CSC HOLDINGS, LLC, and CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORP., a Single Employer

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Dec 4, 2014

02-CA-085811 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 4, 2014)

JD(NY)–47–14
Bronx, NY
Brooklyn, NY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC and CABLEVISION SYSTEMS
NEW YORK CITY CORPORATION, a Single Employer Cases 02-CA-085811
02-CA-090823
and 29-CA-097013
29-CA-097557
COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA, 29-CA-100175
AFL-CIO 29-CA-110974
Sharon Chau, Esq. (Region 29), RyAnn McKay Hooper, Esq. (Region 29),
Genaira Tyce, Esq. (Region 29) and David Gribben, Esq. (Region 2),
Brooklyn, NY and New York, NY for the General Counsel.
Harlan Silverstein, Esq. and Raymond McGuire, Esq. (Kauff McGuire & Margolis),
New York, NY for the Respondent.
Doreen Davis, Esq. and Kristina Yost, Esq. (Jones Day),
New York, NY for the Respondent.
Eugene Scalia, Esq. and Jason Schwartz, Esq. (Gibson Dunn & Crutcher),
Washington, DC for the Respondent.
Gabrielle Semel, Esq., New York, NY
for the Charging Party.
Daniel E. Clifton, Esq. (Lewis Clifton & Nikolaidis PC),
New York, NY for the Charging Party.
DECISION
Steven Fish, Administrative Law Judge: Pursuant to charges and amended charges filed
by Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA or the Union) in Case No. 02-CA-
085811 and Case No. 02-CA-090823, on various dates between July 12, 2012 and April 12,
2013, the Director for Region 2 issued an Order Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint
and Notice of Hearing on April 17, 2013, alleging that CSC Holdings, LLC and Cablevision
Systems of New York City Corporation, a single Employer (Respondent or Cablevision) violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Upon charges filed by the Union in Case No. 29-CA-097013 on January 24, 2013 and
amended on January 28 and April 25, 2013, in Case No. 29-CA-097557 on January 31, 2013
and amended on February 19 and April 25, 2013 and in Case No. 29-CA-100175 on March 12,
2013 and amended on April 12, 2013, the Director for Region 29 issued an Order Consolidating
Cases, Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing on April 29, 2013 against Respondent.
On May 15, 2013, Case Nos. 02-CA-085811 and 02-CA-090823 were transferred to
Region 29, and on May 29, 2013, the Director of Region 29 issued an Order Further
Consolidating Cases, Second Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing.
Upon a charge and amended charge in Case No. 29-CA-110974 filed by the Union on
August 9 and 10, 2013, a Notice to Amend Second Consolidated Complaint and to further
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Consolidate Cases was issued on August 30, 2013.
The motion was made and granted on the record in this proceeding on September 16,
2013.
The trial was held before the undersigned on September 16 through 20, 23 through 26
and 30, October 25 and December 3 through 6, 10, 13, 16 and 17, 2013. Briefs have been filed
and have been carefully considered. Based upon the entire record,1 including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following:
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction and Labor Organization
CSC Holdings and Cablevision Systems (Respondent) are affiliated businesses with
common officers, ownership and management, with offices at Stewart Avenue in Bethpage, NY
and with facilities located in the Bronx, NY and Brooklyn, NY, where it is engaged in the
business of providing cable vision communication services to residential customers in the
Bronx, NY and Brooklyn, NY and other locations in the metropolitan area of New York.
Respondent admits, and I so find, that for the purposes of this proceeding that CSC
Holdings and Cablevision Systems constitute a single integrated business enterprise and a
single employer within the meaning of the Act.
Respondent further admits, and I so find, that annually in the course of their business
operations, CSC Holdings and Cablevision Systems separately and collectively derived
revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchase and receive at their facilities in New York State,
goods and services valued in excess of $5,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State
of New York.
It is also admitted, and I so find, that Respondent had been engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
It is also admitted, and I so find, that at all material times, the Union has been a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Respondent’s Business Operations
As noted above, Respondent provides cable and television and internet services and
has facilities in the Bronx, NY and Brooklyn, NY as well as facilities throughout the New York
Metropolitan Area. This includes facilities in Long Island and Westchester County, New York,
Connecticut and New Jersey.

1 A motion to correct the transcript was filed by Respondent, which contained an Exhibit A,
which contained corrections that had been agreed to by General Counsel. Exhibit B contained a
list of proposed corrections disputed by General Counsel. Subsequently, General Counsel
submitted a response agreeing to two of the proposed corrections in Exhibit B but disputed the
remainder of Exhibit B’s corrections. I have examined the transcript as well as Respondent’s
explanation contained in its motion for why it believes that the disputed corrections are
appropriate. I agree with Respondent and conclude that the transcript is corrected as follows in
Appendix A.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
These facilities are collectively known as the “footprint.” The footprint also includes some
other affiliated business that do not include cable facilities, such as Newsday, News 12 and
Lightpath. Respondent employs approximately 17,000 employees at its various facilities
throughout the footprint.
There are three Cablevision facilities in Brooklyn, 45th Street and Avenue H (45th Street
facility), East 92nd Street and Avenue D (92nd Street facility) and East 96th Street and Avenue D
(96th Street facility) and two facilities located in the Bronx, one at Brush Avenue and the other on
Soundview Avenue.
James Dolan is the chief executive officer of Respondent.
Rick Levesque is a vice-president for operations of Respondent, and from April of 2012
through September of 2013, Levesque was vice-president of operations for Respondent in
Brooklyn, where he was in charge of Respondent’s operations that delivered services to the
customers, including supervision of field service technicians, outside plant employees, quality
control employees as well as responsibility for contractors used by Respondent.
In the latter regard, Respondent utilizes both in-house technicians and contractor
technicians to perform broadband communication services to its customers. Some of the
contractors used by Respondent include Vision Pro, ACJ, Falcon Corbel and Technology
Solutions.
Technology Solutions (TSI) is located on Pacific Street in Brooklyn, NY, with
headquarters in Chicago, IL. Its president is John Urso, who operates out of TSI’s Chicago
office. Melissa Jackson is the operations manager for TSI and operates out of the Brooklyn
office, where Walter Ortiz, TSI’s regional manager, is also stationed. Ortiz and Jackson are
responsible for overseeing TSI’s technicians, supervisors and dispatchers at TSI’s Brooklyn
facility, who, as noted, perform contracting services to Respondent’s customers.
III. The Union’s Organization and Respondent’s Reaction
In August of 2011, Cablevision workers in Respondent’s Brooklyn facilities approached
the Union, seeking representation. An organizing committee was formed, which eventually grew
to 28 members. Union authorization cards were signed and organization commenced on or
about November 4, 2011. The Union went “public” with its campaign to organize the Brooklyn
employees when the Union distributed red wristbands, which stated, “CWA Yes,” to Brooklyn
employees, who began wearing these wristbands in support of the Union. Local 1109, made a
video of Brooklyn employees expressing their support for the Union and wearing the red
wristbands and posted the video on a website created for the Cablevision campaign
(www.thecablevision99.org).
In November of 2011, Respondent’s Bronx construction supervision, Simon Gomez, his
direct supervisor, Richard House, Respondent’s construction manager, and Randy Reed,
another construction supervisor, watched the CWA video, described above and posted on the
website, in House’s office. During the viewing, Gomez noticed employee Raymond Reid, a
former Bronx employee, who had transferred to the Brooklyn location, and a Brooklyn employee
named Denver Joseph, who Gomez recognized since Gomez regularly worked at the Brooklyn
location two days a week. The video clip showed these individuals as well as other Brooklyn
employees and technicians making comments about what changes they wanted to see in the
company and the reasons why they were pursuing union organizing.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
House commented in the presence of Gomez and Randy Reed that Raymond Reid
(who, as noted, appeared on the video) was a “rabble rouser and a troublemaker.” House
added, “It doesn’t look good, and this is probably what we’re going to be dealing with soon
after.” Randy Reed than chimed in, stating that Raymond Reid was the one that’s causing the
problem on our end (the Bronx). Gomez explained that Randy Reed was saying that Raymond
Reid was going to be a problem in our department (the Bronx) and that the construction and
fiber department were run under the overall network management. Thus, according to Gomez,
Randy Reed was stating that Raymond Reid was the only one complaining.
Shortly after this viewing and comments, House spoke to Gomez at the water cooler.
House said to Gomez that there is a problem in Brooklyn and seeing that there is a close
relationship between the Brooklyn and Bronx technicians (noting that many technicians, who
were originally hired in the Bronx were later transferred to Brooklyn and vice versa) and that
House thought that it was only going to be a matter of time before whatever problem they had in
Brooklyn was going to permeate its way to the Bronx. Gomez replied to House that it was a
good possibility because there is a close relationship between the Bronx and Brooklyn
employees and many of them know each other.
Sometime around Thanksgiving of 2011, Gomez was working at Respondent’s Brooklyn
92nd Street facility. John Lynn, Respondent’s construction manager, was on a conference call
with House, and he asked Gomez and Burt Blackman, a construction supervisor in Brooklyn, to
participate in the conference call. Lynn talked about meetings that he attended with other
departments that the “problem” (the Union) was concentrated at the Brooklyn 92nd Street
location, where the service plant and repair maintenance and night technicians primarily work
(CTS area). Lynn added that the problem seems to be concentrated in the CTS area, where he
conceded, “I got to be honest with you, they don’t treat the guys very well over there.” Lynn
added that he could see some of the validity of what they were complaining about, but it was not
“too much of a problem on our end” (referring to the network management portion of the
operations, which work on infrastructure) for except one person, which would be Raymond
Reid.2
At the close of the conference call, the two supervisors, Gomez and Blackman, were
instructed by their direct supervisors, House and Lynn, to “keep your ears open, keep your ears
to the street” and “if you hear anything, let us know, to find out which direction things are going
right now.” According to Gomez, the supervisors were suppose to find out where the technicians
heads were, which direction they actually were going if they were planning on voting if it came
down to that. Gomez added, “Well, again, the Bronx, whatever happens in Brooklyn eventually
happens at the Bronx. Again, because of the association between the two areas. So everything
that was happening in Brooklyn, everybody knew that it was going to come to the Bronx. So that
just was, wasn’t just an option, that was said on a regular basis amongst the managers.”
On December 9, 2011, shortly after the Union filed a petition to represent Respondent’s
Brooklyn employees, Greg Mott, Respondent’s senior vice-president of telecommunications,
distributed a memorandum to all network management employees throughout the footprint,
which reads:

