debeau normally signed out between
4 and 4:30 p.m.
Prior to working for Charter, Debeau had worked for an em-
ployer whose employees were represented by a local of the
Sheet Metal Workers International Union. He did not engage
in any union activity while working for Charter and there is no
evidence that anyone in Charter management suspected Debeau
of supporting the IBEW or any other union—except the follow-
ing. T. J. Teenier testified that in a conference call, Technical
Operations Manager Bob Morgan identified Debeau, Schoof,
Payne, Ryan Lange, and Andrew Wakowski as being involved
with the Union, Tr. 385–386. Morgan, who still works for
Respondent as a supervisor and agent, did not testify in this
proceeding. Thus, Teenier’s testimony is uncontroverted, alt-
hough not corroborated by any of Respondent’s notes of these
conference calls.
However, this evidence does not provide a sufficient reason
to infer that Debeau’s termination was related to suspected
union or protected activity. I so conclude because I find that
Respondent reasonably believed that Debeau had performed
noncompany work on company time. Respondent fired Debeau
ostensibly for two reasons: laying sod at Ray Schoof’s house
while on company time and working at Pat Jozeska’s haunted
house on company time (Tr. 820).
Debeau testified that he worked at the haunted house on
three occasions. Further he testified that he had permission to
work at the haunted house while getting his vehicle repaired on
the third occasion, which I infer was on September 26, 2014.
The circumstances, however, suggest that Respondent had good
reason to believe that the permission to do this was improperly
granted by T. J. Teenier (Tr. 1039–1043).
Stephanie Peters’ notes (Exh. R-9, p. 5), recount that Rob
Lothian told her on September 26, that Debeau informed Lothi-
an that he was going to be doing work at the haunted house that
morning. Those notes indicate that Debeau told Lothian that
Shawn Felker had approved this work. In this hearing, Felker
denied giving Debeau such permission (Tr. 874). At the hear-
ing, Debeau testified that Lothian and Teenier approved his
work at the Haunted House. It is clear that Lothian if he did so,
approved the work begrudgingly and only because he thought
Teenier had authorized it.
Even assuming that Respondent treated Debeau unfairly with
regard to the Haunted House, it reasonably believed that
Debeau helped Schoof lay sod at Schoof’s home on company
time.
I find this record insufficient to conclude that Respondent
terminated Debeau in retaliation of any protected activity on his
part. Further, I find the General Counsel has not met his bur-
den of proving that Debeau would not have been terminated but
for protected activity on the part of others.
A showing that the Employer had knowledge of union activi-
ties of each discharged employee is not necessary, where an
employer lays off or eliminates a portion of the work force for
the purpose of discouraging union support or to retaliate against
its employees because of the union activities of some employ-
ees. “Common sense dictates that when employees are dis-
charged for individual reasons, then the Employer’s knowledge
for each employee’s union activity and the Employer’s motiva-
tion for each discharge are the relevant inquires; but when the
Employer makes a single decision to fire 15 people to [discour-
age union support], then the relevant inquiry is the Employer’s
motivation for that single decision.” Dillingham Marine & Mfg.
Co. v. NLRB, 610 F.2d 319, 321 (5th Cir. 1980).
Nevertheless, I find the evidence is not sufficient to establish
that Debeau and Schoof (as well as Felker and Teenier) were
terminated to cover up Respondent’s discriminatory discharge
of French. More likely, Respondent, when deciding to termi-
nate Teenier, Felker, Debeau, and Schoof, concluded that it had
found a convenient pretextual reason to fire French.
Evidence Regarding Raymond Schoof34
Respondent hired Raymond Schoof in August 2012. Schoof
had worked for a union contractor prior to working for Charter.
However, he did not engage in any union activity while work-
ing in Charter. The fact that Greg Culver made a point of talk-
ing to Schoof on July 16 (GC Exh. 29), indicates that Respond-
ent may not have been certain that Schoof wasn’t engaging in
union activity. Culver had planned to ride with Schoof on his
route on the afternoon of July 17, but decided not to do so.35
Moreover, T.J. Teenier’s uncontradicted testimony at (Tr. 385–
386) indicates that Supervisor Robert Morgan identified Schoof
as being involved with the Union.
