Crossing Rehabilitation Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 2006

347 N.L.R.B. 228 (N.L.R.B. 2006)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
347 NLRB No. 21
228
Crossing Recovery Systems, Inc. d/b/a Crossing Re-
habilitation Services and Amalgamated Local
298, International Union of Allied Novelty and
production Workers, AFL–CIO. Cases 29–CA–
26118, 29–CA–26133, 29–26156, 29–CA–26166,
29–CA–26167, 29–CA–26296, 29–CA–26298, 29–
CA–26299, and 29–CA–26300
May 31, 2006
ORDER REMANDING PROCEEDINGS
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN AND KIRSANOW
On August 8, 2005, Administrative Law Judge How-
ard Edelman issued the attached decision in this case.
The Respondent filed exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Consistent with our decision in Dish Network Service
Corp., 345 NLRB 1071 (2005), the Board has decided to
remand this case to another judge in order for him or her
to review the record and issue an appropriate decision.1
In this case and in many others, the same judge has
copied extensively from the General Counsel’s brief in
his decision. In each case, the judge then decided the
case in favor of the General Counsel.2 Our comparison
of the General Counsel’s brief and the judge’s decision
reveals that the majority of the judge’s decision was cop-
ied verbatim from the General Counsel’s posthearing
brief. The judge copied verbatim from the General
Counsel’s brief in both his factual statement and his legal
discussion.
In Dish Network,supra, we said:
[I]t is essential not only to avoid actual partiality and
prejudgment . . . in the conduct of Board proceedings,
but also to avoid even the appearance of a partisan tri-
bunal. Indianapolis Glove Co., 88 NLRB 986 (1950).
See Reading Anthracite Co., 273 NLRB 1502 (1985);
Dayton Power & Light Co., 267 NLRB 202 (1983).
Considering the instant case in the context of all of
these cases as a whole, the impression given is that Judge
Edelman simply adopted, by rote, the views of the Gen-
eral Counsel and failed to conduct an independent analy-
sis of the case’s underlying facts and legal issues.

1 Member Liebman dissents from the remand order for the reasons
stated in her dissent in Regency House of Wallingford, 347 NLRB 173
(2006).
2 See CMC Electrical, 347 NLRB 273 (2006); Eugene Iovine, 347
NLRB 258 (2006); Regency House of Wallingford, supra; Simon De-
Bartelo Group, 347 NLRB 282 (2006); Trim Corp., 347 NLRB 264
(2006); J.J. Cassone Bakery, Inc., 345 NLRB 1305 (2005); Dish Net-
work Service Corp., 345 NLRB 1071 (2005); Fairfield Tower Condo-
minium Assn., 343 NLRB 923 (2004).
We recognize that the Respondent did not specifically
except to the judge’s extensive copying. However, that
fact does not, and should not, preclude the Board from
taking corrective measures. It is the Board’s solemn ob-
ligation to insure that its decisions and those of its judges
are free from partiality and the appearance of partiality.
We understand that this remand delays the issuance of
a Board decision, and this may inconvenience the parties.
However, we believe that the fundamental necessity to
insure the Board’s integrity outweighs these considera-
tions.
In order to dispel this impression of partiality, we will
remand the case to the chief administrative law judge for
reassignment to a different administrative law judge.
This judge shall review the record and issue a reasoned
decision.3 We will not order a hearing de novo because
our review of the record satisfies us that Judge Edelman
conducted the hearing itself properly.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the administrative law judge’s deci-
sion of August 8, 2005, is set aside.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is remanded to
the chief administrative law judge for reassignment to a
different administrative law judge who shall review the
record of this matter and prepare and serve on the parties
a decision containing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and recommendations based on the evidence re-
ceived. Following service of such decision on the par-
ties, the provisions of Section 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations shall apply.
Haydee Rosario, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Clifford P. Chaiet, Esq., for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HOWARD EDELMAN, Administrative Law Judge. Upon
charges filed in Cases 29–CA–26118, 29–CA–26133, 29–CA–
26156, 29–CA–26166, 29–CA–26167, 29–CA–26296, 29–CA–
26298, 29–CA–26299, and 29–CA–26300, respectively, by
Amalgamated Local 298, International Union of Allied Novelty
and Production Workers, AFL–CIO (the Charging Party or the
Union), against Crossing Recovery Systems, Inc. d/b/a Cross-

3 The new judge may rely on Judge Edelman’s demeanor-based
credibility determinations unless they are inconsistent with the weight
of the evidence. If inconsistent with the weight of the evidence, the new
judge may seek to resolve such conflicts by considering “the weight of
the respective evidence, established or admitted facts, inherent prob-
abilities, and reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the re-
cord as a whole.” RC Aluminum Industries, 343 NLRB 939 fn. 2
(2004), quoting Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB 622, 623 (2001) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). Alternatively, the new judge
may, in his/her discretion, reconvene the hearing and recall witnesses
for further testimony. In doing so, the new judge will have the author-
ity to make his/her own demeanor-based credibility findings.
CROSSING REHABILITATION SERVICES 229
ing Rehabilitation Services, Inc. (Respondent), an order con-
solidating cases, consolidated complaint and notice of hearing
issued on May 20, 2004. The consolidated complaint alleges
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
The trial in this matter was held in New York, New York, on
August 3, 4, and 5, and on September 20 and 21, 2004.
Briefs were filed by counsel for the General Counsel and
counsel for Respondent. Based upon the entire record, includ-
ing the testimony and demeanor of witnesses, I make the fol-
lowing findings of fact.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Respondent has its principal office and place of business lo-
cated at 450 Waverly Avenue, Patchogue, New York (the Pat-
chogue facility), and another facility located at 60 Carleton
Avenue, Suite 204, Islip Terrace, New York (the Islip Terrace
facility). Respondent also has other facilities located in Suffolk
and Nassau counties. Respondent is engaged in the business of
providing drug and alcohol rehabilitation services. Respon-
dent’s chief executive officer and sole shareholder is Frank
Buonanote. Buonanote’s main office is located at the Pat-
chogue facility. Buonanote testified that his father founded his
business and Respondent is part of his family legacy.
During the past year, which period is representative of its
annual operations generally, Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its operations derived gross annual revenues in ex-
cess of $250,000. During the past year, which period is repre-
sentative of its annual operations generally, Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business operations described above,
purchased and received at its Islip Terrace facility goods, sup-
plies, and materials valued in excess of $5000, from suppliers
located within the State of New York, which suppliers, in turn,
purchased and received those materials from suppliers located
outside the State of New York.
It is admitted that Respondent has been an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
It is also admitted that the Union has been a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Respondent’s supervisors, as defined in Section 2(11) of the
Act, include Alicia O’Connor, executive director, and Sarah
Navas, the senior office manager. O’Connor oversees all the
clinical and administrative functions within Respondent’s five
sites. Her office is also located at the Patchogue facility.
O’Connor reports directly to Buonanote.
Navas testified she has worked for Respondent since April
1991. Navas has been the senior office manager since May
2002. Her office is also located at the Patchogue facility. Na-
vas is responsible for overseeing all office procedures and the
office managers in the five facilities operated by Respondent.
She testified that she visits the five facilities, usually on a bi-
monthly or quarterly basis, to oversee and audit them. Navas
reports directly to Buonanote and O’Connor.
Although Navas has been employed by Respondent for about
2 years, she has had a close personal relationship with Buon-
anote for about 11 years.1
From November 2003, when the union campaign began, un-
til December 2003, Thomas Kenney and Brian Logan, supervi-
sors within the meaning of the Act, were directors and supervi-
sors of the Islip Terrace facility. During this period, Kenney
was also doing work as a senior counselor. At sometime before
the union campaign, Kenney became the sole director for the
Islip Terrace facility.
During the Union’s campaign, the administrative staff con-
sisted of an office manager, Kathy Hyde, a 2(11) supervisor,
and three secretaries, Christina Mazzuco, Lillian Gouge, and
Andrea DiFolco. Kenney described the secretaries’ job respon-
sibilities as answering the telephones, record keeping, filing the
records away, storing the records away, collecting payments for
clients, and handling clients’ appointments.
There were about 12 counselors and/or clinical staff em-
ployees. Kenney and a senior counselor, JoAnn Barrett, an
admitted 2(11) supervisor, supervised the clinical employees.
Heather Dale, a counselor, was the only LPN employed at the
Islip Terrace facility. Evelyn Cabral, an admitted 2(11) super-
visor, was the director of managed care.
I. RESPONDENT’S UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CAMPAIGN
In early November 2003, the Union began its organizing
campaign by meeting with a group of employees at the home of
Pat Russo, a counselor at the Islip Terrace facility who had
been terminated prior to the Union’s campaign.2 Russo and
Heather Dale, an LPN and a counselor, were the employees
who initially contacted the Union. Dale was the main union
organizer. She collected cards, spoke to employees about the
Union, and organized the union meetings.
Respondent first learned of the Union’s campaign when the
Union filed a petition for election on December 29, 2003, in
Case 29–RC–10145. Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of
Election issued on February 10, a representation election was
conducted on March 9, for the following bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time counselors, clerical em-
ployees and managed care coordinators employed at Respon-
dent’s Islip Terrace facility, excluding all directors, managers,
guards, nurses, social workers and other professional employ-
ees as defined in the Act, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
Supervisor Barrett testified that in early January 2004, she
attended the first managerial meeting held by Respondent to
discuss the Union’s campaign. The meeting was conducted by
Buonanote. Kenney was present. There were no employees
present. According to Barrett, Buonanote questioned his su-
pervisors as to who was involved with the Union. He asked for
the names of such employees and any information about these
employees’ union activities. Barrett credibly testified that at

1 Navas was questioned on cross-examination and by me as to the
nature of this relationship and refused to answer questions on this sub-
ject. Based upon this refusal to answer questions, I find that such re-
fusal to answer reflects negatively on her credibility
2 Russo did not file an unfair labor practice charge.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD230
this meeting, Buonanote told them that if the Union came in,
“the only thing that the employees could do was to strike” and
that he was already arranging for their replacements. At this
meeting, Buonanote informed Kenney and Barrett that he had
talked to certain owners from other independent treatment fa-
cilities. Barrett credibly testified that “they would work with
him if the Union came in.” Buonanote stated that he hated
unions and that he would rather see the Islip Terrace facility
closed rather than having a union representing the employees.3
It is undisputed that after learning that the Union was seek-
ing to represent its employees, Buonanote and Navas began to
visit the Islip Terrace facility almost on a daily basis. Barrett,
who worked 5 days a week, credibly testified that from the
beginning of her employment in April 2003 until January 2004,
she had seen Buonanote only once at the Islip Terrace facility.
Supervisor Barrett testified that;
When I started to work there Frank [Buonanote] was never in
the office until we had word of the Union, then he was there
all the time. He was over people’s shoulders, he was sitting
down at their desks, he was constantly bringing up the Union,
he was constantly asking people what they thought about the
Union, why did they want a union, what was going on there,
not offering any solutions, it was just, we don’t need a union
around here, don’t want to have a union . . . .
In January 20044 General Counsel’s witnesses testified that
during Buonanote’s and Navas’ visits to the Islip Terrace facil-
ity, Buonanote and Navas searched through employees’ in-
boxes, message holders, message books, faxes, and interrogated
the employees about their messages. Secretary Mazzuco testi-
fied that after the Board faxed the petition to Respondent,
Buonanote and Navas came in to the Islip Terrace facility regu-
larly, to search the counselors’ in-boxes and message books.
Secretary DiFolco and Office Manager Hyde were also present.
Mazzuco testified that Buonanote “seemed agitated,” he was
looking through the counselors’ things.
That same day, Buonanote called Mazzuco to one of the con-
ference room to ask her if she knew that the Union was trying
to organize the employees at the Islip Terrace facility. Buon-
anote asked Mazzuco if she knew anything about the Union’s
campaign. No one else was present. Mazzuco credibly testi-
fied that Buonanote told her that employees like Dale were
going to try to convince her to vote “yes” for the Union. Dur-
ing this conversation, Buonanote told Mazzuco that all unions
were bad, and if the Union came in he would change everything
around. That she would not be able to park her car in the park-
ing lot and that the Union would hurt her family and boyfriend.
When Mazzuco asked why would the Union want to hurt her
family, Buonanote responded because all the unions are bad.
Mazzuco further testified that Buonanote told her that the busi-
ness was his father’s legacy and he did not want it destroyed.
A few days later, Mazzuco saw Buonanote and Navas again.
That day, Buonanote took the fax machine apart and told Office