2 I grant General Counsel’s motion to correct transcript as follows: p. 496, line 15-16, “Randy
Reed” should be “Randy Reid.”
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
MEMORANDUM
To: All Network Management Employees:
From: Greg Mott
SVP, Telecommunications
DATE: December 9, 2011
RE: Union Organizing
As you may have heard, a union-the CWA-has filed a petition for an election among our
Brooklyn field operations employees. Why the sudden interest in Cablevision
employees? Because unions have been losing members, through layoffs, plant closings
and decertifications so that union members now make up only 6.9% of private (non-
governmental) employees, an all time low. Unions are desperately seeking new dues
payers. So don't be surprised if union organizers show up at your location and start
asking Cablevision employees to sign union authorization cards. As your management
team, we urge you not even to consider signing a card until you have all the facts about
what having a union at Cablevision would mean. We are giving you this advice because
we believe we have a responsibility to alert you to the obligations you could assume by
signing union authorization cards.
Union authorization cards are binding legal documents. By signing a card, you may
be giving up your right to vote in a secret ballot election on whether a union gets into
your regional area of Cablevision. Before signing a card and making a commitment to a
union, you should learn all the facts including the possible consequences and obligations
of union membership. Unions like the CWA and the IBEW have detailed constitutions
that bind members and outline their obligations, the consequences of failing to follow the
union's rules and the cost to union members in dues, fees, assessments and possible
fines.
Even more significant, signing a union card could expose you to the risks of collective
bargaining. Union negotiations do not always result in increases in pay and/or benefits.
During negotiations, there are no automatic improvements, and all the wages and
benefits you currently receive could be discussed, with no guarantee you'll get more than
you have now; in fact, you could end up with the same or less as a result of good faith
negotiations, and still have to pay union dues. Scary thought!
Finally, as you no doubt have seen in the news, unions do call strikes. If a union were to
represent you at Cablevision, going on a strike would be a possibility.
Whether to sign a card is an important decision that will affect you, your family and our
Company. We are committed to providing you with information so you can make an
informed decision. So we urge you not to make a commitment to a union that you may
later regret, based solely on the union's propaganda. Be smart. Don't sign a union card.
Emails between management in December of 2011, reflected reports of union activities
at several facilities in the footprint. Thus, on December 17, 2011, Frank Dagliere, regional vice-
president, emailed Paul Hilber and Christopher Coffey that an employee in Trenton Falls, NJ
received a union card from the CWA. On December 21, 2011, Barry Monopoli emailed various
other management representatives, stating as follows with regard to the Bridgeport, CT facility:
“As an FYI – I was told that one of the warehouse employees overheard several technicians
discussing union cards. The warehouse employee did not offer any other information.” On
December 22, 2011, Amy Groveman, house counsel, and Coffey received an email, indicating
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
that a technician in Freeport, Long Island was trying to recruit employees for the Union.
Also, on January 16, 2012, Anthony O’Malley, an advanced logistics employee working
in Long Island, sent an email to his supervisors Volney Chou and Brian Kester, informing them
that he had been told by a technician that the technicians are going to be meeting with the
Union on Friday, January 20, 2012 and that this technician “was also trying to talk us into joining
as well.”
The Union started organizing throughout the footprint in January of 2012. In mid-January
of 2012, Ken Spatta, a CWA representative, along with other union representatives began
distributing various flyers to employees in front of Respondent’s Brush Avenue facility in the
Bronx. They covered three entrances to the facility, where they handed out union flyers and
spoke to employees. They were seen by management officials and representatives on that day.
Spatta and the other union representatives also continued to distribute flyers at the
Brush Avenue facility on various occasions subsequent to mid-January, as much as five times a
month.
A Cablevision senior staff meeting on January 20, 2012 reflected as follows, regarding
reports on CWA organizing:
Cablevision Senior Staff Meeting 1/20/12 – Human Resources
Employee Relations:
ï‚· CWA Campaign:
o Continuing activities as per the Campaign Calendar.
o Vote occurs on 1/26
o As anticipated, CWA has begun circulating handouts in other areas within
our footprint (Bronx and Freeport)…..we are reacting accordingly.
On January 24, 2012, Hilber sent an email to Amy Groveman, reflecting that a union
letter had been found in the men’s bathroom at Respondent’s Newark, NJ facility.
The election in Brooklyn was conducted on January 26, 2012. The Union won the
election. The next day, Barry Monopoli, Respondent’s vice-president of field operations (which
covers Bronx and Brooklyn), and House conducted a conference call with Bronx technicians,
construction employees, fiber department employees, coordinators and other Bronx employees,
announcing the results of the election and indicating that Brooklyn is now part of the Union.
House stated that as it stands now, we don’t know what changes are going to be, so everything
is business as usual until further notice. House added, “There’s a strong possibility that we may
have to walk down this road ourselves but for right now, we are fine.”
Also, on January 27, 2012, Christopher Coffey, Respondent’s senior vice-president of
field operations, Brooklyn, sent an email to all Cablevision employees at all facilities, subject
Election Results. It reads:
To: Cablevision Employees
From: Christopher Coffey
Date January 27, 2012
Subject: Election Results
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
As you may know, the National Labor Relations Board conducted an election at our
facilities in Brooklyn yesterday. The union received a majority of the ballots cast. Upon
certification by the National Labor Relations Board, the company will honor its obligation
to bargain with the union.
We obviously are disappointed by this outcome. We are disappointed because we
believe that the direct relationship Cablevision has shared with its Brooklyn employees in
the past has been in our mutual best interests as well as the best interests of our
customers. We also believe that this direct relationship would serve us better in the
future -- especially in light of the increasingly competitive industry in which we work. We
remain firm in this belief as well as our belief that our employees should not have to pay
money to a union, be subject to a union's rules, risk current benefits as a result of good-
faith negotiations or face the possibility of a strike -- all in exchange for unguaranteed
promises.
We will keep you informed of any developments. In the meantime, if you have any
questions, please speak with your supervisor.
January 27, 2012 also resulted in an email from Paul Hilber, Respondent’s vice-
president of human resources to Coffey, apparently summarizing the results of a conference
call, detailing reports on union activity and reaction to the election results throughout the
footprint. It reads as follows:
From: Paul Hilber PHILBER@cablevision.com
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 10:23 AM
To: Christopher Coffey
Subject: Summary of the call
Attachments: TEXT.htm
Chris,
I summarized the call....
Suffolk - No CWA Activity -- Feedback to the Techs is to "wait and see" very well
received, Techs nodding. Question if Strike in Brooklyn will In-House techs be required
to go to work in Brooklyn. Nothing on CWA 1108's website.
Nassau - No CWA Activity -- CWA 1104 in Nassau references the Brooklyn victory.
Similar to the Suffolk feedback all techs knew about the election. The Talking points and
the "wait and see" commentary was well received by the techs. The leadership team
also took the time to dispel any myths that were lurking about. Tech conversations went
very well and the talking points worked well.
Bronx - Everyone knew last night. Meetings are going very well. CWA has not shown up.
The CWA 1101 website http://www.local1101.org says...with this win in Brooklyn we can
push for the same victory in the Bronx. The wait and see approach is working well, a lot
of head nodding. Overall the messaging was positive with the techs. There is a lot of
buzz about the win. Questions from the techs - How are we going to keep them up to
date?
HV/CT -- A lot of techs were not aware of the outcome. Questions came up regarding
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
why did the Techs do this? What are their issues? There is not any activity, no union
presence, no one is around.
NJN -- Very Quiet. No activity. Feedback in NJN is consistent with other regions.
Comments have been made...."here we go with this nonsense again". Techs do want to
know what the issues have been for the techs in Brooklyn.
NJS -- Very Quiet, No activity - The further away you went no one knew about the
outcome. Questions have been asked similar to the following:
Are we allowed to work in Brooklyn?
Will we be kept informed of what is going on?
If Brooklyn negotiates a better deal will that be passed on to us?
The tech meetings went very well.
Brooklyn -- Higher call outs this a.m. (from all groups), Supervisors lack of trust with
techs. Supervisors are concerned about what life is going to be like going forward?
Generally quiet and respectful.
Best Regards,
Paul Hilber
VP Human Resources and Administration - Field Operations
On the same day, January 27, 2012 at 4:52pm, an email was sent by Respondent’s
supervisor, Michael Williams, to two other managers, Ponch Gordills and Peter Odell,
concerning events in the Bronx, including comments made at a meeting that day. This email
reads:
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 4:52PM
To: Ponch Gordills; Peter Odell
Subject: Bronx comments
Peter/Ponch,
Here are some points and statements about today's meeting.
*The company will be re-branding our name sometime between June & July. Name
unknown at this time.
*Field Operations technicians were very vocal and complaining about salary increases,
routes, not having enough time to complete their tasks, and working through lunch.
*Field Operations is looking to occupy another building in the north west area of the
Bronx. This will ease congestion at the Brush Ave sites and also open up new positions.
*Next Thursday will confirm the Union winning the vote in representing Brooklyn.
*Some Bronx Technicians may have signed union cards already, as per Tom, but the
count is low.
*Field Operations will create a mail package for those technicians who signed union
cards and who do not want their representation.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
*The union is getting in touch with employees using Facebook, Twitter, Text etc. to voice
their opinions.
*A Field Operations manager overheard that the union will be having a meeting tonight
in the Bronx area. Some Field Operations technicians will be attending. They think it is at
the American Legion Hall on Castle Hill Ave. Fiber technicians don't care.....
*Tom mentioned that those Brooklyn technicians who voted "No" are calling Bronx
technicians asking if there are any open spots for them to transfer.
*There were two CWA personnel walking around Brush/Schley Ave trying to speak to
the technicians.
Mike
The same day, January 27, 2012, the day after the election, Gomez reported to work at
Brooklyn as previously scheduled. He received a call from House, who told Gomez to report
back to the Bronx until further notice and that because of the vote, he (House) wanted Gomez to
stay out of Brooklyn. Gomez replied that he had work that he had to conduct and get done in
Brooklyn. House replied, “For right now, just come to the Bronx and we’ll deal with that later. I
need you out of Brooklyn.” House informed Gomez that he had gotten word from Barry
Monopoli that it is best that Gomez stay out of Brooklyn because of the recent vote.
About a week later, Gomez spoke to House again and informed House that he had work
that had to be done and how can it be done without having him go to Brooklyn. House replied,
“We will compromise, we’ll let you go to Brooklyn, make sure you get to Brooklyn after the
technicians leave in the morning and make sure that you’re out of there before they come back
in the afternoon.”
Shortly thereafter, House and Gomez were working together on a project in Dorchester,
NY. House said to Gomez that he was pretty sure that this union campaign is actually going to
come to the Bronx and instructed Gomez to keep his ears open to find out where the
employees’ “heads are as running for or against the Union.”
House added, “Basically what’s going to happen, what happened in Brooklyn is going to
spread like a contagion to the Bronx.”
On February 1, 2012, James Dolan personally addressed all Cablevision employees by
teleconference throughout the footprint. The speech is as follows:
TRANSCRIPT OF CABLEVISION CEO ADDRESS TO EMPLOYEES
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2012
JAMES L. DOLAN: I guess you know, I’m Jim Dolan. There have been some significant
changes at Cablevision over the last several months. Maybe one of those significant
changes is that I have now assumed direct responsibility for all of our cable operations.
And I've had that job before. I'm pretty confident I can do it again. I'm actually thinking
that I can do it a little better than I did before. But I thought that since I've done that, that
now would be a good time for you to hear directly from me about the future of our
company and the goals that we're trying to accomplish this year and beyond.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
You know, it's I think in some ways for me it's kind of fitting that I'm doing this here in this
warehouse facility because that's actually where I started with the company. My first job
was in the warehouse facility in Old Bethpage on Old Country Road, a really long time
ago. And this facility, we probably could have fit ten of those facilities in this facility.
Cablevision has been in business for nearly 40 years. During that time we've grown,
improved and launched new products all in a competitive environment.
As I was telling you before, when I started with the company, we had 36 channels and it
was a 300 megahertz system. The converter boxes were actually, there was a remote
channel changer connected to a box on top of the television set, with a wire. And people
thought that was the best thing since sliced bread because it was the first time they
didn't have to get up and actually change the channels on their TV. So you can see how
far we've come in terms of our products.
And how much we've changed and adapted with the times. We've done all that in order
to be a better company and to continue growing as a company. We believe we've built a
great place to work here with competitive salaries and benefits, a company that no
matter where you start, you can grow, you can advance. A company that has the stability
you can count on where you can build a family here and know that the employment's
going to be here for a long time.
And we're very proud to have employees who have worked here for decades. Some of
them I know are here right now. Thirty years ago we were a pretty small company. We
had just over 1,000 employees, and now today we still have 200 of those employees are
still working here now. More than 1,100 of our employees have been with us for more
than 20 years. And early 5,000 have been with us for 10 years or more. We're proud that
people come here to work and stay and like working here.
Before we go any further, I'd like to say just a couple of quick things in case anybody's
worried about the fact that we're doing this. I am not here to ask you to work any harder.
I know that you work very hard now, and I appreciate that. And I'm not here to talk about
layoffs or sacrifices on your part. In fact, pretty much I'm here to talk about the opposite.
I'm here to talk about how we can grow and restore our position as a great company.
It's no secret that we operate in the most competitive market in the country and that
we're facing unprecedented challenges. Like other cable companies in recent years
we've been losing customers, not growing them. This company is used to growing
customers. We always have. But the last few years we actually have been going in the
other direction. And whether that's because of the economy or because of the
programming disputes that we've had that we had to try -- we were trying to save
expense money -- or what most people think is the competition. We all know the
competition has gotten tougher here. We need to change that. We need to go back to
being a company that grows and adds customers, not loses customers. We've had some
issues. Our network has been strained by an ever increasing demand for data, and our
products are much more complicated in the heart of the support with great customer
service.
And today, our customers expect even better service than they expected from us in the
past because of things like the Internet and the companies that do business there, like
Zappos and Amazon and GAP, et cetera, where the customer service is considered to
be superior. I don’t know if you’ve ever used any of those services, et cetera, but you
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
can get to the products easily. You can order them. They know who you are. They
remember you. If you get the product and you don’t like it, you can send it right back.
That's created an environment and an expectation amongst the marketplace that
customer service is going to be like that from everyone, and they expect it from us, too.
So that’s made it harder.
So those are some of the obstacles we have. So what are we going to do about it? I
want to tell you about some specific goals that we have for this year. Number one on the
list, we’re going to grow. We want to start growing subscribers, not losing subscribers,
and we’d like to get to the point where we’re back over three million customers.
To do that it's really very simple. You have to keep the customers that you have and you
have to sell more customers. Simple, right? Just get it done. But maybe not so simple.
First, in terms of gaining new customers we have to convince those folks who are
making decisions about what provider they're going to have that we're the best provider,
that we have the best products, that we have the best service, and that we have to offer
it to them at a competitive price.
But to keep the customers that we have, we have to do several other things. We have to
improve our products starting with our core cable TV service. We're going to institute a
common look and feel for that service whether a customer is watching on a television or
an iPad or an iPhone or even a computer. And this is an interface called Onyx that the
company has been working on now for three years, and it's going to be ready this June.
And it's fast, easy, intuitive, and it looks as good as anybody else's customer service –
actually customer interface -- good as Amazon, good as Netflix, good as FiOS, DirecTV.
Actually I think it looks even better, and I think it's going to be a significant improvement
to our video product.
We need to improve both the picture quality that our customers are experiencing and the
VOD experience, which means that we have to have enhanced performance, better
performance out of our set top boxes as well as our servers.
When we looked at this in August of this year, I'm sure a lot of you out there who are
dealing directly with customers know about something called reboot times. Reboot times
are the times that it takes the box to reset itself. In August that was on average five to six
minutes, could have been even longer. Now, since then we've cut that time in half. But
we need to cut it down even further, cut it down to like a minute and a half, and
ultimately, we need to be in a position where we don't ever really ask the customer to
reboot their box, where the box works well enough that it doesn't need to do that.
We're going to add more content to our VOD. We're going to add 20,000 titles and we're
going to compete with companies like Netflix so our customers don't have to go
somewhere else in order to get the content and the programming they want.
We're going to finish launching the RS-DVR product. That's the head-end base DVR.
And we're going to make improvements to that product so that it's at least as good, if not
better, than anything else out there in the market including FiOS's whole house DVR.
We're going to make sure that Internet speeds that we provide continue to be the same
or better than we advertise. I'm sure you know that this last spring there was a study
done that found that we were -- that our speeds were less than what we advertised.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
Since that time we've put our full effort on it, and I'm happy to report to you that right now
our average speeds are 125 percent of what we've advertised them to be. And we've
done that by accelerating our plans to increase capacity and revitalize the network. We
have more work to do there.
We’re going to continue to build out WiFi. WiFi is really a very important product and a
high priority for the company. I actually brought a chart here. This shows you what our
experience has been with WiFi data usage. And basically the data users across the
country and providers like us across the country are experiencing the same kind of
things. And what it tells us is that our customers are going to be taking their data usage
and going mobile with it, going wireless with it. They'll still be, of course, using their
computers at home, but they're going to want the same experience at home that they
have -- they're going to want that experience while they're wireless and mobile.
WiFi can do that. WiFi has the ability to provide a tremendous amount of through put to
those devices like iPads and smart phones, et cetera. And it can do it better than a cell
technology. Actually much better. Those customers are going to want things like video
and to go to Internet sites that are robust. They won't be able to do it with any other
technology as well as they will with WiFi, and we'll have an advantage if we can build out
that network.
So another part of keeping our customers -- one is to improve products. The other part is
to improve the relationship that we have with our customers. I feel that in recent years
that we've had more focus on selling and not enough focus on keeping our customers.
Think about it this way. If you had a relationship with someone and the only time that you
ever heard from them was when they wanted to sell you something and the only time
that you ever spoke to them was when you had a problem with one of their products or
something they've given you, that wouldn't be a relationship that you would put a lot of
value into. Well, essentially that is somewhat where we are now with our customers. If
you think about it, the only time we talk to them is when we want to sell them something.
The only time they talk to us is when they have a problem. Well, we need to change that.
We need to communicate better with our customers.
I want to give you an example of that: outages. Today, when we have an outage we first
learn about the outage from our customers. They call us, if they can call us, they tell us
that the service is off or part of the service is off. Then when they call us, we generally
won't know how soon that's going to be -- how soon we're going to be able to fix the
outage, et cetera, especially if they're the first person who calls.
What I want to end up doing with things like outages is when we have an outage, and
they do happen. Telephone poles go down, the system goes out, et cetera. As soon as
we know that that's happened -- and we should really be the first ones to know -- I want
to communicate to all the customers that are affected. I want to send them emails; I want
to send them texts; I want to tell them we know that your service is out -- here's what's
happened, here's how long it's going to take us to fix it, we'll send you another email
when we have an update on that. And then finally, when the service is restored, we want
to contact them again, tell them what happened, and if appropriate, issue them a credit.
This would be something very new for our customers, and I actually can't -- I don't want
an outage, but I can't wait to see what happens when we do that, because we are going
to do that very soon. We're getting ready to be able to communicate with our customers
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
like that. I believe the customers will truly appreciate that and will believe that the
company values their relationship much more than they do now.
There's more that we plan to do this year and I'm not going to get into all of it, but we're
going to show our customers that we value their business.
But there are some things that we already have done and you may not know of. I believe
almost every year other than possibly one since I've been here, in the beginning of the
year we do a rate increase. You might have noticed we didn't do a rate increase this
year. We're not going to do a rate increase this year. In some areas we've extended our
Triple Play offer to customers with the promotional pricing that they have, which basically
means that customers who were offered promotional pricing and were going to roll off,
we've actually said we'll extend the offer, at least through June.
Why are we doing this? We’re actually doing it to buy time so that we can get some of
the changes in that will let our customers know that we have better products, better
service, et cetera, and that they should stay with us. I don’t think it’s a good idea right
now to raise their prices until they feel that we’re at least as good, if not better, than our
competitors. But I believe we'll get there.
One other area that we've made some changes in, this group probably already knows
about it, is in digitization. We've accelerated our plans to fully digitize the whole plant.
We have a new converter that we're going to be using -- Peter White tells me in April or
May it will be here -- called the DTA. It's a small box that actually doesn't go on top of the
television set and allows customers who have in the past have had a converterless
secondary outlet to still have what is essentially a converterless outlet. We're not forcing
customers to take boxes. Until we get that DTA we're still going to have to have them
take boxes but we're not going to charge them for them, and we'll replace them once
these DTAs come in.
Finally, we know an awful lot about our customers. We have a lot of data. We actually
know a lot about folks who aren't our customers in our area also. But we haven't
necessarily been using that data very well. We're going to start. We have a plan that
mines our database, that couples it with research, that will tell us what our customers
want -- we believe -- what they don't like. It will tell us, we think, when customers -- when
new people are moving in to homes so that we can sell them first. It's really a tactic that
Internet companies have been using now for a while to get to know and keep your
customers' records so you can service them better. We do that to a point. We're going to
get much better at it. In the end, Cablevision has to become a company where our
customers love our products and love our service and would never consider leaving.
That's important.
But I have to tell you that right now we do have customers that think that. I hear from
them. It's not all of them and it needs to be all of them. But particularly when it comes to
our service and our customer service -- when we get that right, when the technician goes
to a home or when a CSR can solve a problem that a customer has, they think we're
great. And they think the person is a genius, and some of them have written to me to tell
me that I have geniuses working at the company. I'm sure I do. But what's more
important maybe is that when we do that good of a job for our customers, we keep that
customer. They're our customers for life, unless we screw it up later. Every customer has
to have that experience.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
Now I'd like to turn to something else, specifically, how the company relates to you -- our
employees. You know, I have my own approach and my own ideas about that. And I put
them in place some 10, 12 years ago when I had this job before. But I think we've gotten
away from that. I want to return to the things that I put in place back then.
Now, I hope that all of you have seen in your workplace, hopefully at the place where
you enter your workplace, a sign that looks like this. This is the Cablevision values. If for
any reason they're not posted in your workplace then go find them or talk to your HR
person or write me an email, and let's get them up. If they're in the storage closet let's
pull them out and let's repost them.
You know, they're important to me, because for me they describe the relationship that
the company wants to have with you and you are our most important asset. So we're
going back to these values, and I want to just touch on a few of them right now.
Key value: Our employees must receive fair and respectful treatment from supervisors
and managers, and have ready access to management regarding any concerns as well
as have the freedom to speak without fear of reprisal. And I'll actually get -- I'll talk more
about that in a little bit. But fair and respectful treatment. I can't imagine doing business
any other way. I can't imagine relating to our employees any other way. I can't imagine
that you'd want to work someplace that wouldn't -- that didn't -- treat you fair and wasn't
respectful of you. But certainly you should be able to ask questions and voice concerns
without feeling that it'll have a negative impact on you.
You should have a safe workplace and proper tools, and the best equipment and training
necessary to do the job. That you need to do the job that you’ve been given and to help
us achieve our goals. I think that goes without saying. You've got to have the right tools;
you’ve got to have the right training, you have a right to expect that. You shouldn't be put
in a position where you're asked to do something that you haven't been given -- haven't
been told how to do it before, haven't been trained how to do it before or you don't have
the tools to do properly. To me those things are basic but I think they need to be said
anyway.
Part of our values is that you understand as an employee what's expected of you and
what the company policies are. If you have questions about those that you get to ask
questions about those, again, without any negative repercussion. So the information has
to be available, and there has to be somebody who you can go to and ask those
questions of.
Our employees have the right to competitive salaries and benefits, period. I feel we have
the best employees in the industry. We need to compensate them so that they stay with
us. Clearly we've done something right because they already, a lot of them have, have
stayed with us for a very long time. But that needs to be a value that the company
adheres to.
We have a process for determining what a competitive salary is. I'll just quickly go
through it. We go out and we survey -- well, first thing we do is there are job
descriptions, each one of you including me, has a job description. That's important
because with that job description we go out into the marketplace and we look at other
companies and we look at jobs that have the same job description. And we say, we ask:
how much does that employee of that company get paid? How much does that
employee at this company get paid? And we make sure that we're competitive.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
I'm going to tell you that I am not absolutely positive that that system has been tended to
as well as it should be. So one of our priorities right away is to go back to that system to
make sure that all of the job descriptions are up to date, up to speed, because it's no
good -- if you're not doing the job that's in the job description you're not going to be
happy with the competitive salary for the old job description. I'm going to make sure that
the surveys are fresh, and then finally, we're going to give you the information. It's not a
secret. We're going to tell you essentially what companies we looked at, what jobs we
looked at. You should be able to look at that for specifically for the job that you do for
Cablevision -- no secrets -- and see where you are, see where we are. You decide if it's
fair. It's designed to be fair.
This is important because it's been a value for the company for a long time: You should
have the opportunity for professional development and a fair procedure for promotion
within the company. So first, you should have the opportunity to increase your
knowledge, your skill level in the areas that you're working in, and when you do that and
you want to get a job that's a promotion from where you are, you should be able to fairly
compete for that job. It should be a level playing field. There should be no favoritism.
You should have equal shot with everybody else. And again, that process should be
open.
So I put these values in place some 10 years ago, and I do hope that we're living by
them. I think in most places we are. But I am going to be sure about it and I'll tell you
about that in a minute, but that's not to say that we aren't. I hope that everyone here who
hears this has seen this, and I hope that you agree that we're living by this. But if you
don't I'm going to give you an opportunity to change things.
I want to turn to another topic -- just briefly -- that you probably know about. Last week
there was a vote by some of our employees in Brooklyn to join a union. And I'm
disappointed in that vote. The reason that I'm disappointed in that vote is because I think
those employees were making a statement about their working environment and their
relationship with the company, and they decided that they needed to have somebody
speak for them in order to improve that. That's the assumption that I make by the vote
that they had. I'm sorry that they feel that way. They may very well be justified. I don't
know. But I'm going to find out.
We think that when you have a direct relationship with your company, that that enhances
our ability to change the company. You can see that there are a lot of changes that we
have to make in order to stay competitive, in order to be successful together as a
company. I don't think having a party in between us helps us. I think it hurts us, and
that's why I'm disappointed. But we're supposed to do a good job there. Management is
supposed to do a good job there. We're supposed to uphold these values, and we're not
supposed to put you in a position where you would think that somebody else can better
represent you than yourself. So we're going to change that.
We're putting a lot of changes in place now and I'm kind of thinking that if I had done this
a year earlier, that maybe that vote would have been different in Brooklyn. But I do want
to ask you something today. Give this company a chance. Give this management team a
chance to show you that it does care about you as employees and values you as
employees. I'm making changes. So if you happen to be in a position where you get
approached about signing a card to bring a union vote to another one of our facilities, I'm
asking you not to sign it -- yet. I'm not asking you to not sign it forever. I'm asking you not
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
to sign it yet, and give us a chance to change some of the things that I obviously think
we need to change, and prove to you that you can have faith in the relationship that you
have directly with this company. I'm not asking you to do that forever. Just give me a
chance and give this company a chance to prove it to you. I think we will.
I did want to talk to you about a significant organizational change that we just made this
week, and it has to do with these values. We are realigning our Human Resources
structure in our cable operations. Essentially right now Human Resources is a function
that exists in each one of these facilities and reports to whoever is the managers of each
one of these facilities, and I believe we have about 35 of them. I'm changing that
structure. I'm taking all of the Human Resources functions out of the direct management
of these facilities and centralizing. Doesn't mean that any of the Human Resources
people are leaving, that you're losing any Human Resource people, in fact, you'll
probably gain some. But they're not going to report to the people who manage these
operations. They're going to report separately and they're going to report directly up to
me. That's really important. Why? Because if you have an issue with your company or
with your manager or with what's going on with your work, right, you probably aren't
going to complain to the person who reports to the person who is managing you at that
job. Just doesn't make any sense that you would. You need to have an outlet, and I
recognize this, where you can voice your concerns without fear of reprisal and those
concerns can be heard. And so I'm reorganizing the entire Human Resource function so
that it works that way.
And as sort of a stop gap from that, if you have concerns now that you feel you need to
voice while we're making this change, remember this: jdolan@cablevision.com. You may
write me; email me. That doesn't mean that I'm going to be able to email back everyone
that does that but I will make sure that every concern that gets emailed to me gets
handled professionally and, of course, without any thought of reprisals.
We're going to get this right. We're going to get this where we live by these values and
I'm going to give you --we're going to have a system where you can say if we're not or
you have a concern so that these really actually mean something.
You know, we had that structure 10 years ago. That's maybe one of my biggest mistakes
was letting that system change over to the system we have now. Shouldn't have done it.
I'm putting it back.
We're going to do a few other things to improve our relationship, one of which is we're
going to do an employee survey that I guarantee you is anonymous. It's going to solicit
everybody's opinion and when we finish tabulating that employee survey we're going to
do something that companies normally don't do. No matter what the results of the survey
are I'm going to release them to you. So if everybody says they're really mad at the
company I guess you're going to find out. Or if everybody is really unhappy about one
thing or another you're going to find out. I'm going to release the results of the survey. I
know there are some folks that are probably looking at me gulping right now but we're
going to do that.
This is not the last time that you’re going to hear from me. This is not a one-trick show. I
am going to go out, along with some of my fellow executives, and we are going to do
meetings around the New York area. We’re going to try and get to everybody over the
next few months to discuss things like these issues, and specifically, depending on
where we are, if we're at a customer service facility, we'll probably talk more about that
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
work. If we're at a tech facility, we'll talk more about that work. Today, we're here in a
warehouse facility, we can talk more about this work. But we're going to try to get to
everyone. The meetings are going to be kind of big but I do want to give every employee
an opportunity to ask questions. You can certainly ask questions by either emailing me
or asking an HR person. But I want to do a face-to-face with everybody at least once this
year.
Also, by the way, not all bad, I think our employees sometimes have great ideas. As we
tell them about our plans, maybe they have ideas that will help us. I'd like to hear them.
So in summary, we have some pretty clear goals -- some pretty big tasks in front of us
for this year and for the years ahead. The only way that we're going to accomplish that
and become a great company again -- a company that is not just competitive -- but that
we believe is the best company for our customers is if we do it together. I recognize that.
That this something that everybody does together, everybody has to believe in, and
everybody pitches in to do it. That means it's you guys. You're our most important asset
with that. And I have faith that we're going to do it.
Finally, I want to say again I know that you work very hard, and I'd like to say on behalf
of myself and my family that we thank you for your service to our customers. Also, I
appreciate your time today.
Thanks.
On the evening of Dolan’s speech on February 1, 2012, Hilber sent an email reporting
on a meeting of 35 employees in the Bronx, wherein apparently employees commented about
the speech. It reads:
From: "Paul Hilber"
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 9:40 PM
To: Paul Hilber
Subject: Bronx Meeting tonight
Attachments: TEXT.htm
Approximately 35 people attending that includes 5 pro company, and a few guys from
Brooklyn. Generally, the audience is consistent with the previous meetings, the same
cast of characters. The common themes were about base wages and job security. Base
wages was the primary topic. There was reference to Jim Dolan's speech today, CWA -
it is like Honey and Vinegar. We believe the honey comment is referring to "Honey give
us more time" and the Vinegar is referencing the concept of an empty promise of more
pay.
It is important to note, that the union appears to know about our plans to bring more
techs in house and expand our in house population.
On March 8, 2012, Thomas Monaghan sent an email to Frank Livoti, commenting on
meetings that he had with employees relating to union conversation of benefits and issues
Dolan may face when he visits field locations. The email reads:
From: Thomas Monaghan TMONAGH1@cablevision.com
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:24 AM
To: Frank Livoti
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
Subject: Employee Issues
Attachments: TEXT.htm
Importance: High
Frank,
Hope all is well...
As per our conversation, I met with a few employees this morning (all really good pro-
Cablevision technicians) who wanted to provide me some perspective on the 'word on
the street' across C&C - as it relates to the union conversation as well as potential issues
that Mr. Dolan may face when he visits field locations.
1) Benefits -- lots of chatter that employees actually lose money when they get their
'normal' annual raise -- and then get hit with additional costs within the benefit plan such
as higher co-pays, co-insurance, etc. Perception is they are losing money as individuals
when you put together the whole plan of pay and benefits (example -- 3% raise and then
something higher than that in increases in their collective benefit plan). Another issue
