Crystal Springs Water Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge OpinionsJun 4, 200312-CA-022466 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 4, 2003) Copy Citation JD(ATL)—39—03 Orlando, FL 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DIVISION OF JUDGES ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE SUNTORY WATER GROUP, INC. d/b/a CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER CO. and Case 12-CA-22468-1 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 385, AFL-CIO Dallas L. Manuel II, Esq., for the Government. John W. Campbell, Esq., and David P. Steffen, Esq., for the Company. Gary Brown Vice President/Business Agent, for the Union. BENCH DECISION Statement of the Case WILLIAM N. CATES, Administrative Law Judge: This is an interfering with employee rights case. At the close of trial in Orlando, Florida on May 14, 2003, and after hearing oral argument by Government, and Company Counsel, I issued a Bench Decision pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(10) of the National Labor Relations Board’s (Board) Rules and Regulations setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law. For the reasons, specifically including credibility determinations, stated by me on the record at the close of the trial, I found Suntory Water Group, Inc. d/b/a Crystal Springs Water Co. (Company) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, (Act), on or about April 15, 2002, at its Orlando, Florida facility, acting through its supervisor and agent District Sales Manager Vinnie Cusmano (District Sales Manger Cusmano), by interrogating its employees about their membership in, activities on behalf of, and sympathies for International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 385, AFL-CIO (Union). I also concluded the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on or about June 11, 2002, at its Orlando, Florida facility, acting through its supervisor and agent District Sales Manager Duane Daniels, by interrogating its employees about their JD(ATL)—39—03 membership in, activities on behalf of, and sympathies for the Union and by soliciting employees to abandon their support for the Union. I certify the accuracy of the portion of the transcript, as corrected,1 pages 144 to 160, containing my Bench Decision, and I attach a copy of that portion of the transcript,, as corrected, as “Appendix A.” 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Conclusions of Law The Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act; that it violated the Act in the particulars and for the reasons stated at trial and summarized above and that its violations have affected and, unless permanently enjoined, will continue to affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I recommend the Company be required, within 14 days after service by the Region, to post at its Orlando, Florida, facility, an appropriate “Notice to Employees,” copies of which are attached hereto as “Appendix B” for a period of 60 consecutive days in order that employees may be apprised of their rights under the Act and the Company’s obligation to remedy its unfair labor practices. On these conclusions of law, and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended:2 ORDER The Company, Suntory Water Group, Inc. d/b/a Crystal Springs Water Co., its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating employees about their membership in, activities on behalf of, and sympathies for the Union. 1 I have corrected the transcript pages containing my Bench Decision and the corrections are as reflected in attached Appendix C. 2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended 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. 2 JD(ATL)—39—03 (b) Asking employees to solicit other employees to abandon their support for the Union. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Within 14 days after service by the Regional Director of Region 12 of the National Labor Relations Board, post at its Orlando, Florida, facility copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix B”3 Copies of the Notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 12 after being signed by the Company’s authorized representative shall be posted by the Company and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. In the event that during the pendency of these proceedings the Company has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Company shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the Notice to Employees, to all employees employed at the facility in question by the Company on or at any time since April 15, 2002. (b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 12 of the National Labor Relations Board sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Company has taken to comply. Dated at Washington D.C. ____________________________ William N. Cates Associate Chief Judge 3 If this Order is enforced by a Judgement of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading, “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD” shall read: “POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD”. 3 JD(ATL)—39—03 Orlando, FL JD(ATL)—39—03 5 JD(ATL)—39—03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 E V E N I N G S E S S I O N JUDGE CATES: On the record. This is my decision in the mater of Suntory Water Group, Inc., d/b/a Crystal Springs Water Co., herein Company, Case 12-CA-22468-1. First, I wish to thank the parties for the presentation of the witnesses, exhibits and other evidence. Each of you are a credit to the party you represent and I thank you. May I also state that it has been a pleasure being in Orlando, Florida. This is an unfair labor practice case prosecuted by the National Labor Relations Board’s, herein Board, General Counsel, herein Government Counsel, acting through the Regional Director for Region 12 of the Board following an investigation by Region Twelve's staff. The Regional Director for Region 12 of the Board issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing, herein Complaint, on November 25, 2002, based upon an unfair labor practice charge filed by 144 JD(ATL)—39—03 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 