3 As set forth in detail below, I credit all of General Counsel’s wit-
nesses, and discredit all of Respondent’s witnesses.
4 All dates hereafter are in 2004, unless otherwise stated.
Manager Hyde that he wanted to see everything that came
through the fax before it was distributed to the employees.
DiFolco also testified that she was present when Buonanote
and Navas were searching the employees’ in-boxes, reading the
employees’ messages and shredding certain union literature that
they found. DiFolco testified that Buonanote instructed Office
Manager Hyde not to make any copies of union literature and
that Respondent was “still” his Company.
That same day, DiFolco saw Buonanote and Navas again at
about 5 p.m. Buonanote again searched the mailboxes again
and shredded some other union literature. Buonanote then
approached DiFolco to ask her if she knew anything about the
Union. He also asked DiFolco if anyone had approached her to
discuss the Union. DiFolco told him that she did not know
anything. Buonanote told DiFolco, “That a union had no place
at Crossings, and that unions were corrupt. And, that they
would come after her boyfriend or family.” DiFolco did not
respond. Buonanote then asked DiFolco if she knew who she
was going to vote and if she knew who was the ringleader?
DiFolco continued to assert that she did not know anything.
Office Manager Hyde testified there were various faxes com-
ing in to the Islip Terrace facility sent by the Board, the Union,
and by the Respondent. On or about February 10, she saw
Buonanote and Navas again searching the employees’ mail-
boxes and shredding some documents. Hyde testified that she
did not put the union literature that was shredded by Buonanote
in the mailboxes.
Secretary Mazzuco testified that during a meeting with Su-
pervisor O’Connor on or about February 12, she told O’Connor
that she believed that searching the employees’ in-boxes was an
attempt to intimidate employees, and that it was wrong to do so.
She described Buonanote’s conduct to O’Connor as “nerve
racking.” O’Connor told Mazzuco that she was going to com-
municate her comments to Buonanote. Mazzuco testified that
she and Office Manager Hyde were the individuals who put the
documents relating to the Union’s campaign, some of them
coming from the Board, in the employees’ in-boxes. Prior to
the Union’s campaign, the employees were allowed to use the
in-boxes and message holders for nonbusiness-related material,
such as personal invitations to picnics, exchanging video tapes,
books, etc. Office Manager Hyde credibly testified that the
employees were never instructed to use the in-boxes and faxes
for business purposes until after the Union began its campaign.
According to Supervisor Barrett, during one of Buonanote’s
and Navas’ visits, described above, Buonanote made another
visit and proceeded to search through employees’ desks, books,
and their offices. It is undisputed that the counselors were not
assigned a particular desk and that all the counselors and super-
visors shared whatever office or desk was available. Barrett
testified that during one of Buonanote’s many searches in Janu-
ary, she was sitting at a desk used by Supervisor Cabral and by
other counselors, and that Buonanote, without speaking to her,
searched the drawers of the desk that she was sitting at,
searched the entire office, and then proceeded to the next office
to continue his search. She testified that she heard Buonanote
continue to open the drawers of the desks of other employees.
LPN Dale credibly testified that on or about January 23,
Buonanote met with the employees, on a one-to-one basis, to
CROSSING REHABILITATION SERVICES 231
interrogate them about their support and sympathies for the
Union. Buonanote told Dale that he wanted to talk to all the
employees, on a one-to-one basis, about the Union. He then
asked Dale why she felt the need for a union. Dale testified
that she told Buonanote that the employees needed a union to
negotiate for them regarding their concerns about safety at
work, employment benefits, and job security. During this con-
versation, Dale testified that Buonanote told her that
. . . he was not going to go along with any union negotiations,
that he wasn’t going to have them come in and tell him what
to do and how to run what was his father’s business.
Dale further testified that during this conversation, Buon-
anote also told her that if a union came in, the employees would
have to go on strike. Specifically, Dale testified:
He said, “[I]f the Union comes in I’m not going to be in better
shape so you’re going to have to strike and then your jobs will
be replaced by other people and you would have to wait until
they left that position before he would have to offer us our
jobs back.”
On February 9, Buonanote came into the office where em-
ployee Macken was working to “educate” her about unions. He
told her that the unions were violent people, and that “they roll
their cars.” Macken testified that Buonanote was talking about
unions in general. Buonanote continued to explain how unions
had burned down people’s houses, and assaulted people.
Macken testified that she felt threatened by what Buonanote
was telling her. During this conversation, Buonanote told
Macken that he would never allow anybody from the outside to
come in, and that he would never negotiate with the Union.
Macken stated that she felt threatened by Buonanote’s com-
ment because of the language that Buonanote used to describe
the unions and his unwillingness to negotiate.
Supervisor Barrett testified that Respondent’s first meeting
with the employees to discuss the Union’s campaign was held
on February 10. Barrett credibly testified that Kenney,
O’Connor and about nine employees were present at this meet-
ing. Buonanote conducted the meeting. Barrett testified that
the meeting began by Buonanote telling employees that he
wanted to educate them about the Union, and about what they
could do or could not do for them. Buonanote reiterated his
message to employees that he would not negotiate with the
Union. Barrett testified that at the meeting, Buonanote told
employees that “everything the Union had to do they had to do
through him and they had to negotiate with him.” Barrett fur-
ther testified that Buonanote explained to employees that there
was no money for raises so the Union could not assist them
with any wage increases. Barrett also testified that Buonanote
told the employees that “there was nothing else that they [the
Union] could change so basically the Union would not be help-
ful to anybody there.” Barrett also testified that Buonanote told
the employees that if the Union won the election, “the only
thing that they could do was to strike,” and that they “did not
want to go on a strike.” Buonanote also asked employees why
they wanted a union. In response to Buonanote’s inquiry, the
employees, including Dale and Mazzuco, asked him why he
terminated Russo.5 Other employees asked about safety issues
and other grievances that they have with Respondent.
Dale attended the February 10 meeting, testified that Buon-
anote discussed the information that he had obtained on the
internet about union salaries, and that Buonanote told the em-
ployees that they were making the national average of what
union employees were making. Dale testified that she chal-
lenged the information provided by Buonanote by stating that
the national average was not indicative of what employees
would be making in New York. At this meeting, Director
O’Connor also told employees that an existing steering com-
mittee may represent the best way to address their grievances,
and that the steering committee may work to “brainstorm and
come up with ideas of running Crossing more efficiently.”
Secretary Gouge also attended the February 10 meeting.
Gouge testified that Buonanote asked employees why they
wanted to bring a union to Respondent. He told the employees
that Respondent was no place for a union. Gouge testified that
Buonanote told the employees that an existing steering commit-
tee could help employees’ with their grievances. It is undis-
puted that at the time, the Islip Terrace employees had never
participated in the existing steering committee. Gouge also
testified that Buonanote told the employees that he would never
negotiate with the Union and that if the employees brought the
Union in, the employees would have to strike because he would
never negotiate.
Secretary Mazzuco testified that during the February 10
meeting, Kenney told the employees that Respondent was no
place for a Union and that they, as counselors, were able to
speak for themselves, without a union. Mazzuco testified that
Kenney asked the employees for their grievances and told them
that all they needed to do was to talk about their grievances
with Buonanote, and everything would be taken care of.
During cross-examination, Mazzuco testified that Buonanote
told employees that there will be negotiations and that he did
not have to agree to what the Union asked for. Mazzuco also
testified that Buonanote told the employees that he would not
negotiate with the Union and that if he did not agree to any
terms the only choice they would have was to strike.
Secretary DiFolco, who attended the February 10 meeting
and testified that:
As the meeting proceeded, several times during the meeting,
he said that he would never—he would not negotiate with the
Union . . . he [Buonanote] said that it was his business, and
there was—he had the final word. And, under no circum-
stances would he negotiate.
A day or so after the February 10 meeting, Respondent’s su-
pervisor, O’Connor, held another meeting with employees.
Director Kenney, Office Manager Hyde, and Supervisor Barrett
were present. The following employees were present: John
Carlsen, Joanne Macken, Christina Mazzuco, and Andrea Di-
Folco. Barrett credibly testified the meeting began by
O’Connor informing employees that they should come and talk
to her if they felt uncomfortable talking to Buonanote. Barrett