Nevertheless, for the reasons I have found that the General
Counsel has not proved that Respondent violated the Act in
terminating James Debeau, I find that it has not done so with
regard to Raymond Schoof.
Given what I regard as Respondent’s reasonable belief that
Schoof was doing noncompany work on company time (Tr.
826), I believe the scant evidence supporting the General Coun-

34 Schoof’s testimony is generally confusing and unreliable. He stat-
ed that he has difficulty reading and when testifying appeared to have
some other cognitive difficulties. Schoof testified that he has a terrible
memory, Tr. 1276, and his testimony certainly seems to confirm this.
There is no question that some of Schoof’s testimony, if credited, is
very helpful to Respondent’s case with regard to his termination and
Debeau’s termination.
35 I credit Shawn Felker and Ray Schoof’s testimony in this regard.
Greg Culver testified that he planned to ride with Jonathan French all
day. However, GC Exh. 29 establishes that Culver spoke to Schoof on
July 16 and the record contains no explanation for this contact. Culver
had a conversation with Shane Robinson on July 16, which in part was
motivated by a desire to determine whether he had union sympathies.
22 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sel’s prima facie case is insufficient to find discriminatory mo-
tivation with regard to Schoof’s termination.
Factual Findings Regarding the Sod Laying Incident and Re-
spondent’s Conclusion that it Occurred on Company Time
The terminations of Debeau, Schoof and to a much lesser ex-
tent French are related to the laying of sod at Schoof’s home.36
The record indicates that Respondent had good reason to sus-
pect that this work was being done on company time.
I would note that neither the termination documents nor the
investigation reports for Schoof and Debeau mention the sod-
laying incident as the reason for their terminations. Moreover,
this incident was not mentioned to them when they were termi-
nated. In the hearing, only HR Manager Harth Goulette une-
quivocally testified that Schoof and Debeau were fired for lay-
ing sod at Schoof’s house on company time. (Tr. 820 and 826.)
Respondent’s other witnesses were somewhat evasive on this
point, although Greg Culver did testify that Schoof was fired
for laying sod on company time, after first testifying that
Schoof was fired for dishonesty and interfering with the com-
pany’s investigation (Tr. 1701, 1709).
The termination documents focus on Schoof and Debeau’s
dishonesty during the investigation. They could only have been
dishonest if they were lying about laying the sod on company
time. There is no evidence that either was dishonest about
anything else. Debeau, for example, said nothing that was un-
true, other than possibly that he only worked at Schoof’s house
after hours.
One of the curious things about this case is that until the last
day of the hearing there was no evidence as to what specific
day or days the sod laying occurred. One problem with the
General Counsel’s case is that Schoof generally worked four
10-hour days and Debeau generally worked five 8-hour days.
This raises the question of what Debeau did while Schoof was
still on the clock. That question would be resolved if the sod
work was done the week before Labor Day, August 25–29
when they both worked 8-hour shifts. Given that Peters inter-
viewed Debeau and Schoof September 30, I find it strange that
they would not be able to relate the work to the week before
Labor Day or their transfer from Felker’s crew to Lothian’s
crew.
On September 19, Rob Lothian told Stephanie Peters that it
occurred somewhere in the September 9 timeframe (R. Exh. 9,
p. 3–4). The General Counsel elicited testimony on August 16,
2016, that suggests that the sod was delivered to Ray Schoof’s
home during the week of August 25–29, 2014. This, even if
correct, is not probative of when it was put on the ground or
when Schoof, Debeau and Teenier worked at Schoof’s house.37
The record shows that on one day or two, Schoof rode with
Debeau during their workday and that Debeau helped Schoof
lay sod at Schoof’s home on one or two of those days. T.J.
Teenier came to Schoof’s home on one day and helped lay sod.
Shawn Felker also stopped by Schoof’s house.