385, AFL-CIO, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 herein union, on September 3, 2002 and amended on November 12, 2002. Certain facts are admitted, stipulated or undisputed. It is essential that I set forth certain of those facts at this point in my bench decision, which I shall now do. It is admitted the company is a Delaware corporation with an office and place of business located in Orlando, Florida where it is engaged in the production, sale and distribution of bottled water. During the twelve-month period ending November 25, 2002, a representative period, the company purchased and received at its above referenced location goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of Florida. The parties admit the evidence establishes and I find, the company has been at all times material here in and continues to be an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended, herein Act. The parties admit and I find the union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The parties admit and I find that District Sales Managers Vinnie Cusmano, herein District Sales Manager Cusmano and District Sales Manager Duane Daniels, herein District Sales Manager Daniels are supervisors and agents of the company within the meaning of Section 2(11) and (13) of the Act. 145 JD(ATL)—39—03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The specific contested complaint allegations are that on or about April 15, 2002, District Manager Cusmano at the company's facility interrogated employees about their membership in, activities on behalf of and sympathies for the union. It is also alleged that on or about June 11, 2002, at the company's facility District Sales Manager Daniels interrogated employees about their membership in, activities on behalf of, and sympathies for the union and asked employees to solicit employees to abandon their support for the union. It is alleged the company's conduct as I have just described violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The company, in its answer, admits certain allegations of the Complaint but denies having violated the Act in any manner alleged in the Complaint. This company, which engages in the production, sale and distribution of bottled water, employs employees in each of those categories. That is, they employ individuals in the production, sale and distribution of bottled water. This case, however, centers around the hiring interviews of two employees for employment into the route sales associate and route sales driver positions. Route sales associates do not have a specifically assigned or bid for route, whereas route sales drivers do. All regular, full-time and part-time drivers and route salesmen are represented by the union. The Board in representation case 12-RC-8707, certified the 146 JD(ATL)—39—03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 union as the collective bargaining representative on November 8, 2001. The parties negotiated for a collective bargaining agreement and in late November 2002 the union ratified a collective bargaining agreement with the company for the drivers and route sales persons, which collective bargaining agreement was executed by the parties in February 2003. There is currently a de-certification petition, Case 12-RD-934, pending which is blocked by the unfair labor practice proceeding herein. The company from time to time finds itself in need of, and after following certain long maintained interviewing procedures, hires new route sales associates and route sales drivers. It appears the company requires new applicants to attend or participate in a ride along with a route sales driver before an applicant can be interviewed. Route Sales Driver Angelo Battaglia explained the ride along as giving the applicant an opportunity to see if the applicant liked the job and the work and for the company to see if the applicant could perform or do the work required. The ride along is where the applicant rides in the delivery truck with a route sales driver for a full day of work. It is only after the ride along that applicants are actually interviewed for a job with the company. Route Sales Driver Battaglia testified he filed an application for employment with the company and thereafter was 147 JD(ATL)—39—03 called to the company for a ride along. He stated his ride 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 along was conducted by District Sales Manager Cusmano because Cusmano was filling in for an absent route sales driver. Battaglia testified that after his ride along he was required to take a drug test, a stress test and to undergo a background investigation. Battaglia was interviewed by District Sales Manager Cusmano on or about April 15, 2002. The interview took place in the company conference room near the customer service area. No one else was present for the interview other than Cusmano and Battaglia. District Sales Manager Cusmano had a notebook with him in which he had Battaglia's application for employment along with a multi-page company interview guide document. According to Battaglia, Cusmano from time to time referred to the interview guide and took notes during the interview. Although Battaglia had difficulty recalling all that was said in the approximately thirty minute interview, he recalled his past work experience was discussed and that District Sales Manager Cusmano asked him to explain how he would handle an upset customer situation. Battaglia stated Cusmano did not ask him all of the questions in the company's interview guide because he said it wasn’t necessary because Cusmano and he had been together all day on a ride along. According to Battaglia, Cusmano stated "There is a union trying to come in here," but did not explain himself. Battaglia 148 JD(ATL)—39—03 testified Cusmano asked him, "How do you feel about that?" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Battaglia said that put him on the spot. Battaglia asked why the union was trying to come in and what benefits they wanted. Battaglia testified Cusmano stated they wanted about $5,000 in benefits. Battaglia said he perked up his eyebrows when he heard $5,000 in benefits but he could not recall whatever Cusmano told him the drivers wanted. But he remembered specifically telling District Sales Manager Cusmano it sounded like the drivers were crying. Battaglia testified he was at that point offered a job with the company. Battaglia first worked as a route sales associate and thereafter became a route sales driver, a position he currently holds with the company. District Sales Manager Cusmano testified he did, in fact, interview Battaglia for employment with the company immediately following a ride along he conducted with Battaglia. Cusmano explained that the ride along with Battaglia went very well. That Battaglia pitched in from the start, helping him out with the delivery of water and that Battaglia was good dealing with people. District Sales Manager Cusmano explained that at the conclusion of the ride along he knew he wanted to hire Battaglia because he wanted a fellow like Battaglia working for him. Cusmano explained he conducted an interview with Battaglia but that it was just a formality because he already knew he wanted 149 JD(ATL)—39—03 to hire Battaglia. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 District Sales Manager Cusmano explained his interview with Battaglia was somewhat different from the normal procedure he followed because he had been with Battaglia all day long on a ride along. Cusmano testified that, in the 35 to 40 minute interview in the conference room, he only had the interview guide and the employment application but no notebook or other papers. Cusmano explained he asked five or six questions from the interview guide and told Battaglia about the position and the responsibilities that went along with it. According to District Sales Manager Cusmano, mention was made early in the day that the company was involved with the union. Cusmano also told Battaglia in the interview that there was a union at the company. Cusmano said he informed Battaglia as a courtesy to him. Cusmano stated he said the union was the Teamsters and that Battaglia would fall under the umbrella of the union as a route sales driver. Cusmano said he told Battaglia that Battaglia's decision to join or not join the union was Battaglia's and that it made no difference to him. According to Cusmano, Battaglia said, it didn't make any difference to him either, that he just wanted to make money for his family. Cusmano specifically denied asking Battaglia any questions about the union. Before I go any further, this case ,as in most cases, requires credibility resolutions. In arriving at my credibility 150 JD(ATL)—39—03 resolutions I carefully observed the two witnesses as they 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 testified and have utilized such in arriving at the facts herein. That is the two witnesses from both sides of the issue. I have also considered each witness' testimony in relation to other witnesses' testimony and in light of the exhibits presented herein. If there is any evidence that might seem to contradict the credited facts I shall set forth, I have not ignored such evidence but rather had discredited or rejected it as not reliable or trustworthy. I have considered the entire record in arriving at the facts herein. This is a hard credibility determination for the two individuals involved in this particular credibility resolution, namely District Sales Manager Cusmano and Route Sales Driver Battaglia, are admittedly good friends and it appears they still are today. Yet I am required to determine which of these two friends spoke the truth. I am not fully persuaded that either of them came to court to deliberately misstate the truth. I am, however, persuaded it is a matter of a failure to fully recall the crucial facts herein. Taking in the overall context of this case, I am persuaded, based in part on demeanor, that Battaglia's recollection is more accurate than that of Cusmano's. I am persuaded that when Cusmano was admittedly advising Battaglia about the presence of Teamsters at the company and their attempts to get in at the 151 JD(ATL)—39—03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 company that he asked Battaglia as Battaglia credibly testified, how he felt about that. That is just a logical follow-up question. Battaglia's testimony, how that he was offered employment immediately after he stated it appeared the drivers were just crying in their demands, has a certain ring of believability about it. The fact that Battaglia is still employed by the company and that both he and Cusmano find themselves to be still friends lends credence to Battaglia's testimony regarding the question I find Cusmano asked about the union. Does the question constitute unlawful interrogation? Interrogation is not by itself a per se violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The test for determining the legality of employee interrogation regarding union sympathies is whether under all the circumstances the interrogation reasonably tends to restrain or interfere with employees in the exercise of 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 their statutory rights. Mathews Readymix, Inc., 324 NLRB 1005 at 1007 (1997). Under this totality of circumstance approach such factors as whether the interrogated employee is an open or active supporter of the union, the background surrounding the interrogation, the nature and purpose of the information sought, the identity of the questioner and the place and/or method of the interrogation, are examined. See Rossmore House Hotel, 269 24 NLRB 1176 (1984), enforced sub nom., Hotel Employees and 25 26 152 JD(ATL)—39—03 Restaurant Employees Union v. NLRB, 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1 2 1985) and Bourne Co. v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47 (2nd Cir. 1994). See also MedCare Associates, Inc., 330 NLRB 935, 939 (2000). 