5 As set forth above, Russo did not file an unfair labor practice
charge.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD232
testified that O’Connor told the employees that if the Union
came in “things would never be the same, that people would
have to start to have to punch a clock and would not be able to
have the same relaxed atmosphere that [employees] had now.”
Barrett also testified that O’Connor’s response to the concerns
raised by employees, was to tell them that “the bottom line was
that Frank [Buonanote] was in charge and whatever he said
went, whether there’s a union there or not, and they had to lis-
ten to him.”
On or about February 11, Buonanote spoke to Macken again
about unions. During this conversation with Macken, Buon-
anote also reiterated that he would not bargain with the Union,
and that if the Union came in they would have to strike and that
in the event of a strike someone would replace her and the re-
placement wouldn’t have to leave. Buonanote further ex-
plained to Macken, that if she had to cross the picket line, it
would not be good for her clients.
On or about February 11, Gouge testified that Buonanote
asked her about the Union. Gouge testified that Buonanote
asked her if she had given any thought to the Union. Gouge
replied that she had no information about it. Buonanote told
her that he “will let [Gouge] know that if [employees] vote in a
union on March 9th [Buonanote will make sure [the employees]
strike.” Buonanote also told her, “I know your concern is
money.” Gouge asked Buonanote what her options were if the
employees went on strike. Buonanote replied that she would
have to cross the picket line risking the Union’s violence.
Gouge told him that she was not ready to make a decision re-
garding the Union because she did not have sufficient informa-
tion. At the end of the conversation, Buonanote told her “look
all I can urge you is if you want to be safe, I can urge you to
vote ‘no’ for the Union.”
On February 12, Gouge testified that when she arrived to
work at 4:30 p.m., Buonanote was already at the Islip Terrace
facility. Both Gouge and DiFolco testified that Buonanote
asked them if they had made a decision about what their vote
was going to be for the Union. Gouge and DiFolco told Buon-
anote that they did not know how they were going to vote.
Buonanote then stated that he would never negotiate with the
Union, that he would not allow a union in and that he was con-
cerned about the employees. Buonanote offered to work with
them without a union.
On February 12, Buonanote learned that there was a meeting
scheduled that day by the Union to meet with employees at the
Oconee Diner. That evening, the following individuals were
present at the Oconee Diner: Union Organizer George Gio-
vinco, LPN Dale, Office Manager Hyde, secretaries Mazzuco,
DiFolco, and Gouge and Counselor Macken. It is undisputed
that shortly after the Union began the meeting at about 8 p.m.,
Navas and Buonanote’s mother, Mary Buonanote, entered the
Oconee Diner and sat across from the table where employees
were meeting. Navas and Buonanote’s mother remained seated
at their table for about an hour while the employees met with
the Union. During the course of the meeting, secretary Gouge
testified that she went outside the diner to have a cigarette. At
the time, Gouge saw that Buonanote was sitting in his car by
himself in front of the diner.
On February 13, Buonanote and Navas confronted Office
Manager Hyde, about her attendance at the February 12 union
meeting. Hyde testified that Buonanote asked what she was
doing at the meeting. She told him that she was there to get
information about the Union for the secretaries and for herself,
Buonanote asked Hyde if she knew how the secretaries were
going to vote. Hyde responded that she did not know. At that
time, Buonanote told Hyde to “go out there” and “tell the secre-
taries to vote no and to tell them that if the Union came in, it
was inevitable that they would go on strike because he would
not negotiate.” Buonanote also instructed Hyde to tell the
counselors that they would be replaced with certified social
workers, if there was a strike. Hyde testified that she delivered
Buonanote’s message to secretaries Mazzuco, Gouge, and Di-
Folco.
On March 2, Buonanote held a meeting with the secretaries.
Director Kenney was also present at the meeting. Gouge testi-
fied that Buonanote began the meeting by asking her if it was
true that she had volunteered to be the Union’s observer.
Gouge told him that she did not volunteer, that she was elected.
Buonanote told her that she did not need to be the observer.
DiFolco corroborated Gouge’s testimony.
On March 5, Buonanote again asked DiFolco and Gouge if
they had decided how they were going to vote in the election.
Gouge testified that she told Buonanote that she felt that em-
ployees were “damned” if they voted for the Union, and
“damned” if they did not vote, because either way, he was go-
ing to terminate their employment. When Buonanote asked
why Gouge believed that the employees would be terminated,
she responded as follows:
Because your behavior has been so erratic lately that your
moods don’t equate to what you are telling us. Your moods
are telling us one thing and your words are telling us some-
thing else.
During this conversation with the secretaries, Buonanote also
told them that if the Union was elected “he would go by the
book with breaks and dress codes.” Gouge testified that when
Buonanote said this, he looked at secretary Mazzuco who was
wearing jeans. Buonanote told Gouge that if the Union came in
she would be written up because she was wearing jeans. Gouge
also testified that Buonanote also told the secretaries that if the
Union was elected, he would install a timeclock and that the
employees would not be allowed to go across to the deli or go
outside to have a cigarette break, and that he would account for
every minute of their workday. DiFolco corroborated Gouge’s
testimony that during this meeting, adding that Director
Kenney, who was also present, told the employees that “this is
no place for a union.”
Secretary Mazzuco, who also attended the March 5 meeting,
corroborated Gouge and DiFolco’s about Buonanote telling the
employees that if the Union was elected, their working condi-
tions would change by installing a clock and having to account
for every single break of time. Mazzuco also recalled Buon-
anote telling them how it was his father’s business and that he
did not want anybody ruining it or taking it away. During this
meeting, he showed the employees a sample ballot and told
CROSSING REHABILITATION SERVICES 233
them to vote no, while he said “[L]et’s just move on from this
and move into our new building and put this past us.”
On March 5, the Friday before the election, Buonanote held
a “disaster plan” meeting. Directors Kenney and Cabral, Office
Manager Hyde Navas and Manager O’Connor were present.
All of the secretaries attended the meeting. Counselor Joan
Macken was among the employees who attended the meeting.
Gouge testified that Buonanote began the meeting by urging
the employees to vote “no” for the Union; that he told the em-
ployees that in the event that the Union was voted in, he had
come up with a “disaster plan.” He wrote on a board “disaster
plan.” The plan on the board described how the employees
would be replaced in the event of a strike. Gouge testified that,
among the names written on the board, were the secretaries’
names, the counselors’ names and Hyde’s name. Buonanote
explained to the employees how they were also replaceable.
Gouge asked Buonanote what did he mean by replaceable and
if he meant temporary or permanent replacement? Buonanote
responded that it meant that they could not get their jobs back
until the person that replaced them either left the job or was
fired. Regarding the “disaster plan,” DiFolco testified that
Buonanote discussed it as follows:
He [Buonanote] was explaining to us, because he said that he
was a businessman, and he ran the company, and he had to
have a back-up plan for what he would do with the Union. If
we had to go on strike . . . Because as far as he saw it, the
Union was never going to come in. So, there would be a
strike. So, he had to make up a plan of what to do when eve-
ryone went on strike.
Secretary Mazzuco testified that Buonanote began the “dis-
aster plan” meeting by telling the employees that there were
only a couple of days left before the election and he just wanted
to let them know that “he can replace all of them in the event of
a strike. . . . Buonanote explained to the employees that he had
help from other facilities.”
Counselor Macken testified that Buonanote wrote all of the
employees’ names on the board and explained to them how
they were going to be replaced in the event of a strike. She
testified that Buonanote explained that if Gouge went on strike,
two employees from the Patchogue facility could do her job.
On March 9, the day of the election, Buonanote was at the
Islip Terrace facility with Navas, his family, Respondent’s
attorney, and some of Respondent’s directors. Counselor
Macken credibly testified that Buonanote came into her office,
“slammed the door shut,” and asked her if she had a problem
with him? Macken told him that she did have a problem with
individuals who come into her office, slam the door and do not
say hello. In response, Buonanote asked her, “Do you think the
Union is going to solve that problem?” Buonanote also asked
Macken if that was the reason why she was voting for the Un-
ion. Macken told him that he was not supposed to ask the em-
ployees how they were going to vote. She stated that the
Board’s notice stated that it was illegal. Buonanote then
“stormed” out of the office.
During the election, LPN Dale, as set forth below, who had
been fired by Respondent, as set forth below, came to vote
because she was on the eligibility list. It is undisputed that
when she walked into Respondent’s facility to vote, Buonanote
screamed at her to “get out” and as she continued to enter the
voting area Buonanote screamed, “Fuck you.”
Supervisor Barrett testified that she heard a commotion and
heard Buonanote screaming and yelling "fuck you” to Dale.
Specifically, supervisor Barrett testified that:
[T]here was a lot of yelling going on so I started to just talk to
the girl [secretary DiFolco] at the desk, she’s 19 years old and
she was getting all shaken up so I was consoling her and con-
cerned about the adolescents coming in at the same time be-
cause they were listening to all the shouting.
II. THE DISCHARGED SUPERVISORS
It is undisputed that JoAnn Barrett, Evelyn Cabral, and Kath-
eline Hyde, whose terminations alleged in the complaint, are
supervisors under Section 2(11) of the Act.
A. JoAnn Barrett, Senior Counselor
JoAnn Barrett began to work for Respondent as a managed
care coordinator in April 2003. After the Union began its cam-
paign in January 2004, Barrett was promoted to senior coun-
selor, a supervisory position. As a senior counselor, she han-
dled the case management of patients, and supervised about
five counselors. She reported to Directors Logan and Kenney,
and to Managed Care Coordinator Cabral.
In November 2003, when the Union began its campaign,
Barrett attended the first union meeting held at Russo’s house.
At the meeting, she signed an authorization card. At that time,
Barrett was not a supervisor. The meeting at Russo’s house
was the only union meeting attended by Barrett. There is no
evidence to show that Respondent knew that Barrett had signed
an authorization card prior to becoming a supervisor or before
her discharge.
In January, Buonanote first talked to Barrett, who had be-
come a supervisor, about the Union during a managerial meet-
ing. Buonanote, Director Kenney, and Barrett were the only
individuals present during this meeting. It is undisputed that
during this managerial meeting, Director Kenney and Barrett
showed their support to Buonanote. Barrett credibly testified
that both Kenney and she told Buonanote that they did not think
that a Union would work in a counseling facility. Kenney and
Barrett also cautioned Buonanote “not to take it personally” and
that the employees “were good people,” and that everything
would work out okay.
Barrett testified that she explained to Buonanote that the
counselors were all professionals bound by ethics, that the Un-
ion would not be helpful at Respondent, and that she would
share her opinion with the counselors. Barrett also testified that
she did not say anything that would leave Buonanote with the
impression that she was prounion.
A couple of days after Buonanote’s first meeting with the
employees, Buonanote approached Barrett and questioned her
loyalty towards Respondent. Barrett testified that this was the
first time that Buonanote questioned her loyalty. Barrett testi-
fied that Buonanote told her that he was concerned about her
“lack of response” during the February 10 meeting. Buonanote
also told her that she was not “backing him up as far as talking
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD234
in the meeting.” Barrett explained to Buonanote that she was
not feeling well at the meeting.
In March, during the week of the election, Buonanote again
questioned Barrett’s loyalty towards Respondent. He accused
Barrett of trying to vote during the representation election.
Barrett testified that she had no idea what Buonanote was refer-
ring to, and that he did not explain to her where his accusation
was coming from. Barrett explained to Buonanote that she was
not looking to vote for the Union. There is no evidence to
show that Barrett, after becoming a supervisor, was seeking to
vote in the election. Her only union activity was signing a un-
ion card while she was an employee, had occurred in November
2003, more than 3 months before this conversation.
During the meeting, Buonanote warned Barrett, “[Y]ou’re ei-
ther with us or you’re against us” and told her that he needed to
know where she was standing. Barrett reassured Buonanote
and told him that she was with Respondent. Barrett also re-
minded Buonanote how she had excelled in her position even
though she had been left to run the office without training.
At this point in the conversation, Barrett testified that
Kenney and Navas had joined the meeting. Barrett testified
that Buonanote told her that he was not questioning her clinical
abilities, that he just wanted to know about her loyalties, and he
needed to know “if [Barrett] will back him up in talking to
people about not having the Union come into the office.” In
response, Barrett told Buonanote that she was not going to in-
timidate employees or force her opinion on them.
When questioned at the trial of this case, why she thought
that Buonanote was asking her to intimidate the employees,
Barrett testified:
He [Buonanote] was there all the time. He was over people’s
shoulders, he was sitting down at their desks, he was con-
stantly bringing up the Union, he was constantly asking peo-
ple what they thought about the Union, why did they want a
union, what was going on there, not offering any solutions, it
was just, we don’t need a union around here, don’t want to
have a union . . . .
Barrett further testified that she was supportive of Respon-
dent’s business, and she did not think that the employees
needed a union. To this extent, Barrett testified that:
If people were just affirmed, all this would have dropped. And
everything was just, just don’t vote for the Union, whatever
you do, just don’t vote for the Union, he [Buonanote] wasn’t
hearing any of the concerns of the people that were attending
the meeting.
On March 10, 1 day after the election, Barrett reported to
work at 10:30 a.m. She was scheduled to begin work at 11a.m.
Prior to her arrival, Buonanote had already discharged Office
Manager Hyde and secretary Mazzuco. Barrett testified that
when she first saw Buonanote, he was in the main office with
Navas, O’Connor, and other individuals employed by Respon-
dent at other facilities. Barrett testified that when she began to
take off her coat, Buonanote told her, “[Y]ou don’t need to take
off your coat, you’re not working here anymore.” Barrett asked
Buonanote why he was firing her. Buonanote responded that
she was not “the type of management we want around here.”
Barrett, who had been promoted to senior counselor only 2
months prior to her termination, had no prior disciplinary re-
cord. She never received any verbal or written warning indicat-
ing any problems with her job performance or with her em-
ployment.
During the trial, Respondent did not seek to explain why
Barrett was terminated 1 day after the election. Other than
alleging that Barrett is not protected under the Act because she
is a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the Act, Respondent
never provided a reason for her discharge. Buonanote, Navas,
and Kenney testified on behalf of Respondent. None of them
offered any explanation for the discharge of Supervisor Coun-
selor Barrett.
B. Evelyn Cabral, Director of Managed Care
Director Cabral, a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the Act,
worked for Respondent for about 8 years. On March 10, 1 day
after the election, Respondent also terminated her employment.
At the time of her discharge, Cabral was the director of man-
aged care. She reported directly to Buonanote and to Executive
Director O’Connor. As the director of managed care, she over-
saw all of Respondent’s facilities in Nassau and Suffolk Coun-
ties. She also supervised all of the managed care coordinators.
She traveled on a regular basis to Respondent’s five sites to
supervise the managed care coordinators. However, it is undis-
puted that Cabral worked out of the Islip Terrace facility.
Cabral testified that she did not have any particular desk as-
signed to her at the Islip Terrace facility.
Cabral first learned about the Union when she received the
representation petition faxed to Respondent at its Islip Terrace
facility. She handed the fax to Director Logan. Shortly after
she received the petition, she saw Buonanote in the Patchogue
facility. No one else was present during this conversation.
Cabral testified that Buonanote asked her if the fax was the first
time that she heard about the Union. Cabral responded that was
it was the first time that she had heard anything about the Un-
ion. During this conversation, Buonanote told Cabral that “a
union would destroy the company and that he would never give
in to their demands.”
A couple of days after Cabral’s initial conversation with
Buonanote, he approached her again at the Patchogue facility to
ask her about the Union’s campaign. Cabral testified that
Buonanote told her that he found it hard to believe that she did
not know anything about the Union. Cabral told him that eve-
ryone was quiet and that “everything was hush, hush.”
Shortly after Buonanote’s second inquiry, Buonanote asked
Cabral to talk to the employees at Islip Terrace to “sway them”
from the Union and to explain to them “how it could be detri-
mental to the patients if anybody ever decided to strike and they
had to cross a picket line.”
On or about March 5, the Friday before the election, Cabral
attended “the disaster plan” meeting, where Buonanote ex-
plained to employees why they would need to strike if the Un-
ion came in. Cabral testified how Buonanote drew a diagram
on a board explaining to the employees who would be replaced
and how employees would be replaced in the event of a strike.
Cabral testified that Buonanote told the employees that if the
Union was elected, he would not give in to the Union’s de-
mands, and that they would have to strike.
CROSSING REHABILITATION SERVICES 235
On March 10, 1 day after the election, Cabral reported to
work at about 8:15 a.m. At about 9 a.m., Buonanote arrived to
the Islip Terrace facility with Manager O’Connor and other
individuals employed by Respondent at other facilities. A short
time after his arrival, Buonanote told Cabral she was dis-
charged. Cabral testified that Buonanote began the termination
meeting by just telling her “there’s nothing that you can do to
change my mind, you are fired.” When Cabral replied that she
had not done anything wrong, Buonanote just asked her for the
keys to the office. There is no evidence to show that Cabral
engaged in any union activity or to show that Cabral did not
support Respondent during the Union’s campaign.
After 8 years of employment, and various promotions, it is
undisputed that Respondent never informed Cabral why she
was terminated. Cabral testified that she never received any
written or verbal warning from Respondent about any matters.
In it’s defense, Respondent presented Christie McKelvin,
Manager Navas, and Buonanote to establish that Cabral was
terminated on March 10, 2004, 1 day after the election, because
in January, she was seen throwing pins at a picture of Buon-
anote at Respondent’s Brentwood, and using vulgar language
directed at Buonanote. Cabral testified that she did not know
McKelvin and that she never worked in the sober home in
Brentwood.
McKelvin testified that Cabral was one of the individuals
shooting pins at Buonanote’s picture. McKelvin further testi-
fied that Supervisor Cabral was using “vulgar” language, such
as “mother fucker,” to describe Buonanote.
C. Katheline Hyde, Office Manager
Hyde began to work for Respondent on March 10, 2003. She
was promoted to the office manager position in June 2003.
Hyde supervised the three secretaries employed at the Islip
Terrace facility, Mazzuco, Gouge, and DiFolco. She worked in
the front office with the secretaries. She reported to Navas and
to Directors Logan and Kenney.
Hyde first learned about the Union’s campaign from former
employee Russo. She did not attend the first union meeting at
Russo’s house. The day after the first union meeting, Heather
Dale, an employee, spoke to Hyde about the Union and asked
her to sign an authorization card to allow the Union to come in.
Hyde signed the card on or about early November 2002, and
returned it to Dale. Hyde testified that no one saw her signing
the card. Hyde testified that during the managerial meetings
held by Respondent and its attorney, she did not disclose that
she had signed a card or that she knew that Dale was involved
with the campaign.
In early January, during the first managerial meeting with
Respondent’s attorney, Hyde learned that she was not eligible
to vote. Hyde testified she attended the second union meeting
held on February 12, at the Oconee Diner. Hyde testified that
the secretaries invited her to the meeting. She further testified
that the secretaries asked her to come to the meeting to give
them her opinion about the Union and to see if the Union was
being truthful with them. The secretaries corroborated that they
invited Hyde to the meeting to give them their opinion about
the Union because they trusted her. Hyde did not tell any other
representative of Respondent that she was attending the meet-
ing. Hyde testified that there was no information given to the
employees, and that no one ever informed her that she could
not attend a union meeting. As set forth above, Navas and
Buonanote’s mother went into the diner and witnessed who
attended.
The next day, February 13, at about 10 a.m., Navas called
Hyde to a meeting to confront her about her attendance at the
union meeting. Buonanote and Kenney were also present.
During the meeting, Hyde explained to Buonanote that she
attended the union meeting to get information about the Union.
She also told Buonanote that she attended the meeting in sup-
port of the secretaries.
Hyde credibly testified that Navas asked her what she was
doing at the union meeting the night before. Navas told her that
she was disappointed at her. Hyde admitted that both Navas
and she got into a heated exchange. According to Hyde, at that
point, Buonanote asked her to calm down and to sit down.
Hyde credibly denied that she got up from the chair to strike
Manager Navas or that she clenched her fist, as alleged by Re-
spondent.
During this meeting, Buonanote asked Hyde if she knew
how the secretaries were going to vote. Hyde told him that she
did not know. Then Buonanote instructed Hyde to tell the sec-
retaries that if they voted the Union in, a strike was “inevitable”
because he would not negotiate with the Union. Hyde testified
that the meeting ended with her apologizing for making a poor
judgment. Hyde was able to return to work. She continued to
work for Respondent until March 10, without any further men-
tion of her attendance at the union meeting.
Immediately after the meeting, Mazzuco testified that she
heard some of what was said. Hyde told the secretaries that she
could not continue discussing the Union’s campaign with them.
Hyde also testified that she delivered Buonanote’s message to
secretary Mazzuco, Gouge, and DiFolco, that if the Union came
in, a strike was “inevitable” because he would not negotiate
with the Union.
On March 8 or 9, Hyde credibly testified that Buonanote
called her into a meeting and told her that he felt that if she
could vote, she would vote in favor of the Union. Hyde testi-
fied Buonanote told her that he observed her demeanor during
his “disaster plan” meeting and that she appeared upset. Hyde
testified that Buonanote knew that she was unhappy with what
he did during the “disaster plan” meeting. During this conver-
sation, Buonanote again asked her if she knew how the secre-
taries were going to vote. Hyde said that she did not know.
Buonanote told Hyde that:
The girls [the secretaries] would listen to me and that he
wanted [Hyde] to go out and speak to the girls and have them
vote “no.” And he would know by the turnout if [Hyde] did
what [Hyde] was supposed to do.” [Emphasis added].
On March 9, the day of the election, Buonanote asked Hyde
if she had talked to the secretaries. Hyde told him that she had
no idea how the secretaries were going to vote. Buonanote did
not say anything to Hyde.
On March 10, when Hyde reported to work, she was termi-
nated by Buonanote. Hyde testified that Buonanote told her, “I
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD236
guess you know I’m letting you go.” Hyde was never told why
she was terminated. Prior to February 12, when she attended a
union meeting, she had never received an oral or written warn-
ing about her job performance or her conduct.
III. THE DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES
A. Heather Dale, LPN
Dale worked as a regular part-time LPN and a counselor
from February 2001 to February 19, 2004, when she was termi-
nated by Buonanote. She was supervised by Directors Logan
and Kenney. Barrett supervised her work as a counselor.
Dale and former employee Russo were the individuals who
initially contacted the Union. Dale solicited cards, spoke to
employees about joining the Union and arranged the various
meetings held by the Union with the employees.
On or about February 10, the day of Respondent’s first meet-
ing with the employees, Dale was interrogated by Buonanote
about her sympathies and support for the Union. During that
interrogation, Dale made it clear to Buonanote that she thought
the employees needed a collective-bargaining representative
who would negotiate with Respondent about their safety con-
cerns, employment benefits, and job security.
On Thursday, February 12, Office Manager Hyde handed
Dale a memo dated February 11, prepared by Buonanote in-
forming the employees that “only those counselors and clerical
employees presently employed at the Islip Terrace office and
on the Islip Terrace payroll will be eligible to vote.” Dale testi-
fied that the same day she received the memo, she spoke to
Director Kenney and Buonanote about the information con-
tained in the memo.
A week before receiving that memo, Director Kenney had
informed Dale that her payroll was going to be switched to the
Port Jefferson office for budgetary reasons. At that time, Dale
did not question her payroll transfer because she did not believe
that it would change her eligibility to vote in the election. In
early February, when Dale was assigned to do medical screen-
ing at the Port Jefferson facility and other facilities, she was
still assigned to work 2 days per week at the Islip Terrace facil-
ity and she remained working out of the Islip Terrace facility
until her discharge on February 19.
Notwithstanding her initial understanding, when she read
Buonanote’s memo, she was convinced that her payroll transfer
was an attempt to keep her from voting in the election.6 Dale
testified that at the time that she read the memo, she had no
knowledge of the Regional determination that she was ineligi-
ble to vote. The Decision and Direction of Election was issued
on February 10, and it is undisputed that Dale did not see the
Decision until after her February 12 meeting with Buonanote.
On February 12, when she read the memo, she decided to
confront Director Kenney about what she believed was an at-
tempt to keep her from voting in the election. Dale admitted
that at the time, she was upset with Kenney, because she be-
lieved that he lied to her. Dale testified that she began the
meeting by telling Kenney that after reading the memo, she was
convinced that the transfer was to keep her from voting in the