36 This incident also figures prominently in the discharges of Teenier
and Felker, which are not before me.
37 Schoof, Debeau and Teenier may have been working at Schoof’s
home before the sod was delivered, Felker’s testimony suggests as
much, Tr. 935–936.
Felker testified that on the day (or one of the days) that he
saw Debeau and Schoof laying sod at Schoof’s house, he was
concerned that they might be leaving work early because he
was unable to contact them by phone (Tr. 866, 928–936, 947–
948). This certainly supports Respondent’s suspicions that
Debeau and Schoof were doing work at Schoof’s house on
company time.38
Lothian reported to Peters that Felker showed him photo-
graphs of people laying sod at Schoof’s house. Felker told
Peters he did not take any photographs. At the hearing in this
matter, Felker testified that he did take a photo of the complet-
ed sod project about 2 weeks later on his personal phone. He
did not tell that to Peters. If Felker were trying to absolve
Debeau and Schoof of misconduct, I would expect that he
would show Peters the photo. Cellphones generally show the
time and date a picture was taken.
Moreover, why Felker would take a photo of the completed
project remains unexplained. In its totality, the evidence sug-
gests that when Felker discovered Schoof and Debeau working
at Schoof’s, they were still on the clock. His answers to Peters
and at this hearing testimony suggest that he was trying to pro-
tect them from disciplinary measures and as a result Felker lost
his own job.
The General Counsel’s Theory that French, Schoof and Debeau
were Terminated Because of their Association with Teenier
The General Counsel argues that the terminations of the
Charging Parties were the result of Respondent’s animus to-
wards T. J. Teenier, who it regarded as an “inside man” for the
Union. There is some evidence to support this theory. Other
managers were upset and suspicious of Teenier because he told
Jon French and Shane Robinson that their names had come up
in a management conference call (Tr. 790–791, GC Exh. 27).
Human Resources Director Harth Goulette testified that upper
management thought that Teenier “wasn’t being honest with us
or that he was sharing too much information with employees”
(Tr. 791).
On July 21, 2014, Robert Morgan passed on to Lloyd Col-
lins, Director for Field Operations, and David Slowik a report
from Jason Zacharko (now a supervisor; then a rank and file
employee) ((GC Exh. 35). Zacharko reported that Shane Rob-
inson told Zacharko that he had an “inside man.” Zacharko
continued to report that Robinson never stated who the inside
man was but on a few occasions told Zacharko that he was
receiving information from Teenier. Zacharko also reported
that Teenier and Robinson’s wives were close friends.
In the July 17 conference call, someone, apparently Lloyd
Collins, noted that Teenier seemed connected to Shane Robin-
son (GC Exh. 29).
Teenier testified that during a conference call in July, Re-
gional Vice President Joseph Boullion observed that everyone
suspected of supporting the Union reported to Teenier through

38 The record indicates there are a number of reasons that a field au-
ditor might not answer his phone, for example, if he was on a ladder or
fear that he might be kicked out of Respondent’s communications
system. Nevertheless, despite legitimate reasons for which Debeau and
Schoof might not have answered their phone, Felker suspected they
might be leaving work early.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 23
Shawn Felker. Boullion did not testify and Teenier’s statement
was not contradicted by any other agent of Respondent.
Teenier also testified that Boullion instructed him to isolate
the charging parties and Payne from other employees and that
Boullion instructed Robert Morgan to do the same with Ryan
Lang and Andrew Wakowki (Tr. 385–386). Since neither
Boullion nor Morgan testified, Teenier’s testimony in this re-
gard was not contradicted. Respondent asked Greg Culver
whether he had ever heard anyone give instructions to isolate
any employees. Culver testified he had not (Tr. 1653–1654),
but that begs the question as to whether Boullion gave these
instructions when Culver was not present. Moreover, for rea-
sons stated in footnote 27, I decline to take any of Culver’s
testimony at face-value. Thus, I credit Teenier on this point.39
Human Resources Director Harth Goulette conceded that
Schoof’s association with Teenier, Felker, Debeau, and French
was a factor in Respondent’s decision to terminate him, Tr.