that they mentioned in conjunction with this was that the $40K threshold to start paying
for benefits hasn't moved in a very long time -- and should be considered annually.
2) Pay -- still a belief that our current structure is not up to par with companies that are
similar to Cablevision -- such as Time Warner in NYC and Verizon. I did advise them -
and they were duly aware -- that Mr. Dolan made a commitment to review this issue at
his teleconference -- and would provide feedback on the thought process for the future.
There is also a major perception that we as a company don't take cost of living into
consideration when we view pay and/or raises annually.
3) Pension -- still some thoughts that the pension is still sub par versus Time Warner NY
and/or Verizon. 2 things here: If there is any upside to the pay structure -- it clearly would
affect employees pension and 401K positively. This probably needs more education --
and as much as we speak about this type of issue (new hire classes, open enrollment,
periodically throughout the year, etc), there has always been a 'perception' issue that
some employees aren't comprehending.
Of all the issues listed above, I was a little shocked to hear that the benefit issue (#1
above) -- or the perception of pay and benefits decreasing in its totality for the last few
years -- was a high priority.
Again, the technicians wanted to make me aware of what they are hearing as issues
across C&C -- as many of them were long tenured and had conversation with people in
multiple regions. If I get any additional information on this topic, I'll make sure you are in
the loop...
Thanks again,
Tom
Over the next few months, the Union’s campaign in the Bronx continued to grow.
Authorization cards were distributed and signed by employees and employees were wearing red
wristbands at work, showing their union support. Respondent's senior staff meeting of April 2,
2012 contained a section entitled, Labor Update, which made referenced to union organizing in
the Bronx and Long Island and an email from supervisor Randy Reed to other Bronx
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
19
supervisors, dated April 5, 2012 reported on a CWA meeting the night before and the wearing of
CWA wristbands by Bronx employees. These documents are set forth below.
Labor Update
ï‚· Continue to hear noise in Freeport. CWA held a meeting on the evening of 3/29
in a Bethpage location. Not a large turnout or participation.
ï‚· CWA created a Facebook page with a pro union video on it featuring some pro
union Long Island techs. “United we Stand” theme.
ï‚· Continue monitoring all labor activity across the footprint.
From: Randy Reed
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 8:43 AM
To: Peter Odell
Cc: Richard House
Subject: meeting last night
Peter,
One of my Techs went to the CWA meeting last night.
It was at the American Legion in the Bronx. They had an open bar.
He estimates 60 - 80 CV employees were there. He thinks just about all of them have or
were signing cards last night. The CWA gave out red wristbands for them to wear after
they signed as a sign of unity. They also gave out an additional 10 wristbands to each
signer to bring back to the guys that didn't attend last night.
I walked around within the Field Service and OSP Techs this morning and did see many
guys wearing them.
Randy
The record also reflects emails between various supervisors and officials of Respondent,
which make reference to union organizing and/or company benefits and the employees’
reactions to the same. They include an email from Frank Livoti to Dolan, dated March 11, 2012,
email from Irene Schmitt to Dominick Garaffa and Rochelle Noel, dated March 8, 2012, an email
from Tony LoCascio to Livoti, dated April 2, 2012, an email exchange dated, March 30, 2012,
involving numerous Respondent's supervisors and officials, and an email from Wilt Hildenbrand
to Dolan, dated April 4, 2012. They are set forth below.
From: Frank Livoti
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 7:02 PM
To: Dolan, James
Subject: Re: Telecast->>> Occupy Cablevision
I will check out who she is...there has been some CWA noise in the Bronx.
----Original Message----- From: James Dolan
To: Frank Livoti
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20
Sent: 3/11/2012 5:30:49 PM
Subject: Fw: TelecastN»> Occupy Cablevision
Suspicious ?
From: Irene Schmitt
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 3:55 PM
To: Dominick Garaffa; Rochelle Noel
Subject: Telemarketing Conversations
Attachments: TEXT.htm
Tim Faulk, Director of OB Telemarketing Sales reporting that he had a conversation with
Scott Myers on 3/6/12. In the course of the conversation Scott told Tim that he had
heard other OB Reps discussing a union coming to Telemarketing. He stated that the
Reps were among the mid to better performers but did not give names. He stated that
the reps said the "personal time" (this is a daily Telemarketing allotment, not company
mandated personal days) and holiday weekends had only been taken care of because of
the union. Also the OB Reps were upset because Sales Support employees made more
money per hour than OB did when they work overtime. (Sales Support is not eligible for
commissions and thus have a higher rate of pay.) Reps also complained that they
should get a higher percentage of the revenue that they generate.
Scott reported that he had received a link sent to his home e-mail that was the "Brooklyn
Website". He said the building is buzzing about the union (CWA), but there are no
planned meetings here. He stated he had heard comments in the elevators and the
cafeteria. He believes that the plan is to go from the Bronx to NJ and then to Ll.
Tim used several quotes from the union avoidance meeting to remind Scott of the other
side of this issue. Scott did not want to name names, just report comments he
overheard. Irene
From: Tony LoCascio
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 3:15 PM
To: Livoti, Frank
Subject: Re: Fwd: Union Activity (Attorney Client Privileged)
Attachments: Text.htm
Yes BTW sorry to hear about your Dad
>>>Frank Livoti 4/2/2012 3:07:40 PM :>>:>Thanks Tone...we have heard this before
(concentrating on Nassau)...in fact, we heard that a CWA rep said if they didn't get more
interest in Nassau they couldn't move forward...I think the new comp plan is gonna be a
huge win for us...as well as some tweaks to the benefits plan.....you around later..after
the Labor call?...
>»Tony LoCascio 4/2/2012 2:57:43 PM >>>Frank- I noticed Amy is out with limited
access to email for today and tomorrow. I wanted to pass this along not sure if you need
to escalate up asap or not. I did let Kaplan know A Lindenhurst technician was
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
21
approached today while working in Farmingdale. The CWA rep asked the tech if he
worked in the Bethpage location, when the tech said no, that he worked in the
Lindenhurst location, the rep said they were concentrating on Nassau. The technician
asked for any hand outs but the union rep would not leave anything behind.
To: Andy Heeren[AHEEREN@ cablevlsion.com]; Barry
Monopoli[BMonopol@cablevision.com]; Bob Lee[BOBLEE@cablevision.com];
Christopher Coffey[CCOFFEY@cablevision.com]; Frank
Gagliardo[FGAGLIAR@cablevision.com]; Frank Livoti[FLIVOTI@cablevision.com]; Greg
Mott[gmott@cablevision.com]; PauI HiIber[PHILBER@cablevision.com]; Peter
Odell[PODELL@cablevision.com]; Roger Harvey[RHARVEY@cablevision.com]; Sue
Crickmore[SCRICKMO@cablevision.com]; Thomas Brady[TBRADY@cablevision.com];
Thomas Monaghan[TMONAGH1@cablevision.com]; Wilt Hildenbrand[wilt@cv.net]
Cc: Alexander Shapiro[AHSHAPIRO@cablevision.com]; Charlie
Schueler[CSCHUELE@cablevision.com]; David Ellen[DELLEN@cablevision.com]; Jim
Maiella[JMAIELLA@cablevision.com]; Lisa Rosenblum[LROSENBL@cablevision.com];
Lee Schroeder[LSCHROED@cablevision.com]; Lee
Schumer[LSCHUMER@cablevision.com]
From: Amy Groveman
Sent: Fri 3/30/2012 6:54:25 PM
Importance: Normal
Subject: Fwd: Recent activity- Bronx
fyi
>>> Paul Hilber 3/30/12 9:42 AM >>> Some good activity out of the Bronx...
Best Regards,
Paul Hilber
VP Human Resources and Administration - Field Operations
516-803-2426- Office
516-439-8792 – Cell
>>>Robert O'Neill 3/30/2012 9:41 AM>>>
Good morning Paul. As I mentioned yesterday, there was a CWA meeting on
Wednesday evening in the Bronx at a local VFW Hall where four of our Technicians
were observed leaving the meeting. The four are folks that we already knew were
supporters of the union.
In addition, our evening crew held an impromptu BBQ last Friday evening in front of the
500 Brush Avenue facility. Unfortunately, they were unable to make the BBQ we had the
prior week so they held a small one on their own. They were called by one of our
Technicians who is a known union supporter stating that he would be attending and
wanted to bring a CWA Rep. with him to speak to the group about the benefits of joining.
The group informed him that they weren't interested and not to bring the CWA Rep. to
the facility. The Technician brought him anyway and the group asked that he and the
CWA Rep. leave.
Lastly, we found a pro-company document in one of the men's restrooms that I'll email
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
22
you under separate cover.
Thanks- Bob
From: Wilt Hildenbrand
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 8:20 AM
To: James Dolan
Subject: Bronx
I'm sure you'll get details from Frank on what they're going to do with HR in there,
although I think the short version is he's changing them out.
I got the following from Tony Lo and wanted to get your reaction to a communication
strategy like this REDACTED REDACTED Who knows, but makes sense to me. These
people likely have no clue and are just hearing the siren song being sung by the unions.
From Tony, "I did several tech meetings yesterday and I know Jim's direction is to
communicate what the company has done and is doing and it is going over well. my
meetings yesterday were great. But I'll tell you there was such a leadership void I don't
think the majority of the employees understand the unionization process and how
collective bargaining works. Frank and I agree we'd like to get a little more aggressive
explaining the process and pointing out things like pensions job security etc. We have
such a great story to tell about our company and a comparison would help sway
employees should an election occur which I'm sensing is inevitable. your thoughts?"
Make sense to you at all, I assume we could be proactive in other places as well, but for
now seems Bronx could use it.
Thanks,
Wilt
Prior to the April 10 speech, Hilber had requested supervisors to provide him feedback
that they are hearing from employees regarding the telecast. Robert O’Neill replied and reported
on employee feedback and on an impromptu discussion between Monopoli and employees after
the telecast. It is as follows:
From: Robert O'Neill
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 10:13 AM
To: Paul Hilber
Subject: Re: Call canceled tomorrow
Attachments: TEXT.htm
Good morning. The feedback we are hearing in the Bronx is:
1. They were less than pleased that specifics were not discussed in terms of the
changes in comp and career progression. They want to know how it personally affects
them. They feel he has had more than enough time to come up with something. The
sooner we have the specific information the better. Do you anticipate us having the
datasheets next week?
2. Positive reaction to the changes in co-pays, lifetime cable benefit and additional 30
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
29
days for the JSA.
3. Still expecting something to change in terms of our overall pension benefit.
After the telecast Barry did have the opportunity to have an impromptu discussion with a
rather large group of techs where he stressed all the positives coming out of the call, the
changes in comp and career progression that they will see shortly and that they should
gather all the facts before deciding whether or not joining the CWA makes sense for
them and their families. It was well received since many applauded after he was done.
Thanks- Bob
A few days letter, O’Neill sent Hilber an email, dated April 20, entitled, CWA activity. It
reads:
From: Robert O'Neill boneill@cablevision.com
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 7:52AM
To: Hilber, Paul
Subject: Cwa activity
Good morning. Hearing approx 60 Bronx folks showed up last night for the meeting.
Taking a more aggressive stance - they shut down all who appeared to be either pro-
company or on the fence when they brought up an issue or asked a question. Have a
Tech breakfast this morning. Will try to get more info. Thanks - Bob
On April 20, 2012, Christopher Clarke reported on his visit to Respondent’s Bronx facility
and his total rewards presentation to employees. The email exchange between management
officials regarding the above is as follows:
From: Frank Livoti
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 4:21 PM
To: Christopher Clarke; Paul Hilber
Subject: Re: Bronx
Attachments: TEXT.htm
thanks Chris....helpful
>>>Christopher Clarke 4/20/2012 4:20 PM<<<
Frank, Paul,
As you know, yesterday I visited Brush Avenue in the Bronx and gave four Total
Rewards presentations to approximately 150 employees.
My observations are as follows:
There were a significant number of employees who were wearing red bracelets.
The employees were generally respectful.
The employees seemed to be more annoyed as compared to the employees in other
locations that I have visited (Nassau, Westchester, Rockland). However, they weren't
anywhere near as aggressive or angry as the Brooklyn employees that I met.
At some of my prior meetings in Nassau and Rockland there were individuals who asked
certain questions that seemed to have been fed to them by the CWA. I was not asked
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
30
similar questions in my meeting yesterday.
Best regards,
Chris
Barry Monopoli and LoCascio met with the Bronx employees on April 21 through 23 to
explain details of the new wage progression increases that were going to be instituted for the
employees. Monopoli and LoCascio emailed reports of their meetings with employees, including
reactions from employees.
In LoCascio’s report on the April 21 meeting, the following was noted, “Overall, very well
received, many techs were not expecting such a large adjustment. Even some of the staunch
union supporters had to hold back any positive reaction, but you could read their body
language.” Another comment in this email stated as follows: “As of 3:30 there was nothing on
any websites about these meetings, so far.”
Monopoli’s email of April 23, 2012 summarized his meetings with employees. It reads, in
part:
>>>Barry Monopoli 4/23/2012 3:48PM>>>
we completed 40 for a total of 152 (80%)
mostly all positive responses, listed below are some items / responses from all three
teams today Technician raised concern about hiring practices in the past not being fair. I
explained that we made changes in management to move the business forward and any
concerns regarding favoritism, he took a wait and see approach
7 employees who missed the teleconference viewed it today
One employee stopped to say we "are doing a great job!"
One tech very happy with his increase said he would take off his band but “they would
be all over me...this (money) is very motivating, makes me want to progress even more.”
Veteran employees not happy with the previous HR team because "what was told to
them became everyone else's business."
While many are happy with changes they are taking a wait and see approach more of
"meeting" or "exceeding" expectations from tech's regarding adjustments. No one has
yet to say he was expecting more than what he will receive.
One tech said he felt like he was stealing from the company; he never had an Issue with
the company; but there are others who say things that are exaggerated...and ridiculous."
Two employees upset that the adjustment was not fair, I was told that employees are
bringing this issue to the union, see example below. This is starting to build some steam
and we need a solid response!
On April 25, 2012, Dolan went to the Bronx facility and addressed the Bronx employees
at a meeting, attended also by various managers and human resource representatives. Dolan
began by stating that he stopped by to see how things were. He informed the employees that
there was need for change and that he was unhappy with the way that the prior management
team had run the business and that the company had gotten away from its original Cablevision
values.
He told the employees that the reason that company can be competitive is because they
don’t have a cumbersome union to tie their hands. Dolan stated that if you have a union, you
cannot speak directly to the technicians any longer, he would have to speak to the
representative. Thus, implementing new technology or other changes would have to go though
the Union and they would have to get permission. Dolan, who noted that Verizon is tied down by
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
31
a cumbersome union and it can’t make moves without the union, so it gives Cablevision
flexibility to be able to make changes on the fly without having to go through the bureaucracy of
the union.
During this presentation, Dolan informed employees that he had read the complaints that
employees sent him via email and given the chance he would try to rectify some of the major
issues.
He told the employees if employees emailed him they would get a response from him or
Frank Livoti and encouraged employees to email him if they did not see the changes that he
was promising. Dolan added that the first phase of Cablevision’s new wage and benefit program
was in process and that technicians, who were included in the first phase of the plan would be
receiving pay raises. He said details would be hammered out in the coming weeks and that they
should stay in contact with their HR representatives. He told employees that the pay raise was
going to be retroactive to May 1, 2012, that everyone would be moving up a salary grade and
that co-pays for medical claims and prescriptions were going to be reduced back to pre-2011
levels.
After the speech, Dolan conducted a question-and-answer session with employees. One
employee asked, “Why did it take a union vote for you to come here and speak to us?” and
asked why he had not visited the facility after the prior union votes. Dolan replied that he wasn’t
aware of the votes at that time. “I’m here now. I can’t speak for the past. It’s time to move on.”
After the meeting on April 25, an employee emailed Dolan, commenting on the meeting
and its effect on employee union sentiment.
From: Randy Molina
Sent: 04/25/12 06:07 PM
To: jdolan@cablevision.com
Hello Mr. Dolan...
I want to thank you for appearing in the Bronx warehouse yesterday. It was sorely
needed. Prior to your arrival many wondered if you would ever show... is he coming....
will he show up... etc. But you did. You silenced the pessimists.
My name is Randy Molina and I've worked for Cablevision for a little under 17 years. I
am the one who posed the first questions.
And it was my intention to be the first. The "union" sentiment is widespread and I did not
want to allow any of the pro-union technicians to get "a first shot at ya." It is widely
known that I am 100% against having a union presence in our environment, but I, too,
have identical concerns. I just do not agree (ever) to go the "union route". So, I
purposely brought out 4 of the issues which have concerned many of my fellow workers,
and therefore, not giving the "activists" a chance to ask the same questions.
And it was my hope that those who want a union would realize that those who are
against a union have the same concerns. My fear was that union-activists (some
technicians) would take advantage of the turn-out and make a scene to promote their
cause.
But your visit was monumental and important. The hope that things can be "fixed" was
obvious. You may have noticed how many people approached you when it ended. Did
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
32
you think they wanted you to leave?
Do you honestly believe that the many who have devoted years with Cablevision truly
want.... a union?
Either way, my hope is that the changes in management is but a glimpse of good things
to come. I support Barry, Richie, Alex, and my manager Fred. I know it's too soon to
foretell.... but as I see it, we all get up early in the morn, half-dead and sleepy... but after
a few minutes, our heads are alert and we're ready to tackle the world.
And I will continue to fight the good fight.
And as I have said... if you have a magic wand.......
Randy
On May 2, employees across Respondent’s footprint (except for bargaining unit
employees in Brooklyn) were notified of the changes in co-pays for visits and prescription drugs,
effective May 1, 2012. The communication notifying employee is as follows:
Over the past few months, I have been looking into various issues across the company
and as a result of our evaluation, we have made the following change to your benefits
program.
I am pleased to announce that, effective May 1, 2012, we are rolling back the
Cablevislon Medical Plan co-payment and rates that were put in place in January 2012.
This means that co-payments for doctor's office and urgent care visits under the revised
Plan will each be reduced from $25 to $20. Meanwhile, specialist office visit co-
payments will be reduced from $40 to $35.
Additionally, certain prescription drug co-payments under the Plan will each be reduced
by $5. Please note, this prescription drug co-payment change does not include generic
drugs, which will remain at $7.
These changes, which are in direct response to employee feedback I have received,
reinstate your 2011 co-payment rates. Cablevision Medical Plan participants should
receive new United Healthcare identification cards at their home address, reflecting
these reductions to co-payment amounts.
Thank you for your continued dedication and hard work.
On May 14, 2012, the Union filed a petition to present Respondent’s Bronx employees.
The bargaining unit consisted of 300 employees located at two facilities, once at Brush Avenue
and the other on Soundview Avenue. Approximately, 180-200 employees worked at the Brush
Avenue facility and the rest at Soundview Avenue facility.
A representation election was held on June 28, 2012. The Union lost by a margin of 121
to 43. The Union did not file objections to the election and a certification of results was
subsequently issued.
Two days prior to the election, on June 26, Dolan met with employees in the Bronx. Eric
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
33
Chang, Respondent’s director of human resources for the Bronx Brush Avenue facility, took
detailed notes of the meetings, including Dolan’s comments and the questions and answers with
employees after Dolan’s remarks. Chang typed up the notes that he prepared and corroborated
through his testimony that they were an accurate summary of what transpired. The report is set
forth below with the italicized portions containing Dolan’s responses to employees’ questions.
I note that in Dolan’s speech, he referred to a letter he had recently sent to employees.
Chang identified this letter, which was not dated, but which Chang testified was sent to
employees sometime in June, prior to Dolan’s speech. The letter reads:
Jim Dolan Employee Meeting
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
A. Mr. Dolan's opening remarks about the union campaign—
a. Thanks for listening for what we have to say. Did you get my letter? The
company is changing over the next 5 years to remain competitive. In 5 years there will
be no connections; we will have a cloud-based platform. If we stay as we are we will not
do well. We would have to shrink the Company. The last change we went through was
Fiber- Phones.
b. We're concerned our competitors will do to us what we did to them.
Cablevision has more phones lines than Verizon (applause).
c. Changes have been made everywhere, not just to defeat the union in the
Bronx. We will change with or without the union; we do not want to leave you behind.
d. Union vs. Non-Union
i. In a non-union shop advancement is based on merit – the better you
perform, the better you do personally
ii. It's the system (merit) I need in place to change; I can't do it in a
union environment
iii. This vote is about values - we did not adhere to them. Vote the union
in; these signs come down (points to Cablevision Value signs posted on the wall behind
him). It's about a relationship between you and the union, not between you and
Cablevision
iv. Brooklyn
1. Techs voted in the union 5 months to the this date
2. There has been 1 meeting since then
3. Union proposal has no pension or successor clause
4. The union is not interested in Company or its success. If you are
interested in success of company I am asking you to vote "No".
5. If you vote "Yes" we will honor values; regarding retaliation we will
wipe the slate clean. That's my guarantee. Email me.
B. Q&A's
a. Comment by Randy Molina: The Company is going to WI-FI and I want a
piece of it. I don't want to go to the dark side. If the union were voted in then seniority
would prevail. There would be no motivation.
b. What are you going to do about the pension, about FMLA? (Ibrihim)
"I can’t answer that now. I can't promise you anything. If I do the union will
file a·ULP, an unfair labor practice, if I promise you [a benefit]. The better the Company
does, the better you do. "
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
34
c. Are you planning to give us a pension – if so, how much? (Ibrihim)
"I cannot promise you anything. I do not want a second election. I need
the best employees to work here. No cable company is doing [at this time]."
d. Will you commit to coming back to answer our questions? (Ibrihim) ·
"Is there a lawyer in the house (audience laughter and pause) ... ah, the
hell with it. I will come back if the vote is "No".
e. Who determines who's a good tech?
“I got an anonymous email from a CSR the other day who stated she was
being held back by favoritism. The email seemed credible regarding her skills vs. her
relationship with her boss. We still need to do better, level the playing field. I'll be frank
we have a lot of work to do - HR in place only months. We need to solve the problem vs.
repeats, move from quantity to quality performance evaluations.”
f. No question but a statement by Jamie: Comment about 9/11/2011 and
how “Cablevision paid for my time at Ground Zero (12 days). Thank you Mr. Dolan”, and
then to the audience, “Give him a chance, he deserves it.”
g. Another employee followed the statement that when he served in Iraq he
was paid and kept his benefits and thanked Mr. Dolan for that as well.
h. I have a question about sick time. We techs go to customers and
sometimes we get sick. It's not fair techs have to use sick, personal, and vacation time
(Implied more sick days for Field Service).
"I would encourage you to take care of yourself. I can't promise you
anything."
i. I went on military leave and Cablevision didn't pay me. (J. Broderick)
"Did you speak to HR?" ["Yes, twice." Frank Livoti to follow-up after the
meeting].
j. How come the RCC dept was pushed aside (job progression)? We
support the field and want the same level of training as the techs (field service).
“RCC will be included in Phase ll in July, retroactive to May 1. I haven't
gotten 20% of what I want to get done done...”
k. With respect to quality, if the company doesn’t charge customers for
repeats, why not give that money to the techs?
l. With WI-FI what's left for us to do?
(Jerry Genova) "With the new technology we will define skill sets; and the
ability to learn with extra training. It's up to the individual to pursue different skill sets and
different paths.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
35
m. To piggyback on an earlier comment – customer service doesn't diagnose
problems on trouble calls. They should be crossed trained.
“Cablevision is like an out of tune engine. There is no good history with
sub calls to which they can refer…”
n. There is no performance incentive by staying in grade for 2 years. Can
that be changed to one year instead?
“We need to look at that further.”
o. Are you really going to leave Brooklyn behind?
“Yes. Why would I train and invest in our employees when I have to
relate to the union and not to employees? If I want to make changes I have to talk to the
union. I'm not going to let the union make unreasonable demands.”
p. What about the community?
“The community will still be serviced…”
q. I will give you a chance; why not bargain in good faith with the union? It
sounds like a threat.
“It's not a threat, it's a reality. The Company needs to change and the
union is not conducive to change. About the technology itself it's not a threat to leave
Brooklyn behind because the union won't let me change.”
r. What if the union let's you change?
Mr. Dolan started to give his answer when he was interrupted with the
next question.
s. Comment JJ Cespedes: “I am a former shop steward. [in the union] more
training means more demands for money by the union.”
t. I don't want to be left behind – it's like going to a gunfight with my fists.
Look into a three-year bump? Who's to judge who is a better tech [over another]? I buy
into “Wait a year”. I don't want to be associated with Brooklyn.
“If the Company lived up to its values we wouldn't be here. I'm sorry. As
far as advancement, with it comes dollars. You need to know why you didn't advance.
The old system doesn't work. The new one equals an honest answer. There will be lots
of opportunities to advance in the future. Changes not going away. Call non-union sites.
Changes are taking place there, too.”
u. Will WI-FI equal a paperless system?
Walt Hildebrand: “We are testing something similar to iPads, something
smaller that has no Internet connection...”
v. I want to see the Company grow, with or without a union. It looks like you
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
36
are positioning yourself to offload the Company to Time Warner, Comcast. What
happens to employees? With a union there is bargaining; protection. No training
because of union – how are you going to choose?
“If I were going to sell the Company I wouldn't take the cash flow down. I
would have sold it 6 months ago. Don't anticipate a sale. I'm not secure in a union
environment as long as there is a contract. The best thing to do is to learn and advance
where the company cannot do without you...”
w. Comment: Your family and you are visionaries. I love your enthusiasm
and I hope you maintain it for the next five years!
x. Comment: When do we say give him a chance? Speak for yourselves.
We are a different company now. Give them a chance.
As noted above, Dolan in his speech made reference to a letter that he had previously
sent to employees. Change testified and identified the letter as a letter that was sent as follows:
Dear [mail merge to employee first names]:
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. We appreciate your hard work and your
commitment to our company.
Cablevision is a dynamic and evolving company. We have made many changes in the
first half of 2012 and will continue to do so in order to position our company and our
employees for the future. Bronx workers have recently received wage increases and
also enjoy solid and competitive benefits such as health insurance, a fully funded cash
balance pension, and a 401(k). I appreciate all of the emails that have been sent to me
and others in the company praising these efforts.
You have earned these wages and benefits because of your loyalty, dedication and hard
work for Cablevision and because of our commitment to treating everyone with fairness.
These are core to Cablevision's values, and our values are important to us because they
describe the relationship that we want to have with our employees. As it stands now,
Bronx employees can speak directly with management to discuss any issues, good or
bad, without union interference. This direct relationship is what enables management to
implement positive changes quickly, in a rapidly changing technological and competitive
environment. Unfortunately, this is not the case for the employees in Brooklyn who voted
to let the Communications Workers of America union (CWA) speak for them, because
the Company cannot unilaterally increase their pay or improve their benefits, as those
issues are now subject to negotiation with the union. In fact, since January when the
union was voted in to represent the Brooklyn employees, nothing positive has happened.
Recently, the CWA filed a petition at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking
to represent a subset of our Bronx employees. To protect our Bronx employees, the
Company negotiated with the NLRB and union. As a result of these negotiations, on
June 28, 2012, all Bronx Field Service Technicians and Audit Technicians will get to vote
in a secret ballot election. The only question on the ballot is whether or not you want to
be represented by and have the CWA speak for you. The election will not decide
anything else – not salaries, job security, benefits or working conditions – no matter what
the union promises you.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
37
The next weeks before the election may be difficult and confusing. The CWA's paid
organizers and a few pro-CWA techs may pressure you, make promises to you, or even
threaten you. You do not have to talk to any organizers unless you want to. Unlike the
CWA, we will not pressure you, or make promises or threats. Instead, we will spend a lot
of time and effort to get the facts to you.
At the very least, I would encourage you to wait and see what happens in Brooklyn
before making a commitment to the CWA. The choice is clear – whether or not you want
to continue to speak directly with me and the rest of your management team or whether
you want to put a union in between us. We'd prefer to treat you like all other Cablevision
employees, in the Bronx and elsewhere, but the union is now trying to separate you from
the others.
However, Barry Monopoli testified that only one letter was sent to employees in June
and that it was a different document that had been already introduced into evidence by General
Counsel. Monopoli denied that the document testified to by Chang was even sent to employees.
The letter Monopoli testified to as being sent is set forth below along with emails referring to the
document, as follows:
From: Jim Maiella
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 9:47 AM
To: Charlie Schueler; Paul Hilber; Wilt Hildenbrand
Cc: Amy Groveman; David Ellen; Frank Livoti; Jerry Genova
Subject: Re: Jim Dolan Kick-off Letter
Attachments: TEXT.htm; Bronx - JD Kick-Off Letter FNL CLEAN.docx
This is the FINAL that is currently being formatted.
Jim
>>>Wilt Hildenbrand 6/6/2012 9:39AM >>>
Is the final letter available to read?
>>>On 6/6/2012 at 09:26AM, in message <4FCF5A83.C34: 29: 22050>, Paul Hilber
wrote:
If you could help with that, that would be great.
Best Regards,
Paul Hilber
VP Human Resources and Administration- Field Operations
516-803-2425 -Office
516-439-8792 – Cell
>>>Charlie Schueler 6/6/2012 9:19AM>>>
Yes- need help with coordination? ie mail merge?
CS
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
38
On Jun 5, 2012, at 9:11AM, "Paul Hilber" wrote:
Can you send me the letter asap? I will coordinate.
Paul Hilber
VP Human Resources and Administration- Field Operations
516-803-2426- Office
516-439-8792- Cell
>>>Charlie Schueler 6/6/2012 9:04AM>>>
Yes!! Approved...making a few small changes now and ready ASAP – who has a decent
mail merge admin resource??
CS
On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:58AM, "Amy Groveman" wrote:
Any update on status?
Dear [Blank],
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and for your hard work and commitment
to our company.
Recently, the Communications Workers of America union (CWA) filed a petition at the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking to represent you. The only question in
the upcoming election is whether or not you want to be represented by and have the
CWA speak for you. The election will not decide anything else – no matter what the
union promises you.
As you consider your vote, and whether or not to put a union between you and rest of
the company, here are a few things we think you need to know:
A new Cablevision
ï‚· Cablevision is changing. We have made a number of positive changes in the first
half of 2012, and we will need to continue to change in order to stay competitive
in a dynamic environment.
ï‚· Cablevision is moving to a cloud-based architecture. In five years, we will look
like a new company, phasing away from the set-top box and old
systems/approaches to evolve into a technology-driven, customer-focused
company. These changes will sweep across all of our functional areas and
impact every employee at every level.
ï‚· New technology means new growth, new positions, new training and new
opportunities for career advancement. We plan to retrain and re-equip the entire
Cablevision workforce, and we want all of our employees to grow and change
with us.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
39
ï‚· Cablevision offers a merit-based system, the better you perform in your job, the
more you get paid and the more you can succeed; you are limited only by your
own ambition. In a company that is going through this kind of change, a person
who wants to get ahead couldn't find a better environment to improve their
position. In a merit-based career progression system, new skills and new duties
give you an opportunity to advance.
What a union means
A union environment is often seniority-based without any incentive or obligation on the
part of the company to train or promote excellent employees. Why retrain employees
who are not interested in evolving with the company and who expect to be rewarded or
promoted based on seniority alone?
A good, close-to-home example is Verizon, where the largely unionized wireline
business has been stuck in the past and workers have suffered. From 2005 to 2011,
more than 80,000 Verizon CWA union workers have seen their jobs eliminated, while the
thriving Verizon Wireless unit has hired more than 23,000 new non-union workers. At
Verizon, the deepest job cuts have come at the old unionized wireline company,
whereas the largely non-union wireless company, with its new technology, has gained
jobs.
Look at what is happening in Brooklyn, where Cablevision employees voted for a union
in January. Since then, there has only been one negotiation meeting, May 30, and
Brooklyn employees are stuck in a static environment. None of the changes that you
have seen this year have occurred in Brooklyn, and it is not guaranteed that they will
ever occur there. Wouldn't it make sense to see what occurs in Brooklyn before voting in
the CWA?
Our company has a very bright future and I want you to be a part of it. Your best chance
for job security is voting to work directly with management and evolving with us, rather
than taking the risk of putting the CWA between you and Cablevision.
Again, thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I appreciate your attention.
Sincerely,
[Each hand-signed in blue ink]
James L. Dolan
I credit Monopoli’s testimony that the document identified by Chang as having been sent
to employees was not sent but that this document was probably an earlier draft, subsequently
changed and sent, as described, in the emails from Respondent’s officials. While Dolan’s
speech did make reference to a prior letter, his speech did not identify which letter it was.
I conclude that Chang was mistaken in his identification of the letter sent, and I note that
both letters are similar in many respects. However, based on the emails, I find that the letter
sent to employees in June was the letter testified to by Monopoli, as set forth above.
I further find that the letter testified to by Chang, as set forth, was merely a draft that was
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
40
never sent to employees.
The facts that I have detailed above are based on largely undisputed or uncontradicted
evidence from General Counsel’s witnesses as well as the documents that I have set forth
above. There is some dispute with testimony concerning what Dolan said in the question-and-
answer session after the June 26 speech. Monopoli was asked by his counsel if Dolan, at the
meeting, threatened to leave Brooklyn behind. Monopoli responded no. To the extent that
testimony represents a denial of Chang’s testimony supported by Chang’s notes that in answer
to a question from an employee, “Are you really going to leave Brooklyn behind?,” Dolan
answered yes. I do not credit such denial. I found Chang’s testimony, which was, as noted,
supported by his notes as well as by testimony of Aguilar and Gomez.
I note that Monopoli also testified that Dolan specifically said that he was not threatening
employees in answer to a question from an employee.
This response is consistent with Dolan’s elaboration on his comments, as reflected in
Chang’s credited notes, where Dolan said, “It’s not a threat. The company needs to change and
the Union is not conducive to change. About the technology itself, it’s not a threat to leave
Brooklyn behind because the Union won’t let me change.”
Gomez furnished testimony concerning three supervisory strategy meetings held
between March and July of 2012, conducted by Monopoli. I found Gomez’s testimony credible,
and it was largely undisputed and undenied by Monopoli and/or the other management
representatives present during these meetings. At these “strategy” meetings, which were
conducted by Monopoli, the participants would discuss union sentiments amongst their
employees, and the supervisors would report on their opinions of which employees were
prounion, procompany or on the fence.
The first meeting that Gomez attended was sometime in March and was attended by
House, Randy Reed, Rich Burns, the CTS manager, and Monopoli as well as numerous other
supervisors in the Bronx. Rich Burns commented that Cablevision acquired a company in
Westchester,3 which was a union-represented company. Burns stated that after being acquired
by Cablevision, the employees in that company ended up decertifying the union because the
employees “wanted to get up to speed with everyone else.” Monopoli, at that point, commented
that from his conversation with Dolan, his impression was that Dolan was just going to allow
Brooklyn to be isolated and conduct business as usual with everyone else. Monopoli further
stated that “there’s nothing that says that the company has to negotiate in a specific time, so
they could basically wait them out, that they would eventually give up and then decertify.”
The second supervisor meeting attended by Gomez was about a month-and-half before
the vote. Monopoli again conducted the meeting. House, Reed and numerous other supervisors
were again present. Monopoli began the meeting by stating that he needed to find out who was
where, he needed names. Monopoli then pulled out a notepad and made three columns. He
asked who’s for the Union, who’s against, who’s “hard core” and who is on the fence and who is
for the company. Monopoli then went around the room to all the supervisors and each gave
responses on their personnel to these questions.
One of the employees named as an adamant support of the Union, Tommy Low, was
categorized as a “rabble rouser.” Monopoli stated that it was Respondent’s intention to keep