6 Respondent’s decision to transfer her to the Port Jefferson facility
is not alleged as an unfair labor practice.
election. When she confronted Kenney, Dale testified that she
told him that the payroll transfer was “budgetary bullshit.”
Dale testified that she had a close working relationship with
Kenney. She also told Kenney that their attempt to block her
vote was illegal.
The same day, in the afternoon, Dale met with Buonanote in
her office to discuss the February 12 memo. At that time,
Kenney had already reported her conduct to Buonanote as in-
subordinate. No one else was present. Kenney was not in the
facility. Dale credibly testified that Buonanote began the meet-
ing by asking her what her problem was with the memo. Dale
explained to Buonanote why she was upset. Buonanote reiter-
ated that the payroll transfer was for budgetary reasons. Dale
testified that she told Buonanote that he was lying about the
reasons for her payroll transfer. During this meeting, Buon-
anote again asked Dale why the employees wanted a union.
Dale testified that she responded that the employees needed a
union to negotiate for them about their employment benefits.
Dale testified that Buonanote became agitated when she men-
tioned the various charges by the Union against Respondent.
Dale told Buonanote that the charges showed that he was
threatening and harassing employees. She referred, in part, to
his shredding of documents sent by the Union. According to
Dale, most of the conversation was calm until she told Buon-
anote that he was threatening and harassing employees. After
she said this, Buonanote “stormed” out of the office and began
yelling at some of the secretaries, asking if he was threatening
or harassing anyone. Dale testified that secretary DiFolco and
Manager Hyde were among the individuals that were present
when Buonanote was yelling that he had not threatened anyone.
According to Dale, the meeting ended when Buonanote’s
brother kept him out of the office.
Secretary DiFolco corroborated Dale’s testimony. She testi-
fied that on February 12, the day of the union meeting at the
Oconee Diner,7 she came to the office at about 4 p.m. DiFolco
testified that she was standing in the office, when she heard
Dale tell Buonanote “you are intimidating—you’re going
around questioning people, and you’re trying to intimidate them
by doing this . . . .” According to DiFolco, Buonanote
“stormed” out of the office where he was meeting with Dale, to
ask the secretaries if he was intimidating them. DiFolco did not
respond.
The next day, on February 13, Dale testified that she was in
the Patchogue office when Buonanote showed her a copy of the
Decision and Direction of Election. Buonanote told her that
pursuant to the decision, she was not eligible to vote because
LPNs were not part of the unit. Dale credibly testified that she
apologized to Buonanote for jumping to conclusions and for
believing that the transfer of her payroll records was an attempt
to block her vote. It is undisputed that neither Buonanote nor
Kenney, nor any other representative, ever issued any warning
to Dale, oral or written, about her conduct on February 12.
The following Thursday, February 19, at about 2 p.m., Dale
was terminated. The record establishes and is undisputed that
Buonanote met with Dale in a room at Respondent’s facility