828–830, 836.
Despite this evidence, I find that it is too speculative to con-
clude that the Charging Parties were terminated as the result of
Respondent’s suspicions about Teenier’s possible support of
the Union. Moreover, I find that even if this did play a part in
the terminations of Schoof and Debeau, Respondent reasonably
believed that the two employees were doing noncompany work
on company time. Further, I find that Respondent acted upon
that belief.
Conclusion with Regard to the Terminations of Schoof
and Debeau
Assuming that the General Counsel made out a prima facie
case that Schoof and Debeau were terminated in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1), I find that Respondent met its burden
that it would have terminated them even in the absence of ani-
mus towards any suspected union activity on their part or that
of Teenier, or French. Respondent had sufficient reason to
believe that Schoof and Debeau were doing noncompany work
on company time and therefore had, and acted upon, a legiti-
mate nondiscriminatory reason for discharging them.
The General Counsel’s reliance on disparate treatment with
regard to Schoof and Debeau is beside the point. Assuming
they were disparately treated, the question remains why? I find
they were not disparately treated because of their own protected
activity. I conclude they were not disparately treated due to
protected activity on the part of French, and it is too speculative
to conclude that they were disparately treated because of sus-
pected union sympathies on the part of Teenier.
The Independent 8(a)(1) violations
Respondent’s 10(b) defense
There is no question that a number of the 8(a)(1) allegations
in the complaint are predicated on an amended charge filed

39 Shawn Felker testified that Culver told him to move French in or-
der to isolate him from other employees and to move the rest of the
field auditors so that French’s assignment would not appear to be dis-
criminatory, Tr. 860. Culver’s testimony at Tr. 1653 contradicts Felk-
er. Given that I credit Teenier’s testimony that he was instructed to
isolate Felker’s field auditors, I need not resolve the credibility issue
regarding Culver and Felker.
more than 6 months after the alleged violations occurred.
However, in Redd-I, 290 NLRB 1115 (1988), the Board held
that allegations made in an untimely filed charge may be con-
sidered to be timely filed if they are legally and factually
“closely related” to an otherwise timely filed charge. The
Board looks at whether (1) the otherwise timely allegations
involve the same legal theory as the allegations in a timely
charge; (2) whether the otherwise untimely allegations arise
from the same factual situation or sequence of events as the
allegations in a timely charge; and (3) “may look” at whether a
Respondent would raise the same or similar defenses to both
the untimely and timely charge.
The charges filed within 6 months of the allegations in this
case include the terminations of all three charging parties, the
alleged statement and threat by Rob Lothian to Jonathan French
on September 30, 2014, and French’s statement in his initial
charge that “two supervisors and a manager” told him that he
had been “outed” as the mastermind by the union activity.
I find that many of the 8(a)(1) allegations in this case should
be dismissed under the Redd-I test. Complaint paragraphs 8
and 9 contain numerous allegations of illegal conduct by Man-
ager T.J. Teenier and Shawn Felker. Since Teenier and Felker
were fired at the same time as the charging parties, I conclude
that their conduct is not closely related to Respondent’s termi-
nations of the charging parties—except allegations that Teenier
and Felker gave one or more of the charging parties the impres-
sion that their union activities were under surveillance and that
Teenier interrogated French. I would also note that Felker, a
witness called by the General Counsel, denied ever talking to
any of the Charging Parties or about the Union (Tr. 882). He
also denied asking Kent Payne to make inquiries regarding the
union activity of other employees (Tr. 974–975).
The complaint allegations related to an allegedly unlawful
rule, paragraphs 6 and 15(c) are also insufficiently related to a
timely charge to meet the Redd-I criteria.40 I reach the same
conclusion with regard to paragraph 11(b) [interrogation by
Lothian].41 Thus, I dismiss the complaint allegations in para-
graph 6, 8(b),(c),(e),(f) and (g) (ii)-(iii) and 9 (a)-(b), 11(b), and
15(c) on 10(b) grounds.