3 Gomez testified that the company was either TCI or TK.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
41
guys on the fence away from the hard core guys, like Tommy Low.
Monopoli stated that he intended to keep the hard core people in one area because he
couldn’t change their mind no matter what he did, so he wanted to keep them away from the
people, who were on the fence. He added that he was going to use the list to separate the
employees in groups and so that the hard core union supporters could not sway the people on
the fence.
Gomez then asked Monopoli if he has an outage in Brooklyn, and he has to go over
there and need more men, can he pull guys from the Bronx to go with him. Monopoli replied that
“we don’t want them working together.” Gomez replied, “If one going is union and the other isn’t,
isn’t that going to cause some kind of tension or friction in the field?” Monopoli replied, “in that
case, utilize contractors since Respondent didn’t want Brooklyn and Bronx guys to be in the field
together at the same time.”
The third meeting attended by Gomez was about three weeks before the election. House
was present, but Reed was not, but the other supervisors and managers present at the prior
meetings were also in attendance at this meeting.
Monopoli began the meeting by commenting that Respondent had done all it can do and
that “we just have to see what happens at this point.”
Gomez then asked about the raises for the supervisors, which was going to be the last
one implemented. Respondent had notified employees and managers previously that the raises
would be implemented in phases with the technicians first and supervisors last and that the
supervisors’ raises would not be decided on until September.4 Gomez asked if the Union does
come in, how does that affect the supervisors’ raises. Monopoli answered that he wasn’t sure
but added that “all you basically have to understand is that we all need to make sure this thing
goes the right way.”
Gomez then asked about a new wifi project and how it is going to be installed in the
Bronx. Monopoli answered that it would be installed as usual. Gomez asked, “How about
Brooklyn?” Monopoli answered that technicians in Brooklyn would not be allowed to install it, but
contractors would be used for that work. Monopoli also mentioned a new department was being
created, which created advancement possibilities for supervisors and for employees to advance
to supervisor positions. He added that “we all have a vested interest in seeing that this vote
goes the right way because if not, the possibility of all these things could be withheld.” Monopoli
emphasized that everyone had a vested interest in the technology that was going to be put
forward and if the vote didn’t come on, he couldn’t speak for the fact, if it would happen but he
knew that if it didn’t, it wouldn’t go forward.
Monopoli reported to the supervisors on a conversation that he had with Dolan.
According to Monopoli, Dolan had informed him that Brooklyn was going to be isolated and that
Monopoli was afraid that the isolation Dolan was going to conduct in Brooklyn with regard to
technology that was also to be isolated in the Bronx. Monopoli elaborated further that Dolan said
that he (Dolan) was just going to isolate them, put them in the corner and “just let them rot.”
Monopoli added that he did not want to see that happen to our guys here and urged the
supervisors to convince the technicians of the new perks that they are going to be getting as a
result of this, that they have all this stuff on the table for the employees and that if the vote goes