7 Dale was one of the employees present at the union meeting at the
Oconee Diner.
CROSSING REHABILITATION SERVICES 237
accompanied by five managers, who were not employed at the
Islip Terrace facility, and Managers Navas and O’Connor.
Dale testified that Buonanote, Navas, and the five managers
walked in to the office where she was working. They all sat
down “surrounding” her. Buonanote told her, “[Y]ou are no
longer an employee here, please leave the premises immedi-
ately.” Dale testified that she asked Buonanote for some time
to collect her belongings. As she was collecting her things,
Buonanote said, “I said immediately.” Dale replied, “[W]hy
don’t you call the police?” She testified that she wanted to
collect her things. During this termination meeting, Navas, in
front of the front office employees, reported Dale to the police
as a trespasser. Respondent never provided Dale with a reason
for her termination. Prior to her discharge, Dale never received
any oral or written warning about any matter regarding her job
performance or about her conduct.
On March 9, the day of the election, Dale went to the Islip
Terrace facility to vote under challenge even though she had
been terminated. Dale testified that the Board agent advised
her to vote as a challenged voter in order to preserve her vote.
Dale further stated that the Board agent explained to her that
the Union had appealed the Regional determination. Dale went
to vote accompanied her fiancé, Richard Pascarelli. When Dale
went to the voting area, Pascarelli left Respondent’s facility.
DiFolco corroborated Dale’s testimony that Pascarelli, after
coming inside the office, immediately turned around and waited
for Dale in the waiting area.
When Dale came in, Buonanote approached her and asked her,
“[W]hat the hell she was doing there?” Dale replied that she was
there to vote. Buonanote told her to vote and to get out. After
Dale voted, Buonanote approached her again and began yelling at
her, “at the top of his lungs,” “fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.” At
that time, Buonanote was right in her face. Dale reported the
incident to the Board agent conducting the election.
Supervisor Barrett testified that because of this commotion
she had to comfort secretary DiFolco who was left shaken by
Buonanote’s conduct.
During cross-examination, Kenney testified that prior to Feb-
ruary 12, he never had any problems with Dale at work or knew
of any problems with Dale. He also testified that Dale contin-
ued to work until February 19 without any further incident of
misconduct or insubordination. Kenney further admitted that
prior to February 12, he had heard “many” employees using
obscene language and that he did not know of any employee
being warned for using obscene language. Kenney denied hav-
ing any knowledge of why Dale was terminated.
The termination note, prepared by Buonanote detailed the al-
leged insubordination, as described by Dale in her conversation
with Buonanote on February 12. Kenney admitted that he did
not know of any situation where five or more employees were
needed to discharge one employee.
On February 13, Buonanote testified that he met with Dale in
the Patchogue facility and showed her the Decision and Direc-
tion of Election. According to Buonanote, Dale told him,
“Okay. Just as long as I know you weren’t trying to block my
vote” and “if that’s the decision, that’s the decision.” During
this meeting, Buonanote did not testify about any misconduct
on Dale’s part.
About a week after the February 12 incident, Buonanote tes-
tified that he made the determination to discharge Dale for the
insubordination described above. He explained the basis of his
decision as follows:
I think she [Dale] was being insubordinate. She was yelling
at me in front of the staff. And I felt that if my staff watched
another staff member yelling at me, disrespecting me, being
belligerent towards me, that it would set a bad example and it
would kind of diminish my credibility among the staff. I need
to keep some semblance of order. Particularly with staff be-
havior in order for me to make sure that my business is run-
ning smoothly.
Buonanote further testified that he needed five managers and
Kenney and Navas to terminate Dale to have some witnesses,
and because with these individuals Dale would be less inclined
to be “belligerent.” Buonanote testified that he was not afraid
that Dale would attack him physically, but that he was more
concerned with her “shooting her mouth off again.” Before
terminating Dale, Buonanote called the police and asked them
what procedures he needed to follow to terminate someone
because he was afraid that she would not leave the premises.
The police advised him to call 911 if Dale refused to leave.
Buonanote claimed that when he terminated her he was still
concerned that Dale would sabotage the building, so he asked
her to hurry up, when she refused, he immediately asked Navas
to call the police.
B. Christina Mazzuco, Secretary
Mazzuco worked as a secretary at the Islip Terrace facility
from January 2002 until March 10, 2004. She worked Monday
through Friday from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. She was responsible
for pulling charts, taking care of clients at the window, data
entry, handling clients’ money, and dealing with the correspon-
dence. Hyde and Kenney supervised her.
She first learned about the Union when former employee
Russo invited her to the first union meeting in November 2003.
She signed an authorization card at the meeting. Mazzuco at-
tended about three union meetings. She attended the meeting
on February 12, at the Oconee Diner, which, as set forth below,
was surveilled by Navas and Buonanote’s mother. The next
day, on February 13, she was in the front office, her work area,
when she heard Navas talking to Hyde about the meeting in the
union meeting at the diner.
In February, Mazzuco testified that she attended the meeting
held by Executive Director O’Connor. At this meeting,
O’Connor informed them that Buonanote was on vacation and
he has asked her to speak to them about the Union. Mazzuco
credibly testified that she told O’Connor that she did not be-
lieve that it was right for Buonanote to search the employees-
in-boxes, and it was wrong to intimidate the employees. She
described Buonanote’s conduct to O’Connor as “nerve rack-
ing.” O’Connor told Mazzuco that she was going to communi-
cate her comments to Buonanote.
On March 10, a day after the election, which the Union won,
Mazzuco reported to work at 8:30 a.m., as scheduled. Shortly
after she began to work, Buonanote fired Supervisor Cabral and
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD238
Office Manager Hyde. Before she reported to work, Buonanote
had terminated Supervisor Barrett.
Mazzuco testified that after the discharges of Hyde and
Cabral, she continued to work filing the charts. While she was
filing the charts, Buonanote asked her, “If [Mazzuco] was
happy with the way [Mazzuco] voted.” Mazzuco just contin-
ued to file. Buonanote again said, “[A]re you glad you voted
yes? Because now look what happened.” At this point,
Mazzuco credibly testified that she ignored Buonanote’s state-
ment, turned her back, and continued working. Mazzuco ad-
mitted that she was visually upset about the discharge of Hyde
and Cabral. Nonetheless, it is undisputed that she did not dis-
cuss the discharges with Buonanote or Navas.
Mazzuco credibly testified that after she turned her back and
went back to work, Buonanote continued to walk behind her
pacing back and forth, just watching what she was doing. At
that point, Buonanote told to her “to start looking for another
job.” Navas and employee Landser, employed at a different
facility, were present at the time. Mazzuco continued to work,
and Buonanote repeated, “[Y]ou know, really I suggest that you
do start looking for a new job.” Mazzuco credibly testified that
she turned around and asked Buonanote, “Do you want me to
leave?” and he replied, “[N]o, just start looking for a new job.”
Mazzuco testified that “I took that as I was getting fired. I got
up, went in the back, said good bye to my coworkers.” Buon-
anote was standing by listening. Mazzuco testified that be-
tween the time that Buonanote told her “start looking for an-
other job” and the time that she got up and said good bye, she
did not say anything else.
Mazzuco credibly testified that as she was exiting, she called
Buonanote an “asshole.” Navas asked her if she was quitting
her job. Mazzuco replied, “Call it whatever you want.” Navas
then began to chase Mazzuco and began screaming at Mazzuco
“get out, get out, get out.” Mazzuco credibly testified that Na-
vas was within 6 inches from her face. Mazzuco began running
backwards facing an angry Navas because she believed that
Navas was going to physically assault her. One of Respon-
dent’s clients helped Mazzuco, and brought her downstairs,
away from Navas. When questioned at the trial if she quit her
job, Mazzuco testified she never quit her job.
Prior to her termination, Mazzuco never received any written
or verbal warning from Respondent. Mazzuco testified that
neither Buonanote nor Navas ever told her that they were dis-
satisfied with her work. Navas confirmed that prior to March
11, there was no problem with Mazzuco’s job performance.
C. Lillian Gouge, Secretary
Gouge testified that she first learned about the Union from
former employee Russo and Dale. She attended the meeting in
November at Russo’s home, where she signed an authorization
card. On February 12, she also attended the second union
meeting held at the Oconee Diner with Mazzuco and DiFolco.
Manager Hyde was present at the meeting when they first ar-
rived. Navas and Buonanote’s mother were at a separate table
observing the union meeting.
On February 13, at about 4:30 p.m., when Gouge reported to
work, Navas was already in the Islip Terrace facility. Navas
called Gouge to a meeting room number. No one else was
present. Gouge credibly testified that Navas told her that she
felt betrayed when she saw “all four of her girls sitting at the
meeting the night before.” Gouge replied that she was the one
betrayed, considering that she was following them as criminals.
Gouge also testified that Navas informed her that she learned
the day before about the meeting at the diner and that she
needed “to go and see who of her girls were going to attend.”
Navas also told Gouge that she told Buonanote about the meet-
ing at the diner. With regard to Hyde, Gouge told Navas that
the secretaries invited Manager Hyde because they wanted
Hyde to learn more about the Union and what the Union was all
about so that they could make an informed decision. Gouge
told Navas that the secretaries invited Hyde because they
trusted her.
On March 2, during a meeting with other employees, Buon-
anote asked Gouge if she had volunteered to be the Union’s
observer for the election. He also told her that she could back
out of it. Gouge testified she told him that she would look into
it. Gouge testified that she could not deal with Buonanote’s
pressure in the office and how she was going to vote. She testi-
fied that she was not in the state of mind to deal with the “har-
assment, the trauma, the intimidation . . . .” At the March 2
meeting, Gouge told Buonanote that she was going to vote “no”
for the Union. When asked by Respondent’s counsel, what did
she understand as harassment and intimidation, Gouge credibly
testified that
[w]hen he [Buonanote] told me if I knew what was good for
me and I wanted to stay safe, vote “no” for the Union . . . . He
told me if I crossed the picket line there could be violence by
people outside . . . when he told me ‘I urge you to vote “no.”
If you know what is good for you and you want to stay safe,
vote “no” on March 9.
Gouge also testified that Buonanote’s constant slamming his
fists on the employees’ desks, raising his voice at the employ-
ees and telling them that they were replaceable, was very in-
timidating.
Gouge further testified that the very next day, after stating
that she was going to vote “no” for the Union, Buonanote
called her to thank her and told her that he did not know how he
was going to repay her. Navas also called Gouge to thank her
for her loyalty.
On March 8, Gouge credibly testified that she informed
Kenney that she was going to be the Union’s observer. In re-
sponse, Kenney told her that she could still back out of it. He
also asked her if he should notify Buonanote. Gouge asked
him not to tell Buonanote because she was not ready to be
screamed and yelled at. Gouge further testified that Kenney
warned her that if she was going to be the observer, she should
not challenge any votes. Gouge informed Kenney that she was
planning to challenge Shari Wasmer, because she was a certi-
fied social worker and Karen Loviglio because she was not in
the Islip Terrace payroll.
On March 9, Gouge served as the Union’s observer. During
the preelection conference, Buonanote asked the Board agent
how many observers were needed. The Board agent informed
him that two, one for each side. Gouge credibly testified that
Buonanote told her that he did not need her because he brought
CROSSING REHABILITATION SERVICES 239
in his own observer. Gouge refused to leave because she
wanted to make it “an honest and fair election,” which is what
the employees wanted when they elected her. As an observer,
she was planning to challenge the two employees who she be-
lieved were ineligible to vote. Gouge acted as the observer and
challenged two of Respondent’s employees.
On Wednesday, March 10, the day after the election, Gouge
reported to work at 4:30 p.m. None of her coworkers were
there. Mazzuco and Hyde had already been fired. DiFolco was
not in the office because she was not scheduled to work on
Wednesdays.
Gouge testified that when she entered the office, Executive
Director O’Connor, Navas, and Buonanote were in her work
area. Peter Landser, an employee from the Deer Park facility,
was doing Office Manager Hyde’s work. Gouge asked Landser
where were all of her coworkers. He informed her that they
were all terminated. Gouge further testified that when Buon-
anote first saw her, he asked her if she thought it was going to
be easy coming in to work on that day. Gouge credibly testi-
fied that she replied, “I didn’t know it was going to be—I knew
it wasn’t going to be easy, but I wasn’t going to allow you
[Buonanote] to stop me from coming through that front door
today.” Buonanote responded, “[W]ell, if you think this is
rough, you have no idea of what you’re in for.”
Immediately after her exchange with Buonanote, Gouge tes-
tified that Navas approached Gouge and told her the following:
How dare you put that Union pin on. How dare you represent
the Union. When you put that pin on I knew who you were
loyal to. And for you even to wear that Union pin, how dare
you challenge anybody’s vote. How dare you.
Gouge credibly testified that she said that she wanted the
election to be fair. Buonanote interjected and told Gouge that if
she thought that they were rough with her, “she had no idea
what was in store for her.” That day, at about 6:40 p.m., Gouge
testified that she asked for permission from Buonanote and
Navas to go home before the end of her work day because she
started to get chest pain and she was “hysterical crying.” It is
undisputed that Buonanote and Navas had authorized her to
leave early. Gouge testified that she never had the kind of
physical reaction to stress before March 10.
On Thursday, March 11, Gouge credibly testified that she
reported to work as scheduled. Gouge testified that she came in
to work with DiFolco. She began to pull the charts, which was
part of her regular work assignment. Navas stopped her from
pulling the charts, and told her that Jason, an employee from
another of Respondent’s facilities, was going to pull the charts.
It is undisputed that pulling charts were part of the secretaries’
daily work assignment. Gouge testified that at that time, Buon-
anote approached DiFolco who was sitting in her work area,
and asked her if she was the individual who opened the door to
Dale the day of the election. Gouge testified that DiFolco told
Buonanote that she did not open the door and that she was not
even by the window at the time.
Gouge testified she heard Buonanote tell DiFolco that he did
not believe her. At that point, he told Gouge and DiFolco that
they “needed to be taught the rules all over again.” Gouge testi-
fied that it was then that she joined the conversation between
Buonanote and DiFolco.
Gouge told Buonanote that they knew the rules. Buonanote
told her that he did not care what she thought and told her to
“shut up.” Gouge admitted that she refused to shut her mouth
because DiFolco and her “were human beings and (Buonanote)
was not treating them as human beings. Gouge further testified
that she told Buonanote that she was going to stand up for her-
self. Gouge told Buonanote and Navas, “I am not a dog, and I
will not be ordered around like a dog.”
Gouge credibly testified that Buonanote also told her:
Part of the Executive Office Manager’s duties [referring to
Navas] are to order you around like a dog and you will obey
like a dog like starting tomorrow night when you come in to
report to work. You and Andrea [DiFolco] will be made to get
on your hands and knees and get under the desk and clean the
dirt out. [Emphasis added.]
Gouge insisted that she would not get on her hands and
knees for anyone. . . . Gouge credibly testified that the situation
worsened at this point. Gouge testified that when the discus-
sion began at about 5:20 p.m., there were no clients waiting in
the reception room, where Buonanote was standing. At about
5:55 p.m., when the situation had worsened, there were clients
in the waiting area. Buonanote, Navas, and Gouge were
screaming at each other. She testified that she did not begin to
scream back at Buonanote until he told her that he was going to
make them get on their hands and knees like dogs to clean the
dirt from under their desk[s].
When Buonanote asked her to lower her voice, Gouge told
him why he was allowed to scream at them and then asked her
to remain quiet. At that point, Gouge testified that Buonanote,
who was initially standing in the waiting area (at the window
where the secretaries sit), moved from the window and stood at
the exit door. Gouge testified that he was standing in the door-
way, and he told her to “get out” because she refused to shut
her mouth. Gouge asked him, “Are you firing me?” Buon-
anote replied, “get out.” At this point, Gouge testified, Buon-
anote was screaming, “spitting as he’s screaming” and “the
veins were bulging out of his neck.”
Gouge told Buonanote “unless you terminate me, I’m not
leaving.” It was then that Buonanote said to Navas, “Document
this. As of 6 p.m., March 11 Lillian Gouge is no longer being
paid by Crossing Recovery Center.”
As Gouge was leaving, Navas and Buonanote came to her
face and continued to scream at her to get out. Gouge testified
that when she got to the doorway, where Buonanote was stand-
ing, he took the right side of his body and physically “rammed”
Gouge on the left side. Gouge testified Buonanote was actually
blocking the exit door of the office. Navas intervened and
pushed him away.
Gouge testified that as she was exiting, Buonanote also said
“and Andrea (DiFolco), get out with her.” Gouge left the facil-
ity with DiFolco.
Prior to her termination, she had never received any written
or verbal warning regarding her work performance or her con-
duct at work.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD240
D. Andrea DiFolco, Secretary
DiFolco worked as a secretary from June 2003 until March
10, 2004. She covered the 3 to 8:30 p.m. shift with secretary
Gouge. She was not scheduled to work on Wednesdays be-
cause she attended school.
DiFolco learned about the Union’s campaign, from former
employee Russo. In November 2003, she attended the meeting
at Russo’s home and signed an authorization card. She at-
tended about three meetings held by the Union before the
March 9 election. She was present at the second union meeting
at the Oconee Diner.
DiFolco testified that during the election she did not open the
door to Dale and her boyfriend as Respondent contends. She
did observe Dale come in with her fiancé. DiFolco testified
that Mazzuco and Office Manager Hyde left the office to avoid
making a decision. When DiFolco turned around, Buonanote’s
brother had opened the door for Dale and Pascarelli.
DiFolco testified that she witnessed when Buonanote told
Dale, “Fuck you.” DiFolco testified that he said it, “at the top
of his lungs, pointing, crazy . . . .” DiFolco testified that she
was about 5 feet from the incident, and she saw it while stand-
ing in the window in her office.
Supervisor Barrett testified that after this incident, she had to
calm DiFolco who was shaken and upset because of Buon-
anote’s conduct towards Dale. Specifically, supervisor Barrett
testified that
[t]here was a lot of yelling going on so I started to just talk to
the girl [secretary DiFolco] at the desk, she’s 19 years old and
she was getting all shaken up so I was consoling her and con-
cerned about the adolescents [the clients] coming in at the
same time because they were listening to all the shouting.
On Thursday, March 11, DiFolco was scheduled to begin
work at 3:30 p.m. However, she reported to work at 4 p.m.,
with Gouge. It is undisputed that DiFolco informed Director
Kenney that she was coming in to work an hour late because
she was “stuck at school” and that he told her that it was okay.
Prior to March 11, she had never being late before. DiFolco
was never warned, verbally or in writing, for work performance
or conduct. Hyde, who had already been discharged, testified
that she gave DiFolco a ride to work and waited outside for
about an hour because the employees did not know what was
going to happen.
DiFolco credibly testified that when Gouge and she began to
pull the charts, as they usually did, Navas asked Gouge what
she was waiting for. When Gouge explained what she was
doing, Navas told her that “from that day on,” she, Navas, was
going to tell Gouge what to do. Navas also asked DiFolco why
she was late. When DiFolco explained that she had called
Kenney, Navas told her that in the future, she would need to
report to her first and that her 15-minute break was over. Prior
to March 11, DiFolco testified that was [were] never any break
rules enforced and no one ever told the secretaries that they
have [had] a 15-minute break.
When DiFolco returned to her work area in the front office,
she testified that she continued to work without talking to
Gouge. DiFolco credibly testified that Buonanote approached
her and asked her if it was safe to assume that she was the one
who let Dale and her boyfriend inside the office the day of the
election. DiFolco told him that she did not let them in. Buon-
anote responded that maybe Gouge and her needed “to be
taught the rules” of Respondent.
DiFolco corroborated Gouge’s testimony. Gouge then told
Buonanote, “Is it safe to assume that you’re going to harass us
every night because you can’t terminate us?” That’s when
Buonanote told Gouge to shut her mouth. DiFolco testified that
up until that point, they were both talking in a calm voice.
Gouge raised her voice, when she told Buonanote that he was
treating them like they had a disease. Buonanote “yelled” at
Gouge to shut her mouth. DiFolco also testified that at the time
there were clients in the waiting area in the hallway.
DiFolco testified that the atmosphere that day was “inde-
scribable,” that she and Gouge were “literally afraid” to be in
the office because they did not know what Buonanote was go-
ing to do. When questioned as to what was particularly threat-
ening about the atmosphere, DiFolco testified that Buonanote
had been harassing them “for months,” “questioning us, inter-
rogating us,” constantly asking us how we were going to vote.
On March 11, Buonanote told Gouge and DiFolco that Na-
vas was her new supervisor and that she needed to do whatever
Navas told her to do. DiFolco and Buonanote were talking
very loud. Gouge told Buonanote, “You are not going to harass
us here tonight.” DiFolco went over to Gouge who was stand-
ing by the door. When she walked to the door with Gouge, she
heard when Buonanote said to Navas, “Sarah, document from
six o‘clock Lillian [Gouge] is no longer paid by Crossings Re-
covery Center,” and screaming at both Gouge and DiFolco to,
“Get out, get out.” DiFolco credibly testified that “I thought
that’s what he was telling me. He was telling me to get out.
So, what—what am I—what am I supposed to do?” DiFolco
testified that towards the end of the incident, Navas came be-
tween Gouge and Buonanote, when Buonanote was “within
inches” of Gouge.
IV. CREDIBILITY RESOLUTIONS
I credit all of General Counsel’s witnesses and discredit all
of Respondent’s witnesses.
As to the demeanor of General Counsel’s witnesses, it was
clear to me that they were reliving what had happened as they
were testifying. During various portions of their testimony
almost all of General Counsel’s witnesses broke down and
wept. Their testimony was very detailed during direct and
cross-examination and they corroborated each other.
During all of General Counsel’s witnesses' testimony I ob-
served Buonanote’s eyes glaring at them blazing with obvious
hatred and his jaw muscles bulging. During their entire testi-
mony this conduct continued with each witness. Buonanote
impressed me as an angry man, one to be feared
On the other hand, when Respondent’s witnesses testified he
was smiling at them, looking out the window, and totally re-
laxed.
Moreover, I found General Counsel’s witnesses’ testimony
to be extremely detailed. Their testimony on cross-examination
was consistent with their direct testimony. I find that any in-
CROSSING REHABILITATION SERVICES 241
consistencies were minor which would normally be expected in
any truthful witness.
I did not find Buonanote’s testimony credible given his de-
meanor, and his own admissions as to his anger during the un-
ion campaign. I found Navas not to be a credible witness be-
cause of her “close personal relationship,” and in part because
she refused to describe this relationship, notwithstanding my
questions put to her. I find Kenney totally unbelievable given
his testimony that he never heard Buonanote yelling or cursing
at employees at any time although Kenney was present at the
Islip Terrace facility during the entire union campaign as sole
director of the facility.
V. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Respondent’s Unlawful Antiunion Campaign
is Evident from the Record
The credible testimony of the employees and supervisors
conclusively establishes that immediately after Respondent
learned of the Union’s campaign, Buonanote and Senior Man-
ager Navas mounted a daily and unlawful campaign which
consisted mainly of the following message: if the employees
selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative,
Buonanote would not negotiate with the Union; that a strike
was “inevitable” if the Union came in; and that if the employ-
ees went on strike, Buonanote was prepared to replace each one
of them.8
There was nothing “subtle” in Buonanote’s message during
employee meetings in February and March, and his disaster
plan meeting when he told his employees that he would not
negotiate with the Union, that the employees would strike and
be replaced. Buonanote also conveyed this message on a one-
on-one basis almost daily.
Prior to the first meeting, Buonanote met with the employees
on one-to-one basis. LPN Dale credibly testified that before the
meeting, Buonanote told her that he “would not go along with
any negotiations, that the Union wasn’t going to come in and
tell him what to do and how to run his father’s business.”9
During the last meeting, the “disaster plan” meeting, Buonanote
wrote the employees’ names on the board and explained how
they were all replaceable in the event of a strike. Again, Buon-
anote told the employees that if the Union came in, a strike was
“inevitable.” All of the employees who testified described in
detail how this message was repeatedly conveyed to them be-
fore the election was held.10