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The factors that are referred to as the Bourne factors are, one, the background. That is, is there a history of employer hostility. Two, the nature of the information sought. For example, did the interrogator appear to be seeking information on which to base taking action against individual employees? Three, the identity of the questioner. That is, how high was he in the company hierarchy. Four, the place and method of the interrogation. For example, was the employee called from work to the boss' office? And five, the truthfulness of the reply. These Bourne factors are not to be mechanically applied but rather to be useful indicia that serve as a starting point for assessing the totality of the circumstances. That the interrogation may be courteous and low keyed instead of boisterous, rude or profane, does not alter the case. I am persuaded for the following reasons that the interrogation of Battaglia by Cusmano violates the Act. First, it does not appear that Battaglia had revealed his sympathies toward union representation. Second, the question arose at a time when the parties were still negotiating toward a collective bargaining agreement. Third, no valid reason was advanced for the questioning. Fourth, the questioning took place in the 153 JD(ATL)—39—03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 conference room where it appears all hiring interviews and actual hiring takes place. Fifth, Cusmano is the second level of management at this location and it takes place during a specific hiring interview. Thus, I find District Manager Cusmano unlawfully and coercively interrogated Battaglia about his union sympathies in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Former Route Sales Driver Corey Merritt testified he made application for employment at the company while he was in the area of the company making application for employment at still another employer. After providing his resume and later filling out an application for employment he was invited by the company to come in for a ride along. After being initially spoke to by two other management persons, Merritt testified he was interviewed by District Sales Manager Daniels. Daniels had worked that day and the mid June 2002 interview did not commence until around six p.m. in the evening. According to Merritt, Daniels had to wash up from his day's work and then settled in to conducting the interview. Merritt testified Daniels had a copy of the company's interview guide and his, Merritt's, employment application. Merritt testified they first got to know a little about each other and then discussed Merritt's prior work experience. Merritt testified District Sales Manager Daniels explained 154 JD(ATL)—39—03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 that the company was going to a new tracking system by Oracle that would make the driver's job easier with less paperwork. Merritt testified Daniels asked him to name an occasion when he, Merritt, went out of his way to satisfy a customer. Merritt recalled a time when he was delivering a heavy package to a customer and that the customer wanted the package placed in the customer's attic because it was a surprise gift. Merritt explained he placed the heavy item in the customer's attic to the customer's satisfaction. According to Merritt, District Sales Manager Daniels was very pleased with his response and then only asked a couple of questions from the company's interview guide. Merritt testified District Sales Manager Daniels continually returned to the subject matter of the company changing the way it was doing things and going to an Oracle computer-related method of tracking and accounting for products and product delivery. According to Merritt, District Sales Manager Daniels lowered his voice and stated the company had a lot of changes and said, "The Teamsters was trying to come in at the company." Merritt testified Daniels flipped through his application for employment and noted he had worked for United Parcel Services. Merritt acknowledged he had worked for UPS and Daniels asked if that was a Teamsters job. Merritt responded it was and District Sales Manager Daniels asked how he felt about the Teamsters. Merritt testified he told District Sales Manager 155 JD(ATL)—39—03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Daniels that the Teamsters had done nothing for him. That when the Teamsters struck UPS in 1997, he was to have been given $75 strike benefit payments but was only given $25 strike benefit payments. Merritt said he told District Sales Manager Daniels that the Teamsters took his $40 per month union dues but that the Teamsters did nothing for him. Merritt testified he told Daniels the Teamsters promised job security but that he got his own job security by doing a good job. Merritt testified District Sales Manager Daniels then told him welcome aboard and told him to talk with the other drivers and tell them the Teamsters is not the way to go and to tell the drivers about the Teamsters 1997 strike. District Sales Manager Daniels testified he interviewed Merritt mainly because he, Daniels, was the late supervisor on duty the day that Merritt was to be interviewed. Daniels testified the interview started at the end of the workday at approximately six p.m. The interview was just between the two of them in the conference room at the company. Daniels testified he only had Merritt's employment application and the company's interview guide with him at the time of the interview. Daniels explained he sat down with Merritt, went through the history of the company and where the company was headed. Daniels explained the company was going to a new computer 156 JD(ATL)—39—03 assisted program with Oracle and explained how that would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 benefit or aid the route sales drivers by making their jobs easier, better and would eliminate paperwork on the part of the drivers. Daniels testified he only mentioned Oracle once and did not thereafter repeat himself on that subject matter. District Sales Manager Daniels testified he noted to Merritt that his application reflected he had worked for United Parcel Service which was also a customer service driver business. Daniels specifically denied the subject matter of a union strike, union dues or the like ever came up in the job interview. Daniels testified he asked Merritt what he ever did to go over and above what was expected for a customer. Daniels explained that Merritt's answer convinced him Merritt was top notch and would make a great employee for the company. District Sales Manager Daniels testified he let Merritt know during the interview that there was a union at the company