4 The employees were all told that all raises for everyone would be retroactive to May 1.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
42
a different way, all that stuff is open for negotiation.
As I noted above, I have credited Gomez’s accounts of the comments by Monopoli and
other supervisors at the three supervisory meetings that Gomez attended. While Monopoli
testified that he made no reference in the meetings to any conversations that he had with Dolan
and that the only reference that he made to the Brooklyn negotiations was that he (Monopoli)
said that Cablevision was negotiating in good faith in answer to a question from someone at the
meeting about the status of negotiations in Brooklyn. According to Monopoli, he made that
statement (about Respondent bargaining in good faith with the Union) because Dolan had said
that comment himself to employees at that meeting that Dolan attended in the Bronx.
Notably, Monopoli did not deny making any of the specific comments attributed to him,
such as statements about isolating Brooklyn, letting them rot or waiting the Union out and
decertification.
To the extent that Monopoli’s testimony can be construed as denials of Gomez’s
testimony, I do not credit such denials and credit Gomez’s testimony, which I found candid,
believable and worth of belief. I note that Gomez provided candid testimony in support of
Respondent's version of events in several respects while Monopoli had a surprising lack of
recall concerning several comments made by Dolan during his speeches to employees
regarding the Union, the election, giving Respondent a chance and other statements, which
were clearly and admittedly made by Dolan.
However, while I have credited Gomez’s testimony, as reflected above, Respondent
objected at trial to the admissibility of portions of that testimony based on the fact that it
revealed “bargaining strategy”5 information and should not be allowed. I permitted the testimony
but indicated that I would rule after briefing, whether portions of Gomez’s testimony should be
excluded based on such privilege. I now turn to that issue.
In Berbiglia, the Board affirmed an ALJ’s quashing a subpoena for union documents
requested by an employer asking for records, including communications between the union and
its members. The judge quashed the subpoena for several reasons but primarily because it
could reveal bargaining strategy.
The judge commented:
“The basic reason for revocation of subpoena as far as here relevant was my view that
requiring the Union to open its file to Respondent would be inconsistent with and
subversive of the very essence of collective bargaining and the quasi-fiduciary
relationship between the Union and its members. If collective bargaining is to work, the
parties must be able to formulate their positions and devise their strategies without fear
of exposure.”
The Berbiglia rationale was applied by the Board in Champ Corp., 291 NLRB 802, 817-
818 (1988), where an ALJ, affirmed by the Board, quashed a subpoena of a union based on
Berbiglia.
As noted, both Berbiglia and Champ involved subpoenas by employers for information
from unions that revealed bargaining strategy. There has been no Board decision that I have

5 Berbiglia, 233 NLRB 1476, 1495 (1977).
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
43
found, where the Board has approved the extension of privilege to bargaining strategies to
information from the employer requested by the union or General Counsel. Nor have I seen a
case, where the privilege was applied to testimony about conversations between management
representatives.
While there have been judges’ decisions, wherein judges have applied it to documents
requested of employers, the Board has not affirmed or ruled upon these findings of the judges.
Boise Cascade, 279 NLRB 422, 432 (1986); Quality Roofing Supply Co., 2011 Lexis 444, Case
No. 4-CA-037107 et al (2011) at 25.
I note that Quality Roofing was an ALJ decision that was not appealed, so it cannot be
construed as Board precedent.
Similarly, while Boise Cascade was a Board decision, which affirmed the judge’s
decision in all respects, it is noted that only the employer filed exceptions to the judge’s
decision. Thus, the General Counsel did not file exceptions to the judge’s ruling that the
information requested of the employer need not be provided to the union because of the
collective bargaining privilege.6
In such circumstances, the Board’s decision to adopt Boise Cascade cannot be
considered as Board precedent. Local 370 Carpenters (Eastern Contractors Association), 332
NLRB 174, fn.2 (2000); ESI, 296 NLRB 1319, fn. 3 (1989).
The Board did, however, in Patrick Cudahy Inc., 288 NLRB 968, 971 (1988), quoted with
approval the language used by the judge in Berbiglia that “if collective bargaining is to work, the
parties must be able to formulate their positions and devise their strategies without fear of
exposure.” Cudahy at 971. However, it must be noted that the Board’s approval of this language
came in the context of assessing attorney-client privilege issues and cannot be found to be an
explicit approval of a finding that a bargaining privilege applies to employer’s communications.
Indeed, I also note in that connection, Taylor Lumber, 326 NLRB 1298, 1300 (1998),
where a judge specifically found that there was no Berbiglia privilege that attaches to
communications between members of management and ordered that notes about bargaining
strategy be turned over to the General Counsel.7
The judge observed and concluded that Cudahy, supra cannot be construed as affirming
Berbiglia insofar as it established a collective bargaining privilege since the Board in Cudahy did
not, but could have simply, relied on Berbiglia to quash the subpoena and need not have based
its decision on the attorney-client issue. Whatever the soundness of the judge’s reasoning in the
latter regard of his conclusions, the fact is that Taylor Lumber suffers from the same problem as
Boise Cascade with regard to precedential value. There were no exceptions taken to the judge’s
rejection of Berbiglia or his order to turn over bargaining strategy documents of the employer.
While the Board affirmed the judge’s decision, it made no comments about or ruling on that
finding but did, in fact, discuss and affirm his ruling on the attorney-client privilege issue, to
which exceptions were filed by Charging Party and General Counsel. Therefore, Taylor Lumber
also cannot be construed as binding Board precedent either.

6 Charging Party did not file exceptions either.
7 The judge also found that certain documents were shielded by the attorney-client privilege
and quashed the subpoena for those documents.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
44
Finally, I note that several commentators have written on the issue and concluded that a
bargaining privilege applies to communications between and involving both unions and
employers. David Goldman, “Union Discovery Privileges,” 17 Labor Law 241 (2001); Mitchell
Rubenstein, 29 Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law (2008).
I am in agreement with the commentators that there is a collective bargaining privilege
recognized by the Board and that it is applicable to some of the testimony of Gomez. Thus,
while, as noted, the Board has not specifically state that it will uphold such a privilege with
regard to communications among employer representatives, it has affirmed Berbiglia, and I can
see no valid basis for not applying the privilege to communications between employer
representatives. Both sides have an interest in keeping their negotiation strategies confidential,
and there is no legitimate basis that I can see (not has General Counsel or Charging Party
raised any justification for a different rule) with respect to employer communications involving
these issues.
I also conclude that the fact that, here, the communications were oral, based on the
testimony from one management representative about these subjects rather than written
documents is not consequential. Whether written documents or conversations are involved,
where it reveals collective bargaining strategy or involve collective bargaining issues,
confidentiality is required and the information may not be obtained by subpoena or adduced by
oral testimony at trial.
Consequently, I find that the portions of Gomez’s testimony concerning the first and third
meetings that he attended, wherein Monopoli commented about his conversations with Dolan
and Dolan allegedly reported to Monopoli that Dolan was going to allow Brooklyn to be isolated,
“that there’s nothing that says that the company has to negotiate in a specific time, so they
would basically wait them out, they would eventually give up and then decertify” as well the third
such meeting when Monopoli made similar comments about isolating Brooklyn and that Dolan
was going to “just let them rot” are subject to the collective bargaining privilege and must be
stricken. I so find.
The remaining portions of Gomez’s testimony are still in the record and can be relied
upon.
IV. The Implementation of the Wage Increase and Decrease in Co-pays
As noted above, Respondent implemented the decrease in co-pays for all Bronx
employees as well as for all employees throughout the footprint, except for Brooklyn bargaining
unit employees on May 1.
The wage increases for the Bronx employees, who were the subject of the Union’s
petition filed in late May as well as for other regular employees throughout the footprint, except
for Brooklyn bargaining unit employees, was implemented on June 1 when the employees
received their paychecks. The raises were retroactive to May 1. As will be detailed more fully
below, the raises were granted in phases, so that only employees in Phase I, which included
technicians and other related classifications, actually received their raises on June 1 (retroactive
to May 1). The employees in the three other phases, II, III and IV, including supervisors and
managers, who were in Phase IV, did not receive their raises until months later. However, all of
the raises granted were retroactive to May 1.
As also noted above, Respondent’s bargaining unit employees did not receive any raise
at all on May 1, 2012.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
45
Respondent presented several witnesses as well as a number of documents in
connection with the decision and implementation of the wage increases as well as the
decreases in co-pays.
Wilt Hildenbrand is employed by Respondent's as senior advisor in customer care,
technology and network. He testified that, although James Dolan had been the CEO of
Respondent for many years, he had, at some point, entrusted the day-to-day responsibility for
the cable operations of Respondent to Tom Rutledge, chief operating officer, and John
Bickham, vice-president of cable operations. He further testified that sometime in October or
November of 2011, Dolan took over the functions from Rutledge and Bickham. Both Rutledge
and Bickham left the Respondent by the end of 2011.
According to Hildenbrand, Dolan and Rutledge did not have the same vision for the
company. Hildenbrand testified:
A: Tom's -- Mr. Rutledge's vision for the company tended to focus on return on
investment, cash flow, making the most payback on the business you could get out of
the business. Jim's -- Mr. Dolan's focus on the company had more to do with excellence
is the word he's used, but it focused on how employees were treated. So you could put it
in a single bullet by saying one-half, Mr. Rutledge was focused on good enough and
managing the business, and Mr. Dolan's focus tended to be on excellence, doing the
best we could both for employees and for the product.
Hildenbrand further testified that in mid to late-2011, he started to notice problems with
the network, which he investigated and reported to Dolan along the way. During this period,
Hildenbrand also discovered from reports from managers and supervisors that employee morale
was at a low and that employees were not happy with their working conditions. Hildenbrand
mentioned the specific complaints that he received from employees and supervisors. They
included complaints about the lack of training and complaints that if employees asked a
question or made a suggestion about what they were being told, they were written up and
punished for doing so. Further, there were complaints about not having proper tools, shortage of
trucks and not treating employees with respect.
After Hildenbrand made these reports to Dolan, according to Hildenbrand, Dolan
informed him that he (Dolan) wasn’t happy, and he wanted to fix things as soon as possible.
Part of the fixing was not only fixing capital issues, not only fixing maintenance issues but fixing
morale issues. Hildenbrand also testified that sometime in January of 2012, Dolan directed
human resources to review when the last time pay was reviewed and what Respondent’s pay
scales were in relation to similar types of companies in the industry.
As reflected above, Dolan gave a televised speech on February 1, 2012 to all
Cablevision employees, in which he announced changes made or approved over the last
several months since he assumed responsibility for Cablevision. They included addressing
many of the concerns reported to Dolan by Hildenbrand, including tools, training, network
changes, capital expenditures and change human resource reporting and structure. Dolan also
announced that Respondent would engage in a comprehensive analysis to evaluate where
individual employees’ pay levels were in relation to the market.
Lisa Questell, Respondent's vice-president, also provided testimony concerning the pay
increases, including an explanation of Respondent’s system for increasing salaries, both on a
merit basis and as a result of wage progression and promotion increases. Thus, Respondent
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
46
has utilized a system of merit wage increases for all non-exempt employees throughout the
footprint, which occurs every year on the anniversary date of their employment with
Respondent. These merit increases are decided by individual supervisors, using a rating system
devised by Respondent. The amount of the increases is based on guidelines issued by
Respondent’s compensation department each year.
Additionally, Respondent had a system in place, where if employees received
promotions to a higher grade within Respondent’s salary structure, they were eligible for
promotional increases ranging from 3 to 10%, depending on their particular grade.8
Questell indentified a document, which was an October 8, 2010 memo from Michael
Butler, who was Questell’s boss at the time, to Rutledge and Bickham, entitled 2011 salary
ranges and salary increase guidelines.”
The document summarized the merit increase component of Respondent’s increases
and reflected increases granted to employees in the five categories in Respondent’s level of
performance system.9
It reflected that employees in the first three categories, described above, received merit
increases ranging from 2.5% to 3.8%, while employees in the bottom two categories received
no merit increases.
This document also states that “merit increases must result in an overall increase of 3%
within each functional unit.”
This document contained no recommendations for any increases or review of the wage
progression increases or system.
In September of 2011, Questell prepared a recommendation to Rutledge and Bickham
regarding proposed 2012 salary increases. It was entitled, “2012 Salary Increase Guideline
Discussions.” The documents referred primarily to merit increases, detailing the amounts given
in each divisional unit of Respondent and in each category of performance and recommending
continuation of the current merit system averaging 3% for 2012.
The documents did not recommend any increases in wage progressions or salary
ranges but did include the following quote, “In 2008, an independent study concluded our
ranges were generally competitive vs. the external marketplace with slight erosion
area/grades.”10
Questell testified further, when Rutledge was in charge when she was making her

8 For example, employees in the first quartile of the range would receive up to 10%, in the
second quartile up to 5% and in the third quartile up to 3%. Employees in the fourth quartile of
the range would generally receive no increase.
9 They are “far exceeded level of performance,” “exceeded level of performance,” “achieved
level of performance,” “partially achieved level of performance” and “did not achieve expected
level of performance.”
10 The 2008 independent study referred to by Questell was a study concluded by Mercer,
dated June 26, 2008. It concluded that “overall, Cablevision base pay and total compensation
for benchmark positions are positioned close to the market median, although there is a variation
by business unit and grade level.”
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
47
annual compensation review, “The measures that were most important were being—having the
midpoints of the salary ranges at market and information on attrition was high or low.” Questell
was asked if midpoints were at market and there was no significant attribution in approved
ranges of salary during the Rutledge years.
Questell responded, “No, the ranges were not changed. We went on business as usual
with the merit increases guidelines.”
She was further asked during the Rutledge years, did her compensation review look into
where each individual employee was in the range and how long it was taking to get to the
midpoint of the range. Questell responded, “No, no. The annual review was more holistic, more
top level, not individual.”
Questell also testified that the career progression guidelines were changed, once before
in 1999, but not since that time.11
Questell testified further that after her memo to Rutledge and Bickham in September of
2011, referred to above, sometime in October or November, Livoti informed her that Rutledge
had approved the recommendation, it would be “business as usual” with Respondent, following
its prior increases, averaging 3% and progression increases of 3 to 10% for some employees.
Questell also was asked about Rutledge’s approach to employee compensation based
on her experience working with him. She responded, “Sure. Mr. Rutledge was conservative. He
was a businessman person. He was financially-driven. He was driven by the statistics and
business facts.”
The first notice that Questell had that her recommendations of 2011 might be altered
was Dolan’s speech of February 1. At that point, and based on Dolan’s speech, she understood
that Respondent had a greater focus on individual pay. Dolan wanted to pay competitively to the
market and felt that there was a strong link between leaving the right talent on board with the
right experience and the right certification. “So, Mr. Dolan feels like we need the right talent. We
need to pay them appropriate as they are satisfied, so that when they service our customers,
the customers are satisfied so business can go on.”
Immediately after Dolan’s speech, Questell met with Paul Hilber, Frank Livoti, Lisa
Nadler and other management officials to discuss Dolan’s instructions in his February speech.
Questell was directed by Hilber to do a complete and comprehensive analysis of all positions,
including titles, midpoints, individual salaries, job descriptions and market data, and the group
would make a recommendation for possible changes. According to Questell, the group decided
to do the analysis in phases. Phase I would include technicians and related jobs, such as
outside plant, inside plant fiber and warehouse employees. It was decided that these employees
would be in the first phase, according to Questell, because it was one of the largest groups of
employees. Phase II included call center employees, which contains about the same number of
employees as the employees in Phase I.
It was also decided that the effective date for all of the increases for across the footprint
would be May 1, 2012. However, since the calculations and recommendations for possible
increases could not be done for all employees by May 1 because of the large number of