8 Unifirst Corp., 335 NLRB 706 (2001), where the Board found that
the employer violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act when it told the employ-
ees that he would not negotiate and that a strike was inevitable. See also
Gold Kist, Inc., 341 NLRB 1040 (2004),where the Board held that the
employer violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by telling the employees that there will
be a strike because he will not negotiate and that there will be violence
if the voted for the union.
9 Wellstream Corp., 313 NLRB 698, 706 (1994), where the Board
held that the statements of an employer that it would see to it that its
company was never unionized were clearly intended to, and had the
effect of, conveying to employees the futility of their support for the
union, violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act.
10 See Unifirst Corp., supra.
This message was also accompanied by Buonanote’s asser-
tion that it was futile to bring the Union in because “there was
nothing that the Union could do for them.” I find this conduct
violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.11
In describing how a strike was “inevitable,” Buonanote also
told the employees that unions were violent, and that if there
was a strike, the Union will assault them and their families.
Buonanote told Gouge that if there were a strike, she would
have to risk the Union’s violent conduct. Buonanote also told
DiFolco that the Union would come after her boyfriend and
family. Buonanote made the same statement to Mazzuco and to
Counselor Macken. In this regard, Macken testified that she felt
intimidated by Buonanote’s statement because of how he de-
scribed the Union and his unwillingness to negotiate with the
Union. Gouge also credibly testified that Buonanote told her
that if she wanted “to be safe” to vote “no” for the Union. I
find conduct violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.12
In December, after the petition was filed, it is undisputed that
Buonanote and Senior Manager Navas began to visit the Islip
Terrace facility nearly every day. Counselor Macken also testi-
fied that “if Frank [Buonanote was] there, she’s [Navas was]
there.” Supervisor Barrett, who worked days a week, credibly
testified that these individuals were never in the office “until
we had word of the union.” Supervisor Barrett also testified
that during Buonanote’s visits, “he was over people’s shoul-
ders, he was sitting down at their desks, and he was constantly
bringing up the Union.” I find these daily visits created the
impression that the employees’ union activities were under
surveillance, in violation of the Act.13
In addition, during these daily visits, Buonanote and Senior
Manager Navas began to search employee’s in-boxes, mes-
sages, faxes, and desks, and began to destroy any union litera-
ture that they found. The employees’ testimony about this con-
duct is uncontroverted. Respondent’s contention was that the
employees’ in-boxes were only for business purposes. The
employees testified that before the Union’s campaign, they
were allowed to use their in-boxes for nonbusiness purposes,
such as putting in personal notes and exchanging videos and
books. The coercive nature of these daily visits is evident from
Mazzuco’s testimony. Mazzuco told Executive Director
O’Connor that the searching of the employees’ in-boxes and
messages, and the daily visits by Buonanote and Navas, were
“nerve racking.” I find by this conduct Respondent unlawfully

11 See, Wellstream Corp., supra., where the Board held that it is a
violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act to tell employees that it is futile to
join the union.
12 See, Gold Kist, Inc., supra, it is a violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) of the
Act to tell employees that there will be a strike and violence if they
chose the union.
13 An employer’s statements to the employees that it knows about
their organizing efforts, and the detailed comments about the extent of
employees’ union activities create the impression that the employees’
union activities are under surveillance because they reasonably suggest
to the employees that the employer is closely monitoring their organiz-
ing efforts. United Charter Service, 306 NLRB 150, 151 (1992); Ichi-
koh Mfg., 312 NLRB 1022, 1023 (1993).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD242
confiscated employees’ union literature,14 engaged in surveil-
lance of the employees’ activities,15 and subjected the employ-
ees to closer supervision,16 all in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
I also find that during these daily visits, Buonanote, Senior
Manager Navas, and Director Kenney and Logan, coercively
interrogated the employees about their sympathies for the Un-
ion by asking them how they were going to vote and why they
wanted a Union. LPN Dale, Counselor Macken, and the three
secretaries credibly testified how Buonanote approached each
one of them, on more than one occasion, to ask them how they
were going to vote. Moreover, Counselor Macken testified that
the same day that the election was being conducted, Buonanote
came to her office, “slammed the door shut,” asked her if she
had a problem with him, and if that was the reason that she was
going to vote for the Union.17 I find this conduct coercive and
unlawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
The credible evidence establishes that during the individual
and group meetings with the employees, Respondent solicited
the employees’ grievances in order to discourage them from
selecting the Union as their collective-bargaining representa-
tive. On February 10, during Respondent’s first meeting with
the employees, Executive Director O’Connor told the employ-
ees that an existing steering committee at Respondent’s main
office could serve as a means of addressing their grievances. It
is undisputed that prior to the Union’s campaign, the employees
at the Islip Terrace facility were not represented at this steering
committee. Secretary Mazzuco also testified that at this meet-
ing, Director Kenney also told the employees that they did not
need a union to talk for them. He said that all they needed to
do was to talk about their grievances with Buonanote and eve-
rything would be taken care of.18 I find the solicitation of
grievances a violation of Section 8(a)(1).
In addition, in its January 23 memo, I find Respondent coer-
cively interrogated the employees and solicited their griev-