On the other hand, I find that complaint paragraphs 7, 8(a),
8(d), 10, and 12, 13 meet the Redd-I test. Paragraph 7 alleges
illegal surveillance by three supervisors on July 15 when the
Union distributed flyers at Respondent’s Saginaw office. Alt-
hough, I find this to be sufficiently closely related to French’s
charge, there is insufficient evidence to support it. First of all,
the union activity was out in the open and there is nothing ille-
gal about the supervisors going out in the parking lot to observe
it, Fred’k Wallace & Son, Inc., 331 NLRB 914, 915 (2000).
There is absolutely no evidence that any supervisor took notes,
as alleged in paragraph 7.
Terry Teenier testified that he was instructed by his boss,

40 While it is true that Respondent cited violation of the employee
handbook as a reason for the discharges, the manner in which the em-
ployees violated the handbook appears to have no relationship to pro-
tected activity, see, e.g., Exh. R-9, p. 20. It is also difficult to discern
any relationship between the language in the termination documents
and the discharges. I would characterize the language as a nonsequitur.
41 There is no evidence to support 11(b).
24 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Greg Culver, to keep track of which employees were taking
union flyers and to take notes of this. Teenier testified further
that he passed these instructions on to Supervisors Shawn Felk-
er and Chad Erskine. He also stated that Erskine passed on
some names to him (Tr. 378). However, according to Teenier,
Erskine did this from memory not from notes (Tr. 503). Er-
skine denied giving names to anyone. I have no basis for cred-
iting Teenier over Erskine, so I dismiss complaint paragraph 7.
Paragraph 10 alleges closer scrutiny of employees (i.e.,
French) by Greg Culver in July 2014. Since Culver is the per-
son, or one of the persons, who decided to fire the charging
parties, I believe this allegation is closely related to the timely
charges. It is part of the sequence of events leading to French’s
termination.
Similarly, I find paragraph 12 to be closely related to a time-
ly charge in that Respondent’s “confidentiality” instruction
during the investigation was a major factor in the termination of
French and hindered the three charging parties in defending
their conduct during Respondent’s investigation.
Paragraph 13 is sufficiently closely related to the timely filed
charges because T. J. Teenier’s uncontradicted testimony estab-
lished that he was instructed by Regional Vice President Joseph
Boullion to isolate Felker’s entire crew, which I infer was due
to suspicion that some or all of them were sympathetic to the
Union.
Complaint paragraph 8 (a) & (d):
T.J. Teenier Gives Jon French the Impression that his Union
Activities are Under Surveillance, and Interrogates him About
Union Activities, on or About July 16, 2014
Jonathan French testified that on about July 16, the day after
union organizers had passed out union flyers at Respondent’s
Saginaw office, Teenier drove out to his location and told
French to get into his vehicle. Teenier asked French if he knew
of anyone connected with the distribution of flyers. This testi-
mony was corroborated by Teenier. The account of this con-
versation does not appear in the affidavits French gave to the
General Counsel during investigation of his charges on No-
vember 14, 2014, and June 23, 2016. However, I credit it.
G.C. Exh. 34 establishes that higher management instructed
Teenier to talk to French about the union activity.
Additionally (GC Exh. 29), Harth Goulette’s notes of July
17, 2014, confirm that Teenier spoke with French and told him
that Respondent was investigating his possible connection to
the IBEW flyers. Thus, the allegations in complaint paragraphs
8(a) and (d) are established by Goulette’s notes and Teenier’s
testimony.
Complaint Paragraph 9(c) Alleged Violation by Felker
There is no evidence to support the allegation in complaint
paragraph 9(c) that Shawn Felker told employees over the
phone that he knew that they had spoken to a union representa-
tive. This allegation is dismissed.
Complaint Paragraph 10: Greg Culver Subjects Jonathan
French to Closer Scrutiny:
Greg Culver, Teenier’s boss, came to Respondent’s Saginaw
office on July 17, 2014, 2 days after the union handbilling.