11 Questell did not furnish any detail concerning the extent of the changes in 1999 or why
these changes had been made.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
48
employees involved, Questell testified that the decision to proceed in phases was made.
Questell was asked if there was an urgency in communicating to employees about the process.
She replied, “Employee relations, just to respond to employee concerns.” She added that they
decided not to wait until they finished the analysis for all groups to notify them because that
would be unfair. Thus, it was decided to make the effective date for everyone May 1, 2012, even
though the analysis had not or would not be completed for the employees in the other three
phases.12
Later, in her testimony, Questell elaborated further, “So we decided to do it in phases.
And because we were also concerned with employee reaction, memos, you know, when Mr.
Dolan says something like that, all employees think is money, money, money, I’m getting
money…So we wanted to communicate to the employees something.”
Over the next two months, Questell and her groups made a comprehensive analysis of
market rates, midpoints and individual employee salary. The analysis determined that although
Respondent’s midpoints were at market, individual pay was significantly below market, that it
would take a long time for employees to get to the midpoint and career progression needed
updating for changes in technology and to provide better opportunities for employees.
Questell’s testimony as well as documentary evidence submitted by Respondent
confirmed that the analysis completed by the group with input from Hildenbrand, who
recommended the creation of an additional grade, resulted in a recommendation to Dolan in late
March, which he approved in early April for progression and promotion increases for Phase I
employees. The average increase for technicians, according to Questell, was 14%. I note one of
the documents submitted by Respondent, entitled, “Cable and Communications Workforce
Strategy March 2012,” discusses the impact on Phase I of the proposed solution. It reflects that
there are 2602 employees in Phase I and that 2062 will progress to the next level in career
progression for the functional area, 117 will progress to the next level in 2013 and 284 are
apparently placed in level and salary.
In this regard, Questell testified that some employees received no increases at all as a
result of the calculations but that most received at least 10% and some over 14%. While
Questell testified that the average increase for the employee in Phase I was 14%, the document
by Respondent reporting on increases for Phase I employees states that progression to the next
level included a promotional increase and/or adjustment to market rate and the average
increase per employee is 15%.
Ramon Aguilar, a Bronx technician, who began his employment with Respondent in
June of 2011, left his employment in July and started again in September of 2011. He received
a raise of 17%, effective May 1, 2012.
As noted above, Dolan announced that the raises were approved and were to be
effective May 1, 2012 in his April 10, 2012 speech.
Therefore, Monopoli met with the Bronx employees in group meetings and in one-on-one
in late April, a few days before Dolan’s April 25 speech to Bronx employees. During these
meetings, Monopoli explained the details of the career progression rollout and their raises to
each employee. No changes in job responsibilities were associated with these raises. Monopoli

12 Questell did not testify as to specifically when the May 1, 2011 effective date for the
increases was decided upon.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
49
explained the new system and raises to employees and reported back to his supervisor,
LoCascio, employees’ reaction. These points were forwarded through Hildebrand to Dolan.
I note, in this regard the April 22, 2012 email from Hildenbrand to Dolan, reporting on the
Bronx meetings, wherein LoCascio observed, “Overall very well received, many techs were not
expecting such a large adjustment. Even some of the staunch union supporters had to hold
back any positive reaction, but you could read their body language.” It similarly, as also reflected
above, Hilber sent an email to Livoti entitled, “update, relating to LoCascio’s report on the Bronx
meeting of April 21.” It states, “It went great in the Bronx today. Lots of smiles. I was told that the
folks that are pro-union had to hold back their smiles. So far so great, looks like we are moving
in the right direction.”
Finally, as described above, Robert O’Neill sent an email to Hilber on April 10, 2012,
reporting on feedback in the Bronx, relating to Dolan’s April 10 speech. It reflects that, after the
telecast, Monopoli met with Bronx techs, where he stressed all the positive coming out of the
call, the changes in “comp and career progression that they will see shortly and that they should
gather all the facts before deciding whether or not joining CWA makes sense for them and their
families.” I also note that in this email O’Neill reported that employees were less than pleased
that specifics were not discussed in terms of the changes in comp and career progression. He
added that employees wanted to know how it personally affects them and observed, "The
sooner we have the specific information the better. Do you anticipate us having the data sheets
next week?”
The one-on-one meetings conducted by Monopoli in the Bronx, where the first location
that meetings were conducted, explaining the progression rollout. Supervisors at other locations
conducted similar meetings to explain the new system and raises at around the same time
period, late April and early May of 2012.
The raises for the employees in Phase II, III and IV were calculated by Questell’s team
over the next several months, using the same criteria. All of these raises were also made
retroactive to May 1, 2012, although they were not decided upon nor did employees actually
receive the raises (which included the retroactivity) until months after the May 1, 2012 date.
Phase II employees, according to Questell, included call center employees and
contained approximately the same number as the employees in Phase I.13 This document also
is reflected under Phase III, “Mid Summer 2012.” According to Questell, these Phase II
calculations were completed in the summer and were implemented in August for the employees
included.
Phase III employees, according to this document, included billing and
collections/optimum stores, direct/commercial sales, programming and clerical positions. I also
note that telemarketing employees were included in some documents as included in either
Phase I or Phase II. Questell testified that neither telemarketing employees nor
direct/commercial employees were included in any of the phases and, in fact, that these
employees were not included in the analysis performed by her nor in the recommendations
made by her group, which were approved by Dolan and implemented during the summer of
2012, retroactive to May 1, 2012.

13 One of the documents submitted by Respondent identified some of the other employees
in Phase II. They included broadband internet service center, network operations center, field
security, audit, regional control center and facilities and fleet maintenance.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
50
According to Questell, these groups were not included because they were primarily
commissioned employees and under a different system. Thus, the salaries are determined by
their supervisor. She further testified that Robert Sullivan, executive vice-president of sales for
cable operations, was responsible for determining increases for the sales and telemarketing
employees. Questell also testified that telemarketing employees received raises sometime in
2012, but prior to May 1, 2012.14 Questell testified further that the direct/commercial sales
employees received raises also in 2012, but after May 1, 2012. Questell did not testify as to the
amounts of the increases for either group. Questell explained why Respondent included these
groups in its documents that it presented, which were distributed to employees. She stated from
an employee relations perspective, Respondent wanted to assure these groups that raises were
being considered to them as well. Questell added that these charts were preliminary and were
changed several times along the way.
I note in this regard an email exchange between Sullivan (as noted by Questell,
Respondent’s vice-president of sales for cable operations, who was responsible for
recommending wage increases for sales and telemarketing employees) and Dolan, which
related to wage increases for sale employees. The email exchange is quoted below:
From: James Dolan
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:26 PM
To: Sullivan, Robert
Subject: Re: Fwd: Attorney/Client Privileged
Go for it !
---Original Message----
From: Robert Sullivan
To: James Dolan
Sent: 3/28/2012 6:03:03 PM
Subject: Fwd: Attorney/Client Privileged
---------------------------------- Redacted ----------------------------------
As you know, for the past several weeks the CWA has been recruiting via a small but
influential group of sales reps. The bait being used is the disparity between our comp
plan and the CWA controlled comp plan at the Verizon call centers. I have spent several
full days on site meeting with reps. I have borrowed liberally from the tone and message
of your well received teleconference. I have this thing contained, and all but
extinguished.
I am ready to deliver the final blow, which even without the CWA threat is long overdue. I
have worked with corp comp, legal, and HR and I would like to ask your blessing to
proceed with a base salary and commission increase for the reps that will significantly
close the gap with Verizon, and also Time Warner. The total cost in 2012 will be 4.7
million, if I implement the changes in april. This is for Inbound Sales, Outbound Sales,
Commercial Inbound Sales, and Retention, in the Bronx, Jericho, and Piscataway. I
need to deliver on the good will I have generated that has resulted in the evaporation of
union support as shown in the recap of the union meeting monday. I ask for your
support.

14 She did not specify when in 2012 that these raises were announced or implemented.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
51
Phase II included primarily supervisors and their raises were finally calculated and
approved in December of 2012.
Questell testified that her analysis was essentially the same for employees in all of the
phases and the Bronx employees were not treated differently. Questell testified that her analysis
included approximately 17,000 employees all over the footprint for these phases. It did not
include telemarketing, direct/commercial sales employees or bargaining unit employees in
Brooklyn.
Questell also made it clear that all of these raises were separate from the normal merit
increases that employees are eligible to receive yearly on their anniversary dates. She added
that employees in the Bronx and throughout the footprint continued to receive their yearly
reviews on their anniversary dates in 2011 and 2012 and that the May 1, 2012 raises were in
addition to their merit raises.15
Finally, Questell testified that her group held approximately 20 meetings, during which
the evaluation and the recommendations for increases were made. She asserted that during
these meetings, union organizing was never discussed as a reason behind the evaluation or the
proposed wage increases and that union organizing was not discussed during the evaluation
process. Questell did admit that as early as sometime in January 2012 she heard some talk
about union organizing in other areas in the footprint, aside from Brooklyn, but she could not
recall which facilities and was not sure whether Bronx was among the facilities, where she
“heard” about union organizing in January of 2012.
Testimony and documents were also introduced from Questell and Christopher Clarke
concerning Respondent’s decision to decrease co-pays as of May 1, 2012. According to
Questell, the changes made to the medical plan were made in May of 2012 “in response to
employee concerns.” She was asked how she knows that, and Questell responded that she
attended many of the HR meetings, where human resources discussed the employee concerns.
She gave no specifics as when these meetings took place, when these employee concerns
were expressed or who actually made the decision to reduce the co-pays.
Questell did identify a document, which she testified, identified the reasons for the
reduction. She added that the document reflected a communication sent to employees
explaining the reduction. The document has already been detailed above, and it announces the
details of the decrease, effective May 1, 2012 and states further that “these changes, which are
in direct response to employee feedback I have received, reinstate your 2011 copayment rates.”
Christopher Clarke, Respondent’s vice-president of corporate benefits, also testified
concerning the subject. He testified, similar to Questell, that the reasons for the May 1, 2012
reductions in co-pays were because of employee concerns. More specifically, Clarke testified
that “they were made in response to employee feedback. Employees had voiced complaints and
concerns about the cost of the medical program. And in response to that, we rolled back the co-
pays.” Clarke also testified that the changes were not made to influence the outcome of the
Bronx CWA election and that he was never present in any meetings when anyone from
management indicated that the benefit changes were being made to influence the Bronx
election. Clarke also testified that the changes to the co-pays were instituted for all employees
of Respondent in the footprint that participated in the medical plan, which he estimated to be

15 The record reflects that the Brooklyn unit employees continued to receive their annual
merit increases on their hiring anniversary dates.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
52
approximately 12,000-13,000 employees and their family members.
Clarke, like Questell, did not testify to when and from where the employee concerns
were expressed to Respondent about the co-pays and also did not testify as to who made the
decision to reduce co-pays or when the decision was made. However, emails introduced in the
record shed some light on these issues.
I have set forth Monaghan’s email to Livoti of March 8, 2012, where Monaghan reports a
conversation that he had with tech employees, characterized by Monaghan as “good pro-
Cablevision technicians.” These employees reported to Monaghan as “word on the street,” “as it
related to union conversation.” The concerns expressed where primarily higher pay and lower
co-pays and insurance costs. Monaghan commented in the email as follows: “Of all the issues
listed above, I was a little shocked to hear that the benefits issue or the perception of pay and
benefits decreasing in its totality for the last few years—was a high priority.”
Additionally, on April 2, 2012, an email exchange between Livoti and Clarke made
reference to the co-pay change and Dolan’s reaction. It is as follows:
From: Frank Livoti
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:11 PM
To: Christopher Clarke
Subject: Re: Co-Pays
Attachments: TEXT.htm
and probably earlier...maybe June 1......
>>>Christopher Clarke 4/2/2012 12:58 PM>>>
Frank,
Are we looking to move forward with the contribution rollback as well or just the copay?
Also, should we shoot for 7/1 or an earlier date for the copay change?
Thanks
Chris
>>>Frank Livoti 4/2/2012 12:54 PM>>>
Chris,
I was in the senior staff meeting this morning and Jim D discussed some of the "HR
policy" changes that we have been discussing. He likes the idea of rolling back our co-
pays to the 2011 levels....Nuzzo was there and we worked off the numbers you had
provided to Jim Nuzzo. Jim D said he wants to do it.
With that said, he also told Jim Nuzzo to insure that the "Comp plan changes" are
captured in the budget forecast....that includes the changes that Sales will also be
instituting..I copied Lisa on this so we can get together and discuss these initiatives and
timing.....
Frank
Another email exchange on April 2, 2012 between Clarke and Migel Capeles, apparently
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
53
a representative of UnitedHealthcare, also made reference to this issue. It reads:
From: “Capeles, Migel A”

Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 3:09 PM
To: Christopher Clarke
Cc: Anthony Arato; Christina Colantonio; Florence Wong; Susan Lalena;
Sandi Langtry; Tracy Burmeister
Subject: RE: Plan Change
Attachments: TEXT.htm
Chris,
Thanks for the email.
Per our prior discussion we can make these changes happen relatively easily and within
the 6/1/12 timeframe you detailed below. Key to delivery will be understanding your
communication plan timing (so we can confirm id card production schedule around it)
and the naming conventions that Cablevision will want to use for the new lines of
structure that will be built for the collectively bargained group in Brooklyn (we are
estimating at this point about 8 new lines of structure will be needed...we also think it is
better to move this smaller group of EE's to new plans...we will ensure no new id cards
will be sent to them.)
I am available tomorrow from 10am-11am and 2pm-5pm EST to discuss with you guys.
Let me know if these times work for you and I will send out a calendar invite.
Thanks,
Michael A. Capeles
UnitedHealthcare National Accounts
185 Asylum Street, 19A, Hartford, CT 06103
860-702-5946 (office)
860-462-8232 (cell)
860-702-8770 (fax)
Michael_a_capeles@uhc.com
mailto:michael_a_capeles@uhc.com
From: Christopher Clarke (mailto:CCLARKE1@cablevision.com)
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:34 PM
To: Capeles, Migel A
Cc: Christina Colantonio; Florence Wong; Susan Lalena; Sandi Langtry;
Tracy Burmeister
Subject: Plan Change
Michael,
I just received senior management approval that we will be reducing our office visit,
specialist office visit and Tier 2 and Tier 3 co-pays by $5 (i.e. reverting to 2011 levels).
This change will apply to both Option 1 and Option 2. All other plan provisions will
remain the same.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
54
Clarke also provided testimony relating to the following email, introduced into the record:
From: Christopher Clarke
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:30 PM
To: Florence Wong
Subject: Re: TROD request-Bronx location
Attachments: TEXT.htm
okay. I have a few meetings and am tied up until around 4. If you are free then, let's
connect. My schedule is wide open tomorrow if today doesn't work.
Thanks
>>> Florence Wong 3/7/2012 12:27 PM <<<
Hi Chris,
Just want to give you a heads up about a request I received for TROD. The Bronx
location wants to have a dummy record that mirrors one of their top earners (high
commissions) so they can demo. It seems union discussions are heating up there now.
I've asked Buck to mirror the employee they gave me (remove the name and change out
the empl ID) and make it into a John Doe record. Buck is giving me a time frame
tomorrow morning to have this.
We can discuss later when you have some time and I can give you more details.
Florence
Clarke testified that the TROD meetings referred to in the document relates to a total
rewards presentation, which is provided by Human Resources personal to employees at all
locations, explaining current benefits and compensation for Respondent's employees. Clarke
testified that he made a TROD presentation to Brooklyn employees in late 2011, during
Christmas and New Year’s week, during which nothing was mentioned about future benefits.
Similarly in 2012, Clarke testified that he made visits to numerous facilities throughout
the footprint, during which he again made no reference to future benefits.
Clarke also testified that in addition to the May 1, 2012 reduction of co-pays,
Respondent, had in the past, made changes in employee benefits in response to employee
concerns about these matters that Respondent received at meetings.
Through Clark, a document reflecting an email exchange between Clarke and Robert
Doodian, former senior vice-president of Human Resources, and Diane Sabato, a Human
Resources director, involving a request for hearing aid benefits. The document is set forth
below:
From: Christopher Clarke
To: Robert Doodian
Date: 11/12/2007 10:28 AM
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Subject: Re: Hearing Aids
Rob,
We had looked into this for 2008. During the year we had received a request from an
employee to consider and also Diane Sabato had asked us about it.
Mercer has indicated that this is very rare benefit offering today. None of their NY clients
offer it. Derek said he had one client many years ago that offered it but they were in an
industry where its employees were susceptible to hearing loss.
If you would like us to further pursue for 2009, we can revisit.
Chris
>>>Robert Doodian 11/12/2007 9:27 AM>>>
Chris,
Any though/consideration to adding some level of coverage for hearing aids to our
medical plan?
Rob
Clarke testified that the benefit for hearing aids was added to Respondent's plan,
effective January 1, 2009. He added that this was another example of Respondent changing a
benefit at the request of an employee.
Clarke also identified another document, relating to a suggestion by employees for a
flexible spending account (FSA), as follows:
From: Joanne Indemaio
To: Christopher Clarke
Date: 12/3/2010 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: Flex Spending - Suggestion
cc: Lisa Questell
Thank you! see ya next week. Joanne
>>>Christopher Clarke 12/2/2010 3:26 PM>>>
Hi Joanne,
Thank you for passing along the suggestion. This is something that we are looking into.
Historically, United Healthcare did not offer the debit card to plan sponsors who were
signed up for the auto-rollover feature. Recently, they made a change to their process
and now allow for both auto-rollover and debit cards. We have had some discussions
with United Healthcare and they have provided us with a fee quote to implement the
cards. There would be no cost to the employee but there would be an expense borne by
the Company. I will raise this up to Lisa and Mike Butler to see if this is something that
they would like to present to senior management for consideration.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
56
Thanks again,
Chris
>>>Joanne Indemaio 12/2/2010 2:39 PM >>>
Hello Chris,
Hope all is well with you. One of my employees had made a suggestion and I wanted to
pass it along to you for consideration. The employee said that in his prior life he was
issued a "flex'' card (looked like a credit card) and that he was able to use this card to
pay the co-pays, deductibles, etc. at the time of the office visit and that the dollars used
would automatically be deducted from his flex account - thus, no actual out of pocket
expense. Is this something we could offer to our employees? I would like to know your
thoughts on this, if I may.
Thanks,Joanne
Clarke testified further that Respondent instituted a FSA on January 1, 2013 for
Cablevision employees.
Clarke also identified a document reflecting another change in response to employee
concerns, a group legal plan. It is set forth below:
Hi Chris,
I spoke with Bridget at Hyatt Legal and Merryl and Amy Gordon and [the] reason that
Group Legal cannot roll over year to year. IRS regulation [is the] enrollment for FSA but
no such requirement exists on the Group Le[gal.]
We may want to keep that in mind for OE next year!
Sandi
(HANDWRITTEN NOTE): In response to employee feedback received & change
implemented 1/1/12
According to Clarke, Hyatt Legal is a voluntary benefit program that employees can elect
every year during open enrollment and would not automatically carryover. As a result of an
employee’s inquiry, Respondent modified its rules and allowed this benefit to automatically
rollover, so employees would not have to re-elect it every year during open enrollment. Clarke
further explained that although the request from employees came in on December 9, 2010, this
was after the open enrollment period ended for 2011. Thus, the earliest time that the change
could have been effectuated was the Fall of 2011, effective for January 1, 2012, which is what
happened.
Clarke testified also that Respondent increased its fertility benefit in 2008 and 2009, and
the change raised the benefit to $25,000 and that hearing aid in benefits was changed effective
January 1, 2009. Finally, Clarke testified that in July of 2008, Respondent made changes to its
401(k) plan, in that previously, employees had to wait one year for the match, but in response to
employee complaints, Respondent eliminated the one year wait for the match.
In cross-examination, Clarke conceded that the changes in co-pays and instituted in May
of 2012 was larger in cost to Respondent than any of the other benefit improvements that he
testified about that were changed as a result of employee requests.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
57
V. The Bargaining
Paragraph 7 of the Consolidated Complaint issued by the General Counsel details the
basis for its surface bargaining claims. It reads:
7(a). At various times from about May 30, 2012, through March 4, 2013, Respondent
and the Charging Party met for the purposes of negotiating an initial collective-
bargaining agreement with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment.
(b). During the period described above in paragraph 7(a), Respondent engaged in
surface bargaining with no intent of reaching agreement by: (1) refusing to meet at
reasonable times; (2) refusing to discuss economic issues until non-economic issues
were resolved; (3) insisting on changing the scope of the certified bargaining unit; (4)
rigidly adhering to proposals that are predictably unacceptable to the Charging Party; (5)
refusing to discuss a union security clause and then raising philosophical objections to
such clause; (6) submitting regressive proposals to the Charging Party; (7) withdrawing
from a tentative agreement; (8) refusing to discuss mandatory subjects of bargaining;
and (9) by significantly delaying the provision of relevant wage information to the
Charging Party.
(c). By its overall conduct, including the conduct described above in paragraph 7(b),
Respondent has failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit.
Consequently, rather than detail each bargaining session chronologically, as is often
done in surface bargaining cases, I deem it appropriate to set forth the facts separately with
respect to each of the allegations in the complaint, alleged to be demonstrative of Respondent’s
surface bargaining, “with no intent to reach agreement.”
A. The Alleged Refusal to Meet at Reasonable Times
The Union was certified as the collective representative of Respondent's employees in
Brooklyn on February 7, 2012. The Union began the process of forming a negotiating team and
designated William Gallagher as its chief negotiator. Meanwhile, Chris Calabrese prepared and
sent out notices to employee to conduct elections for nine shop stewards and three bargaining
committee members. That process was completed on or about February 21, 2012.
On February 24, 2012, Gallagher sent the following letter to Respondent:
February 24, 2012
Christopher Coffey
Senior Vice President - Field Operations
Cablevision
111 Stewart Avenue
Bethpage, NY 11714-3581
Re: Cablevision Bargaining Unit Brooklyn, NY
Dear Coffey:
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
58
I received a copy of the NLRB Certification of Representation dated February 7, 2012,
for the above captioned bargaining unit. Now that CWA has been certified by the Board
as the exclusive collective bargaining representative, I would like to request that we
begin bargaining for a first contract.
I will send an information request via a separate correspondence. In the meantime, if
there are any preliminary steps and/or matters that you would like to discuss, I would be
more than happy to schedule a meeting for that purpose.
Sincerely
William Gallagher, Staff Representative
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO
C: Rolando Scott, President CWA Local 1109
Chris Calabrese, Executive-Vice President CWA Local 1109
On March 6, 2012, Respondent responded by letter from its labor and employment
counsel, Alan Model, of the firm Littler Mendelson as follows:
March 6, 2012
VIA EMAIL, FAX & REGULAR MAIL
William Gallagher, Staff Representative
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO
80 Pine Street, 37th Floor
New York, New York 10005
Re: Cablevision
Dear Mr. Gallagher:
This Firm is labor and employment counsel to Cablevision Systems New York
City Corporation ("Cablevision"). Please direct all future communications regarding the
Brooklyn bargaining unit to my attention. Kindly do not contact Cablevision directly.
I am in receipt of your February 24, 2012 letter informing Cablevision about an
information request. Cablevision has not yet received such a request. Please forward the
information request to my attention and I will work with Cablevision to prepare a
response.
We, too, look forward to commencing negotiations in the near future.
Very truly yours,
Alan I. Model
AIM/ck
cc: Cablevision
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
59
On March 23, 2012, Gallagher responded with a letter, which included a four-page
information request and states as follows with respect to future bargaining dates:
The Union is offering bargaining dates of April 17, April 18, April 19, April 25, April 26,
April 27, April 30, May 1, May 2, May 3, May 14, May 15, May 16, May 17, May 18, May
30, and May 31 of 2012. Please let me know your availability.
Model responded to Gallagher by letter, dated April 10, 2012, as follows:
April 10, 2012
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RRR, REGULAR MAIL
& FAX 212.363.7010
William Gallagher, CWA Representative
Communications Workers of America
AFL-CIO, District 1
80 Pine Street, 37th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Re: Cablevision Bargaining Dates and Information Request
Dear Mr. Gallagher:
This letter responds to your March 23, 2012 (which I received on March 27)
suggesting dates to commence negotiations for a first collective bargaining agreement
and requesting information to assist the Union in its preparations for negotiations.
We are available to commence negotiations on May 30, 2012 and May 31, 2012.
Once a date is selected, we may discuss the location and time for the negotiation
session.
In response to the requested information, we are presently reviewing the
information request for its appropriateness and gathering the information we will be
providing. However, given the voluminous nature of the Union's information request,
we will attempt to provide the information by May 9, 2012, which will be three weeks
before we commence negotiations.
Very truly yours,
Alan I. Model
AIM/DBW
On April 24, 2012, Gallagher sent a letter to Model confirming that the Union is in
agreement to meet on May 30 and May 31, 2012. Model replied by letter, dated May 8, 2012, as
follows:
May 8, 2012
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RRR, REGULAR MAIL
& FAX 212.363.7010
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
60
William Gallagher, CWA Representative
Communications Workers of America
AFL-CIO, District 1
80 Pine Street, 37th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Re: Cablevision Bargaining Dates and Information Request
Dear Mr. Gallagher:
This letter responds to your April 24, 2012 correspondence confirming May 30,
2012 and May 31, 2012 as available dates for bargaining. We would like to commence
bargaining at 10:00 a.m. on May 30, 2012 but do not feel that a second date so close to
the commencement of bargaining would be productive. If the union believes otherwise,
please let me know at your earliest convenience. We suggest bargaining at the
DoubleTree hotel (JFK Airport), located at 13S-30 140111 Street Jamaica, NY 11436,
with the Union and Employer alternating the cost of the hotel conference room. The
Employer will make arrangements for and cover the cost of the May 30th negotiations.
Please inform if this arrangement is acceptable to the Union.
Also, by letter dated May 9, 2012, Cablevision will respond to the Union's
information request. Please note that the Union has requested certain confidential and
proprietary information of which Cablevision has a legitimate concern to protect and
would not otherwise disclose. It is Cablevision's hope and expectation that the Union will
limit its use of the produced information solely to fulfill its responsibilities as the exclusive
collective bargaining representative of the Brooklyn employees. Cablevision does not
consent to the use or disclosure of its confidential and proprietary information for any
other purposes.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Very truly yours,
Alan I. Model
AIM/ck
cc: Cablevision
The next day, May 9, Model telephoned Gallagher. Model introduced himself, and they
discussed scheduling. Model reiterated the point that the made in his May 8 letter that he didn’t
think it would be productive to have meetings two days in a row. In that regard, Model testified
that having negotiations on two consecutive days, based on his experience, makes no sense,
particularly at a first bargaining session, since the employer will usually need time to digest the
union’s proposal and formulate its counterproposals. Model explained his reasoning to
Gallagher, and Gallagher was “fine with that explanation.” They agreed to meet on May 30, and
not on May 31, and this agreement was subsequently confirmed by email between the parties.
As promised, in response to Gallagher’s information request, Respondent provided
almost 500 pages of documents on May 9, 2012.
The parties met on May 30, 2012 as scheduled. At the end of that meeting, the parties
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
61
discussed scheduling the next meeting. Gallagher stated that the Union was available any day
in June, including weekends. Respondent asked for a caucus. Respondent’s representatives
returned, and Model offered June 29 and July 2. Gallagher responded that the Union accepted
both dates. However, Model replied, as he had concerning his prior suggestion of dates, that
Respondent was only offering one of these two dates since they were so close together, and it
would not be productive to have such meetings. Model noted that June 30 was a Friday and
July 2, a Monday. The parties would be passing proposals back and forth and would need time
to respond. Model offered no reason why Respondent could not meet earlier in June as
proposed by the Union nor did Model previously indicate why it could not meet on the earlier
days in May suggested by the Union in its letter (May 14 through 18).
The Union made no further requests to schedule additional dates in June. Indeed, the
Union made additional information requests, reflected in Gallagher’s June 18, 2012 letter to
Model, which requested that the information be provided prior to the next meeting of July 2,
2012. The letter is as follows:
June 18, 2012
Alan I. Model
Littler, Mendelson, PC
One Newark Center, 8th Fl
Newark, NJ 07102
Dear Mr. Model:
I wanted to follow up with you on the information request.
1. Salary Matrix
2. Career Progression Plan
3. Job Description
Also the Union is requesting the following:
1. Copy of Employee Work Rules
2. Copy of Retirement Cable TV
3. Copy of Employee discount for Cable
4. Copies of any and all fringe benefit plans or employee discount plans not
previously requested
5. Copy of the Holiday Policy
6. A list of each employee and their individual Medical choice
(which option and sub-choice Single, Single +1 or Family)
In addition to the above information please be prepared to discuss the following issues
on July 2, 2012.
 How much is the current Stand by Pay?
 What is the Stand by Policy?
 How many paid holidays are there per year?
 What are the recognition earnings?
 What is incentive pay?
 What is the calendar year for Cablevision in respect to
sick/personal/vacation/and bonus?
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
62
 What is merit pay?
 How do employee’s get paid out for sick and personal days?
 Is the year end bonus in addition to their annual salary?
We would also like to discuss the columns which make up an employees yearly
compensation (ER001-ER007).
I will follow up next week with a letter. Please forward the information in a reasonable
time frame so that the Union can review the information before our next bargaining
session on July 2, 2012.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
William Gallagher
CWA Staff Representative
District 1
1-212-344-7332
WG/cd
cc: Dennis G. Trainor, Asst. To the Vice President-District One
Chris Calabrese, Exec. Vice President-CWA Local 1109
Tony Spina, Exec. Board Member-CWA Local 1109
The parties met on July 2 as scheduled. At the close of the session, the parties again
discussed scheduling the next meeting. Gallagher stated that the Union would be available any
day in July, including on weekends. Model responded, after discussions with his negotiating
team, that Respondent was offering three dates, from which the Union could choose one. The
dates were July 31, August 1 or August 2 due to vacation schedules. Gallagher asked, “Is that
all you are offering?” Model answered that Respondent was trying to get another date in July.
Gallagher said that it is ok to meet on July 31.
Although Model mentioned, in response to Calabrese’s questioning, the Respondent’s
failure to offer any dates prior to July 31 that it was trying to get another date in July, it was
apparently not able to do so as there is no evidence that Respondent offered any additional July
dates.
The parties met on July 31 as scheduled. At the close of this session, the Union asked
for dates for additional meetings. Respondent proposed August 15 and September 14. Model
explained again that vacation schedules made it difficult for Respondent to meet prior to August
15 and added that he was getting married on August 25 and would be away on his honeymoon
until after Labor Day. Thus, Respondent proposed those two dates, and the Union agreed
without objection.16
The parties met on August 15 as scheduled. The Union made no requests for additional