and that they were working toward a contract. Daniels specifically denied asking Merritt if there was a union at UPS or anywhere else and stated there was no talk about a 1997 strike by the Teamsters at UPS, nor was any mention made of a strike fund. Daniels testified he explained the company's pay structure to Merritt and then extended an offer of employment to Merritt. Daniels then obtained a copy of Merritt's social security card 157 JD(ATL)—39—03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 and driver's license and provided Merritt forms for Merritt to obtain a physical examination, a stress test and a background check. Daniels denied any other questions arose about the union and specifically denied he asked Merritt how he felt about the union or that he directed Merritt to tell other employees about his experiences with the union. Again, a credibility resolution is necessary. This time it's not as much so a misrecollection as it is that one person is simply not telling the full truth. Here is a situation where one witness testifies statements were made while the other witness, the only other witness to the alleged conversation, categorically states no such comments were made. Based on demeanor, the detail in his testimony and the probabilities, I credit the testimony of Route Sales Driver Merritt. Merritt impressed me as a careful, thoughtful and somewhat articulate witness who recalled events with believable detail. I am persuaded that at least two of the four district sales managers have an interest in advising applicants that there is a union at the company and that it is the Teamsters. That is the union at that facility and that they have an interest in knowing how applicants feel about the Teamsters. I am persuaded Daniels asked Merritt if his UPS job was a Teamsters job and when Merritt said it was, that District Sales Manager Daniels asked 158 JD(ATL)—39—03 him how he felt about the Teamsters. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I am likewise persuaded that when Merritt expressed his displeasure with the Teamsters, Daniels offered him employment and asked him to talk with the other drivers and tell them the Teamsters was not the way to go and to tell the other drivers about the Teamsters' 1997 strike at UPS. Does District Sales Manager Daniels statements to Merritt that I find were made violate the Act? I am fully persuaded they do. No valid purpose was expressed to Merritt as to why he, District Sales Manager Daniels or for that matter the company, needed to know how Merritt felt about the Teamsters Union. The questioning about the Teamsters came in Merritt's job interview and took place in the conference room where hiring decisions are made by the company. It was after Merritt expressed dissatisfaction for the Teamsters that he was immediately offered employment. I find Daniels' questioning Merritt about the Teamsters Union, as just described, was coercive and violated the Act. It is also clear from the credited testimony that the company through District Sales Manager Daniels unlawfully solicited or asked Merritt to tell other route sales drivers about his unfavorable experience with the Teamsters and for him to solicit that they abandon their support for the union. Such conduct on the part of the company through its Sales 159 JD(ATL)—39—03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Manager Daniels violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and I so find. After the court reporter provides me, within approximately ten days, a copy of the transcript of this proceeding, I will certify to the Board those pages of the transcript that constitute my decision. I will make any corrections that are necessary there on and make an attachment as to specifically what, if any, those corrections are. I will also attach to the certification an appropriate notice that I will direct that the company post to correct or remedy the unfair labor practices that I find have been committed. After I have certified my bench decision to the Board, I invite your attention to the Board's rules and regulations for the procedure to take exceptions if any party cares to file exceptions thereto. It is only after I file my certified bench decision with the Board that it is my understanding that the time for appealing or taking exceptions to the decision runs. However, I specifically direct your attention to the Board's rules and regulations with respect to taking exceptions to the decision if any need be taken. Let me state again that I thank the parties for their presentation of the evidence and it has been a pleasure being in Orlando, Florida. And this trial is closed. 160 JD(ATL)—39—03 Orlando, FL JD(ATL)—39—03 APPENDIX B NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES Posted by the Order of the National Labor Relations Board An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice. FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO Form, join, or assist a union Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their membership in, activities on behalf of and sympathies for the International Brotherhood of Teamster, Local 385, AFL-CIO. WE WILL NOT ask our employees to solicit other employees to abandon their support for the Union. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. SUNTORY WATER GROUP, INC. d/b/a CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER CO. (Employer) Dated: ______ By: ______ (Representative) (Title) The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal Agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, South Trust Plaza, Suite 530, Tampa, FL 33602-5824 (813) 228-2641, Hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 162 JD(ATL)—39—03 THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S, COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (813) 228-2662 163 JD(ATL)—39—03 APPENDIX C JD(ATL)—39—03 PAGE(S) LINE(S) DELETE INSERT 144 3-8 lines 3-8 144 10 Company Co. 144 17 DECISION 144 19 Board Board’s 144 19 “,” after Board 145 2 6 3 153 3 Westwood Health Care Center MedCare Associates, Inc. 153 3 No., 141 at slip op. 935, 939 (2002). 153 4 p. 5 (March 20, 2000) 160 7 correction corrections 164 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation