CSC Holdings, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Apr 27, 2018

29-CA-190108 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 27, 2018)

JD(NY)-10-18
Brooklyn, NY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC
and Case No. 29–CA–190108
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS
OF AMERICA
Matthew A. Jackson, Esq. Brooklyn, New York
for the General Counsel.
Kenneth A. Margolis, Esq. New York, New York
for the Respondent.
Nicholas Hanlon, Esq. New York, New York
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
KENNETH W. CHU, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Brooklyn, New
York on October 4, November 2, 3, 6, 14 and 29, 2017. The Communications Workers of
America (Union) filed a second amended charge on March 15, 20171 and the General Counsel
issued the complaint on July 27, 2017. The Respondent filed a timely answer in response to the
complaint (GC Exh. 1).2
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act (Act) when the Respondent discharged employee Michael Wills on
about July 6, 2016.
On the entire record, including my assessment of the witnesses’ credibility3 and my
observations of their demeanor at the hearing and corroborating the same with the adduced
evidence of record, and after considering the posthearing briefs, I make the following

1 All dates are in 2016 unless otherwise indicated.
2 The General Counsel exhibits are identified as “GC Exh.” and the Respondent’s exhibits
are identified as “R. Exh.” The posthearing brief for the General Counsel is identified as “GC
Br.” The Respondent’s brief is identified as “R. Br.” The hearing transcript is referenced as “Tr.”
3 Witnesses testifying at the hearing included Michael Wills, Alexia Agnant, Eric
Zimmermann, Elena Esposito, Mario Madrigales, Anne Pacifico, Erica Simon, Thomas Farina,
Carmine Pero, Daniel Ferrera, and Paul Hilber.
JD(NY)-10-18
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION AND UNION STATUS
The Respondent, CSC Holdings, LLC (formerly known as Cablevision), a domestic 5
corporation, with an office located at 1111 Stewart Avenue, Bethpage, New York, and with
various facilities in New York, including a facility located at 1500 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge,
New York has been engaged in the business of providing cable television, internet and
telecommunications services recycling throughout the United States, where it derives gross
annual revenue in excess of $500,000 and purchased and received goods and materials valued in 10
excess of $5000 at its facilities in New York directly from suppliers located outside the State of
New York.
The Communications Workers of America is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.15
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Respondent CSC Holdings, LLC provides subscription television, internet and
telephone services to the greater New York area and other areas of the country. The Respondent 20
operates sales offices throughout New York State, including the Hauppauge office, where it hires
Residential Account Executives (RAE), otherwise known as residential direct sales
representatives (henceforth, sales representatives), to solicit subscriptions for its services by
having the sales representatives go door-to-door to sign up customers. The sales representatives
would also engage in phone and internet communications with potential customers and follow up 25
the various subscription packages and services with the customers. About June 2016, Altice,
USA successfully assumed the subscription sales operations from CSC Holdings.
1. Background
30
Michael Wills (Wills) was hired in September 2011 at the Freeport office, New York, as
a sales representative. In approximately 2013–2014, Wills was reassigned to the Hauppauge
office after the Freeport office had closed. Wills remained as a sales representative after his
reassignment. Wills’ direct supervisor during all relevant time of this complaint was Thomas
Farina. Wills stated that 20–40 sales representatives were employed at the Hauppauge office 35
with three supervisors, Steven Spalleta, Eric Zimmermann, and Farina. Although Wills was
assigned to Farina, all sales representatives would be responsible to the three supervisors.
The sales manager was and is Carmine Pero. Pero has been a sales manager with the
Respondent since 2015 and with the company for 12 years. Pero directly supervises 35–45 sales 40
representatives, supervisors, and other personnel in the Hauppauge office. Pero ensures that
sales are met by the representatives and that policy and procedures are adhered by his staff. Pero
reported to Daniel Ferrera and George Sundstorm, identified as a vice president and Colleen
Long, the senior vice president in charge of direct sales. Daniel Ferrara was identified as the
senior vice president of outbound telemarketing and direct sales since June 2016 and replaced 45
Sundstorm and Long (Tr. 66). Ferrera was formerly the vice president of outbound
JD(NY)-10-18
3
telemarketing from 2013 until his present position. Ferrera worked out of the Respondent’s
Jericho office, but also managed the Hauppauge office (Tr. 785).
Wills testified that his workweek was from Tuesday through Friday from 12 noon to 9
p.m. On Saturday, Wills works from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. Before the start of the day, there is 5
usually a 15–30 minute meeting with all the sales representatives to wrap up any unfinished
paperwork and office items that needed to be addressed. Part of this meeting was designed to
boost the morale of the sales representatives. Management officials would conduct a boost
meeting that lasted from 15 minutes to an hour. Boost meetings were held by the office manager
or a supervisor and were designed to boost the morale of the sales representatives and to allow 10
them to voice any complaints or concerns to management. Some work-related issues dealt with
bathroom breaks, sales issues, wages and the “Find Friends” App.
Wills testified that some of the sales representatives would take their lunch as a group
after the boost meetings. During lunch, the sales representatives would discuss personal and 15
work-related matters. After lunch, they would head “out to the field” to solicit subscriptions
door-to-door at people’s homes. At the end of his work day, Wills would usually not return to
the office, but would go directly home (Tr. 50–65).
2. The Find Friends App20
Wills testified that Respondent had issued iPads to the sales representatives for various
purposes, including sales, contacts, solicitations and other data used in their work. One item that
was installed in the company-issued iPads was a “Find Friends” app. The purpose of the app,
once it is turned on, would allow the user’s friends and associates to locate your presence. The 25
Find Friends app was used by the supervisors for tracking the sales representatives, and on
occasions, the supervisors would show up unannounced at the location where the sales
representative was purportedly working. The Find Friends app was on Willis’ iPad in 2015 and
2016. Wills was very vocal at the boost meetings in expressing that the Find Friends app was
used as a management tool to track the whereabouts of the sales representatives. Wills testified 30
that he started complaining about the app to Pero, Zimmermann, Farina, and Spalleta at boost
meetings in January 2015. Wills testified that he was speaking on behalf of the other sales
representatives at the boost meetings over the use of the Find Friends app. Wills stated
This was an invasion of the work time, being watched over our shoulder continuously 35
throughout the workday. It brought severe added pressure-- added pressure for someone
who was basically following you, in your shadows for the whole day. Many of us were
trying to see if there was a way that we could circumvent, meaning talk to someone to see
if these rules -- or they would stop using the app, based off performance. I objected to
the fact that people are trying to get to these levels. The Find Friends app is making it 40
more difficult because people feel that they’re being followed all day. And no one else in
the room spoke, but myself and Carmine Pero. And the meeting ended with everything
staying status quo (Tr. 73–77).
Wills recalled a specific instance in summer 2015 when Supervisor Eric Zimmermann 45
(Zimmermann) appeared in the field just after Wills had finished with a customer. Wills found
this as a source of irritation and told Zimmermann that it would have been easier to call then to
JD(NY)-10-18
4
show up unannounced. Wills recalled raising the issue with the app in another boost meeting
during fall 2015. He complained at the boost meeting that the app hinders his performance
knowing that someone may be monitoring his whereabouts on an iPad. In response, Pero stated
to him and the other sales representatives that the app was to help them make more sales.
5
Wills testified that he is aware of the company’s iPad policy and usage. A review of the
policy statement indicated that sales representatives have no expectations to privacy in using the
company iPad and that the Respondent may install a GPS device on its iPads to locate and track
the iPad possessed by the representatives (R. Exh. 2). Wills has also been instructed on previous
occasions to turn on his Find Friends app by Zimmermann as early as October 2015 (R. Exh 6). 10
Equally so, Wills was adept to respond by criticizing the mistakes and omissions made by
Zimmermann (R. Exh. 7). Supervisor Zimmermann criticized Wills in his 2015 performance
evaluation for not turning on his Find Friends app (GC Exh. 2). Wills admittedly did not provide
a comment in his evaluation to contradict Zimmermann’s criticism of Wills for not turning on his
Find Friends app (Tr. 312–318). Wills received an overall rating of “valuable contribution” to 15
the company in his 2015 evaluation.
Eric Zimmermann (Zimmermann) testified he has been a direct sales representative since
October 2013 and had worked with Wills at the Freeport office. Zimmermann was promoted in
May 2014 as a sales supervisor while at Freeport and moved to Hauppauge with Wills. 20
Zimmermann’s supervisor is Carmine Pero. Wills has been supervised by Zimmermann in
Freeport and Hauppauge.
Zimmermann characterized Wills as a difficult person to supervise and was not keen on
taking instructions or following company policy. Zimmermann specifically testified to Wills’25
refusal to turn on his Find Friends app and oftentimes, Wills’ iPad location was not available
because the app was turned off. Zimmermann also complained to Pero that Wills’ app was not
turned on. Zimmermann also complained to Pero that Wills would unfriend the management
team at the end of the day, which would require each supervisor and manager to request that
Wills “friend” them back on the app each morning. Zimmermann stated that this was 30
inappropriate and totally a waste of time. In an email to Pero on May 27, 2015, Zimmermann
stated that Wills felt he was in compliance with the Find Friends policy when he unfriended the
management team each night. Zimmermann stated that “The management team would then need
to send a new request (to friend) each day” (Tr. 576–592; R. Exh. 17–19). As noted above, Wills
was criticized by Zimmermann in his 2015 performance evaluation for not following company 35
policy with his Find Friends app.
3. The February 17, 2016 Boost Meeting
Wills testified that he would raise other issues at the boost meetings in support of the 40
sales representatives, including the sales representatives’ wages, quality of life issues, such as
bathroom breaks and other items. Wills admitted that the other sales representatives would
rarely speak at the boost meetings but maintained that he spoke on their behalf on these issues.
Wills testified that the sales representatives were particularly upset having to contact a supervisor
before they could take a bathroom break. Wills recalled that he complained to Pero at a boost 45
meeting about a new bathroom policy on February 17, 2016. Wills also recalled that
Zimmermann, Farina, and Spalleta were present at the meeting, along with 30–40 sales
JD(NY)-10-18
5
representatives (Tr. 84–89). According to Wills, Pero emphasized at the boost meeting that sales
representatives need to have a higher standard of professionalism while at a customer’s home
and not to discuss company business. Wills also testified that Pero told the sales representatives
not to discuss company business in the negative in public because such conversations could be
overheard by other people (Tr. 90, 91).5
Wills, at this point, interjected and questioned the high level of professionalism that the
Respondent required of its sales representatives when they had to contact a supervisor to attend
to a bathroom break. Wills said that Pero wanted to keep the meeting positive and told him to
bring it up at another time. Wills responded that it was alright to speak negatively and “we all 10
need to hear the good, bad and ugly” because the boost meetings were for the sales
representatives to speak their mind and to speak about issues that may be negative to the
company (Tr. 130). Wills admitted that he was never disciplined for not informing a supervisor
that he was taking a bathroom break. Wills denied knowing that this was not a new policy and
that it was in place since 2013 (Tr. 309–311).15
After the boost meeting, Wills received a call from Farina to return to the office for a
meeting. Wills met with Pero and Erica Simon was also present in the office. Erica Simon
(Simon) was the director of human resources at the time. Simon informed Wills that the
Respondent was looking into whether Wills was disrespectful and insubordinate at the earlier 20
boost meeting. Wills requested to meet with Simon in private and she agreed. At the private
meeting, Wills complained that there must be a mistake and Simon interrupted him and said she
was only informing Wills that he was under investigation. At this point, Wills admitted to Simon
that he was having family problems and was attending counseling for depression. Simon also
pointed out to Wills that some of his emails were troubling. According to Wills, Simon 25
referenced an email that Wills sent to Pero in February 2016 regarding if he would be covered by
workers’ compensation on a non-work day and was injured when he was actually working on his
day off. Wills stated that he raised the issue in his email because Pero had congratulated two
sales representatives for securing subscriptions during their days off (GC Exh. 3). According to
Wills, Simon found his email to be problematic because Wills had decided to send his email to a 30
group instead of just sending the email to Pero. Wills had tape recorded the entire conversation
with Simon on his cell phone. In the transcription of the audio provided by the counsel for the
General Counsel, Simon reprimanded Wills, among other items, to not send his email to the
group; that Pero and others do not like his emails; that Wills was coming on too strong in his
emails and that he should stop and think before sending them out; and that his emails were not 35
acceptable, not respectful and not appropriate (GC Exh. 4).
Carmine Pero testified that boost meetings were designed to boost morale of the sales
force and he did not want any negativity expressed during the meetings. Pero generally believed
that Wills was causing friction with his complaints about company policy. Pero cited an 40
example where Wills questioned what would happen to a sales representative who is injured
while working on his day off after Pero had sent out an email congratulating a sales
representative who had secured an installation on his off day. Pero emailed Simon on February
15 and asked her whether it was appropriate for Wills to respond the way he did. Pero believed
that Wills was generating negativity with his email comment (GC Exh. 15, 16). Pero reaffirmed 45
the importance of having and maintaining a positive attitude. Pero specifically stated in his
email that “. . . the management team will not allow any negativity or criticism spreading
JD(NY)-10-18
6
through the office” (GC Exh. 17). Pero testified that he addressed the issue of negativity in the
February 17 meeting after receiving a call from Bo O’Connor, who was the Hauppauge facility
manager on February 16. According to Pero, O’Connor said he had overheard some sales
representatives talking negatively about the company during their lunch. O’Connor did not
identify the sales representatives to Pero (Tr. 464–466). 5
4. The February 22, 2016 Final Warning
Following the meeting with Simon, the Respondent issued a Final Warning dated
February 22 and received by Wills on February 24 (Tr. 120). The final warning was issued by 10
Pero for Wills’ insubordination and disrespectful behavior and referenced a verbal warning given
to Wills on November 10, 2015. The final warning (GC Exh. 5) stated the following infractions:
To: Michael Wills #06860315
From: Carmine Pero
Date: 2/22/16
Re: Final Warning
20
Statement of concern: You are being given a Final Warning for
insubordination and disrespectful behavior,all of which violate the Direct
SalesRAE Standards, Practices &Procedures. Youreceived a Verbal Warning25
on 11/10/15 for unprofessional behavior.
Sincethen, the management teamhas had severalconversations withyou regarding your
unprofessional behavior:
• On 12/16/15, you wrote an email to Manager, Carmine Pero and the30
Supervisor team as well as Order Entry Supervisor, Lourdes Magboo stating,
“Carmine....you have got to be kidding me?” because we couldn’t let a saleget
installed untilwe received proper competitor bill to substantiate the platinum
competitive offer you gave the customer at time of sale.
• On 12/21/15, you were on a non-company related website, during a team Boost.35
• On2/10/l6 Supervisor, Thomas Farina had you come back to the office because
Supervisor, EricZimmermann could not see your location on the Find Friends
App. Thomas confirmed via your iPad that Eric Zimmermann was deleted from
your Find Friends App.
40
On 1/7/16, you placed a sales order with no customer social security number, without a
Supervisor’s approval. You and Supervisor, Thomas Farina reviewed the policy which you
acknowledged and statedyou would abide.
• On2/10/16, Thomas reviewed 11ofyour customer sales order forms between
1/5/16 and 2/5/16 with you, only 2 ofwhich had customer social security45
numbers. Onthe 2 sales you received the customer’s social security number,
Order Entrywould not let you proceed with the sale without. Thomas.advised
you again of the policy and youstated you were not comfortable asking
customers fortheir social security numbers. Thomas-explained how you should
JD(NY)-10-18
7
ask the customer for this information and you acknowledged that you
understood. ·
o Later that evening, when you made a sale, you did not get the customer’s
social security number and failed to get approval from a member of the
management team.5
• On 2/12/16, Thomas Farina conducted afield coaching with you. During the
coaching, you were making a sale and you failed to ask for customer’s social
security number. Thomas asked the customer, in front of you, and he received the
customer’s social with no issues.
• On2/13/16, you did not obtain the customer’s social securitynumber without10
approval from a member ofthe management team.
• On2/19/16,Thomasreviewed the instances where you did notobtain the
socialsecuritynumbers asrequired which occurred on 2/10/16, 2/12/16 and
2/13/16. Once again, you acknowledged the policy and signed the coaching.
o Later that evening, when you made a sale, you did not obtain the15
customer’s social security number and failed to get approval from a
member of the management team.
• On2/20/16, you were spoken to again about failure to follow this policy
during the sale made on2/19/16by EricZimmermann, you acknowledged
onceagainand said you understood the policy .20
Ina teamBoost on2/17/16, Manager,[sic] Carmine Pero reminded the teamthat
whenwearing Optimum badges and Golf- shirts, no matter what the venue is, you
are representing the company. You raised your hand and said that it is ok to vent
with each other, no matter what thevenue is, and then you proceeded to stand up and25
speak directly to the other RAE’s. You repeated yourself in a more animated voice,
stating that it’s ok to speak negatively and ‘‘we all need to hear the good, bad and
ugly.” You said “I have to boost up Robin Lynch and other RAE’s because of the
incompetence of the Supervisors.” I told you that this could bediscussed in private
rather than in front of the group if you these [sic] concerns.30
On 2/18/16, HR Manager, Erica Simon met with you to explain to you thatyour behavior inthe
Boost was unacceptable and it was an open issue. You discussed the fact that there have been
several instances in the past inwhich your tone and treatment of othershasbeen addressed as it
was considered inappropriate anddisrespectful and would nolonger be tolerated. You stated that35
you did not feel your emailswere disrespectful, only intended to be straightforward.
However, you agreed to be more mindful of your conduct in email.
You have violated the following policies under Residential Standards,Practices &Procedures
and the Direct SalesCode of Conduct.40
• Residential Sales employees are expected to represent Cablevision, (the
“Company,”) in a professional manner at alltimes while they executetheir daily
responsibilities.
• Consistent with Companypolicy, and asoutlined intheEmployeeHandbook,
allpersons withwhoma ResidentialSalesEmployee comes into contact asa45
consequence ofhis/her job must betreated in·a professional, courteous and
respectful manner at all times. Use of abusive or inappropriate language toward
any customer, prospect, colleague or any other individual with whom the
Residential Sales Employee mayhave contact with as aconsequence ofhis/her
job isprohibited.50
JD(NY)-10-18
8
• All salesordersmust includethe following information:Customer’s social
securitynumber. Adriver’s license number,passport number or Tax IDalong
withaPhotoID maybeobtainedwiththeapprovalof the Direct salesRAE’s
manager or supervisor.
5
Going forward you are expected to follow all Company and Direct Sales departmental
policies, practices and procedures.
(FinalWarning) -This isyour finalwarning that anyfurtherviolationofCablevision
policies, practices, proceduresor values, additional examples ofpoorjudgment orany10
unsatisfactory work performance will result in termination ofyour employment with
Cablevision.
Pero testified that the final warning issued to Wills was for his insubordination and refusal to
follow company policy. Specifically, Pero said that Wills questioned a company policy about the 15
need to verify an installation; Wills was observed on a non-company website during a boost meeting;
Wills could not be located by Zimmermann on his Find Friends app because he had turned it off;
Wills failed to obtain the social security number or had not received a supervisor’s approval for the
SSN number; and complained in a boost meeting that everyone needed to “hear the good, bad and
ugly” when Pero was instructing the sales representatives not to negatively speak about the company 20
in public while wearing company logo shirts (Tr. 733–737; GC Exh. 5).
The verbal warning was issued to Wills on November 10, 2015. The verbal warning was
reduced to writing by Pero and made part of Wills’ personnel records (GC Exh. 6). In summary,
the Respondent found Wills to have violated the company’s direct sales RAE standards, practice,25
and procedures by failing to treat others in a professional and respectful manner. I allowed the
documented verbal warning in the record since it served as background information for the final
warning. I further ruled that the issuance of the final warning was not an allegation in the
complaint and also served as background information (Tr. 127–129).
30
Wills testified that he received a copy of his February final warning and decide to post
the notice in his work station. All sales representatives’ work stations are three-sided with the
entry opened and the interiors may be seen by a passerby. Wills said that his intention was to let
coworkers know how he was treated after speaking up at the February 17 boost meeting. Wills
stated that a number of coworkers approached him regarding his final warning and he described 35
to them what had led to the warning being issued. Wills repined that Pero took down the
warning notice and replaced it with a sticky note informing Wills not to post the warning because
it was confidential (Tr. 130–137). Pero confirmed that he removed the final warning from Wills’
work station and told him that the notice was confidential and he should not display the
document for everyone to see.40
5. Michael Wills Decided to Contact the Union
Wills testified that he was upset over the final warning and believed it was the “last
straw.” Wills contacted a colleague sales representative named Mark Shipsmen at the Jericho 45
office who he had communicated in the past about bringing in the Union. Wills said that he
asked Shipsmen for the phone number of the Union after informing Shipsmen that he received a
final warning. Wills was given the name of Zelich Stern, who at the time was the chief organizer
JD(NY)-10-18
9
for the Union. Wills then contacted Stern and told him that he was aware that the Union had
organized some workers in the Respondent’s Brooklyn, New York office and Wills wanted Stern
to start a campaign at Hauppauge. Wills volunteered to help start the union campaign. Wills
believed that he met with Stern in April with several sales representatives from the Hauppauge
and Jericho offices (Tr. 139–142).5
Wills stated that Stern did most of the talking at the meeting. According to Wills, Stern
gave a history of the CWA, the union organizing effort in the Respondent’s other offices and
general information as to what is needed to get to an election. Wills then formed a committee
with two other unidentified sales representatives at the Hauppauge office to poll the sales force 10
of their support for the Union. Wills testified that he specifically spoke to a few sales
representatives about company policies, such as arbitrary changing wage scales and that the
Union would make life easier for them at work. Wills represented that there were several
meetings regarding the Union organizing after the April contact with Stern until he was
discharged by the Respondent in July (Tr. 142–145).15
6. Other Alleged Harassment Against Michael Wills
Wills also described other terms and conditions of his employment that he felt were
applied differently to him to harass him. He testified to an incident that he had to contact Mike 20
Hagerty, the manager of the Jericho office, on March 17, because he was unable to reach Farina
or Pero on a customer installation. Wills said that sales representatives were encouraged to
contact Hagerty on a needs basis. Wills said that Hagerty approved the sales installation. Wills
said Hagerty never mentioned that he was inappropriately contacted by Wills. Wills repined that
on May 3, Pero and Simon met with him and informed him that he should not have contacted 25
Hagerty. Wills insisted that he was never informed of any written or verbal guidelines not to
contact Hagerty. Wills also said that he doesn’t routinely contact Hagerty and may have called
him four or five times per year. According to Wills, Simon reminded Wills that he was still
under a final warning. Wills admitted that he was not disciplined for this incident and did not
believe he was going to be disciplined over this incident (Tr. 244–256).30
Pero testified that he was contacted from Hagerty regarding the call he received from
Wills for approving an installation. According to Pero, Hagerty was informed by Wills that he
had first attempted to reach all the supervisors at Hauppauge before he had contacted Hagerty.
Pero decided to verify this account by asking each of the Hauppauge supervisors if they had 35
received a call from Wills. According to Pero, they did not receive any calls from Wills. Pero
concluded that Wills was lying to Hagerty and in a meeting, Wills admitted that he did not
contact the supervisors before calling Hagerty (Tr. 737–739; R. Exh. 32).
Simon testified that she met with Wills and Pero in May to discuss the proper protocol in 40
contacting supervisors. Simon explained that Wills had previously been informed to first contact
his supervisor and if not reachable, to contact the other supervisors at the Hauppauge office (R.
Exh. 1 at 10). Simon said that Wills was aware to contact the Hauppauge manager next before
reaching out to Hagerty in Jericho if no supervisors or the manager are available in Hauppauge.
Simon said that Wills insisted he had reached out to all the supervisors in Hauppauge before 45
calling Hagerty (R. Exh. 24).
JD(NY)-10-18
10
Wills also complained that he was accused of leaving work early in April when he
actually was working past his regular work hours to visit a customer until 7 p.m. on a cable
subscription. Wills said he told Supervisor Farina at 4:33 pm that his iPad battery was dying and
he could not be reached. Wills maintained that Farina subsequently realized his error and replied
that “okay, I got it” in reference to Wills’ explanation of his dead iPad. Wills admitted that he 5
did not contact Farina at the time with his cell phone to inform Farina that his iPad battery was
dead (Tr. 258–265, 379).
Wills was also upset that Farina would contact Wills during his off hours from work.
Wills insisted to Farina and to others that he did not wish to engage in company business when 10
he was not working and resented that Farina had texted his cell phone at midnight on one
occasion. Wills believed that he was being provoked by Farina with being texted during his off
hours. Specifically, Wills complained of being contacted on June 6 by Farina while Wills was
off from work. Wills was informed by Farina that he was asked to contact him at the direction of
Pero regarding a customer who was waiting for an installation and that Wills needed to get back 15
to that customer.
Wills elevated the situation by emailing Simon on June 6 to complain that Farina
continued to contact him on his cell phone while on his off hours. Wills emphasized his points
in his email by typing certain words in all capital letters, such as CONTINUES (to contact me) 20
and that they had “AGREED” (to an arrangement that Farina would not contact him on his off
days) (GC Exh. 13).
Pero testified that Wills’ email was disrespectful and insubordinate. Pero said that he
directed Farina to contact Wills and that Wills was calling Farina a liar in the email when Wills 25
did not believe Farina was instructed to contact him by Pero. Pero also stated that the email was
insubordinate because Wills wrote several words in all capital letters and with five exclamation
points (tr. 739–742; R. Exh. 25). Pero denied knowing of any arrangements between Wills and
Farina that he would not contact Wills during off work hours.
30
Wills’ email was handled by Karen O’Neill, who was an assistant to Simon in the HR
department. Wills complained that he was being harassed by Farina when there was an
understanding with him that he should not be contacted. Wills was informed by O’Neill that
such an agreement with Farina was contrary to company policy and that sales representatives
could be contacted regarding company business during their off hours. O’Neill suggested to 35
Wills that he could respond to the emails when he returns to work. O’Neill also told Wills that it
was not appropriate to send emails with words that were capitalized by him. Wills admitted he
was not disciplined for complaining (Tr. 265–273, 330–335, 381; GC Exh. 13).
Simon testified that Wills, as a sales representative, is an exempt employee and may be 40
contacted by the Respondent during his non-work hours. Simon said that any arrangements
between Farina and Wills as to when Wills could be contacted by the company is inappropriate.
Simon believed that Wills was being disrespectful when he capitalized all his letters in his emails
to management. Simon said that she spoke to Wills on June 6 and informed that all sales
representatives were exempt employees (R. Exh. 26). Simon told Wills that Farina was 45
instructed by Pero to contact him on his off day. Simon reminded Wills that he was still on his
JD(NY)-10-18
11
final warning. Wills told Simon that he did not believe that Farina was instructed to call Wills
by Pero (R. Exh. 25).
Wills also testified to an event in support of another colleague named Alexa Agnant who
Wills believed was unfairly denied a free trip to Aruba in April 2016 even though, as a member 5
of the Respondent president’s club, Agnant would have been entitled to the free trip. Wills
decided to attend the Aruba retreat in support of Agnant and to protest the fact that Agnant, as
the only African-American in the club, was denied the trip. While at the Aruba resort, Wills was
seen by Colleen Long, Farina, and other supervisors. When Wills returned, he asked Simon
whether she saw a picture of Wills while in Aruba (GC Exh. 8). According to Wills, Simon 10
replied that she did not want to discuss the matter. The counsel for the General Counsel argues
that Wills’ trip to Aruba was a concerted activity in support of Agnant’s perceived slight by the
Respondent. I allowed the testimony regarding this incident over the objections of the
Respondent’s counsel (Tr. 180–191).
15
Alexa Agnant (Agnant) testified that she was and is a direct sales representative for the
Respondent at the Jericho office. Agnant said that her responsibility as a representative was to
convince former customers to return. Agnant testified that she was aware of a union organizing
campaign in Jericho beginning in the February/March timeframe. Agnant also said she knows
Wills from working with him at the Freeport office in 2015. Agnant attended at least three or 20
four meetings with union organizer Stern and other sales representatives. Agnant said that Wills
was also in attendance and recalled explaining the benefits of a union and “. . . sort of
spearheading it” (Tr. 539–542; 566).
Agnant testified that she belonged to the Respondent president’s club and believed she was 25
entitled to a free trip to Aruba in April as a benefit for being a member of the club.4 Agnant
repined that she was not given the free trip to Aruba. Agnant was aware that Wills traveled to
Aruba to protest the denial of her trip to management.
7. The Hilber Meeting on May 23, 201730
Wills stated that there was a routine boost meeting conducted by Pero on or about May
23, and then he turned the meeting to Colleen Long, who then introduced Paul Hilber (Hilber).
Hilber was the senior vice president of human resources from March 2010 to June 2016 with the
predecessor Cablevision. Hilber holds the same position with Altice, USA from June 21, 2016 35
until the present. Wills also noticed that other vice presidents of the company were present at the
meeting. Hilber delved right into his relationship in negotiating with the Union in Brooklyn and
that it came to his attention that there had been talks about CWA at the Hauppauge office.
Hilber had first visited the Jericho office earlier in May regarding the Union’s organizing
campaign before coming to the Hauppauge office.40

4 Sales representatives are inducted into the President’s Club after exceeding the volume of sales
over and above the other representatives. As part of the club, sales representatives are entitled to
BYOB (Be Your Own Boss) and to other perks not afforded to representatives who are not
members. A perk of the club in April 2016 was the free trip to Aruba.
JD(NY)-10-18
12
According to Wills, Hilber was asked by the local management to speak to the staff
regarding the Union and Hilber stated that there were no guarantees that wages would be
increased under the Union. Hilber also stated that having the Union would bind the sales
representatives to union rules and regulations. Wills stated that Hilber also referred to the union
organizing in Brooklyn and that half of the staff was trying to leave the Union. 5
Wills believed that Hilber spoke about 10 minutes before he raised his hand. Wills was
acknowledged by Hilber. Wills told Hilber and the audience that he was 100 percent for the
Union and disagreed with what Hilber stated. Wills also stated that the new company that
acquired the Respondent was known to lower salaries. Wills stated that Hilber responded by 10
telling the audience that the reason he was here was to inform the staff to do your homework first
before signing any union affiliation because the staff may be getting a union without any more
money. Wills took issue with that statement and stated that the Respondent was an at-will
employer and could discharge employees at any time and that all the vice presidents were present
at the meeting because they did not want to lose their power. Wills affirmed that the staff has the 15
right to organize. Wills stated that there were a few back-and-forth exchanges between him and
Hilber for about 20 minutes with Hilber always reiterating that the Union was not the answer to
their problems (Tr. 148–152).
Wills admitted that he made a vulgar statement by telling Hilber and the audience that the 20
union organizing was because “. . . people are tired of taking it in the ass, and this is why this
movement is alive at this point.” In response, Hilber told Wills to keep the discussion at a higher
level and Wills agreed that he “got caught up in the moment,” but wanted to make a point (Tr.
153). Wills stated that other individuals also spoke up in statements that were against having a
union. Wills did not recall if anyone else spoke on behalf of having a union.25
Elania Esposito (Esposito) is a commission analyst with the Respondent at the time. Her
main responsibility was to verify the sales commissions earned by the representatives for the
purpose of payroll. She attended the meeting during Hilber’s presentation and recalled that Wills
was vocal and made the comment “what are we supposed to do? Take it in the ass?” during his 30
exchange with Hilber. Esposito mentioned Wills’ remark to her supervisor. Esposito was aware
that Wills was subsequently fired because she was informed by Pero by email to take Wills off
the sales commission payroll on July 6. Esposito in her email replied to Pero stated “Shocker!
Was it for the union mtg. comment???” (GC Exh. 14). Esposito did not receive a reply from
Pero on her question.35
Mario Madrigales (Madrigales) testified that he was a direct sales representative from
November 2014 until August 2014 and that Zimmermann was his supervisor. Madrigales
testified that he has used his cell phone to text customers depending on the preference of the
customer. Madrigales admitted that he has used his cell phone to contact customers during boost 40
meetings and has observed other sales representatives doing the same. Madrigales recalled
attending a boost meeting when Wills complained about micromanagement and requiring the
sales representatives to inform management of their lunch and bathroom breaks.
Madrigales also attended the Hilber presentation and recalled Hilber stating to the group 45
that the Union was not the best option for the company. He also recalled Wills stating that he did
not understand why such a big meeting with high officials was held just to tell the group about
JD(NY)-10-18
13
the negative things with the Union. Like Esposito, Madrigales recalled Wills asking, “You just
expect us to sit here and take it in the ass?” Madrigales recalled Hilber stating that there was no
need for such language. Hilber also stated that the meeting was informative and a union is not
either right or wrong. Madrigales said that Wills apologized to the audience for his comment.
5
Agnant testified that she was present when Hilber spoke at the Jericho office (Tr. 546,
547). Agnant recalled that
He (Hilber) said that the unions were bad. You know, he was saying statements, a whole
list of statements that the union wasn’t -- it wasn’t good, it wasn’t conducive. This is a 10
sales floor. Why would we put a union on a sales floor? Sales people don’t have unions.
He mentioned also that the CWA, which is the union that we were using at the time, that
Verizon also has, you know, is represented by the CWA, and that why would we even
want to use the CWA, when they’re Verizon’s competitors. He suggested that they’re on
strike right now. And that the union’s not doing Verizon any justice. Why would we -- it 15
would be foolish for us to even consider them. He also brought up the Brooklyn contract.
Stating that Brooklyn does have a contract with them. And then Brooklyn is not happy
and it was a terrible contract. He proceeded to pull the contract out. And sailed it and
said we should read it.
20
Q You said he sailed it?
A Yeah, he tossed it.
Pero testified that he was aware that Hilber visited the Hauppauge office on May 25 to
talk about the unionization of the office. Pero said that he noted Wills’ comments in his 25
exchange with Hilber on the management’s computer daily logs. The daily logs are notes and
comments generated by the managers and supervisor on a timeline for review by other
supervisors. The timeline is generally known as the “BOSS HISTORY” Timeline. On May 25,
Pero wrote on the timeline that “During a meeting with Paul Hilber, Mike Wills commented,
“what we have to take it in the a**?” (GC Exh. 18 at 4). 30
8. The Union Organizing Campaign
When the meeting ended, the staff went to lunch and Wills decided to call Chief Union
Organizer Stern. Wills described the meeting to Stern and what was said at the meeting. Stern 35
told Wills that he needed to begin having the sales representatives sign union cards. Wills also
began wearing a rubber pink wrist band with the CWA logo on the band when he went to work
in the office. Wills started collecting union cards within a week after the Hilber meeting. Wills
stated that he began collecting union cards beginning on June 2 from his coworkers by
approaching them to sign the cards. Wills also stated that he visited the Jericho office on one 40
occasion and set up a table in the cafeteria to solicit the signing of union cards. Wills recalled
meeting with 7–10 Jericho sales representatives who were new employees. Wills said that
Shipsmen also joined him in explaining the union organizing to them.
Wills recalled that a supervisor was present when he and Shipsmen were talking to the 45
new recruits. Wills also recalled seeing Matthew Hagerty, the manager of the Jericho office, in
the parking lot while Wills was talking to a Jericho employee at the time. Wills testified that he
JD(NY)-10-18
14
exchanged pleasantries with Hagerty and did not discuss the union organizing campaign during
their exchange (Tr. 167–171).
Wills also recalled a conversation regarding the union with Thomas Farina. Wills stated
that he had tripped on a customer’s steps while soliciting subscriptions in early or mid-June and 5
called Farina. The customer had called the police to the house. Farina arrived to investigate the
incident and waited in the car with Wills for the arrival of the police. During their wait, Wills
explained to Farina the reason for the union campaign that the Union would not only benefit the
workers, but also benefit the supervisors because the successor company is known to be a “cut-
throat” company. According to Wills, Farina told Wills to wait and see what will transpire (Tr. 10
172–174).
Wills stated that he was also involved in organizing a meeting between the Hauppauge
sales representatives and the CWA in the May–June 2016 time frame. Wills invited the sales
representative to a local pizzeria to meet with union organizer Stern. Wills recalled that 15
approximately 15 sales representatives attended that meeting with Stern. Wills further stated that
additional meetings were arranged by him to have Stern meet with sales representatives from the
Jericho office. Wills believed there were four to six such meetings during the month of April.
Wills also spoke to other union representatives in addition to Stern but did not recall their names.
20
Madrigales also ate his lunch with coworkers after the boost meetings and had lunch with
Wills about four or five times. Madrigales testified that the sales representatives would talk
about work and the new policies that were in place and complained about being micromanaged.
Madrigales recalled a lunch meeting with two union representatives in July 2016 and that Wills
had introduced the union representatives to the sales people.25
Ann Pacifico was previously employed as a direct sales representative with the
Respondent from February 2016 to May 20, 2016. She was also aware of the union organizing
and attended a meeting with other sales representatives to talk with the Union. Pacifico said that
Wills suggested to Pacifico to attend the union meeting. Pacifico said that Wills lead the 30
discussions during the meeting.
Pero testified that he was aware of the union organizing in Jericho and Hauppauge. He
testified to receiving an email from Sales Representative Pat Maras on May 19 asking if it was
true that the union started in Jericho. Pero said he did not respond to the email but did forward it 35
to Simon. Pero also testified that he was aware that several employees had spoken about the
Union at the Hauppauge office. Pero did not recall specifically, but testified that he may have
informed Ferrera that employees were talking about the Union (Tr. 777).
9. The Testimony of Paul Hilber40
Paul Hilber (Hilber) is and was the senior vice president for human resources with Altice,
USA. He has held this position since June 21, 2016. Prior to that time, Hilber held the same
position with the Respondent CSC Holdings, Inc. since March 15, 2010. Among his many
responsibilities, Hilber is involved in the human resources matters in the Brooklyn, Jericho, and 45
Hauppauge offices. Hilber was involved in the negotiations of the contract between the
Respondent and CWA for the workers at the Brooklyn office.
JD(NY)-10-18
15
In May 2016, Hilber visited the Jericho and Hauppauge office to explain the takeover of
Cablevision by Altice. He also discuss the workers’ views and wanted to educate the workers on
the things the Union can and cannot do because there was some interest by the workers over
union organizing (Tr. 826). Hilber visited the Jericho office first. Hilber stated that the meeting 5
in Jericho was a free exchange between him and the workers (Tr. 820)
It was an open discussion. It was an exchange with employees around concerns they
hand on the pending merger, what we saw the future of the organization to be, people
asked specific questions around unions and specifically to this collective bargaining 10
agreement we have in place, or had in place in Brooklyn. It was just an open exchange of
information.
Hilber testified that he did not recall any specific comments or remarks, but he gave
specific comments on the pros and cons of having a union. He said there were passionate 15
viewpoints for having and not having a union. Hilber denied stating that the Brooklyn contract
with the Union was bad. He stated that the contract could be perceived as either bad or good by
the employees, but denied stating that the contract was bad. He denied stating that the Brooklyn
contract was “terrible.” He denied throwing a copy of the Brooklyn contract across the meeting
floor. He denied stating to the audience that “Even after you come to an agreement, it still 20
wouldn’t work out because the Union’s not going to benefit the employees.” He denied that
Colleen Long, the former senior vice president, stated at the meeting that the perks and benefits
under the BYOB (Be Your Own Boss) program would end if the Union came in (Tr. 820–824).
Hilber testified that he gave a similar presentation later in May to the sales 25
representatives and other employees at the Hauppauge office. He recalled that Wills was present
at that meeting. Hilber did not know Wills before attending the Hauppauge meeting. Hilber
testified that (Tr. 823–825)
Mr. Wills said something along the lines of so you want us to stay here and just take it in 30
the ass at which point I reminded everyone that we need to be respectful. That kind of a
statement’s inappropriate. If you have certain feelings about something I’m saying or the
facts or perspective that’s one thing, but there’s no reason to use inappropriate language.
Q And what happened in the meeting after Mr. Wills made his comment?35
A So there was outward statements being made over the statement that was made by
Mr. Wills. I simply just tried to calm the meeting down and move forward with
getting through the facts and the discussion points of that we had -- were focused
on.
Q Did you discipline Mr. Wills for his comment during that meeting?40
A No, I did not.
Q And did you participate in the decision to terminate Mr. Wills’ employment in
July 2016?
A I did not.
45
Hilber also testified that (Tr. 829–831)
JD(NY)-10-18
16
Q Now the position of the company at that time was that it did not want to have a
union representing these groups of employees; is that correct?
A The position of the company at the time was we always enjoy a direct relationship
with our employees.
Q And that includes not having a union; is that correct? 5
A I’d say a direct relationship always includes that.
Q It was the position of Altice that the company does not believe that having a union
or any other third party is productive for either the employee or the company or
the customers; is that correct?10
A I think that’s a fair statement.
Hilber also testified to the Respondent’s disciplinary policy. Hilber stated that an
employee may initially receive a documented verbal warning for a non-serious infraction that
would remain in effect for 6 months. After 6 months of no additional infractions, the employee 15
would return to the “in good standing” category. The verbal warning would still be in the
personnel file and could be referred in the future when the Respondent reviews the disciplinary
history of that employee. Hilber also stated that a written warning would be in effect for 12
months before the employee can revert back to the good standing category. Hilber further
explained that the written warning would have less weight in a subsequent disciplinary action if 20
it was 5 years ago as opposed to being 13 months ago (Tr. 818–820, 837–839).
10. The Starz Vendor Meeting
A boost meeting was held on June 23. After the usual matters were discussed, a vendor 25
from Starz made a presentation. Starz is a premium cable station and sales representatives are
encouraged to sign customers to the Starz subscription to enhance greater sales commissions and
revenue for the Respondent and the Starz channel. Wills testified that he was present at the Starz
presentation. Wills said there were approximately 40 sales representatives and managers
attending the meeting at the Hauppauge office. Wills said that Pero did not ask the audience to 30
put away their cell phones during the Starz presentation (Tr. 189).
Wills admitted that he was using his cell phone to exchange texts with a customer. Wills
said that he was on his cell phone when he heard Supervisor Zimmermann’s voice and at the
same time, noticed that Zimmermann was leaning over him and said something to Wills. Wills 35
said he did not recall what Zimmermann was saying to him. Wills said he was not attentive to
Zimmermann because Wills was busy resolving an issue with a customer via his cell phone texts.
Wills testified that 15–20 seconds later, he heard Zimmermann called out his name
“Mike” and then said “Mike, I said pay attention.” Wills replied “Eric, I am paying attention”40
and Zimmermann replied “No, you’re not” (Tr. 193, 194). Nothing more was said and Wills put
his phone down. Wills testified that at no point did Zimmermann instruct him to put his phone
away. Wills maintained that he put the phone on his lap on his own volition after his second
interaction with Zimmermann.
45
Wills felt that he was being harassed by Zimmermann because he had observed other
sales representatives using their cell phone to text and talk during his exchange with
JD(NY)-10-18
17
Zimmermann and the other representatives were not instructed to stop using their phones. Wills
also observed Zimmermann using his own cell phone during the meeting. Wills testified that
within a “few seconds later,” he decided to use his cell phone to record Zimmermann using his
phone. Wills said that he recorded approximately 9 seconds of Zimmermann. Wills recalled that
Zimmermann observed Wills recording him and asked Wills whether he should pose for the 5
recording. Wills did not reply back and no other verbal exchanges were made at this point. The
video showed that Zimmermann was smiling (perhaps laughing) when Wills was taking his
video. In the video, Zimmermann is heard asking Wills, “You’re taking a picture. Do you want
me to pose for you” (GC Exh. 9). Wills then placed down his phone and continued to listen to
the Starz presentation. 10
It was obvious that Wills was upset that he was required to place his phone down and
listen to the Starz presentation while some of the representatives were using their phones and
iPad and not cautioned to stop by a supervisor. As a result, Wills decided, approximately 2
minutes later, to take a photograph with his iPad of a sales representative who was busy on his 15
computer while others were paying attention to the presentation (GC Exh. 10).
Wills stated that the sales representative was on the computer during the remainder of the
Starz presentation. Wills testified that he is aware that sales representatives are to pay attention
to the presenter and insisted that he was able to pay attention even though he was on the phone. 20
Wills denied that Zimmermann initially told him to put away the phone during the presentation.
Wills stated that he put the phone away on his own volition. In another photograph taken by
Wills of the same subject, the sales representative is seen looking towards the speaker and away
from his computer (R. Exh. 15; Tr. 357–359; 530–535). Wills admitted that none of the sales
representatives were using their cell phones at the time the pictures were taken by him (GC Exh. 25
10; R. Exh. 15; Tr. 378).
Wills also denied knowing the company policy that sales representatives were prohibited
to text customers with their cell phones (Tr. 367; R. Exh. 1 at 10).5 Wills has admittedly used his
iPad to search an outside website during a boost meeting on about December 21, 2015 and was 30
instructed not to by Pero. Wills apologized and stated that this would not happen again (R. Exh.
14).
Madrigales was present at the Starz vendor meeting in June 2016. Madrigales sat in the
main room at his work station and said that Wills sat in a different room but Madrigales was able 35
to observe him through a cut-out square in the wall panel. Madrigales observed Wills use his
cell phone while the vendor was talking. Madrigales also observed Zimmermann approach Wills
and tap his shoulder. Madrigales did not hear what was being said, but observed that Wills
reacted to Zimmermann’s tap and acknowledged Zimmermann. Madrigales said that Wills
turned around and faced the vendor. Madrigales did not recall any other interactions between 40
Wills and Zimmermann during this meeting.

5 “From time to time it may become necessary to communicate with customers via e-mail. In the
event this becomes necessary, all residential direct sales representatives must communicate
through a company provided e-mail account. This policy also prohibits communicating with
customers via text messaging.”
JD(NY)-10-18
18
Madrigales testified that he observed sales representatives listening to the vendor and
using their phones at the same time. Madrigales recalled that Sales Representative Chris Hart
using his phone for about 2 minutes and observed Farina telling Hart to stop using his phone.
Madrigales specifically heard Farina telling Hart to put down his phone and turned it off.
Madrigales had also used his phone at least once during the Starz meeting and was instructed to 5
turn off the screen and pay attention to the Starz vendor. Madrigales testified that he observed
Zimmermann interact with Wills during the Starz presentation but did not hear what was
discussed.
Pacifico testified she did not recall any supervisor telling her to turn off her phone during 10
a boost meeting. Pacifico stated that she was supervised by Farina and he has told her that “If
your phone rings (during a meeting), you have a text, and it’s a client, or a potential customer,
you get up out of that boost meeting, and you excuse yourself” in order to take the call and not
lose the sale (Tr. 440). Pacifico has previously been disciplined by Zimmermann for rolling her
eyes at him. However, she testified not recalling that any sales representatives were disciplined 15
for using their phones during boost meetings.
Zimmermann testified that he was present during the Starz presentation. Zimmermann
recalled that Pero was initially there but had left early from the meeting. Zimmermann stated
that the sales representatives were seated in two rooms (A and B) and that he was standing in the 20
doorway. Zimmermann pointed out that he was standing in the doorway and Wills was seated in
the third chair to the right of the doorway (R. Exh. 22). Zimmermann stated that the Starz
presenter was to the far left of the doorway (out of the picture).