16 The union representatives good naturedly mocked Model for getting remarried but made
no objection to meeting on the dates suggested by Respondent and did not propose any other
dates in August or September.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
63
meetings during or at the end of this session. As noted, the parties had previously agreed that
the next meeting would be on September 14, primarily due to Model’s marriage and
honeymoon, and the Union had no problem with that explanation or the delay until September
14 for the next meeting.
The parties met again on September 14 and bargained extensively concerning various
issues. At the close of this meeting, the parties again discussed scheduling of additional
sessions. Gallagher commented that the Union wants to start meeting more times to make
progress. Calabrese added that the Union was seeking 5-6 dates in October. Gallagher chimed
in that he was available every day in October, except for October 10.
Model offered to meet on October 12 and October 26. The Union agreed, and both dates
were scheduled.
The parties met once again on October 12 as scheduled. At this meeting, Jerome Kauff
of Kauff, McGuire and Margolis replaced Model as chief negotiator for Respondent, although
Model was present for part of the meeting. After introducing himself, Kauff asked the Union to
confirm the next scheduled meeting for October 26 and added that Respondent would like to
schedule two dates in November, the 7th and 27th. He asked the Union to let Respondent know
“today, so we can nail them down.”
After the close of this session, Gallagher stated that November 7 and 27 are fine with the
Union. However, Gallagher added the following comment, “I put down 20-25 dates at the start.
Model took only one. The U would like to meet more often and get to fair contract, meeting once
or twice a month isn’t enough to move forward. We’ll request more dates in November, or
maybe you can give us some.”
Kauff responded, “Nothing else to add, see you on the 26th.”
I note that although Gallagher stated at the October 12 meeting that the Union intended
to request more dates in November, there is no evidence that it did so.
At the start of the parties’ next meeting, October 26, Kauff proposed meeting on
December 5, 17 and 20 and stated, “We’ve cleared our calendar.” Initially, the Union agreed to
December 5 and 20 but said that December 17 doesn’t work well and asked about another date.
At the end of the meeting, the Union agreed to December 17 as the third date for a meeting.
The parties met as previously scheduled on November 7 and 27. At the November 27
meeting, Respondent proposed five additional meetings for January 3, 9, 16, 17, and 30, 2013.
The parties met on all the December 2012 and January 2013 dates proposed by Respondent
and agreed upon by the Union. In February, March and April, the parties met on February 5, 11,
25 and 28, March 6, 14 and 19 and April 9, all dates proposed by Respondent.
The parties met again on April 16, at which time, Respondent proposed four additional
meetings on May 1, 2, 29 and 30. The Union rejected all of these dates. The Union cancelled a
meeting previously scheduled for April 18 because, according to Gallagher’s email, the Union
hadn’t received information it had requested on Respondent's medical plan at the April 17
meeting. However, the Union did receive the information requested on April 10 meeting.
However, the Union did not agree to meet nor suggest another date upon receiving the
information.
Thereafter, at Respondent's urging, the parties participated in seven days of mediation
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
64
before FMCS Director Cohen on May 13-16 and 20-22. When the May 2013 mediation did not
produce an agreement, Respondent continued to press for meetings, proposing four dates in
June (11, 12, 14 and 18), all of which were rejected by the Union, which offered one date of
June 25, but Respondent was not available on that date. Thus, the parties did not meet in June.
Thereafter, Respondent continued to propose additional dates, and the Union agreed to
some but rejected most of the dates proposed by Respondent.
The parties met on July 31, August 15 and September 11. Once the instant trial started
in September of 2013, the Union was reluctant to agree to any negotiation dates. The parties
attempted to find dates, breaks in the trial, but could only find one date, November 14, 2013
when the parties met.
Kauff sent an email to the Union proposing three dates in December for meetings. On
November 25, Gallagher responded by email stating that the Union is unavailable on those
dates because of the trial and that Calabrese’s presence is required at trial. Thus, Gallagher
asserted that it would be best if the parties picked dates in January of 2014. Gallagher added
that he will send Kauff available dates in the next few days. As of the date of Kauff’s testimony
in this proceeding, December 5, 2013, Gallagher had not yet sent any list of available January
dates to Kauff.
B. The Alleged Refusal to Discuss Economic Issues
As indicated above, the parties’ first negotiation session took place on May 30, 2012.
Alan Model was Respondent's chief spokesperson and lead negotiator, and his team included
two other attorneys from Model’s firm, Amy Groveman, Respondent’s deputy general counsel,
and four other officials of Respondent, including Paul Hilber.
Gallagher was lead negotiator for the Union and his team consisted of Calabrese,
another union representative, and three bargaining unit employees.
After some opening remarks, the Union submitted a comprehensive proposal, consisting
of 21 proposals. These proposals included the following:
Proposal 1
Wage:
“The Company shall give each Bargaining Unit employee a substantial wage increase
retroactive to February 2, 2012.”
…..
Proposal 19
Retroactive Pay:
“Beginning June 1, 2012, Cablevision shall offer Brooklyn bargaining unit employees, the
same enhanced wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment, as
given to non-bargaining unit employees on May 1, 2012 subject to approval by the CWA
negotiating team. All changes to wages, medical, sickness, disability and shall be
retroactive to May 1, 2012.”
The Union’s proposals also covered work hours, night differentials, overtime, holiday
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
65
pay, contracting, payment by Respondent of bargaining unit members for attendance at
bargaining, upgrade in 401(k) contributions, disability benefits, sick days, personal days,
pension plan increases and retiree medical coverage.
Gallagher then went over and explained each of the Union’s proposals and answered
some questions from Respondent’s representatives about the proposals.
For example, with respect to the Union’s Proposal 1 for a “substantial wage increase,”
Gallagher commented that the Union will give a percentage as the parties negotiate. Gallagher
explained that the Union was seeking Sundays as overtime and wanted night differential pay.
The contracting proposal was discussed, and Gallagher stated that the Union was seeking to
establish a percentage of contracting overtime.
There was a discussion of the disability proposal, and Gallagher asked if Respondent's
disability plan was changed this year. Respondent promised to find out.
Sick days were also discussed and questions were asked and answered about
Respondent’s current practice on unused days. Finally, the pension and 401(k) proposals were
also discussed. Gallagher had some questions, and references were made to the Union’s prior
information requests, which Respondent had complied with prior to the meeting.
Gallagher stated that the Union would have more proposals based on the responses to
its information requests.
Model then commented that Respondent wanted to reach a contract and wanted open
and frank discussions. Model added that Respondent wanted to deal with non-economic items
first, before economic items. Gallagher responded that the Union did not have a problem going
forward like that, but if things do not progress, then the Union was going to want to talk about
economics.17
The parties met again on July 12, 2012. Model reiterated Respondent’s intention to
discuss non-economics before economics. The Union agreed.
Respondent submitted its reply to the Union’s request, which was then discussed.
Gallagher stated that the Union needed the information in order for the Union to make proposals
that have economic impact.
The union representatives then asked Respondent a number of questions, prompted by
the information responses, dealing with current company practices and procedures on many
issues, Hilber responded and answered most of these inquiries, although as to a few, he stated
that he did not know the answer but would get back to the Union with a response. These
questions and answers dealt with a number of economic issues, such as incentive pay, sick

17 My findings with respect to the May 30, 2012 meeting are based on my examination of the
bargaining notes, the proposal submitted by the Union and the credited portions of the
testimony of Model, Gallagher and Calabrese. I note that Model did not deny (nor did any other
of Respondent's participants at the meeting, since none of them testified) that after Model
indicated Respondent's desire to discuss non-economics first and leave economics for later,
Gallagher replied, as I have found, that the Union had no problem going forward like that, but if
things did not progress then the Union was going to want to talk about economics. I also note
that Calabrese corroborated Gallagher’s testimony in this regard.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
66
pay, vacations, yearend bonus, work schedules, premium pay and base earnings calculations.
Once these discussions ended, Model responded to the Union’s proposals, submitted on
May 30, 2012. The union proposal, as noted, provided for a substantial wage increase. Model
stated that that was economic and, “We’ll go over it later.” Model then went down the list of
union proposals, and when he came to Proposal 5 (work schedule), Proposal 6 (payment for
time worked, overtime holiday pay), Proposal 8 (401(k) upgrade), Proposal 9 (disability
benefits), Proposal 14 (sick days), Proposal 15 (personal days), Proposal 19 (retroactive pay)
and Proposal 20 (cash balance pension plan), Model simply commented that these proposals
were economic and made no other response. With respect to all the other union proposals,
Model provided Respondent’s response, and the parties discussed the proposals and
Respondent’s position and reaction to each of them.
Proposal 7, entitled Contracting, proposes restrictions on contracting, including that that
amount of contracting done at the time of signing of the agreement will be reduced to 10% of all
work currently being contracted. While this proposal would seem to have economic implications,
Model did not simply characterize it as economic and move on to the next proposal as he did
with the other economic proposals.
Rather, Model did discuss it and stated that the proposal was severe and it represents a
significant shift to the way business is performed. The parties briefly discussed the proposal,
and Model stated that Respondent would not agree to the proposal.
Respondent then submitted a number of proposals, none of which were economic,
which were discussed by the parties.
After the parties returned from a lunch break, Gallagher stated that Calabrese had some
questions to ask regarding economics. He asserted that the Union needed to discuss grades in
order to get to economics.
Calabrese proceeded to ask how grading and job classifications are determined. Hilber
responded and answered most of Calabrese’s questions about grades, pay, titles, merit
increases, disability practices, leave policy and cash balance pensions. With respect to a couple
of questions, Hilber responded that he did not have the answers.
The Union then made a few more proposals, dealing with non-economic issues, such as
seniority, time off for stewards and safety committees. These items were briefly discussed. With
respect to the Union’s seniority proposal, Groveman asked, “Do you propose how to use it?”
Gallagher replied, “Not yet. It will impact on vacation.”
At the August 15 session, the Union submitted 16 additional proposals, including some,
which clearly were economic, such as employee benefits, discounts, vacations, jury duty,
bereavement, overtime, and promotions. The parties went over these items. Respondent asked
some questions about some of the proposals as well as the Union’s rationale for them. The
Union stated essentially that it wanted the Brooklyn employees to have the same benefits as
everyone else in the footprint, which was the intent of these proposals.
After a caucus, Model stated that some of the Union’s proposals were economic and
commented that “we’ll deal with economic-driven proposals at a later time. Our obligation is to
aim for a full C/B/A and we cannot do piecemeal negotiations. That is our obligation under the
law.” The union representatives made no response to Model’s comments as reflected above.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
67
The parties then discussed some of the Union’s non-economic items, such as reporting
requirements and accident reports and work assignments.
Model then stated, “Everything else is economic driven. We want to move on to
grievance procedure.”
The parties spent the rest of the meeting discussing the grievance procedure proposals
of the parties. At the close of the meeting, Gallagher reiterated what Calabrese had said earlier
that most of the proposals submitted by the Union were “status quo,” and the Union wants to
ensure Respondent follows them. Gallagher specifically made references to bereavement,
indicating that the Union did not realize that they were based on calendar days and added
again, “We want to keep the status quo.” Model did not comment on these statements made by
Gallagher.
My findings with respect to this meeting are based on my evaluation of bargaining notes
and the credited portions of the testimony of Model and Gallagher. In this regard, the testimony
of Gallagher that his response to Model’s comment about dealing with economic issues later,
quoted above, he replied that there was no agreement by the Union and that if there was no
progress, that the Union was going to want to talk about economics. While I have found above
that Gallagher did not make such a comment at an earlier meeting, I do not believe that he did
so at this meeting. Neither of the bargaining notes of the Union or Respondent reflects such a
comment by Gallagher, and Model credibly denied that Gallagher made any comment in
response to his remarks about deferring economics. Further, I note Model’s comment later on in
the meeting, where he observed that “everything else is economic-driven. We want to move on
to the grievance procedures.” Gallagher furnished no testimony about any response by him to
this comment by Model.
On October 12, 2012, the parties met once again. As noted above, Kauff and his firm,
Kauff, McGuire and Margolis, replaced Model and his firm (Littler Mendelson) as Respondent’s
counsel and chief negotiator.
After introducing himself, Kauff gave an opening statement, wherein he commented that
it was his understanding that the parties had agreed to leave economics to the end. Gallagher
commented that there was no such agreement but that “we were proceeding in that way, but we
need to see movement or something getting done, otherwise, we’re going to really start wanting
to talk about economics.” Kauff testified that Model had informed him previously that such an
understanding had been reached because “we were about five or six months in the bargaining
now.”
While Model was in the room at the time,18 he made no comment about Gallagher’s
statement concerning the alleged agreement to defer economics.
Toward the close of the meeting, Gallagher provided a list of what the Union considered
open issues. Gallagher also made some comments about the bargaining. The exchange
between Gallagher and Kauff and the Union’s list is set forth below:
BG told JBK outside of the room that the U is going to provide us with an open issues list

18 Although Model had been replaced by Kauff, he was present for this meeting on October
12.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
68
3:36 U returned
BG: have a counter on management rights and a proposal entitled "Third Medical
Opinion."
JBK: Bill told me in advance he doesn't expect us to discuss, just want to have for next
time
BG: mgmt. is simple, Third Medical has just been filled in. Also want to talk about some
of the union's issues that we feel haven't been talked about in a while. Some we've
talked about, a lot we were told we would.
• Two different union proposals on representation, 3A (7.31) and 11. We had
given 3 previously and the company asked us to define chief stewards, etc. and
the numbers, but the company had asked for it. We thought we addressed the
concern but never heard back
• Collective bargaining – proposal 2. We never talked about it after July 2, gave it
on May 30. Need to have more conversations on it.
• Recognition is 13A
• Union security, proposal16. Co said on 5/30 it would get back
• Payroll deduction of dues, number 17, co said it would counter.
• Bulletin boards, 18, 5/30, had some discussions about what the company thought
we would want to put up there, but that was the end of it and we didn't hear
anything back
• Seniority, 23, July 2.
• Company and union relationship, 25, July 2.
• Access to the facility, 26, July 2
• Safety, 27, July 2.
• Uniforms policy, 39
• Employee discounts, 42, August 15
• Continuation of practices, 43
• Equalization of OT, 44
• Promotions, 45
• Bereavement, 35. It sounds like we're asking for more, but that's not what it is
and we told the company that on August 15.
• Jury duty, 33, August 15, asking for the status quo offered to other ees.
At the start of bargaining, co asked to get through language first and then go to
economics, the U didn't necessarily agree but has been trying to get through that. Maybe
the last two are economic. We had planned to talk a lot about these issues today, things
changed and we're okay with it. At the next session, we'd like to have discussion on
these, we've been talking mostly about the company proposals for the last 2-3 sessions.
JBK: we confirm
On December 4, 2012, Calabrese sent an email to bargaining unit members concerning
the negotiations. He stated, “Once we get past these important issues [grievance and
arbitration], we can finally start working on economics.”
On November 7, 2012, the Union by Calabrese provided a list of proposals it wished to
discuss. The list included grievance, arbitration, union security, payroll deduction of union dues,
seniority, safety (renamed employee relations consultations), no strike or lockouts, management
rights, jury duty, bereavement, uniforms, employee discounts, continuation of practices, audit
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
69
department and grade 13 upgrades.19
On November 27, 2012, Respondent made a proposal entitled, “Applicable Company
Policies as of Jan. 1, 2012,” in which it agreed to continue these policies, including jury duty and
bereavement.
At the parties’ meeting on December 5, 2012, the Union brought up its proposal on the
audit department. Apparently, the Union had been informed that Respondent in other locations
in the footprint had made a decision to dismantle the audit department and put employees in
other departments. The Union’s proposal was essentially to do the same thing in Brooklyn.
Gallagher brought up the fact that employees in Brooklyn were being asked to apply for field
service positions. There was some discussion about that contention during which Respondent
confirmed that throughout the footprint, there is a reorganization going on since there is not
much of a need for audit work. Calabrese repeated why should employees have to apply for
other positions and that Respondent should just do what it did across the footprint, which is the
Union’s proposal.
After a caucus, Kauff made some comments, followed by an exchange of statements by
the parties. It is as follows:
Insofar as it’s an economic proposal, and it may not be now, but to the extent it’s viewed
as an economic proposal, we will treat them as a group and not in a piecemeal way. So
if it’s being asserted as economic (and we're not sure it is, since you said it was at one
point) proposal, in the scheme of things, our notion is that it's a very small economic
proposal, and we'll treat it as we treat all the economic proposals in the ordinary course
of business. We will make some balance about how we want to respond economically
and we will discuss it in that context. It was surprising to us that we had to spend so
much time on what we consider to be something that is pretty much in the ordinary
course of business, involving 4 people who we thought were asking for an opportunity,
asking to apply for this kind of position in the ordinary course -- some felt that the rules
were changed in the middle of the process, and we gave them an opportunity to explain
what they wanted to do (to opt-out) and some did and we thought we were doing the
right thing and still think so.
BG: no one challenged you on your position. I don't think we spent too much time on it,
we are just telling you what we heard -- I'm not saying it's correct, it's just what we heard.
If it's what it's been, we have no problem with it. Since we gave the proposal on Aug 15,
we gave you the meaning, we thought if the company took a position for the whole
company -- that it would be better to make a change for our customers, etc. -- we would
be open to talking about it.
JBK: to the extent it has economic consequences, we will talk about it.