14 Alle-Kiski Medical Center, 339 NLRB 361 (2003), where the
Board held that the confiscation of union literature and an overly broad
no-solicitation rule was in violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act.
15 Eddlyleon Chocolate Co., 301 NLRB 887 (1991), where the Board
found that the employer engaged in surveillance when the president of
the company closely observed the distribution of union literature.
16 Palagonia Bakery Co., 339 NLRB 515 (2003), where the Board
held that the closer supervision of the employees because of their union
activities amounted to harassment.
17 The questioning of these employees was not done in a casual
manner. The scope and the manner of the questioning supports the view
that the employees were not interrogated for a lawful purpose, but
rather an attempt to solicit a reply regarding the employees’ union
sympathies and their knowledge of other employees’ union activities.
See Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984); Salvation Army Resi-
dence, 293 NLRB 944 (1987).
18 When an employer implements a new practice of soliciting em-
ployees’ grievances during a union organizational campaign, “there is a
compelling inference that he is implicitly promising to correct those
inequities he discovers as a result of his inquiries and likewise urging
his employees that the combined program of inquiry and correction will
make union representation unnecessary.” Embassy Suites Resort, 309
NLRB 1313, 1316 (1992), citing Reliance Electric Co., 191 NLRB 44,
46 (1971).
ances. I find this conduct constitutes unlawful solicitation of
grievances and unlawful promise to remedy their grievances if
the employees did not select the Union as their representative in
violation of Section 8(a)(1).19
The credible facts establish that in February, during a meet-
ing held by Executive Director O’Connor and on March 2,
during a meeting held by Buonanote with the secretaries, Re-
spondent threatened to eliminate existing employment benefits
and threatened to implement more stringent work rules by in-
stalling a timeclock, instituting a new dress code, issuing warn-
ings to the employees, and instituting more onerous working
conditions. Supervisor Barrett credibly testified that O’Connor
told the employees that if the Union came in, “things would
never be the same, that people would have to punch a clock and
would not be able to have the same relaxed atmosphere.”
Buonanote also told the employees that if the Union came in,
they would not be able to wear jeans, they would be written up
for wearing jeans, and that he would install a timeclock, and
they would have to punch in and out for cigarette breaks. I find
such conduct violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.20
The uncontroverted evidence shows that Respondent sur-
veilled the February 12 union meeting at the Oconee Diner.
Navas admitted that she was at the diner with Buonanote’s
mother. She did not explain why they went to the restaurant
that night. Gouge credibly testified that Navas told her that she
knew about the meeting and that she went to the diner “to see”
for herself who was going to be at the meeting. I find such
conduct constitutes unlawful surveillance.21
I also find Director Kenney’s instructions to Gouge on
March 8, to refrain from challenging any employee during the
election, and his statements urging her not to serve as an ob-
server were also coercive in nature, in violation of Section
8(a)(1).
VI. SUPERVISORY DISCHARGES
A. JoAnn Barrett
Barrett had worked for Respondent as senior counselor from
January 2004 to March 10, 2004, having been promoted from
her position as a managed care coordinator. In February 2004,
Buonanote held a meeting in which he spoke to members of the
Islip Terrance staff regarding the formation of the Union.
Buonanote later expressed concern with Barrett’s failure to
support him during the meeting. A few days later, Buonanote
reminded Barrett of her status as a part of the facility’s man-
agement, and questioned her loyalty. Barrett responded that
she supported management antiunion efforts. Barrett also ex-
pressed her opinion that a union wouldn’t work at Respondent
and volunteered to share this sentiment with anyone who asked
her. She gave no indication to Buonanote that she was proun-
ion. However, she also informed Buonanote that she would not

19 See Be-Lo Stores, 318 NLRB at 3–4 (1995), the interrogation and
solicitation of grievances in violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act.
20 See Be-Lo Stores, supra.
21 Eddlyleon Chocolate Co., supra, where the Board found that the
employer engaged in surveillance when president of the company
closely observed union leafleting while speaking on the car.
CROSSING REHABILITATION SERVICES 243
engage in any intimidating or illegal conduct to prevent a union
victory.
Barrett testified that by early March, intimidation had be-
come the core of Respondent’s antiunion campaign, and that
Buonanote regularly interrogated employees and engaged in
searches of their belongings in their presence. During the re-
mainder of the campaign, neither Buonanote nor any other
senior management representatives discussed the campaign
with Barrett. When Barrett reported to work on March 10, the
day after the election, Buonanote informed her of the termina-
tion of her employment, stating, “[Y]ou are not the type of
management we want around here.” The evidence establishes
that Barrett had a good work record prior to her firing and had
no record of misconduct.
B. Evelyn Cabral
Prior to the termination of her employment on March 10,
Cabral had worked for Respondent for about 8 years. In April
2003, Buonanote promoted Cabral to the director of managed
care position. During the union campaign, Buonanote asked
Cabral what she knew about the Union’s organizing efforts.
She responded that she knew nothing and that “everything was
hush-hush.” Buonanote also asked Cabral to try to “sway” the
employees’ opinions, though he did not specifically instruct her
to commit unfair labor practices. However, Cabral recalls at-
tending a “disaster plan” meeting in which Buonanote ex-
pressed his desire that managerial employees carry forth his
message that he would “refuse to negotiate with the Union,”
and that a strike was “inevitable.”
On January 17, a case manager observed Cabral throwing
pens and clips at a picture of Buonanote hanging in the office
of Respondent’s West Hempstead facility. During the trial,
Buonanote testified that this incident led to his decision to ter-
minate Cabral’s employment. However, neither Buonanote nor
Cabral’s client supervisor discussed the incident with her prior
to the termination. On March 10, Buonanote simply fired
Cabral, telling her that “there is nothing you can do to change
my mind” and “you are fired.” Cabral’s supervisor, Navas,
prepared a termination note which stated “integrity issues and
inability to perform managerial duties” as grounds for dis-
missal.
The General Counsel contends that Cabral’s discharge com-
prised part of the Respondent’s retaliatory effort against mana-
gerial employees who failed to prevent a union victory.
C. Katheline Hyde
Hyde worked as the office manager at the Islip Terrace facil-
ity until the termination of her employment on March 10. Re-
spondent contends that Hyde attended a union meeting on Feb-
ruary 12, 2004. The following day, Hyde’s supervisors, includ-
ing Buonanote, called her into one of their offices to discuss her
attendance at the meeting and questioned her loyalty to man-
agement. Buonanote also asked Hyde if she knew how several
secretaries planned on voting in the union election, and told her
that she should remind the secretaries that a strike was “inevi-
table” if they voted in favor of unionization. During this meet-
ing, Buonanote testified that Hyde and Navas, one of her su-
pervisors, “went at it a little bit” and that Hyde rose out of her
chair and raised her fist at Navas. Hyde denies the allegation
and says that she merely got out of the chair to leave the meet-
ing. As set forth above, I credit Hyde.
On March 8, 2004, Buonanote met with Hyde and asked her
again if she knew how the secretaries planned to vote. She
responded that she did not know. Buonanote responded that the
secretaries would listen to Hyde is she told them to vote “no,”
and that “he would know by the turnout if she did what she was
supposed to do.” On March 10, the day after the Union won
the election, Buonanote testified he terminated Hyde, alleging
her attendance at the Union’s February 12 meeting, coupled
with her exchange with Navas the following day, as the reasons
for her discharge. The General Counsel contends that the Re-
spondent’s termination of Hyde’s employment was due to her
failure to secure a “no” vote by the secretaries.
An employer does not violate the NLRA if it discharged
2(11) supervisors if motivated by disloyalty or the supervisors’
participation in union or concerted activity. See Parker-Robb
Chevrolet, Inc.22 However, in devising its standards, the Board
has sought to strike a balance between the need to protect “the
employer’s right to demand loyalty from his supervisors and
the employee’s right to be free from unlawful labor practices
funneled through a supervisor by the employer.” Food &
Commercial Workers, Local 1095 v. NLRB.23
Hence, “[t]he discharge of supervisors is unlawful when it
interferes with the right of employees to exercise their rights
under Section 7 of the Act, as when . . .they refuse to commit
unfair labor practices.” Id. Additionally, the Board has held
that an employer commits an unfair labor practice “where a
supervisor is discharged because of his failure to prevent un-
ionization.” ARA Leisure Services.24 The employer need not
explicitly give the supervisory employee instructions to commit
unfair labor practices; a finding that the employer implied an
expectation to stop unionization suffices to show that the em-
ployer committed an unfair labor practice. Florstar Sales.25
In this case, Respondent has failed to establish that Barrett,
Cabral, and Hyde acted disloyally, or participated in union
activity. Other than the allegation that Hyde signed a union
card and attended a union meeting, Respondent has offered no
evidence that Barrett, Cabral, and Hyde participated in activi-
ties constituting “disloyalty” to Respondent. ARA Leisure Ser-
vices.26 To the contrary, Barrett expressed her antiunion senti-
ments to Buonanote. I conclude the supervisors remained loyal
to Respondent and did not take an active role in the Union’s
organization efforts.
Further, Buonanote’s actions and testimony clearly establish
that he expected his supervisory employees to prevent unioni-
zation. As in Florstar, he held regular meetings with supervi-
sors to develop a strategy for defeating the Union, instructed
them to convince employees of the disadvantages of unioniza-
tion, told them to tell the employees that he would not bargain

22 262 NLRB 402, 404 (1982).
23 711 F.2d 383, 386 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
24 272 NLRB 1300, 1307 (1984).
25 325 NLRB 1210, 1213 (1998).
26 272 NLRB at 1307 (holding that where the supervisory employees
“were the backbone of the Union’s [organizing] effort,” termination of
their employment did not constitute an unfair labor practice).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD244
with the Union and that there would be a strike and the em-
ployees would be replaced, and regularly interrogated them
about their efforts.27 Additionally, he constantly told his super-
visors’ of their abilities to sway the clerical employees’ votes
clearly implying that they would bear the costs if they failed to
do so. For example, he told Hyde that if the Union won the
campaign “he would know by the turnout if she did what she
was supposed to do,” clearly implying that she was supposed to
stop the secretaries from voting in favor of the Union.
I find on the basis of the supervisory employees credible tes-
timony that Buonanote sent a clear and unequivocal message
regarding his expectation that the supervisors aid in his unlaw-
ful antiunion campaign. Greenwich Air Services,28 which states
that where an employer discharged a supervisor for his refusal
to stop employees from engaging in protected activities or fire a
suspected union activist, the employer expected the supervisor
to engage in illegal conduct.
Respondent contends that it fired Barrett, Cabral, and Hyde
for reasons pertaining to their work performance. However, the
fact that he fired the three supervisors on the same day, one day
after the election, establishes a correlation between the Union’s
victory and the supervisors’ discharge. See, e.g., Transporta-
tion & Repair Service,29 determining that the discharge of an
employee two days after a union election “suggests retaliatory
motivation”; see also Whitewood Oriental Maintenance Co.,30
holding that the timing of a discharge 12 days after the union
won the election “support[ed] an inference of illegal motiva-
tion.”
Further, little or no evidence existed to show that the Re-
spondent planned to terminate the employment of the three
supervisors prior to the commencement of union activities.
FlorStar Sales.31 Though Cabral engaged in objectionable
conduct, throwing pens and clips at a picture of Buonanote, her
discharge took place nearly 2 months later, despite the fact that
her supervisors were informed of the incident almost immedi-
ately after it took place. Similarly, the Respondent discharge
Hyde nearly a month after she allegedly attended a union meet-
ing; her supervisors had a more appropriate opportunity to ter-
minate her employment when they met with her the day after
this alleged misconduct. I find that coupled with the timing of
the discharges the day after the Union won the election, the
totality of the circumstances indicates that Respondent pretex-
tually justified its actions as a reaction to performance con-
cerns.
Respondent had the legal right to demand loyalty from Bar-
rett, Cabral, and Hyde during the union campaign, and could
discharge them for taking an active role therein. See, e.g., ARA
Leisure Service;32 see also, Food & Commercial Workers Local
1095.33 However, the Board must protect a supervisor’s right to
refuse to act as a “funnel” to unit employees through which an

27 Florstar, 325 NLRB at 1211.
28 323 NLRB 1162, 1167 (1997).
29 328 NLRB 107, 113 (1999).
30 292 NLRB 1159, 1167 (1989).
31 325 NLRB at 1213.
32 272 NLRB at 1307.
33 711 F.2d at 387.
employer commits unfair labor practices. See, Food & Com-
mercial Workers Local 1095.34
Accordingly, I find that Respondent discharged Barrett,
Cabral, and Hyde because they refused to participate in Re-
spondent’s antiunion campaign which consisted of serious,
extended, and voluminous violations of the Act.
I therefore find Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by discharging statutory Supervisors Barrett, Cabral, and
Hyde.
VII. THE DISCHARGES OF DALE, MAZZUCO
To violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, an employer’s conduct
must discriminate in a manner that discourages membership in
a labor organization. Under Wright Line,35 the General Counsel
has the initial burden to prove that union activity or other em-
ployee conduct protected by the Act was a motivating factor in
an employer decision to take adverse action against an em-
ployee. A prima facie case of discriminatory conduct under
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act requires the following: (1) that the
alleged discriminate be engaged in union activity; (2) that the
employer had knowledge of these activities; (3) that the em-
ployer’s actions were motivated by union animus; and (4) that
the discrimination has the effect of encouraging or discouraging
union membership.36 If the General Counsel meets this initial
burden, the employer then has the burden to show that it would
have taken the same action even in the absence of the protected
conduct.37
A. Heather Dale
I find the credible testimony of the various employees who
testified about the numerous 8(a)(1) violations committed by
Buonanote, and Senior Director Navas, Buonanote’s own ad-
missions, and the timing and manner of Respondent’s dis-
charges of supervisors and employees, are sufficient to estab-
lish a strong prima facie case that Respondent discharged Dale
because of her union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.
It is undisputed that Respondent knew about Dale’s support
for the Union at the time of her discharge. Dale testified that
during Buonanote’s interrogations about why the employees
needed a union, she told him that she believed the employees
needed a collective-bargaining representative to negotiate about
their terms and conditions. Mazzuco credibly testified that
Buonanote told her that “employees like Dale were going to try
to convince her to vote ‘yes’ for the union.” The record evi-
dence is sufficient to establish that Dale engaged in union activ-
ity and other protected conduct and that Respondent was aware
that she was the main union organizer.
I find there is also sufficient evidence to establish a causal
link between Dale’s discharge and her union activities during
the campaign. The timing and the manner of her discharge

34 711 F.2d at 386.
35 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), affd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir 1981), cert.
denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982).
36 Downtown Toyota, 276 NLRB 999, 1014 (1985), citing NLRB v.
Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983); Wright Line,
supra.
37 Wright Line, supra.
CROSSING REHABILITATION SERVICES 245
coupled with the myriad of 8(a)(1) violations committed by
Respondent is clearly sufficient to establish a causal link. Prior
to February 12, Buonanote made it clear to Dale, and to all the
employees that he would not tolerate a union at Respondent’s
facility and that no one was going to tell him how to run his
business. Buonanote stressed to the employees that Respondent
is his father’s legacy and that he would not negotiate with a
union. Buonanote admitted he was very angry with the Union
and its campaign because he believe that it was “trying to sabo-
tage” his business.
On February 12, Dale questioned Director Kenney and
Buonanote about the memo sent by Buonanote informing the
employees that only counselors and clericals employed at the
Islip Terrace facility would be eligible to vote in the election.
Although Dale had accepted her payroll transfer a week before
the memo, she did not believe that the payroll transfer to Port
Jefferson would affect her eligibility because she was still
working at the Islip Terrace facility 2 days of the week. I find
that when she read the memo, she believed the payroll transfer
was an attempt by Buonanote to block her from voting in the
election. In view of Respondent’s unlawful campaign against
the Union, and his daily threats, interrogations, and other coer-
cive conduct, I find Dale’s belief was reasonable.
It is undisputed that Dale raised her voice to Director
Kenney and Buonanote, and that she told Kenney that the rea-
son given for her payroll transfer was “budgetary-bullshit.”
This conduct constitutes the sole basis for Respondent’s claim
of insubordination and his reason for the discharge.
There is no record evidence to show that Dale was violent,
threatening, or that she engaged in any other misconduct that
would exclude her from the protection of the Act. Kenney,
with whom Dale worked as colleagues for more than a year
credibly testified that prior to February 12, he never had any
problem with Dale’s work performance or with her conduct at
work. In addition, Kenney admitted that he knew of numerous
incidents where the employees used obscene language during
working hours, and they were not warned, disciplined or termi-
nated.
It is undisputed that from February 12 to 19, Dale continued
to work for Respondent without any further incident. In this
regard, Buonanote testified that on February 13, the day after
Dale questioned her payroll transfer, he showed Dale a copy of
the Decision and Direction of Election to show Dale that it was
the Board who decided that she was not eligible to vote. Buon-
anote testified that Dale told him, “okay. Just as long as I know
you are trying to block my vote” and “if that’s the decision,
that’s decision.” Thus, Buonanote admits that by February 13,
Dale was prepared to accept that she may not eligible to vote in
the election. Buonanote also testified that with the exception of
the incident on February 12, he did not know of any other prob-
lem with Dale’s conduct or with her work performance. Not-
withstanding, on February 19, a week after her alleged insubor-
dination, Buonanote brought five managers employed at other
facilities to be present when he discharged Dale and called the
police when she asked for time to pick up her personal belong-
ings. I find the lack of justification for the extreme measures
taken against Dale coupled with Respondent’s egregious and
unlawful antiunion campaign, is sufficient to establish a strong
prima facie case. The totality of the evidence is also sufficient
to show that the real motivation to terminate Dale on February
19, was to send a clear and unequivocal message to the em-
ployees that Respondent would not tolerate any of their union
activities, and he was prepared to go to any length to keep the
Union from being elected by them.
I find the testimony of the unit employees establishes they
received the message sent by Respondent with the discharge of
Dale. I find that message was if you support the Union, you
will be fired. The secretaries questioned Buonanote about
Dale’s discharge. None of them knew Dale to be “erratic” as
described by Buonanote, and they could not understand why
Buonanote needed five managers to discharge a middle-aged
woman, who was only 5’2” tall.
In addition, Buonanote’s own admissions, shows the pretex-
tual nature of Respondent’s defense. Buonanote admitted that
on the election day, when Dale went to vote under challenge, he
was angry because he had fired Dale, and he felt that she had
no business in his office “regardless of what the law indicated.”
Buonanote further admitted his abusive language towards Dale,
when she came to vote, that he screamed and yelled, “fuck you”
to her.
Based upon the above facts I find that the General Counsel
clearly established its Wright Line burden. I also find that Re-
spondent’s defense, Dale’s insubordination on February 12, as set
forth above, is not supported by the incredible testimony of
Kenney and Buonanote. Therefore I find Dale was terminated by
Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
B. Christine Mazzuco
Mazzuco was one of the employees who attended the Febru-
ary 12 meeting at the Oconee Diner. This is the meeting sur-
veilled by Navas. The next day, Navas told Gouge how “be-
trayed” she felt when she saw Mazzuco and Gouge at the Union
meeting. As set forth above, Hyde’s credible testimony show
the animus behind the discharges of the secretaries, wherein
Buonanote instructed Hyde to tell the secretaries that if the
Union came in, he would not negotiate and that a strike was
“inevitable.” In addition, Buonanote told Hyde that he would
know by the turn out how the secretaries voted.
Further, on March 10, a day after the Union won the elec-
tion, and Mazzuco reported to work, Buonanote had already
fired Cabral, Barrett, and Hyde, virtually the entire supervisory
staff. Mazzuco began her regular work assignment. Buonanote
admitted that he was in the front office staring at Mazzuco,
without saying anything, for about half an hour. I find this to
be coercive conduct.
It is undisputed that Buonanote told Mazzuco on March 10,
on more than one occasion, that she “should start looking for
another job.” When Mazzuco asked, are you firing me? Buon-
anote reiterated “just start looking for another job.” At this
point, I find Mazzuco reasonably understood that Buonanote
was firing her. She said goodbye and left. It is also undisputed
that Mazzuco had already said goodbye to her fellow employ-
ees, and was leaving when she called Buonanote “asshole.”
The General Counsel has clearly satisfied its Wright Line
burden. In this regard, Respondent had knowledge of
Mazzuco’s union activities. Respondent also had intense anti-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD246
union animus as established by the unfair labor practices de-
scribed above and below. Respondent had already discharged
Dale, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) as set forth above,
establishing that supporters of the Union would be discharged.
Respondent defense that Mazzuco simply abandoned her job
is simply laughable.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent has not met its Wright
Line burden and accordingly conclude that Respondent by dis-
charging Mazzuco has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
As set forth above, on March 10, the day after the election,
Gouge and DiFolco reported to work. Buonanote told Gouge,
“If you think it is rough, you have no idea what you’re in for.”
Navas told her how dare she wear a union button on the day of
the election. Gouge and DiFolco reported for work. Gouge
started to do her usual work, pulling patient charts. Navas told
her she would have to do what Navas told her to do. Navas
then assigned Gouge and DiFolco to clean under the counter,
work they had never done before. Gouge protested, and she
and Buonanote and Navas began to scream at one another.
Gouge yelled at one point she would not be treated like a dog.
Buonanote screamed at both Gouge and DiFolco to “get out,
get out,” and then told Navas that as of 6 p.m. Gouge would no
longer be paid by Respondent.
By this time both Gouge and DiFolco had their coats on and
were starting to leave, Buonanote body checked Gouge as they
were leaving. Both Gouge and DiFolco credibly testified that
when Buonanote told them to “get out” they assumed they were
fired. I find such conclusion reasonable given Respondent’s
unlawful campaign, the intimidation of the employees, and the
discharge of Hyde. I totally find Buonanote’s testimony that he
was only laying Gouge off for the day incredible, especially in
view of the discharge of his supervisory staff on March 10, and
my overall finding that all Respondent’s witnesses were un-
truthful.
In view of the above conduct, I findthe General Counsel has
established a clear prima facie case and satisfied its Wright Line
burden and totally reject Respondent’s defense of abandonment.
Accordingly, I find that by discharging Gouge and DiFolco,
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in interstate commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has committed various violations of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act including the discharges of 2(11) supervisors
as set forth below.
4. Respondent has also violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
by discharging employees as defined in Section 2(3) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor
practices described above, I shall recommend Respondent cease
and desist therefrom and take certain action designed to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
Accordingly, I shall issue a recommended Order requiring
Respondent to cease and desist certain activities described be-
low.
With respect to the discharges of the supervisors and the unit
employees, I shall recommend they be offered unconditional
reinstatement to their former positions of employment, or if
such position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position of employment without prejudice to their seniority, or
other rights previously enjoyed by them. I shall further rec-
ommend that they be made whole for any loss of earnings, or
other benefits suffered as a result of their discharge, from the
date of such action until the date that a valid offer of reinstate-
ment, as defined by the Board, is made by Respondent. Back-
pay is computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950) with interest as prescribed by New Horizon
for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, I shall issue
the following recommended36
ORDER
The Respondent, Crossing Recovery Systems, Inc. d/b/a
Crossing Rehabilitation Services, Patchogue, New York, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Surveilling its employees, or giving the impression of
surveilling their activities on behalf of Amalgamated Local
298, International Union of Allied Novelty and Production
Workers, AFL–CIO (the Union).
(b) Confiscating union literature from its employees.
(c) Interrogating its employees about their membership in,
or activities on behalf of the Union.
(d) Soliciting grievances from its employees.
(e) Promising to remedy grievances.
(f) Threatening its employees to eliminate benefits because
of their membership in, or activities on behalf of the Union.
(g) Threatening its employees with more stringent work
rules, installing a time clock, instituting new dress codes, or
instituting more onerous working conditions because of their
membership in, or activities on behalf of the Union.
(h) Threatening or otherwise discouraging employees not to
act as a union observer in a National Labor Relations Board
election, or other union positions.
(i) Terminating employees because of their membership in,
or activities on behalf of the Union.
(j) Threatening its employees that it would be futile to select
the Union as their collective-bargaining representative.
(k) Threatening to cause a strike and replace the striking
employees if the employees selected the Union as their collec-
tive-bargaining representative.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.

36 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 Section 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
CROSSING REHABILITATION SERVICES 247
(a) Within 14 days of this Order make unconditional offers
to Katheline Hyde, JoAnn Barrett, Evelyn Cabral, Christine
Mazzuco, Heather Dale, Lillian Gouge, and Andrea DiFolco to
their former positions of employment, and if such positions no
longer exist, to a substantially equivalent position of employ-
ment without prejudice to their seniority, or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Within 14 days of this Order, make the above named
individuals whole, as set forth in the remedy provisions of this
Decision. Backpay to start as of the date of their discharge, and
to continue until a valid offer of reinstatement is made.
(c) Within 14 days of this Order, expunge from the person-
nel files of the above named individuals any written warnings
and any documents relating to their discharge.
(d) Preserve and within 14 days of a request, make available
to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports and, all other records 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 Is-
lip Terrace, New York facility copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”38 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being signed by
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceed-
ings, 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
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 had found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO

38 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.
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 surveil our employees, or give the impression
of surveilling their activities on behalf of Amalgamated Local
298, International Union of Allied Novelty and Production
Workers, AFL–CIO (the Union).
WE WILL NOT confiscate union literature from our employees.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their member-
ship in, or activities on behalf of the Union.
WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from our employees.
WE WILL NOT promise to remedy grievances.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees to eliminate benefits
because of their membership in, or activities on behalf of the
Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with more stringent
work rules, installing a timeclock, instituting new dress codes,
or instituting more onerous working conditions because of their
member in, or activities on behalf of the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten or otherwise discourage employees not
to act as a union observer in a National Labor Relations Board
election, or other union positions.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that it would be futile to
select the Union as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten to cause a strike and replace the strik-
ing employees if the employees select the Union as their collec-
tive-bargaining representative.
WE WILL within 14 days of this Order make unconditional of-
fers to Katheline Hyde, JoAnn Barrett, Evelyn Cabral, Christine
Mazzuco, Heather Dale, Lillian Gouge, and Andrea DiFolco to
their former positions of employment, and if such positions no
longer exist, to a substantially equivalent position of employ-
ment without prejudice to their seniority, or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL within 14 days of this Order, make the above named
individuals whole, as set forth in the remedy provision of this
decision. Backpay to start as of the date of their discharge, and
to continue until a valid offer of reinstatement is made.
WE WILL within 14 days of this Order, expunge from the per-
sonnel files of the above named individuals any written warn-
ings and any documents relating to their discharge.
CROSSING RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC. D/B/A
CROSSING REHABILITATION SERVICES