During the presentation, Zimmermann, while still standing by the doorway noticed Wills25
looking down and watching a video on this cell phone. Zimmermann stated that he leaned over
and whispered Wills’ name. Zimmermann said that Wills looked up and Zimmermann then told
Wills to pay attention to the presentation. Zimmermann insisted that he also told Wills to put
down his phone. Zimmermann said he assumed that Wills would follow his instructions but
observed him continue watching the video on his phone. 30
Zimmermann called Wills’ name again and whispered “Mike, can you please put your
phone down, we’re having a meeting.” According to Zimmermann, Wills replied that he saw
Zimmermann on his phone. Zimmermann replied that “was irrelevant” and that the meeting was
for him and to put the phone down and pay attention. Zimmermann said that Wills spoke in his 35
normal tone of voice.
Zimmermann testified that Wills waited and thought he would put the phone down, but
instead Wills held up the phone with the recording light on and recorded Zimmermann standing
at the doorway. Zimmermann felt this was insubordination and bizarre behavior. Zimmermann 40
also stated that Wills’ actions were disruptive because other sales representatives had turned
around to see what was happening.
Zimmermann was afraid that the situation would be escalated and maintained that Wills’
voice was very loud. Zimmermann testified that Wills had told him while they both worked at 45
the Freeport office that Wills could be prone to violence. Zimmermann stated that Wills was “. .
. speaking loud and it was escalating, voice was very loud and he seemed angry. Then I was
JD(NY)-10-18
19
concerned about his anger too because he has, you know, professed violence before. He’s
expressed that he has no qualms about being violent with people.”
Zimmermann attempted to defuse the situation by asking Wills if he should pose while
being recorded. Zimmermann said he may have also joked about the situation. 5
Zimmermann said the tipping point was when Wills lowered his phone but continued to stare at
Zimmermann and seemed to be angry. Zimmermann believed the other sales representatives
were uncomfortable with the situation. Zimmermann then left the meeting to avoid any
additional interactions with Wills and sought out Pero. Zimmermann denied that other sales
representatives were using their phones or not paying attention during the presentation (Tr. 600–10
605).
Zimmermann spoke to Pero after leaving the meeting. Pero informed Zimmermann to
send him an email over the incident (GC Exh. 22). On the same day, Zimmermann wrote to Pero
the following15
From: Eric Zimmermann
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 1:28 PM
To: Carmine Pero
Subject: Mike Wills Issue20
During today’s presentation by Showtime, I observed RAE Michael Wills watching a
video on his cell phone. I waiting [sic] about 60 seconds from that point and
then leaned across the desk and whispered to him. “Mike, can you please
give us your attention?” He looked at me and then just looked back down at25
his phone. I waited about 15seconds and then called his name again, got
his eye contact and said something to the effect of “Mike, we have a
presentation and I need you to give us your undivided attention.” He
replied, “I am paying attention” I said, “No, you are l o o k i n g at your
phone.” Wills said “Well,I just saw you looking at your. phone.” I said “30
That’s irrelevant. This presentation isfor you and the other reps.” Then he
put down hisphoneand proceeded tostare at me ina threatening manner
for about 20 seconds. Then I said, “Do you need something from me or
have questions?” He continued tostare in thesame manner. Then he
proceeded to tum the light on on his phone and held it up as if he was35
recording me.
Pero then forwarded Zimmermann’s email to Jennifer Condoulis and copied Simon
and Ferrera. Pero wrote40
From: Carmine Pero
Sent: Thursday, June23, 2016 1:38PM
To: Jennifer Condoulis
Cc: Erica Simon; Daniel Ferrara45
Subject: FW: Mike Wills Issue
Importance: High
Jen,50
Eric would like to speak with you about this below ASAP. Eric states, “I
feel threatened by Mike and my safety is in jeopardy. “
JD(NY)-10-18
20
Eric also asked Farrell and Lawrence to pay attention and they listened
and apologized by hand gesture today.
Best Regards,5
Carmine Pero
Manager - LI East Direct Sales
Simon forwarded the email to Judy Courtney and Courtney responded:
10
From: Erica Simon
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 1:54 PM
To: Judy Courtney
Subject: FW: Mike Wills Issue
15
Importance: High
Dan would like to suspend until further investigation.
Erica Simon
From: Judy Courtney20
Sent: 6/23/2016 1:57:00 PM -0400
To: Erica Simon
Subject RE: Mike Wills Issue
Hard for me to see this as a suspension....25
More just being a jerk. We could write him up for unprofessional behavior - but
what about Eric also being on his phone?
Pero testified that the Starz meeting was on June 23 at 12:30 p.m. (R. Exh. 33). Pero was 30
present at the meeting but left. Pero said that he was approached by Zimmermann while the
presentation was ongoing and Zimmermann looked visibly upset. Pero said that Zimmermann
felt threatened by Wills. Pero requested that Zimmermann send him an email about the incident,
which Zimmermann did within 30 minutes of the incident.
35
Pero said that he forwarded the Zimmermann email to Condoulis and Ferrera. Pero said
that he and Simon met with Adam Morris (Morris), a sales representative who was present at the
Starz meeting. According to Pero, Morris told them that he observed Wills on the phone during
the presentation and that Zimmermann told him “to pay attention” (Tr. 744–746). Pero said that
he was not involved in any other aspects of the investigation and did not speak to Wills over the 40
incident. Pero said that he was subsequently informed by Ferrera that the Respondent planned to
terminate Wills and Pero agreed to that decision.
45
JD(NY)-10-18
21
11. The June 24 Meeting with Ferrera and Simon
After the Starz presentation, Wills and the other sales representatives went out to the field
to conduct their solicitation of customers. Wills said that none of the supervisors mentioned
anything to him for the rest of that day after the presentation. Wills said that on the following 5
day, June 24, he was called into a conference room by Simon and Ferrara before the start of his
work day (Tr. 227–229).
Simon testified that Ferrera asked Wills if there was anything that happened at the Starz
presentation that he (Ferrera) should know about. Wills replied “probably” but asked that it 10
would be best if Ferrara told him. Ferrera said to Wills that he received a complaint that Wills
was being insubordinate and that Zimmermann has asked Wills to put down the phone and Wills
refused to do so. Ferrera then asked Wills if Zimmermann told him to pay attention and to put
down his phone. Wills replied that he was never told to put down his phone when Zimmermann
approached him. Wills insisted that Zimmermann only told him to pay attention. Wills stated to 15
Zimmermann that he was on his phone and listening to the Starz vendor at the same time. Wills
said he could listen and still text on his phone like other representatives were doing. Wills told
Ferrara and Simon that Zimmermann approached him a second time and stated “Mike, I said pay
attention” and Wills replied that he was paying attention. Wills insisted that Zimmermann only
told him to pay attention and never told him to put down the phone. Wills said he put down the 20
phone on his own volition. Wills told Ferrera that everyone was using their phone, computers or
iPads and he was being singled out and decided to take a picture of Zimmermann using his
phone. Simon interrupted Wills and insisted that Wills was not being singled out.
Ferrera testified that he is only casually familiar with Wills as a direct sales representative 25
before the Starz incident. He stated Pero informed him of the incident and Pero told him
Zimmermann told Wills to put the phone down and pay attention on multiple occasions. Ferrera
said that the incident escalated when Wills lifted his phone and videotaped Zimmermann during
the meeting.
30
Ferrera became involved in the investigation by initially contacting Simon and telling her
about the incident and asked for Wills’ personnel file. Ferrera stated that he reviewed the file
and noticed that Wills had received multiple warning notices. Ferrera said he also reviewed the
Boss Timeline reports that provided him with a history of the events leading to the discipline
taken against Wills. Ferrera stated that he did not specifically recall the comment made by Pero 35
on the Boss Timeline on May 25 of Wills asking Hilber, “what we have to take it in the a**?” in
their exchange regarding the Union’s organizing efforts at the Hauppauge office (GC Exh. 18 at
p. 4; Tr. 811).
Ferrera then spoke to Zimmermann following the boost meeting that day. Ferrera related 40
that Zimmermann observed Wills “doing something on his phone” and leaned over to him and
asked him to put the phone down and pay attention. Zimmermann told Ferrera that Wills
ignored his instructions and Wills started to stare at Zimmermann. Zimmermann then told
Ferrera that Wills lifted up his phone and started to video tape Zimmermann, which he felt was
disruptive to the meeting. Ferrera believed that Zimmermann was “genuinely scared” by the 45
threatening stare from Wills (Tr. 788–791). Ferrera testified that his preliminary reaction to what
he heard was
JD(NY)-10-18
22
Yeah. Yeah, I did. This is bad. You know, the situation was bad. You know, the --
forget about everything that happened in the past. Just this --this situation alone was --
was really bad and disruptive and -- and it was not a good situation (Tr. 794).
5
Ferrera and Simon then met with Wills. According to Ferrera, Wills denied that
Zimmermann told him to put the phone down. Wills told Ferrera that Zimmermann leaned over
and, initially, he could not hear what Zimmermann was saying to him. Wills then stated that he
heard Zimmermann telling him to pay attention, but insisted he was paying attention. Wills told
Ferrera that he is able to text and be attentive at the same time. Wills insisted to Ferrera that 10
Zimmermann never mentioned about putting the phone away; only that he should pay attention.
According to Ferrera, Wills then showed them the video on his cell phone of Zimmermann using
his cell phone during the Starz presentation and complained that Zimmermann was using his
phone while he was singled out to put his phone away (Tr. 795–799).
15
Ferrera stated that after talking to all the parties involved, the only decision was to
terminate Wills. Ferrera testified that termination was warranted because Wills was already on a
final warning and there were no other steps to take. Ferrera testified that Wills actions were
disruptive to the Starz meeting and to the other sales representatives. Ferrera said that the threat
against Zimmermann did not play a role in his determination to terminate Wills because he could 20
not prove there was a threat although Zimmermann was truly scared. Ferrera said he arranged to
meet with Wills to inform him of his termination but Wills did not come into the office and so
Wills was contacted by phone. Ferrera explained the situation over the phone to Wills and
informed him of his termination (Tr. 799–803, 806).
25
Ferrera denied that he was aware that Wills supported or was involved with the Union.
Ferrera also denied that Simon or Pero had spoken to him about Wills’ involvement with the
Union. Ferrera said that he was only aware of union organizing at the Jericho and not the
Hauppauge office (Tr. 804). Ferrera stated that he was aware in May 2016 that the Union was
attempting to organize the Jericho office and was aware that Hilber had visited that office at that 30
time. He denied knowing that Hilber also visited the Hauppauge office in May.
12. The Discharge of Michael Wills on July 6
Wills testified that on July 6, during his day off, he received a phone conversation from 35
Ferrera around 12 noon. Wills believed that Simon and Pero were also on the conference call.
On the call, Ferrera told Wills that he was terminated because of his insubordination towards
Zimmermann and that Wills was on a final warning. Wills asked Simon whether he was “given
a fair shake.” Wills said the call lasted for approximately 10 minutes. Simon asked for Wills’
personal email to send him some paperwork. Nothing else was said.6 Wills testified that at no 40

6 The counsel for the General Counsel proffered Wills’ termination request dated July 5, 2016 for
the record. It is undisputed that Wills never saw the document. The counsel for the Respondent
objected to the examination of Wills on the document because Wills cannot identify and testify
to a document he never previously received and read. I allowed the document into the record as
GC Exh. 11 because the termination request was a business record generated by Ferrera and
provided to the General Counsel pursuant to subpoena and there were no issues over the
JD(NY)-10-18
23
time did Ferrera or Simon mention that he had threatened Zimmermann. Wills said that he
shook Ferrera’s hand and left. Wills testified that he subsequently contacted Stern that day and
informed him of his discharge (Tr. 307).
In a subsequent email to Simon dated July 7, Wills complained to Simon that she allowed 5
Ferrera to “interrogate him” over the Starz incident without interjecting and accused the
Respondent of not acting when Simon knew that Ferrera posted sexist and racist comments on
his Facebook page. Wills did not receive a response from Simon on his accusations against
Ferrera (R. Exh. 3).
10
Erica Simon testified that she was formerly the human resources manager and a human
resources generalist with the Respondent from October 2014 until her departure in April 2017.
Simon reported to Jennifer Condoulis, the human resources director.
Simon testified that she was involved in the termination of Wills after the Starz 15
presentation. Simon was informed by Pero to expect an email from Zimmermann regarding the
incident. Zimmermann’s email (above) was sent to Pero only on June 23. Pero then forwarded
the email to Condoulis, Simon, and Ferrara. Pero had informed Condoulis that Zimmermann
wanted to speak to her. There is no record that Zimmermann actually spoke to Condoulis.
Simon responded less than 30 minutes later to Judy Courtney and said Ferrera would like to 20
suspend Wills (R. Ex. 28). Courtney was identified by Simon as the human resources business
partner for the sales department. Courtney replied 3 minutes later by email (GC Exh. 22) and
stated to Simon
“Hard for me to see this as a suspension… More just being a jerk. We could write him 25
up for unprofessional behavior-but what about Eric (Zimmermann) also being on his
phone?”
Simon testified that she met with Zimmermann, Adam Morris, and Wills. Adam Morris
was a sales representative who was at the Starz meeting. Simon met Morris on June 23. 30
According to Simon’s notes on her interview with Morris, Morris observed Wills on his phone
and Zimmermann instructing Wills to pay attention. Morris heard Wills reply that Zimmermann
was on his phone and questioned why Wills could not also be on his phone. Wills insisted that
he was allowed to be on his phone because it was work related. Morris did not observe Wills
taking a picture of Zimmermann. According to Simon’s notes, Morris did not feel threatened 35
and only moved away from his chair after the presentation in order to stretch his legs. Morris
stated to Simon that he did not see any “dirty stares” from Wills during the exchange of words
with Zimmermann (R. Exh. 29).
Simon also met with Zimmermann after meeting with Morris. Simon described 40
Zimmermann as very upset and feeling extremely threatened (Tr. 680). Simon did not take any
notes at her meeting with Zimmermann.

authenticity of the document. I also provided counsel for the General Counsel with the
reservation to examine Wills on the document if the document is raised during cross-examination
or in the Respondent’s case-in-chief (Tr. 239–242).
JD(NY)-10-18
24
Simon then met with Wills the following day. Ferrera was present at the meeting. Simon
stated that Wills provided contradictory statements as to the incident. Simon said that Ferrera
pointed out that Wills insisted he had placed down his phone, but then used his phone again to
take a picture of Zimmermann. Ferrera believed that this was inconsistent with Wills’ assertion
that he had placed down his phone.5
Simon said that Ferrera made the final decision to terminate Wills. Simon testified that
she only provided guidance to Ferrera and Pero regarding the discharge. Simon did not believe
that Wills was a threat based upon one supervisor’s belief that he was threatened. Simon stated
that Wills was not discharged for being a threat to another employee. Rather, Simon testified 10
(Tr. 689, 690):
We didn’t feel that his behavior was threatening based on the information we got from
Adam, which is why we didn’t move to suspension. But, he was still insubordinate and
still didn’t listen to Eric when he was asked to put his phone away, he was still pushing
back on him. And that, in addition to all of the other instances that occurred after his final 15
warning was given to him, is why we decided to move to termination.
Simon stated it was appropriate to terminate Wills based upon his repeated behavior of
insubordination. Simon said it was appropriate because of the manner Wills spoke to his
supervisors and for not following policies and procedures (Tr. 684).
Upon my examination of the witness, Simon stated that Wills’ receipt of a final warning 20
on October 22, 2014 was valid for one year and that individual infractions after receiving his
2014 final warning were insufficient or too minor to warrant termination (R. Ex. 5). Simon
further stated that after the 1-year period, the final warning is wiped clean (“clean slate”) and the
next infraction would result in a verbal documented warning unless the infraction is sufficiently
severe to warrant greater discipline. Wills received his verbal documented warning on 25
November 9, 2015 (GC Exh. 6). Simon stated that Wills’ subsequent infractions in 2015 were
not sufficiently severe to elevate his verbal warning. However, Simon stated that the infractions
occurring November 9, 2015 through February were sufficiently numerous to warrant a final
warning issued to Wills on February 22, 2016 (GC Exh. 5).
Simon stated that the “trigger” for Wills’ termination was his insubordination at the Starz 30
presentation and denied that Wills was discharged for speaking his mind about the union during
the Hilber meeting. Simon stated that the termination notice was drafted and finalized by Ferrera
with her input (GC Exh. 11).
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The credibility resolutions herein have been derived from a review of the entire 35
testimonial record and exhibits, with due regard for the logic of probability, the demeanor of the
witnesses, and the teachings of NLRB v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404, 408 (1962). A
credibility determination may rely on a variety of factors, including the context of the witness’
testimony, the witness’ demeanor, and the weight of the respective evidence, established or
admitted facts, inherent probabilities, and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the 40
record as a whole. Double D Construction Group, 339 NLRB 303, 305 (2003); Daikichi Sushi,
JD(NY)-10-18
25
335 NLRB 622, 623 (2001). Credibility findings need not be all-or-nothing propositions—
indeed, nothing is more common in all kinds of judicial decisions than to believe some, but not
all, of a witness’ testimony. Daikichi Sushi, above.
The counsel for the General Counsel argues that the Respondent discharged Michael 5
Wills because he assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities and to discourage
employees from engaging in those activities in violation of Section 8(3) and (1) of the Act. The
Respondent argues that Wills was discharged for his refusal to follow company policy and
procedures and for his insubordination.
10
Section 8(3) of the Act prohibits employer interference, restraint, or coercion of
employees for their exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 of the
Act guarantees employees the right “to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid 15
or protection . . . .” See,Brighton Retail, Inc., 354 NLRB 441, 447 (2009). In Meyers Industries
(Meyers 1), 268 NLRB 493 (1984), and in Meyers Industries (Meyers 11) 281 NLRB 882
(1986), the Board held that “concerted activities” protected by Section 7 are those “engaged in
with or on the authority of other employees, and not solely by and on behalf of the employee
himself.” Those rights include “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor 20
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection.”
Section 8(3) prohibits employers from discriminating in regard to an employee’s “tenure 25
of employment . . . to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.” An
employer violates Section 8(a)(3) by disciplining employees for antiunion motives. Equitable
Resources, 307 NLRB 730, 731 (1992). To establish a violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) in
cases where a discharge is alleged, the General Counsel has the burden to prove that the
discharged employees was motivated by employer antiunion animus.30
In assessing Respondent’s motive, this case is no different than any other 8(a)(3) case.
The Board requires the General Counsel to make an initial showing sufficient to support an
inference that the alleged discriminatees’ protected conduct was a ‘motivating factor’ in the
employer’s decision. Then the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the same action35
would have taken place even in the absence of protected conduct. Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083
(1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved in NLRB
v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 399–403 (1983); American Gardens
Management Co., 338 NLRB 644 (2002).
40
The Wright Line test requires the General Counsel to make a prima facie showing
sufficient to support an inference that the employee’s protected conduct motivated the
employer’s adverse action. Unlawful motivation is most often established by indirect or
circumstantial evidence, such as suspicious timing and pretextual or shifting reasons given for
the employer’s actions. Discriminatory motivation may reasonably be inferred from a variety of 45
factors, such as the company’s expressed hostility towards unionization combined with
knowledge of the employees’ union activities; inconsistencies between the proffered reason for
JD(NY)-10-18
26
discharge or refusal to hire and other actions of the employer; disparate treatment of certain
employees with similar work records or offenses; a company’s deviation from past practices in
implementing the discharge and proximity in time between the employees’ union activities and
their discharge. WF. Bolin Co. v. NLRB, 70 F.3d 863, 871 (6th Cir. 1995).
5
The Respondent Violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act When it
Discharged Michael Wills
In the matter before me, I find that the General Counsel has made a prima facie showing
that Wills’ union and concerted activity was a motivating factor in the Respondent’ decision to 10
discharge him. In Tracker Marine, LLC, 337 NLRB 644 (2002), the Board affirmed the
administrative law judge who evaluated the question of the employer’s motivation under the
framework established in Wright Line. Under the framework, the judge held that the General
Counsel must establish four elements by a preponderance of evidence. First, the General
Counsel must show the existence of activity protected by the Act. Second, the General Counsel 15
must prove that the Respondent was aware that the employee had engaged in such activity.
Third, the General Counsel must show that the alleged discriminatee suffered an adverse
employment action motivated by the employer’s animus towards the discriminatee’s protected
activity.
20
I find that Wills engaged in concerted activity and in activity in support and on behalf of
the Union. I also find that Respondent had knowledge of such activities prior to terminating
Wills.
The evidence establishes that Wills engaged in concerted activities when he voiced at the 25
February boost meeting that Pero needed to also discuss the “good, bad and ugly” terms and
conditions of employment. Concerted activity includes not only activity that is engaged in with
or on the authority of other employees, but also activity where individual employees seek to
initiate or to induce or to prepare for group action, as well as individual employees bringing truly
group complaints to the attention of management. Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, 361 30
NLRB 151, 153 (2014). 7 If the employee or employees who are acting in concert are seeking to
improve terms and conditions of employment, their actions are for mutual aid and protection of
all employees within the meaning of Section 7. Id., slip op. at 3, 5–6; UniQue Personnel
Consultants, Inc, 364 NLRB No. 112 (2016).
35
The negativity subject came up after Pero was informed by O’Connor that O’Connor
overheard several sales representatives talked negativity about the Respondent during lunch in a
public area. Wills defended the sales representatives’ right to speak negativity about the
company. He believed the boost meetings were for the sales representatives to speak their mind

7 On the other hand, activity by a single individual for that person’s own personal benefit
is not construed as concerted activity. NLRB v. Adams Delivery Serice, 623 F.2d 96 (9th Cir.
1980) (individual griping about his own overtime pay was not concerted activity); Pelton
Casteel, Inc. v. NLRB, 627 F.2d 23 (7th Cir. 1980) (venting of personal grievance not concerted
activity). Consequently, I find that Wills’ complaint over the Find Friends app and highlighting
words with all capital letters in his emails were not concerted activities.
JD(NY)-10-18
27
and to speak about issues that may not always be positive to the company. Following the boost
meeting, Wills met with Pero and Simon and she informed Wills that the Respondent was
investigating if Wills was disrespectful and insubordinate at the boost meeting. Wills
complained that there must be a mistake and Simon interrupted Wills and said she was only here
to tell Wills he was under investigation. Although no disciplinary action was taken against 5
Wills, it is clear that Pero was not happy with Wills’ opposition to keep everything positive at the
boost meeting and felt the need to inform Simon that Wills was disrespectful and insubordinate.
I also find concerted activity when Agnant sought assistance from Wills when she was
denied a free trip to Aruba as a member of the Respondent president’s club. Wills decided to 10
visit the hotel where the sales representatives and supervisors were staying in Aruba and made
his presence known to them by turning on his Find Friends app. Wills was seen by other
supervisors and Wills voiced his support for Agnant to them. Wills also expressed the unfairness
of the situation to Colleen Long and Erica Simon and believed that Agnant was subjected to
discrimination in the workplace. Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, above, at 153 15
(explaining the mutual aid or protection analysis focuses on whether there is a connection
between the activity “and matters concerning the workplace or employees’ interests as
employees.”)
More significant, I find that Wills engaged in activity in support and on behalf of the 20
Union. Wills initiated the contract with Union Chief Organizer Stern and arranged several
meetings between the Union and the sales representatives. Wills stated that he started collecting
union cards within a week after the Hilber meeting. Wills stated that he began collecting union
cards beginning on June 2 from his coworkers by approaching them to sign the cards. Wills also
stated that he visited the Jericho office on one occasion and set up a table in the cafeteria to 25
solicit the signing of union cards. Wills recalled meeting with 7–10 Jericho sales representatives
who were new employees.
Wills recalled that a supervisor was present when he was talking to the new recruits.
Wills also recalled seeing Hagerty, the manager of the Jericho office, while he was talking to a 30
Jericho employee at the time. Wills also recalled a conversation regarding the Union with
Supervisor Farina. Wills explained to Farina the need for the Union and that the Union would
not only benefit the workers, but also benefit the supervisors because Altice is known as a “cut-
throat” company.
35
Wills stated that he was also involved in organizing a meeting between the Hauppauge
sales representatives and the CWA in the May–June 2016 time frame. Wills invited the sales
representative to a local pizzeria to meet with Stern from the Union. Wills recalled that
approximately 15 sales representatives attended that meeting with Stern. Wills further stated that
additional meetings were arranged by him to have Stern meet with sales representatives from the 40
Jericho office. Wills believed there were 4–6 such meetings during the month of April.
Madrigales recalled a lunch meeting with two union representatives in July 2016 and that
Wills had introduced the union representatives to the sales people. Pacifico was also aware of
the union organizing and attended a meeting with other sales representatives to talk with the 45
Union. Pacifico said that Wills suggested that she attend the union meeting. Pacifico said that
Wills led the discussions during the meeting.
JD(NY)-10-18
28
Pero testified that he was aware of the Union organizing in Jericho and Hauppauge. He
testified to receiving an email from Sales Representative Pat Maras on May 19 asking if it was
true that the Union started in Jericho. Pero said he did not respond to the email but did forward it
to Simon. Pero also testified that he was aware that several employees had spoken about the 5
Union at the Hauppauge office.
Ferrera denied knowledge of Wills’ union activities. I do not credit Ferrera’s testimony
on this point. Ferrera works out of the Jericho office. Wills visited the Jericho office and
discussed the Union with several of the new employees. Wills also greeted a supervisor and 10
Hagerty while in Jericho. It is reasonable that Ferrera would have been made aware of Wills’
union activity in Jericho by the other supervisors, especially during the time that the Union was
organizing the Jericho employees. In addition, Ferrera testified that he reviewed the Boss
Timelines regarding the comments and notes made by the supervisors on Wills’ behavior for the
past several months. One of the comments made by Pero concerned Wills’ rhetorical question to 15
Hilber about “what are we supposed to do? Take it in the ass?” (GC Exh. 18 at 4). It is not
reasonable to believe that Ferrera would not recall reading this comment that occurred just prior
to Wills’ termination. Additionally, although Pero did not specifically recall, he nevertheless
testified that he may have informed Ferrera that employees were talking about the Union in the
Hauppauge office.20
Most significantly, Wills voiced his support for the Union at the sales representative
meeting attended by Hilber and other supervisors and vice presidents of the company. Wills told
Hilber in front of the audience that he was 100 percent for the Union and disagreed with what
Hilber was saying about the Union. Wills also stated that the new company that acquired the 25
Respondent was known to lower salaries. Wills stated that Hilber responded by telling the
audience that the reason he was here was to inform the staff to first do their homework about
signing any union affiliation because the staff may be getting a union without any more money.
Wills affirmed that the staff has the right to organize. Wills admitted that he made a vulgar
statement by telling Hilber and the audience that the union organizing was because “. . . people 30
are tired of taking it in the ass, and this is why this movement is alive at this point.” Wills stated
that other individuals also spoke up in statements that were against having a union.
I find that Wills’ discussions with coworkers about the Union and other terms and
conditions of employment, such as voicing his opposition to the policy on bathroom breaks; his 35
insistence to Pero to discuss the negative aspects of their job; his protest over Agnant’s denial of
her trip to Aruba; his work on behalf of the Union by initiating meetings between the sales
representatives and the chief union organizer for the Hauppauge office; and his stance in support
of the Union in front of Hilber and other Respondent officials constitute protected activity. I also
find that the Respondent, through its managers and human resources personnel, were aware of 40
his protected activity prior to terminating him. Additionally, the discharge of Wills was clearly
an adverse employment action. The remaining question is whether the Respondent terminated
Wills because of discriminatory animus.

To rebut the presumption established by the General Counsel, the Respondents bears the45
burden of showing the same action would have taken place even in the absence of protected
conduct. See Manno Electric, Inc., 321 NLRB 278, 280 fn.12 (1996); Farmer Bros. Co., 303
JD(NY)-10-18
29
NLRB 638, 649 (1991). To meet this burden “an employer cannot simply present a legitimate
reason for its action but must persuade by a preponderance of the evidence that the same action
would have taken place even in the absence of the protected conduct.” Roure Bertrand Dupont,
Inc., 271 NLRB 443 (1984); Durham School Services, 360 NLRB 694 (2014).
5
Discriminatory motive may be established in several ways including through statements
of animus directed to the employee or about the employee’s protected activities, Austal USA,
LLC, 356 NLRB 363, 363 ( 2010); the timing between discovery of the employee’s protected
activities and the discipline, Traction Wholesale Center Co. v. NLRB, 216 F.3d 92, 99 (D.C. Cir.
2000); evidence that the employer’s asserted reason for the employee’s discipline was 10
pretextual, such as disparate treatment of the employee, shifting explanations provided for the
adverse action, failure to investigate whether the employee engaged in the alleged misconduct,
or providing a nondiscriminatory explanation that defies logic or is clearly baseless, Lucky Cab
Co., 360 NLRB No. 43 (2014); ManorCare Health Services—Easton, 356 NLRB 202, 204
(2010); Greco & Haines, Inc., 306 NLRB 634, 634 (1992); Wright Line, 251 NLRB at 1088 fn.15
12, (citing Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 1966); Cincinnati
Truck Center, 315 NLRB 554, 556–557 (1994), enfd. sub nom. NLRB v. Transmart, Inc., 117
F.3d 1421 (6th Cir. 1997)).
In assessing the Respondent’s defense, I note that the Board has held “[a]n employer 20
cannot simply present a legitimate reason for its action but must persuade by a preponderance of
the evidence that the same action would have taken place even in the absence of the protected
activity.” W. F. Bolin Co, above, 1118, 1119 (1993). In order to meet the Wright Line burden of
persuasion, an employer must establish that it has consistently and evenly applied its disciplinary
rules. DHL Express, Inc., 360 NLRB 730, 736 (2014). In Septix Waste, Inc., 346 NLRB 494 25
(2006), the Board held that in order to establish a valid Wright Line defense, an employer must
establish that it has applied its disciplinary rules regarding the conduct at issue consistently and
evenly.
Turning to the Respondent’s defense, the Respondent contends that Wills was discharged 30
due to his failure or refusal to adhere to company policy and procedures and his insubordination
towards supervisors and managers. I find that the alleged nondiscriminatory reasons for the
discharge of Wills are without merit.
It is not disputed that Wills had an employment history replete with numerous violations 35
of company policies, insubordination, and disrespectful behavior towards supervisors and
managers. The hearing record shows a formal written reprimand issued on September 23, 2013
(R. Exh. 5); a final warning issued on October 22, 2014 (R. Exh. 6); a documented verbal
warning on November 9, 2015 (GC Exh. 6); and a final warning on February 22, 2016 (GC Exh.
5). For each disciplinary notice, there were several infractions attributed to Wills. Many of the 40
infractions were similar in nature, either a violation of company policy and/or disrespect and
insubordination towards a supervisor. However, since his discipline in 2013, none of his
subsequent infractions warranted more severe discipline until the Respondent discharged Wills
on July 6 (GC Exh. 11).
45
The request to terminate cited Wills with repeatedly being insubordinate and acting in a
disrespectful manner towards a supervisor and rehashes most of the infractions attributed to
JD(NY)-10-18
30
Wills since 2013. Despite this disciplinary history, none of the infractions, taken separately or
together since 2013, warranted the discharge of Wills. Simon testified that Wills would have
received a “clean slate” after 1 year from his final warning of October 22, 2014. Just after the 1-
year period, Wills received a documented verbal warning and on February 22, 2016, he received
another final warning. None of his infractions after February 22 warranted his discharge. Simon 5
testified that Wills’ behavior at the Starz meeting triggered his discharge.
It is undisputed that the threat to Zimmermann allegedly made by Wills during the Starz
presentation did not play a factor in his discharge. Adam Morris was interviewed during
Simon’s investigation over the incident. Simon’s notes of her interview with Morris stated that 10
Morris did not feel threatened by Wills’ actions and had only moved away after the Starz
presentation in order to stretch his legs. Simon also noted that Morris did not feel “. .
.uncomfortable or that the situation between Eric and Mike was going to turn into anything out
of control . . .” (R. Exh. 29). As such, testimony provided from the Respondent’s witnesses
regarding Wills’ temperament while working at the Freeport office and Zimmermann’s 15
complaint to the police about the Starz threat played no role in the termination of Wills.
Consequently, the only reason given for his discharge, as noted in the termination request, was
for repeatedly being insubordinate and acting in a disrespectful manner towards his supervisor
and failing to adhere to company policy.
20
Contrary to the Respondent’s assertions, I find that Wills’ participation in union activities
was the triggering factor for his termination. My close review of the investigation taken after the
Zimmermann incident shows the reason for his discharge is pretext for the Respondent’s animus
towards Wills’ support and activities on behalf of the Union. The Respondent contends that
Wills was instructed to pay attention and to put down his phone during the Starz presentation. 25
Wills asserted that he is able to pay attention to the speaker and to utilize his phone at the same
time on a work-related matter. Wills further asserted that Zimmermann never instructed Wills to
put away his phone, but he placed the phone down on his lap on his own volition. I credit the
testimony of Wills on this point.
30
It is my opinion that Zimmermann never instructed Wills to put away his phone and
therefore, he could not have been insubordinate to Zimmermann. Zimmermann testified that
during the presentation, Zimmermann noticed Wills looking down and watching a video on this
cell phone. Zimmermann stated that he leaned over and whispered Wills’ name. Zimmermann
said that Wills looked up and Zimmermann then told Wills to pay attention to the presentation. 35
Zimmermann insisted that he also told Wills to put down his phone. Zimmermann whispered
“Mike, can you please put your phone down, we’re having a meeting.” I credit the testimony of
Wills when he testified that he had in fact placed his phone on his lap and turned to face the Starz
vendor. Wills said he only lifted up the phone again to snap a picture when he observed
Zimmermann using his phone. In the email sent to Pero on June 23 (R. Exh. 28), Zimmermann 40
never stated to Pero that he had instructed Wills to put away his phone. Further, Erica Simon’s
interview notes with Adam Morris stated that Zimmermann told Wills to give his attention to the
Starz vendor and overheard Wills respond “you’re on your phone, why can’t I be on mine.”
Wills also informed Zimmermann that he was on the phone on a work-related matter. Simon’s
notes, however, never stated that Morris heard Zimmermann directing Wills to put away his 45
phone (R. Exh. 29).
JD(NY)-10-18
31
Zimmermann also testified that Wills was “. . . speaking loud and it was escalating, voice
was very loud and he seemed angry” during his interaction with Wills at the Starz presentation.
However, Zimmermann never articulated exactly what Wills was saying or how loud was his
voice. Mario Madrigales testified that he observed Zimmermann interact with Wills during the
Starz presentation but could not hear their voices. Simon’s notes of her interview with Morris 5
never stated that Wills was loud and disruptive to the Starz meeting. Morris never stated to
Simon that Wills’ voice was escalating in his interaction with Zimmermann.
At most Wills was, more likely than not, disrespectful to Zimmermann when he raised his
phone to take a picture of Zimmermann allegedly using his phone. Judy Courtney, in her email 10
response of June 23 to Ferrera’s request to suspend Wills, stated to Simon that it was “Hard to
see this as a suspension. More just being a jerk. We could write him up for unprofessional
behavior. . .” (GC Exh. 22).8 Courtney, after being provided the information on the Starz
incident, did not believe the Respondent should suspend Wills, let alone discharged. As such,
acting in a disrespectful manner towards a supervisor would not have justified the Respondent 15
discharging Wills. Simon subsequently provided Courtney with additional information over the
Starz incident, but there was no reply from Courtney if she had changed her opinion to discipline
Wills only for unprofessional behavior (R. Exh. 30).