Prior to his arrival he asked to “ride-along” with Jonathan
French as French performed his normal field auditor duties.
Culver’s ride-along and inquiries to French, were, at least in
part, motivated by a desire to find out which employees were
connected to the distribution of the IBEW flyers. I find that
Respondent, by Culver, engaged in surveillance of French’s
protected activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
Complaint Paragraph 11: Alleged Violations by Lothian
There is no evidence to support complaint paragraph 11(b)
that Respondent by Rob Lothian interrogated Jonathan French
about union activities on September 30, 2014. On the other
hand, French’s uncontradicted testimony establishes that Lothi-
an gave French the impression that Respondent was watching
French’s union activities and that Lothian impliedly threatened
French. The threat while not specific would lead a reasonable
person to conclude that they may be disciplined or discharged
in part due to their union activities.
Complaint Paragraph 12: Respondent by Stephanie Peters
Issued Overly Broad Directives to Employees not to Discuss
Respondent’s Disciplinary Investigation.
On about October 1, 2014, Charter Human Resource Gener-
alist Stephanie Peters told Jonathan French not to talk to any-
one about what was discussed in the interview. Peters gave the
same instruction to all the employees, supervisors and manag-
ers she interviewed in connection with her investigation.
I find that Respondent did not violate the Act in giving this
“confidentiality” instruction.
In Caesar’s Palace, 336 NLRB 271, 272 (2001), the Board
held that the employer did not violate Section 8(a)(1) by in-
structing employees not to discuss an ongoing drug investiga-
tion. It observed that employees have a Section 7 right to dis-
cuss discipline or disciplinary investigations. However, it
found that Caesar’s established a substantial and legitimate
business justification which outweighed its infringement on
employees’ rights. The Board in footnote 5 made it clear that it
is the Respondent’s burden to establish a legitimate and sub-
stantial business justification.
In Hyundai America Shipping Agency, Inc., 357 NLRB 860
(2011), the Board found the employer violated Section 8(a)(1)
by promulgating, maintaining and enforcing an oral rule pro-
hibiting employees from discussing with other persons any
matters under investigation by its human resources department.
This rule was a blanket prohibition, applying to all matters
regardless of the circumstances. The employer’s rule in Boeing
Co., 362 NLRB No. 195 (2015), was similarly broad.
In Caesar’s Palace, an employer witness testified that it
never explained the purpose of the confidentiality instruction to
the employees during the investigation, 336 NLRB at 273. The
Board appears to have inferred from the circumstances of the
investigation that the employer had a legitimate and substantial
justification for its confidentiality instructions. I believe this
could be inferred in many investigations in which the dangers
of evidence being destroyed or fabricated, and witness intimi-
dation are obvious. In this vein I would note the Rule 615 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence, in requiring a judge to order the
sequestration of witnesses upon the request of any party, is a
tacit recognition of this danger.
In this case, I find that Respondent’s legitimate reasons for
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 25
instructing each employee not to discuss its investigation are
patently obvious. There was an obviously danger of the em-
ployees coordinating their stories or suggesting “helpful” inter-
view answers to others. Thus, I find that Respondent’s burden
of establishing that these interests outweigh its infringement on
employees’ rights has been met.
Paragraph 13 (Isolation of the Charging Parties)
This record establishes that shortly after the union flyers
were distributed, three members of Shawn Felker’s crew,
French, Schoof, and Debeau were assigned to do work outside
of the Saginaw system. Although field auditors working out of
Saginaw office had worked in these areas before, the record,
specifically T. J. Teenier’s uncontradicted testimony at Tr.
385–386, shows that in July and August 2014, this assignment
was related to suspected union activity by some or all of them.
The assignment was motivated by a desire to prevent Jonathan
French, in particular, from interacting with other employees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) in discharg-
ing Jonathan French.
2. Respondent did not violate the Act in discharging James
Debeau and Raymond Schoof.
3. Respondent, by T.J. Teenier, violated Section 8(a)(1) by
giving Jonathan French the impression that his union activities
were under surveillance and interrogating him on or about July
16, 2014.
4. Respondent, by Greg Culver, violated Section 8(a)(1) by
subjecting Jonathan French to close scrutiny on July 17.
5. Respondent, by Rob Lothian, violated Section 8(a)(1) by
creating the impression that Jonathan French’s union activities
were under surveillance.
6. Respondent, by Rob Lothian, violated Section 8(a)(1) by
impliedly threatening Jonathan French on September 30, 2014,
in part due to French’s union activities.
7. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by
assigning the charging parties to work outside of the Saginaw
system in response to suspicions of union activity on the part of
all or some of the charging parties.
8. Respondent did not violate the Act in instructing employ-
ees not to discuss its investigation with other employees, super-
visors or managers.
The Respondent, having discriminatorily discharged Jona-
than French, must offer him reinstatement and make him whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits. Backpay shall be
computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New Hori-
zons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed
in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010).
Respondent must also compensate Jonathan French for his
search-for-work and interim employment expenses regardless
of whether those expenses exceed his interim earnings. Search-
for-work and interim employment expenses shall be calculated
separately from taxable net backpay, with interest at the rate
prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), com-
pounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center,
356 NLRB 6 (2010).
Respondent shall file a report with the Social Security Ad-
ministration allocating Jonathan French’s backpay to the ap-
propriate calendar quarters. Respondent shall also compensate
the discriminatee for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of
receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering
periods longer than 1 year, Latino Express, Inc., 359 NLRB
518 (2012).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended42
ORDER
The Respondent, Charter Communications, LLC, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any em-
ployee for supporting the International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers or any other union.
(b) Giving employees the impression that their union or other
protected activities are under surveillance.
(c) Interrogating employees about their suspected union or
other protected activities.
(d) Subjecting employees to closer scrutiny due to their actu-
al or suspected union or other protected activities.
(e) Impliedly threatening employees with adverse personnel
actions on account of their actual or suspected union or other
protected activities.
(f) Assigning employees to work locations in order to isolate
them from other employees on account of their actual or sus-
pected union or other protected activities.
(g) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer
Jonathan French full reinstatement to his former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privi-
leges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Jonathan French whole for any loss of earnings,
search-for-work and interim employment expenses, and other
benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against him in
the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, re-
move from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge and
within 3 days thereafter notify Jonathan French in writing that
this has been done and that the discharge will not be used
against him in any way.
(d) 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 payroll records, social security payment rec-
ords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other

42 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.
26 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
Bay City and Saginaw, Michigan facilities copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”43 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition to
physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distribut-
ed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an
internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent
customarily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. In the event that, during the pendency of these pro-
ceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the
facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since July 16, 2014.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. November 10, 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 discharge or otherwise discriminate against
any of you for supporting the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW) or any other union.

43 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
WE WILL NOT give you the impression that your union or oth-
er protected activities are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT interrogate you about your suspected or known
union or other protected activities.
WE WILL NOT subject you to closer scrutiny due to your actu-
al or suspected union or other protected activities.
WE WILL NOT impliedly threaten you with adverse personnel
actions on account of your actual or suspected union or other
protected activities.
WE WILL NOT assign you to work locations in order to isolate
you from other employees on account of your actual or sus-
pected union or other protected activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Jonathan French full reinstatement to his former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privi-
leges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Jonathan French whole for any loss of earn-
ings less any net interim earnings, search-for-work and interim
employment expenses (regardless of interim earnings) and oth-
er benefits resulting from his discharge, plus interest com-
pounded daily.
WE WILL file a report with the Social Security Administration
allocating Jonathan French’s backpay to the appropriate calen-
dar quarters.
WE WILL compensate Jonathan French for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-sum back-
pay awards covering periods longer than 1 year.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from our files any reference to the unlawful discharge of Jona-
than French, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify him
in writing that this has been done and that the discharge will not
be used against him in any way.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-140170 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273-1940.