The Respondent contends that Wills failed to adhere to company policy by using his cell 20
phone during boost meetings, and in this instance, at the Starz presentation. Credible testimony
from Madrigales and Pacifico indicated that this policy was not strictly enforced. Pacifico
testified that she was previously informed by Supervisor Farina that she should accept calls from
customers during the boost meetings and to walk out of the meeting if necessary. Madrigales
testified that he had used his phone during the Starz presentation and observed another sales 25
representative, Chris Hart, also using his phone. The counsel for the General Counsel also
proffered a picture during the Starz meeting showing another sales representative on his
computer during the Starz meeting (GC Exh. 11). Madrigales and Hart complied with a
supervisor’s instruction to put down their phone. As noted above, I credit that Wills also placed
his phone down, but on his own volition. 30
The Respondent also failed to follow its own practice in disciplining Wills. After the
February 22 final warning, Wills was disrespectful and failed to follow company policy on a
number of occasions without being subjected to further discipline. Wills continued to capitalize
his emails that Simon and other supervisors felt were disrespectful. Simon and Pero felt that 35
Wills was calling Supervisor Farina a liar when he refused to believe Farina called him at the
direction of Pero. Wills was also reprimanded for not following company policy when he failed
to contact all the supervisors at the Hauppauge office before calling Manager Haggerty in Jericho
on two occasions and that his time was unaccounted for because Wills failed to inform Farina by
phone that the battery on his iPad was dead (GC Exh. 11). None of these company violations 40
attributed to Wills resulted in any discipline other than counseling by Simon and his supervisors.
Yet, when Wills was disrespectful to Zimmermann at the Starz meeting, the Respondent
immediately investigated the incident and decided to discharge Wills. JAMCO, 294 NLRB 896,
905 (1989) (clear departure from past practice evidence of discriminatory motive).

8 Judy Courtney at the time was the human resources business partner for the sales department
and did not testify at the hearing.
JD(NY)-10-18
32
Further, the disciplinary treatment of Wills was glaringly disparate compared to another
sales representative who had continually violated company policy and shown
disrespect/insubordination towards a supervisor. The counsel for the General Counsel argued 5
that Ulyssess Colon (Colon), also employed at the Hauppauge office, had numerous policy
infractions and disrespectful behavior prior to and subsequent to his final warning, but was not
discharged by the Respondent. The record shows that Colon received a documented coaching on
November 19, 2015 from Zimmermann for being less than professional and respectful (GC Exh.
20). Colon also received a final warning on May 4, 2016 from Pero for violating company 10
attendance policy (GC Exh. 37). Between November 2015 and May 2016, Colon continued to
violate company policy on his failure to timely communicate with his supervisor; his continued
abuse of attendance; his inappropriate behavior towards a coworker; and other violations. Colon
was reminded by Zimmermann that his failure to comply with company policy will subject him
to corrective action, up to and including termination of his employment. After Colon received 15
his final warning in May, he was reprimanded by Zimmermann for using his cell phone at a
boost meeting; using incorrect emails for a customer; failing to return calls to customers and his
supervisor; failing to answer a call from his supervisor; accusing Zimmermann of harassing
emails sent to him; abusing the attendance and leave policy; and other company violations (GC
Exh. 35). Nevertheless, Colon was still employed by the Respondent at the time of this hearing. 20
Colon, a similarly situated worker, continued to commit violations of company policy before and
after his final warning with no severe discipline other than counseling or a coaching memo. In
contrast, Wills, with similar behavior, was discharged by the Respondent.
In my opinion, I find that the employer’s asserted reason for Wills’ discharge was 25
pretextual and that he was treated in disparate treatment compared to a similarly situated
employee. Lucky Cab Co., above.
In Mid-States Express, 353 NLRB 864 (2009), the employer was charged with unlawfully
discharging six employees for their support of the union. Employee Steven Wilson’s discharge 30
is of particular import. The employer claimed that Wilson was a “substandard employee” with a
list of infractions over two years including sexual harassment, damaging freight, excessive
absenteeism, and accidents/crashes. At no point over that period did the employer view Wilson’s
“overall performance/attendance problems to be sufficiently serious as to merit his termination . .
. Respondent was not overly troubled by this infraction, at least not to the point of discharging 35
him.” As noted, Wills’ overall performance in his 2015 evaluation was a “valuable contribution”
to the company (GC Exh. 12). As in Mid-States Express, none of Wills’ prior infractions led to
his termination prior to July. The judge found that it was only Wilson’s attendance at a union
meeting earlier in the month that could have prompted the company’s sudden change of heart.
Likewise here, there is no significant event in the record that seems to have triggered for Wills’40
discharge except for his support of the Union and his stance towards Hilber during the May and
June timeframe, a short 2 months prior to his discharge.9

9 I do not find that Wills had engaged in opprobrious conduct costing him the Act’s protection
when he inquired to Hilber if the employees “should take it in the ass”. Atlantic Steel Co., 245
NLRB 814 (1979).
JD(NY)-10-18
33
I find that the timing of the discharge, shortly after he voiced support for CWA and began
assisting in the Union organizing, at the Jericho and Hauppauge offices, also establishes an
inference that the Respondent’s discharge was motivated by Wills’ union activity in support for
the CWA. State Plaza Hotel, 347 NLRB 755, 755–756 (2006); Toll Mfg. Co., 341 NLRB 832, 5
833 (2004); Davey Roofing, Inc., 341 NLRB 222, 223 (2004) (temporal proximity between union
activity and employer’s adverse action is evidence of unlawful motivation).
Wills was discharged less than 2 months after he made his support of CWA clear to the
Respondent. This timing represents significant evidence of unlawful motivation. Such 10
coincidence in time between Respondent’s knowledge of the employee’s union activity and his
discharge is strong evidence of an unlawful motive for his discharge. Trader Horn of New
Jersey, 316 NLRB 194, 198 (1995). As stated by the administrative law judge in AdvoServ of
New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 slip op. at 31 (2016), “Indeed, “timing alone may be
sufficient to establish that union animus was a motivating factor in a discharge decision.” Sawyer 15
of NAPA, 300 NLRB 131, 150 (1990); NLRB v. Rain-Ware, 732 F.2d 1349, 1354 (7th Cir. 1984),
NLRB v. Windsor Industries, 730 F.2d 860, 864 (2d Cir. 1984); Manor Care Health Services—
Easton, 356 NLRB 202, 204, 226 (2010) (proximity in time between discriminatee’s union
activity and discharge supports finding of unlawful motivation for the termination); LaGloria
Oil & Gas, 337 NLRB 1120, 1123, 1132 (2002) (discharge shortly after employer learned of 20
employee’s union activities strongly supports a finding that discharge was motivated by union
animus).10
The Respondent has demonstrated antiunion animus in violation of Section 8 (a)(3) and
(1). I find that the discharge of Michael Wills was motivated by his concerted and union activity 25
in support of CWA, and that the Respondent has not met its burden of persuasion to demonstrate
the same action would have taken place even in the absence of the protected conduct. Wright
Line, above, at 1089. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent violated section 8(a) (3) and (1) of
the Act as alleged in the complaint.
30

10 The counsel for the General Counsel argues that direct evidence of antiunion animus was
shown by Hilber’s remarks at the Jericho office and the supervisors’ reaction to Wills’ statement
to Hilber of “taking it in the ass” at the Hauppauge office. Agnant testified that Hilber spoke
negatively about the Union during the Jericho meeting. Hilber denied saying that the Union was
bad or that he had tossed the Brooklyn contract across the office floor. I would credit Hilber’s
denial on speaking negativity about the Union at the Jericho office, especially in light of the fact
that no such allegations were made against him when he spoke on the same topic at the
Hauppauge office. However, it is also clear that the Respondent did not want the Union to
organize the workers at the Jericho and Hauppauge offices. Hilber testified that the company
preferred a “direct relationship” with its employees. The Respondent was also actively involved
in countering the union organizing by educating the employees on the company’s values and by
highlighting the empty promises made by the Union (GC Exh. 28, 29). Additionally, Pero and
others were upset with Wills’ remark to Hilber, which they deemed inappropriate and
unprofessional. While I find that such circumstances do not demonstrate direct evidence of
antiunion animus, I agree with the General Counsel that there is sufficient evidence of indirect
animus based upon the manner the Respondent treated Wills’ discharge.
JD(NY)-10-18
34
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all material times, the Respondent, CSC Holdings, LLC, is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act on about July 6, 2016, by 5
discriminatorily terminating Michael Wills.
3. The unfair labor practices described above affect commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY10
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, the Respondent having discriminatorily issued
termination to Michael Wills, I shall order the Respondent to offer Wills full reinstatement to his 15
former position or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or any other employee emoluments, rights, or privileges previously
enjoyed, and to make him whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the Respondent’s
unlawful actions against him. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with F.W. Woolworth
Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), 20
compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010).
In accordance with Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB 101
(2014), my recommended order requires Respondent to compensate Michael Wills for the
adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award and to file with the 25
Regional Director for Region 29 within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either
by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar
years. AdvoServ of New Jersey, 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016).
In addition to the remedies ordered, I shall recommend that the Respondent compensate 30
Michael Wills for his search-for-work and interim employment expenses regardless of whether
those expenses exceed his interim earnings. King Soopers, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 93 (2016).
Search for work and interim employment expenses shall be calculated separately from taxable
net backpay, with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987),
compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010).35
It is further recommended that Respondent remove all references to the termination
request dated July 5, 2016 from Michael Wills’ files and notify him in writing that it has done so
and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way.
40
My recommended order requires the Respondent to expunge from its files any and all
references to the unlawful termination of Michael Wills and any notes, documents, or references
regarding his termination that were prepared and/or used in his termination and to notify him in
writing that this has been done and that the unlawful discharge will not be used against him in
any way.45
JD(NY)-10-18
35
On these findings of facts and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended11
ORDER
5
The Respondent, CSC Holdings, LLC, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging, disciplining, or otherwise discriminating against employees because they 10
engaged in protected concerted and union activities.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.15
(a) Make Michael Wills whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, including
reimbursement for all search-for-work and interim-work expenses, regardless of whether he
received interim earnings in excess of these expenses, suffered as a result of the unlawful
discharge, as set forth in the remedy section of this decision.20
(b) Compensate Michael Wills for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-
sum backpay award, and to file with the Regional Director for Region 29 within 21 days of the
date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the
backpay award to the appropriate calendar years.
(c) Immediately offer full reinstatement to Michael Wills and if the offer is accepted, 25
reinstate Wills to his former job or, if the job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its files any reference to
the unlawful discharge of Michael Wills on about July 6, 2016 and thereafter notify him in
writing that this has been done and that the discipline will not be used against him any way.30
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional Director
may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board or its
agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and
reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay. Absent exceptions as provided by Sec. 102.46 35
of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall,
as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and due under the terms of this
Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its existing property at the Hauppauge
Office, 1500 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge, New York, facility, a copy of the attached notice 40
marked “Appendix.”12 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for

11 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections
to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
12 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the
JD(NY)-10-18
36
Region 29, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of
paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an
intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily 5
communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees 10
employed by the Respondent at any time since December 16, 2016.
(g) Mail a copy of said notice to Michael Wills at his last known addresses.
(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 29
a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.15
Dated, Washington, D.C. April 27, 2018
20
Kenneth W. Chu
Administrative Law Judge25

notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board.”
JD(NY)-10-18
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefits
and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT discharge you or otherwise discipline or discriminate against you because you
engage in protected concerted and union activities, or to discourage you from engaging in these
or other concerted and union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Michael Wills full
reinstatement to his former job or, if the job no longer exist, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Michael Wills whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from
his discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest, including any pay increases made to
similarly situated employees from the date of his discharge date to the present, and including
reimbursement for all search-for-work and interim-work expenses, regardless of whether he received
interim earnings in excess of these expenses, or at all, during any given quarter, or during the overall
backpay period.
WE WILL compensate Michael Wills for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a
lump-sum backpay award.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files all
references to the unlawful discharge of Michael Wills.
WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify Michael Wills in writing that this has been done and
that his discharge will not be used against him in any way.
JD(NY)-10-18
CSC Holdings, LLC
(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.
Region 29
Two Metro Center, 100 Myrtle Avenue, 5th Floor
Brooklyn, New York 11201
(718) 330-7713, Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/29-CA-190108 or by using the QR code below.
Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half
Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202)273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING
AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE
DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (718) 765-6190.