19 When Calabrese referred to seniority as an issue to be discussed, he added, “It’s just the
definition, there’s no cost factor on it.” When he referred to the Union’s proposals “jury duty and
bereavement,” he stated, “Just follows the current policy.” When he mentioned employee
discounts, Calabrese said, “We believe that there’s no cost to the Company on this, it’s the
same show discounts, and we’d like to continue them.” On the proposal on audit department,
Calabrese stated, “Changes were made in other areas, we want to make the same changes in
Brooklyn.”
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
70
BG: I don't think we need the economic consequences. Our proposal may be wrong, but
it's just saying that if there's a decision that's better for the business, maybe we should
do it here too.
JBK: of the 4, 2 are 10s and 2 are 11s. The proposal has an economic consequence.
CC: we know what the proposal says on paper, but we've tried to say our intention isn't
necessarily what the paper says. We want parity. If the company is making changes
elsewhere and it doesn't in BK because of bargaining, our intent is to say it's ok to do the
same think in BK in order to keep it uniform with everyone else.
JBK: we understand.
CC: we don't understand if it's economic.
JBK: we'll look at it.
PH: you have career progression information for the other organizations. By looking at it,
you can make some assumptions.
CC: so I think we may have a proposal on career progression that's separate (not sure
we do), and I think PH is saying that our proposal looks like 2 parts. It's do what you do
for audit everywhere else and I think PH is saying are you proposing just the part to
change the work or are you proposing that we change it with the progression and salary
pieces attached?
PH: what I was actually saying was that you didn't question economic impact, but we
went through a lengthy dialogue on career progression stuff, and from there you can
make an assessment on economics.
BG: we couldn't do it before today because I was thinking it wasn't part of our proposal
until you explained it, but I can do it going forward.
PH: to your further comment, I think that's a fair way of assessing the other questions
CC: on the audit, are you saying that if there was a proposal on audit that doesn't have
the economic implications of the new career progressions in other areas, you'd be open
to it?
JBK: I'm not saying that. If you have a proposal, make it; if it's different from what you've
made, make it.
The parties met on December 20, 2012. During this meeting, Kauff stated that
Respondent had previously agreed to include jury duty and bereavement as applicable
company standards, and it was now adding added leaves of absence to that list.
Kauff then stated that “there’s a number of proposals that are outstanding that are on the
border of economic and non-economic. We’d like to talk about them now.” The parties then
discussed these proposals, which included work schedules, overtime assignments, swapping of
tours, job bidding transfers, travel and entertainment reimbursement.
Later on in their December 20, 2012 meeting, Kauff asked the Union for a list of non-
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
71
economic proposals that it wanted to discuss. Gallagher replied union security, payroll
deduction of union dues, employee discounts and audit department. Kauff responded that union
security was slightly economic. Gallagher asked how. Kauff replied, “Whether we have an
understanding that we characterize union security as economic—we think it is economic. We
may respond on a non-economic basis but we think it’s economic and has economic
implications. Gallagher asked Kauff to explain why Respondent viewed union security as
economic. Kauff replied that he would at a further time.
At the meeting on January 3, 2013, Respondent distributed proposals on hours and
overtime, layoff and employee benefits, which Kauff stated was in response to certain of the
Union’s proposals. Kauff mentioned several other of the Union’s proposals on employee
benefits.
During the January 3, 2013 session, Respondent responded to some of the Union’s
proposals on night differentials. Kauff responded that this was an economic proposal but added
that Respondent is generous in what they do now and explained that Respondent's proposals
refer to a number of company benefits, such as employees cost benefit, cable allowance,
commuter program, NY’s 529 college savings program, group legal plan and flexible spending.
The Union then made changes to their proposals. It distributed a new proposal on work
schedules, payment for time worked and covered work.
Kauff responded to the Union’s proposals and with respect to the work schedule
proposal, essentially took the position that Respondent's policies in this area are generous and
are in its handbook. Thus, he saw no need for their inclusion in the contract. The Union
disagreed, stating that they are negotiating a contract and not a handbook. The parties did
discuss nearly all of the issues in the Union’s proposals, and Respondent gave its responses,
which was essentially the same. Its status, as in the handbook, is generous and complied with
the law, and it was not going to agree to the Union’s proposals.
When it came to the Union’s proposals on night differential, Kauff stated: “First our
observation is that we believe that this is an economic item. We are not inclined to make a
change in what we consider to be a rather generous and forthcoming night differential payment.
Everyone had a wish list, and we understand people would like to have more, but we feel as
though we have a pretty good night differential program.”
Notwithstanding this comment by Kauff, the subject of night differentials was discussed
further at this very meeting. Hilber stated that Respondent would send the Union something in
writing in regard to Respondent’s policy on night differential. Kauff observed, “With respect to
the night differential and tour swapping, we think we’re in the right place.”
On January 3, 2013, Calabrese sent the following memo to the Union’s members:
Subject: Fwd: Bargaining Report
From: christopher calabrese
To: lindakelly@us .com
Date: 09/17/13 05:56 PM
----------Forwarded message----------
From: christopher calabrese ccalabrese1109@gmail.com
Date: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:38 PM
Subject: Bargaining Report
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
72
To:
CWA Bargaining Report
January 3, 2013
Your bargaining team and the Company met today at JFK Hilton for Eight hours.
The day started out with the Company informing us that they would respond to our
information request no later than our next session which is January 9, 2013. We
requested salary information from the other areas of Cablevision that are not Union. We
want to make a comprehensive proposal on wages soon.
The Company also provided us with five potential dates for bargaining in February. We
accepted all five dates. We now have nine dates of bargaining scheduled with the
Company.
The Company gave us counter proposals on Hours and Overtime as well as a proposal
on layoffs.
We gave the company proposals on work schedules, night hours and scheduling and
weekend assignments, and swapping tours.
We spent a long time explaining to the company that the workers want a fair way to
swap their tours with other workers to have flexibility. We explained that all workers work
52 weekends a year, and that it would be nice to have some weekends off and not have
to waste your personal or vacation days. Our proposal did not have economic costs to
the company and gave the company considerable protection so that it did not become a
free for all. The company so far has rejected this proposal. We explained that this issue
is important to the members. The company does not believe us.
It is time for all the members to let your managers and supervisors know that this
issue is important to all of you.
We are happy to report that we came to agreement on the following issues:
Employee Product Agreement (Free Cable), Employee service program (discounts),
Commuter Program Policy, College Savings Plan, Savings Bond Program, Bethpage
Federal Credit Union@ TD Bank Policy, Flexible Spending Account Policy, wellness
Program, Group Legal Plan, and Employee Verification Program.
We also reached Agreement on Recognition of the Union, Complete Agreement, and
Work Assignment Staffing and Leaves of Absence
Although there are many issues that are still outstanding and it is moving slower than we
would like, we are making incremental progress.
Continue to support your bargaining team, we appreciate it.
In Solidarity,
Chris Calabrese
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
73
Gallagher testified that in response to Kauff’s comment about night differential being an
economic proposal, he reiterated that there was no agreement to leave economics to the end,
but the Union agreed to proceed in that way, but if the Union did not see progress, it wanted to
talk about economics. He added that the Union had constantly been giving Respondent
proposals all the way through bargaining that had economic impact.
On January 9, 2013, Respondent made proposals on both union security and payroll
deductions and explained why it felt that union security was economic and why it believed that
payroll deduction “is a touch economic.” He added that while this does cost Respondent money
to administer payroll deductions of union dues, it was willing to provide this service and offered
a proposal on that subject as well as on union security.
On January 17, 2013, the Union submitted a proposal on medical. At the January 30
meeting, Kauff referred to the Union’s proposal and said, “While we have an understanding that
we’re trying to settle non-economic issues first, it makes sense for us, I’m sure, you have to try
and get ready for our economic discussions. We are not there yet, but we want to get ready.”
Kauff asked for information from the Union so Respondent can evaluate the Union’s proposals
on medical, dental, vision and pension and added, “We want to prepare a counter.” Kauff
detailed the information Respondent was seeking from the Union.
The parties met on February 5, 2013. Kauff observed that at the last session,
Respondent asked for information on the Union’s pension and medical plan and asked if the
Union had it since “we’d like to get started on that analysis.” Gallagher replied that the Union did
not have it today but are gathering the information.
Later on in the meeting, Gallagher questioned why Respondent didn’t make a request
for information earlier since the Union had initially made a medical proposal on May 30, 2012.
Kauff responded that the Union made a specific detailed proposal on January 17, 2013 and at
the next session on January 30, Respondent asked for information, which Kauff believed was in
good faith. This led to the following exchange between Gallagher and Kauff.
BG: this is why I don't think it's in good faith. The union made a medical proposal on May
30, proposal 19, which the company still has not answered to this day. So don't tell me in
good faith what the company is doing. In good faith, we can see the proposal you gave
us and review the changes from our discipline to yours and see the movement we've
made to yours and you to ours. We made a proposal on May 30, and at no time until Jan
16 did you think to ask for the union plan. I'm not saying that we won't give it. I'm saying
it took that long, and we never got an answer to the May 30th proposal, so we made
another proposal. We're trying not to disrupt the business, but we want the company to
run its business, and to that day, we've gotten no answer.
JBK: I have two responses to your speech: there's no reason to raise the level of heat in
this room -- we're discussing a business arrangement and you don't have to get pissed
off at me and I'll try not to get pissed off at you. Second, I was under the impression and
I think it's reflected in the record numerous times that there's an informal understanding
that we're going to focus on non-economic matters and then turn to economics. Last
time, when you gave us a new proposal on medical, we acknowledged that it's part of an
economic proposal and because we're getting close (I think I explained it this way) to
disposing of the non-economic issues and addressing the economic items, both of us,
that we wanted the info, because we were at the cusp of discussing economics. So it
isn't as if we waited for many months to ask for that info -- I say that because I think it's
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
74
important that you understand the good faith behind this request. We're working, and I
think in good faith, all of us, or at least we are, towards disposing of non-economics and
we're about to turn to the economic matters. As we approach the economic matters, we
wanted this info to begin preparing for the time that we do have these discussions. They
become timely now -- they weren't timely in May because we were addressing the non-
economics first. I want you to know that it wasn't an afterthought, it was a pre-thought --
we're getting close to this, so we better be prepared for a comprehensive discussion and
it won't be a discussion when we get to economics about one item at a time (in our view)
-- it'll be packaged. When we have economics, we want to know the total, and we think
you will too. We won't say just personal days, it relates to sick, to personal, to vacation.
When we approach it, it will be in a comprehensive way to understanding economic
costs and take into account all economic items. There are some marginal economic
items we've talked about -- bereavement, jury duty, we said shit, let's just deal with this.
I don't want you to think this is bullshit. We want to be in a position so that when we get
to these economic items we have a full and comprehensive discussion on them. Some
days we may have more discussion on one than the other, but I don't want you to think
that now we're trying to fuck over the union and suggest some request for economic
data. Give us a break, it's not as if we've asked for a lot of info, I think this is the first time
we've asked for information.
BG: it's not.
JBK: it's pretty close. When we asked for the info, we were really not to put the union to
any task, we said code it.
BG: I just said, I didn't say we aren't giving it, we're looking into it.
JBK: you questioned the good faith in asking for it
BG: you stated we had an informal agreement -- be careful with those terms. Alan Model
said he'd rather deal with non-economics first. I said something about I can agree to that
and let's see how we do. Today is Feb 5 and that was May 30 -- we're not doing too well.
Let me finish, you spoke for 5 minutes, I never speak that long. You said you think we're
close on these issues -- are we close on Discharge?
JBK: I think we are.
PH: what was the proposal on the original medical?
BG: 19
PH: it's retiree medical.
BG: it's retroactive pay, it encompasses medical, it was made on May 30.
JBK: to finish my point, there were some sessions where at the end of the session you
said you want us to address certain things and we, I think, covered everything on the list.
You were driving the bus, saying you want to address this, you want to address that. The
list includes union representation, collective bargaining, [reading from notes],
recognition, union security, payroll deduction, bulletin boards, seniority, company-union
relationship, access, safety, uniforms, discounts, etc. Because I'm serious about this, I
tick off every goddarnned time I get to an item and I responded to you. Each paragraph
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
75
when I say you were driving the bus, you asked about this and we tried to make sure
that we responded and we had a serious discuss about that. Now we've settled
collective bargaining, recognition, bulletin boards, company-union relationship, access,
bereavement, jury duty, and we have packages outstanding on Union Security and
Payroll Deduction. I want you to appreciate that you made the list and we seriously
talked about that list.
On February 11, the Union complained that Respondent was paying the former
contractor employees, hired to “replace” the 22 employees on January 30, 2013, more than
some of the remaining Brooklyn employees. The Union felt that this was unfair since the
incumbent employees were working there for a number of years and were not being paid the
rate of $17.79 per hour, paid to the “replacement” workers.
Kauff explained that the replacement employees all worked for contractors and had
experience working on Cablevision jobs. Thus, Respondent felt that $17.79 was a reasonable
and fair rate to pay them. He understood that the Union felt that this rate was high, and
Respondent was ready and willing to bargain about it and is willing to listen to the Union’s views
on that subject.
Gallagher replied that the Union is not contending that the rate for the replacements was
too high and, in fact, believes that they should be paid more. The Union’s problem is that there
are a number of unit employees, who have been working for Respondent and who are not
making this amount, and this is what is unfair.
Kauff responded as follows:
“It’s a good point for the Union to raise. We understand that we have to reach some
critical economic discussions and these will be important and you’ll make this point in the
course of arguing about wages, I respect that, but let’s do it in the context of proposals,
we aren’t there yet. I’m saying hold your fire, you’ll get to that. You asked for the update
on the wages and we gave it. I think four times ago you asked for additional info on
wages and we provided that. We’re in the context now, I think I said this last time, on
being on the cusp of getting into econ items -- wages, retirement, health/medical,
vacation, holidays, sick days -- we have to have that discussion and want to. What you
said about…
Gallagher interrupting and said, “Some things can’t wait. We’ve been waiting for 10
months on economics.” Kauff answered, “I’ll get to waiting, but let’s get to discipline.”
The parties then discussed discipline and some other non-economic issues. At the close
of this meeting, Kauff asked the Union for a detailed a wage proposal. Kauff explained that
“we’re looking for specific thoughts on grades, promotional increases, any wage progressions
on annual increases and term/duration.”
Gallagher conceded that the Union had not yet made such a proposal and stated that it
would do so. Gallagher added that the Union had given a proposal on May 30, which asked for
“parity” with other employees in the footprint and stated that if Respondent accepted that
concept, it would offer the Union’s proposal. Gallagher added that he would state that again
when “I give you a wage proposal.”
When the parties met on February 25, 2013, the Union submitted a wage proposal. It
consisted of two proposals, 54 and 55. Union Proposal 55 provided that effective immediately,
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
76
any technicians, who are not currently a grade 12 will be immediately upgraded to a grade 12,
and any technicians, who are not currently earning $17.79 an hour, shall have his hourly rate
increased in that amount, retroactive to January 30, 2013.
Proposal 54 is entitled “Career Progression,” and included a chart for career progression
for various grades. The proposals were discussed, and Respondent had several questions
about the proposals and the interplay between the two of them, which were answered by the
Union. Respondent made no response to the proposal, and the parties moved to a discussion of
other proposals, including the repeated proposals on double time for the seventh day of work,
which is, of course, an economic matter. No agreement was reached on this issue at that time.
The parties next met on February 28, 2013. Kauff made reference to the Union’s wage
proposals presented on February 25 (54 and 55) and stated that Respondent still needs the
Union’ s proposal on wage increases over the three years of the contract, which Respondent
assumes will be forthcoming.
Gallagher responded that the Union needed additional information in order to make such
a proposal, more specifically, the wages in the Bronx prior to the May 1, 2012 increases. Kauff
replied that Respondent will provide the information requested on a priority basis and hoped to
have a comprehensive wage proposal from the Union.
After the parties discussed several other non-economic issues, Kauff provided
Respondent’s reaction to the Union’s wage proposals. “First, we consider it an economic
proposal, but notwithstanding that, we’ve spent some time considering it and we’re not inclined
to agree with it. I take it you’ll continue to raise it and we can discuss it again when we get to
economics.” He then reiterated what he had said in previous discussions about why it selected
the rate for replacements, and that it was prepared to bargain about the progress rate for the
replacement employees. He concluded by saying, “In summary, we are not inclined to agree
with the proposal, but we think it’s an economic proposal and we expect the Union will continue
to have it on the table and we’ll see how economics go in light of this proposal.”
Gallagher responded:
“I’ve told you numerous times, and I think you’ve seen from the Union that we’ve
consistently given economic proposals, there has never been an agreement not to talk
about economics, there isn’t. There were discussions with AM, who raised that we
should leave econ to the end, and the U had always stood by its stance that we’ll see
how things go, that wasn’t an agreement. Here, we are 10-11 months in, and things
aren’t going quickly. We should be talking econ now, this proposal is a perfect example
to start with, you hired people in one day, in a few hours, and gave them a certain wage.
There are many people on the list from February 11, who made under $17.79 and we
don’t see why you wouldn’t offer that same benefit to these people. What’s wrong with
the people on your payroll -- what are they not doing that they wouldn’t be afforded this
wage...”
He then criticized Respondent’s bargaining over the rate for the replacements and
concluded by stating that “there’s no better time to talk about these people, who aren’t being
offered the same wage.”
Kauff responded by explaining again how Respondent set the wages of the
replacements and noted that the Union had not made a proposal concerning the replacement
wages, although Respondent stated it was ready and willing to bargain about that subject.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
77
Kauff then addressed the alleged understanding about deferring economics and stated
that he was ok with how Gallagher expressed the understanding but added that “the conduct of
the Union over the course of bargaining until that moment was that economic matters would be
left to a time after now economics were adjusted.” He then criticized the Union for not providing
a prompt comprehensive wage proposal as Respondent had requested since Respondent was
trying to anticipate economic discussions. Kauff added that the Union had asked to address the
issue and Respondent addressed it and explained the background. Kauff continued, “If you’re
saying we want to talk about this more because it’s a temporal item, it’s here before us and it’s
important for the Union to address it now, even though, it’s an economic item and, even though,
whatever agreement/understanding/record reflects etc., you want to talk about it—we’ll talk
about it.” We’re prepared to have a discussion. We’ve said we considered it, we understand, we
just don’t think we should entertain it, we’re rejecting it. But that doesn’t mean that we aren’t
talking about it—we are talking about it, and if you want to talk about it further, we’ll talk about it
further.”
The parties then proceeded to discuss the proposal further, and the Union asked several
questions of Respondent, which were answered, including what it generally pays new
employees. The response was $12.98 for a grade 10 in field service. Gallagher jumped on that
admission as further support for his argument that paying $17.79 to the replacements is unfair
to current employees and that they should be brought up to that level immediately.
Kauff responded that the Union makes an equitable argument that Respondent respects
but again repeated that Respondent was faced with a unique event and made a reasonable
judgment as to what to pay the replacements. He added that Respondent could reconsider
when it receives the Union’s comprehensive wage proposal.
Kauff also stated, “I do think that we’ll be in a better context to talk about it when we get
further along in economics.” Gallagher replied, “Stop saying we disagree, there is no further
along about economics. What did the company think when I gave them proposals in December
and January about economics, that I was just giving them to you to hold on to?” Kauff answered
yes.
Gallagher continued to press the point that there was no agreement to hold on
economics and added that Kauff had admitted the other day that there was no agreement. Kauff
replied that he had said three or four times that there was a “tacit” agreement.
Gallagher stated that’s not an agreement and that the Union doesn’t want to wait until
the end. Kauff again asked the Union for a comprehensive wage proposal.
Finally, the Union said that when it gets the information it requested from Respondent, it
will have something for Respondent.
On March 6, 2013, the parties met once again. Kauff began the meeting by giving the
Union the information it had requested at the last meeting concerning the Bronx wages and
stated that the Union should look it over and provide Respondent with any questions it may
have, and Respondent would respond.
After a discussion of the force adjustment proposals, during which Respondent stated
that it would adopt the Union’s severance pay proposal, Kauff brought up wages. Kauff
observed that the Union had gotten the information requested from Respondent today, and it
expected that the Union will be able to give Respondent a proposal later today or as soon
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
78
thereafter as possible. Kauff added that Respondent had some questions about the interplay
between Union Proposals 19 and 54, and it would be helpful to get answers to these questions,
so that Respondent can prepare a response when the parties get to discussion about wages.
Essentially, Respondent wanted to know whether 54 replaced 19 or augmented it, or what. The
Union really did not answer the question but continued to assert that it wants Brooklyn
employees to be brought up to the standard of the move Respondent made on May 1, 2012
elsewhere. The explanation was insufficient for Respondent since Respondent’s system and the
one it applied on May 1, 2012 provided for discretion and judgment by Respondent with no
guaranteed increases. Finally, the Union stated that it needed a few minutes to discuss.
After the Union returned, Gallagher and Calabrese acknowledged that what they had
provided to Respondent was not a full-fledged proposal, and they needed to understand the
process. Calabrese said that 54 replaces 19, but the Union wants to do something for the
interim period since employees did not receive increases in May. Thus, 54 is designed to catch
the grade up and the second part is designed to go forward.
Hilber replied that Respondent does not do things automatically, the Union’s 54 seemed
to be meant to call for automatic increases. The discussion continued as follows:
After JBK asked how they wanted to tie they financials in, the union asked if there were
situations in the Bronx or the greater footprint when someone would not have gotten an
increase? PH explained that happened to someone in the top of a job family, audit,
RCC, tech who became an RCC rep, people who fall in between the progression -- the
compensation impact is 6 months out. He went through the process again and how it
was applied to each individual -- each person has different data. PH singled out fiber and
Ray Reid, since he didn't understand why the union made that change, and the union
said it wasn't related, it was just what they thought had happened everywhere else.
The union acknowledged that someone being on a PIP or corrective action were good
reasons to hold that person back. The union talked about how what they're saying is
linear and PH explained the way the co administers the wage progression. PH said that
you're pulling something out of our business and trying to create something new, but this
is part of the overall fabric of our operations, which includes training, experience, how we
route work, what experience the employee will have, wages, grade progression,
responsibilities -it's not just a title, time and money. The union acknowledged that their
proposal is linear.
CC said multiple times that he was leaning toward saying yes to the method the co uses
for career progression, but there are caveats. JBK asked what the caveats are and JBK
said it sounds like the U is unsure what its proposal is and this is why the co is asking for
the proposal on progressions and salary, and BG agreed. BG said that what they were
trying to do in 54 was to work off of what the co does now, but they acknowledge that
there is an inconsistency between working off what the co does (discretion) and the
application of a fixed system. JBK said you know that most U contracts have steps,
which BG agreed to, and JBK said if you want to make a proposal (and I'm not saying
we'll agree) that's a fixed system and then there is the right of the co within that fixed
system to apply its judgment (PIP, corrective action, experience, certification), then you
can make that proposal but please take into account that when you do, you also have to
address what happens if there are disputes under those proposals -- neither party wants
a dispute and the only way to avoid that is to have a fixed system. If you have a fixed
system and take away the system that the co has, you can't expect that when you take
away the co's discretion that the co will pay the same amount. When you take discretion
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
79
away, that's a value to the union -- it's lockstep, it costs, so you can't ask for the same
wages; BG agreed. JBK said if you want to give us the ability to do what we do in the
rest of the footprint, we don't need a wage proposal, there is no need for a provision in
the contract because the provision is do what you do, which BG disagreed with, he said
we haven't talked about fixed annual increases or anything like that, but he got the point.
The union acknowledged that their proposal is not clear because it doesn't say the co
has complete discretion and it also doesn't have a fixed system and it doesn't tell us how
to do anything. JBK specifically asked how we would do this on the first day; CC didn't
have an answer and said they were trying to figure it out. JBK asked so next time we
meet we'll have a wage proposal? BG concluded by saying it's fair to say that "the next
time we meet, you will know where we are coming from.
Later on, at this meeting, Kauff made the following comment, along with Respondent’s
submission of proposals, which have economic implications:
Last time, and I don't want to characterize it in a way that is prejudicial, you seemed to
be pulling away from what we thought was an understanding to put econ off and
concentrate on non-econ items. While we wait for a comprehensive wage proposal,
which we talked about earlier today, and even though wages are related and all
economics are fundamentally related to wages, we nevertheless are going to make
some economic proposals today. We've had some discussions about some of these
items and questions the U has raised, but we've never really made proposals on it or
exchanged proposals, we've just had questions, for example, on shift differential. We'll
make a proposal, which makes a proposal on 6 econ items, and we propose that we
apply, with respect to those items, the co benefits as they existed as of Jan 1, 2012. We
already have LOA on that list, so we want to add to that list of co policies which contain
benefits to the BU. [Co 32A given at 5:56 p.m.] This includes standby, shift differential,
Life & AD&D, retirement product, employee referral and educational assistance. We
would extend all of those proposals to all of the BU as those benefits existed on 1/1/12.
In addition, we had some discussion last time about uniforms and dress policy. We've
amended proposal 31to add a footnote to dress guidelines and uniform policy, it gives
the U what it wanted about boot allowance -- it says that boot allowance, in essence,
notwithstanding that dress and those guidelines are what they are for everyone, for the
monetary allowance for boots, it's frozen and will be covered by the paragraph I just
referred to, policies frozen as of 1/1/12. The co will keep the boot allowance as it is now.
If it changes for others, you stay, if it eliminates it, you keep it, if it cuts back, you have
$175.
On March 14, 2013, another collective bargaining session was held. Kauff began the
meeting by asking about when it would be receiving the Union’s wage proposal. Gallagher
replied that Respondent would have it, and it could be discussed after lunch.
Kauff then stated that Respondent had made some proposals at the last session in
proposal 32 (A) Company benefits, and the Union was going to look into it. It included some
economic issues, and Kauff commented, “Obviously we’ve started to dip in here into economics,
but our feeling is it makes some sense to get some TAs on these (standby shift differential, life
insurance, etc.) We’d like to try to move to closure on those.” The parties then discussed these
issues as well as other issues such as management rights and discharges.
After lunch, as promised, the Union presented a wage proposal to replace all its previous
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
80
proposals. The proposal provided for one time contractual bonus of $12,000 for all bargaining
unit employees, who were also unit employees as of February 7, 2012, that Respondent will
cease usage of its career progression plan, and replace it with a wage progression plan,
detailed in the proposal, plus wage increases of 6% for all unit employees on May 5, 2013, and
then additional 6% increases in May of 2014 and May of 2015.
Respondent read the proposal, took a break, and then returned. Kauff stated that
Respondent had two questions and thought the answers would be brief. He added that
Respondent did an analysis of how it applied to Brooklyn employees and would prepare a
response. Kauff promised that Respondent would be ready to respond at the April 3 session.
Respondent asked the questions and received answers from the Union. Gallagher asked if
Respondent wanted to go through the wage proposal, and Kauff replied it was very clear, and if
Respondent had questions as it digs through the proposal, it might have more questions.
On April 9, as promised, Respondent submitted a comprehensive counterproposal to the
Union in the form of a complete collective bargaining agreement, which included proposals on
wages, medical, retirement, paid time off, numerous other economic issues, the remaining open
non-economic items and all 43 TAs. Kauff explained various portions of the proposal,
emphasizing medical, retirement, 401ks and then, wages.
With respect to wages, Respondent offered a wage increase of 1.5% for all employees,
plus a fixed 3% promotional increase. He explained that in Respondent’s view, it had taken an
enormous step since it has given up its current system of pay for performance and provided
fixed increases as the Union requested. Thus, Kauff argued that Respondent has given its
current practice of determining increases based on its discretion and employee performance.
Kauff added that these fixed increases are valuable to and contrary to Respondent’s view that
pay for performance is a better way to run its business.
The Union asked some questions about various aspects of the proposals, which were
answered.
The parties met again on April 6, 2013. The parties discussed various parts of the
Respondent’s proposals and answered several of the Union’s questions. The Union promised to
respond to the Respondent’s proposals at some point in the future but needed some more
information on medical issues before it could do so.
Gallagher did complain about the 1.5% increase, which he pointed out is less than they
get now when they get their performance review. Further, the 3% for promotion is dependent on
whether Respondent decides to open a position. Kauff responded as follows:
JBK: to respond to the points you've made, I think that the movement and the effect on
the unit is the same that exists now -- if the Co determines in FS that there's a 14
opening, it posts the 14 opening. So I believe that there is no change in that. The second
is that you are right that the Co is proposing 1.5% on the anniversary date and right now
(we have to underscore right now) when people are up for annual review, the Co's
existing policy is to increase their wages by between X and Y within that range based on
the Co's judgment. But, what we were trying to do is get to a point where there is no or
very little discretion in terms of a person's annual increase. The only limitation is that it's
delayed if there's a PIP or if someone is on a corrective action. We were trying to meet
what we thought you were after -- a lockstep, in that the Co is locked in -- if a person isn't
on a PIP (you know only one person is) and isn't subject to discipline, they get the 1.5%.
It's a trade-off between a system that is pay for performance and a system that is fixed
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
81
and locked in. There's a value for you in the fixed system and a very real value for us in
the pay for performance system. That's why we proposed a number that is lower,
because we were abandoning a very valuable pay for performance system. I’ll say again
what we said WRT retirement -- this was our first proposal after we got the U’s wage
proposal. Realistically, we expected that the U would counter, so we invite a counter and
we invite a counter on whatever methodology you want and whatever numbers you
would like to counter on. We only ask that you do it in a reasonably prompt manner. I
think you have the reasons, BG and I have talked about this, so you're correct in what
you stated, it is what we proposed, but you now have the reasons why we proposed it
and perhaps you could craft a counter which would be helpful in getting us to move
forward.
After further discussion, Calabrese brought the discussion on raises back to how
Respondent treated the employees in the footprint. Calabrese's comments and Kauff’s
response appears below:
CC: I understand it changed in the footprint and you're saying that there's value, but
there was business necessity everywhere else to have major upgrades, so why is there
less necessity in BK when, by volume, it has the most significant customer base? It
doesn't make sense that there is less need to go up.
JBK: it's an important point, when we're subject to CB and have the opportunity to have
this type of discussion, the U is entitled to say, as it did, let's scrap the Co's system, we
don't want pay for performance, we want lockstep. You can say that and we're trying to
figure out a way to meet the U's notion of a fixed percent. We may not have the right
fixed percent, that's why we said this is an initial proposal and we invite a counter, but if
you want the fixed system, you have to understand that the Co is giving up an enormous
amount, in the Co's judgment. You may feel, and I respect that, that it isn't, but we think
the pay for performance system is extremely important.
Thereafter, as related above, the parties bargained over seven days in mediation, which
did not result in an agreement. The parties have continued to bargain on all subjects, including
wages, and as of the close of this record, such bargaining is still in progress.
Further, the record discloses that parties met 18 times between May 30, 2012 and
February 7, 2013, and the parties reached 35 tentative agreements between these dates on
final contract language. These TAs included proposals on arbitration, grievance procedures,
purpose of agreement, union representation, outside employment, bulletin boards, company-
union relationship, union access to facilities, applicable company policies, including jury duty
and bereavement leave, no-strike or lockouts, recognition of the union, work assignment
staffing, employees relations consulting, employees probationary period, maintenance and
cleanliness of facilities, passengers, non-discrimination modification, separatability and savings,
and complete agreement on applicable company benefits to include LOA policies.
C. The Alleged Insistence on Changing the Scope of the Certified Bargaining Unit
On February 7, 2012, the Union was certified as the collective bargaining representative
of Respondent’s employees in the following unit:
Included: All full-time and regular part-time field service technicians, outside plant
technicians, audit technicians, inside plant technicians, construction technicians, network
fiber technicians, logistics associates, regional control center (RCC) representatives and
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
82
coordinators employed by the Employer at its Brooklyn, New York facilities.
Excluded: All other employees, including customer service employees, human resource
department employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
Section 2(11) of the Act.
At the parties’ initial bargaining session of May 30, 2012, the Union made Proposal 13,
entitled Recognition. It reads as follows:
1) The Company hereby recognizes the Union as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, for all full-time and
regular part-time field service technicians, outside plant technicians, construction
technicians, audit technicians, inside plant technicians, network fiber technicians,
logistics associates, regional control center representatives and coordinators employed
by the Company in the boroughs of Brooklyn.
2) In the event that the Company establishes a new facility in the same line of business
to service the geographic area described above in Section 1, the Company will
recognize the Union as the collective bargaining representative of the employees
described above in Section 1.
In the event that the Company acquires a new company, the parties agree that the union
representative of the employees will be determined pursuant to sections 7 and 9 of the
Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended.
3) In the event the Company develops and markets new communications, cable, data, or
wireless products, the parties agree the onsite servicing of such products within the
geographic area described in Section 1 will be considered bargaining unit work.
Model explained at trial that in his opinion, under the Union's proposal, any employees in
the listed classifications, who performed work anywhere in the borough of Brooklyn would be in
the bargaining unit, even if they were based outside of Brooklyn, and the second and third
sections of the Union's proposal would have expanded the unit to include any future facility in
Brooklyn and sought to claim as bargaining unit work any work performed on new products in
Brooklyn by employees located anywhere.
Cablevision responded to the Union's proposal at the second session, on July 2, 2012,
by tendering a proposal identifying the three facilities it actually had in Brooklyn. As Model
testified, Respondent’s proposal did not seek to change the scope of the unit, and in his view,
Respondent’s proposal “mirrored” the certification since he simply identified the facilities that
employed the employees that voted and were certified as the bargaining unit.
Model further testified that Respondent’s proposal would not have changed the scope of
the bargaining unit, and in his opinion, “it was the same.” The Union made no objection or
response to Respondent’s proposal on July 2.
At the next session, July 31, 2012, the Union rejected Respondent’s proposal and
countered by reusing its recognition proposal in Section 1 to conform to the certification
language defining the unit as all employees “employed by the company at its Brooklyn, New
York facilities.” However, the Union’s recognition proposal still included paragraphs 2 and 3,
which referred to covering future facilities and defining future work as unit work.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
83
On October 26, 2012, Respondent made two new proposals, entitled “Covered Work”
and “Geographic Scope.” The covered work proposals allowed Respondent to assign unit work
to anyone, including managers or contractors. Further, a dispute regarding the provision would
not be arbitrable but would be referred to the Board. The geographic scope proposal stated that
to contract work cover only employees working in the three locations listed in Respondent’s
recognition package and to work performed within the Brooklyn franchise area by unit
employees permanently assigned to and working out of these facilities. Similarly, the proposal
added that any dispute arising out of this provision would not be subject to the grievance
procedure.
Respondent explained its proposal as follows: “The work that is covered here is work
that the Company has assigned, and has been performed as of the date of recognition. It
doesn’t include work that may be assigned in the future.”
On November 7, 2012, the Union requested that Respondent respond to the Union’s
recognition provision. Respondent deleted the addresses of the three facilities from its
recognition provision but packaged this change with its covered work and geographic scope
provisions, which did reference the three current addresses.
At the November 27, 2012 meeting, Kauff asked the Union for a response to
Respondent’s proposals on recognizing covered work and geographic scope. Kauff observed
that Respondent had adopted the Union’s proposal to take the addresses out of the recognition
of the Union provision. Calabrese reminded Respondent that it had merely adopted the NLRB’s
certification of the Union. Calabrese and Gallagher pointed that the facility addresses were still
listed in Respondent’s covered work and geographic scope provisions. When asked what his
intention was with these proposals, Kauff stated that he wanted to make it clear that only the
three locations would be covered by the contract and that all new work would be “up for grabs.”
Gallagher responded that Respondent was still trying to run its business as if the employees
were not represented and that the Union was not interested in this package.
On December 5, 2012, Gallagher brought up a hypothesis situation, that if Respondent
assigned a worker from another facility to work in Brooklyn and a dispute arose as to whether
the worker was part of the unit, the NLRB would likely decide against the Union for several
reasons. The worker was not from one of the three listed Brooklyn facilities, the performance of
bargaining unit work clause states that work is not exclusive and Respondent’s assignment
clause allows Respondent to assign work at its safe discretion. Kauff responded that he didn’t
know how the NLRB would respond in this situation.
At the December 17, 2012 session, the Union presented a counter to Respondent’s
geographic scope proposal, eliminating the Brooklyn addresses and providing that disputes be
subject to the grievance and arbitration procedure. Respondent responded on December 20,
2012 by resubmitting its recognition proposal without the specific addresses but with a covered
work proposal that included the specific facility addresses. Gallagher told Respondent that the
Union granted the recognition clause to mirror the NLRB certification without the addresses and
Respondent’s proposal would permit Respondent to assign unit work to non-unit workers and
managers.
On January 3, 2013, the parties agreed to TA in Respondent’s recognition proposal,
which was packaged with Respondent’s work assignment/staffing proposal and Model’s version
of the complete agreement proposal. However, Respondent’s covered work and geographic
scope still contained the facility addresses.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
84
On January 16, 2013, the parties continued discussing these proposals. Kauff continued
to take the position that he wanted the scope limited to the three Brooklyn addresses and that if
there were other locations opened in the future, Respondent wanted the NLRB to resolve them.
On January 17, 2013, Kauff conceded that the Union was entitled to the recognition
clause the way it was written in the Board certification, which the Union already had. Gallagher
responded that the Union had to fight over it. Kauff replied that Respondent was entitled to
propose different language and see if the Union would agree to change it. Gallagher pointed out
that Kauff was attempting to simplify this issue when, in fact, it took the Union 19 months to get
what it was entitled to in the first place.
On February 25, 2013, Kauff removed the addresses from the covered work proposal
but left them in the geographic scope proposal and packaged them with proposals already
rejected by the Union.
On February 28, 2013, Kauff stated that this contract would be limited to the three
current Brooklyn facilities. Kauff informed Gallagher that if Respondent opened another facility
in Brooklyn, using non-unit employees to perform unit work, the Union would be recognized by
Respondent as these employees’ collective bargaining representative, but the contract would
not apply, and the parties would have to negotiate a new contract covering these employees.
Further, Kauff continued to assert that all disputes relating to these proposals should be
resolved by the NLRB only.
At the March 14, 2013 meeting, Gallagher asked that Respondent take its geographic
scope clause off the table since it was covered by the recognition clause already agreed upon.
Kauff refused to do so and explained as he had done before his view of the difference between
recognition and jurisdiction. Thus, Kauff explained that recognition is the titles and areas, in
which the Union is entitled to bargain as the certified representative of the employees in the unit.
It defines who is in the unit. Geographic scope and covered work are jurisdictional provisions,
defining what the agreement covers, what the jurisdiction of the agreement is. According to
Kauff, frequently the jurisdiction is narrower than the recognition.
Over the next several months, the parties continued to bargain over the Respondent’s
geographic scope and covered work proposals, with each side making counterproposals on
these subjects.
On November 14, 2013, the parties exchanged drafts on the geographic scope and
covered work and agreed on all the terms in Respondent’s proposal, but it was not a TA since
the Union packaged it with an hours and overtime proposal. Respondent countered with its own
overtime and hours proposal, so there is no written TA on geographic scope or covered work.
It is undisputed and, indeed, the record makes clear that the parties bargained
extensively over the recognition, geographic scope and covered work proposals of the parties
and that at no point did Respondent insist on any of its proposals in this regard or refuse to
discuss any of them. Nor did the Union ever refuse to discuss any of these proposals or make
the contention that any of these subjects were permissive nor mandatory or non-bargainable.
D. The Alleged Rigid Adherence to Proposals Predictably Unacceptable to the Union
The complaint alleges, as amplified by the General Counsel’s response to the Bill of
Particulars’ request, that Respondent rigidly adhered to proposals predictably unacceptable to
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
85
the Union in four areas.
1. Performance of Bargaining Unit Work
At the July 2, 2012 session, Respondent made the following proposal, entitled
“Performance of Bargaining Unit Work.” It reads, “The Union understands and agrees that the
Company may use managers, supervisors or non-bargaining unit employees to perform work
covered by this agreement.”
On July 31, 2012, the Union rejected Respondent’s proposal and made its own
counterproposal, stating that supervisors “should not do work assigned within the bargaining
unit.” The parties discussed the Union’s proposal at this session. Gallagher asserted that is
“standard language.” Model asked if the Union was looking to end the practices of having
supervisors assist with work. One of the employee bargainers commented that supervisors give
guidance but don’t do actual work. Gallagher stated, “We don’t have a problem with supervisors
helping employees.” Model responded that Respondent was concerned about interpretation.
Calabrese chimed in that the Union didn’t want an assignment that requires two employees to
be covered by one employee and one supervisor. Gallagher concluded the discussion on this
subject at this meeting by observing, “We can work on the language. Seeing we have the same
intention.”
At the October 12, 2012 meeting, Kauff asked the Union about Respondent’s
performance of bargaining unit work proposal. Gallagher asked to explain the article’s intent.
The exchange between Kauff, Gallagher and Calabrese is as follows:
JBK: have you looked at performance of bargaining unit work?
BG: we would like the company to explain its intent for how this article would come into
play.
JBK: for us, this is standard and status quo. We engage people to do particular jobs,
particularly for supervisors and managers, non-bargaining unit employees. The company
pays them to do those jobs, not bargaining unit work -- the intent is not to change that.
The intention is to maintain flexibility when circumstance are appropriate. There may be
circumstances we can't name, it can't be restricted to an emergency, it could happen at
any time that it needs to be done. Simple with managers -- pitching in for testing,
instruction, to learn themselves, because it has to get done because tech problem, rush,
etc. You have bargaining unit jobs, everyone knows what you're supposed to be doing.
The intent is not to undercut that. There are legal remedies for complete assignment of
bargaining work to someone else. Want to have this understanding with this flexibility,
any company should have this flexibility.
BG: like the intent, but our problem is the language is so vague. What if a job is unsafe,
or a picket line is up and there's no secondary door and felt unsafe to cross and
manager does the work -- no argument there. The problem is it's so vague. If it's
midnight, have overnight manager and people are busy and that manager just does the
work instead of calling another tech, this is too vague.
JBK: this would allow us to do that, but we wouldn't. We won't be able to set forth all of
the conditions that it's possible for a supervisor or manager to do the work. We're not
that inventive and don't have the time. We don't want a grievance on it or a circumstance
where a manager does something and the tech feels he's doing the tech's job and a
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
86
grievance comes in. It could be 15 minutes of time, I have seen this happen. This is not
what we want, we want everyone to pull together, that's why we don't think there should
be any question about this.
CC: understand what you're saying, but think there's a way to say it that is general but
shows the intention is not to diminish bargaining unit work.
JBK: could always claim it diminishes bargaining unit work because it does -- 15 min of
work the tech could have done. The question is what the motivation/reason is -- is it
something that happens as a matter of course or just one off. Are there situations where
people are performing work in the last 6 months? There aren't. But once we have a
contract and a grievance procedure, we have to be careful.
BG: want to take a moment to review.
GPC: anything you want to look at before then?
11:50 union left.
12:10 union returned
BG: have differences on this clause. Either later today or between this session and the
next one want to look at ideas to have counter. We understand the explanation but still
see this as too vague and want to look at it further, but don't want to take up a ton of time
going through this one right now.
JBK: we are going to give refinement of our proposal on complete agreement. It may be
a good idea to take a break, we'll work on it during the break. If you're having lunch, we
may give it to you during lunch.
BG: that's fine.
JBK: you can think further about this unit work paragraph during lunch too.
BG: will take until1:15. We're in Murray Hill room.
12:13 lunch break. Union is good on November 7, confirming on 27.
Out of the room, the Company gave a proposal on Complete Agreement, Union gave
proposal 28A on no-strike
1:32 Union returned; JBK asked for a few more minutes.
1:54 JBK told the union we were ready
1:59 the union returned
JBK: not sure if you had the opportunity to consider bargaining unit work and whether
you want to pass it or go back to it?
The Union then made a new proposal on performance of bargaining unit work. It is
Proposal 29A, which reads as follows:
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
87
CWA Proposal Proposal – 29A
Proposal Date October 12, 2012
Proposal Time ________________
Performance of Bargaining Unit Work
The company in its sole discretion may use managers, supervisors, or non-bargaining
unit employees to perform work covered by this agreement in an emergency but not
limited to an unexpected circumstance affecting the ability of the company to service its
customers.
The following discussion ensued concerning this proposal, including Respondent’s
concerns and the Union’s comments:
JBK: it's good we’re having this discussion because this is the very point that we have
trouble with. To be limited to only doing this in an emergency, meaning an unexpected
circumstance, is the kind limitation where we can say that this is one of the times, but
there could be many other circumstances where we need that kind of work. We had
some more discussion on this.
PH: Richie and Rick can fill in, but it could be a supervisor going to a customer's home
doing a QC audit and he helps the tech while he's there. Could be a trainer showing
someone how to properly do something they'd done wrong.
RL: when there are storms, it's all hands on deck. I like to take a truck and run it on my
own so that the employees know I can do it without them holding my hand.
PH: then when employees complain about issues, Rick knows where they're coming
from.
RB: if major issue where time is of the essence, like a fiber countdown and you've done
the job before and time is limited, you can't be limited, sometimes just need people to
help.
RL: if have outage and you just need to put a fuse in to fix it, shouldn't be limited.
JBK: you raised an issue where an employee doesn't want to do the work for safety
purposes, that's not included in this
BG: this is unexpected circumstances. Fine to put in training too.
JBK: This is just a point. But really, we look at this, and within 3 minutes we have
identified a supervisor helping with a drop, trainer, route, safety, fiber, fuse as all times
that people do bargaining unit work. We want a clause that permits us in all
circumstances to do what is necessary to get a job done with the fundamental
understanding that everyone has their own responsibilities. You have the job
descriptions, you know what the techs are responsible for, that's what they're hired for.
We have them to do this work, this should be an easy issue. If it isn't, let's put aside and
we won't have a TA, but our feeling is we should have a TA on it, we're being
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
88
straightforward, we've given you the info, you know the intent and the reality from the
past six months. If there's a situation where there's invasion, you would have seen it in
the last six months. Lawrence, how long at the company?
LH: 10 years
[joking]
BG: we don't disagree that there hasn't been an invasion of the work. We're just
concerned that the vague sentence could make for an invasion of the work. We want to
keep away from the conflicts of members coming to them, having grievances on this
issue, we want to make sure it's clear language on what we can do.
JBK: we don’t think it’s vague, it’s absolutely clear. We’re not arguing about whether it’s
vague, it's not, it's just absolute. We're standing on our past, the job descriptions, and
what we have to do to get a job done to suggest that this is what has happened in the
past. To us, it's obvious, but maybe it isn't. Seems perfectly reasonable to us and makes
sense for us to have an agreement on it. If we can't, let's put it aside.
BG: what stops you if we have a contract and you make 50 people managers 6 months
from now and make the job descriptions fit the managers?
JBK: aside from questions about whether those people are managers under the law and
whether you can have 50 managers and 250 employees given the Board's ratios, the
more important issue is that the company has a mission to deliver for its customers. It
doesn't have a reason to do this. You can make up hypotheticals, but is it reasonable for
anyone to do this, even aside from the questionable legal obligations? Would they be
exempt? Supervisors within the NLRA? Accreted to the unit? The company doesn't want
to pay managers by the hour, just doesn't make sense.
CC: I believe and understand your intention and your concerns, no problem with those
issues. Our concern is that it won't be used as a means to avoid other obligations, such
as overtime -- I don't want to pay him OT so I'm sending a manager; let's not hire 20 new
people, let's use the managers we have now and put them on routes.
JBK: that's not realistic
CC: I don't think our concerns conflict here, there has to be language that covers it.
JBK: the idea of having to have a grievance over one night a manager goes in and does
tech work -- what manager would ever say I'll do it? The manager would call a tech,
manager doesn't want to do late night.
PH: if an escalated customer complaint, 4 repeats. The supervisor goes out with a tech.
LH: it's the lead, but supervisor will go too.
PH: this is an example where a manager will go, you want a manager there to get it
done.
LH: supervisor talks to the subscriber.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
89
CC: we agree, our concerns are small here.
JBK: I respect the concern, but you have to know the size of the company, what its style
is, if it hasn't happened in the past, why would it happen now, just because we have a
CBA?
BG: we’re concerned about things like that since over the last 6 months we have had
improvements to other units that haven't been given to BK and you think we shouldn’t be
concerned about this little language, but that raises our concerns. It's not like
Cablevision has been here. Today has been the most progress we've seen since we've
started the bargaining. Can't tell me I shouldn't expect changes when I've seen things
get better at other places and the union gets status quo.
JBK: don't want to get to this discussion now
BG: don't either
JBK: we'll put aside for now, we'll have a lot of discussion about that issue, the economic
terms. You've asked for the information, we're going to supply it. This is a different
question and we're in a narrow area here in terms of contract negotiation. Not talking
wages, retirement, medical, just talking about what Chris called a minor concern. If step
back and look at this issue in the past six months -- not using it as a measurement, you
can go back six years -- if the company wanted to avoid OT, did it tell Lawrence to stay
home and have a supervisor do the work? OT is the same, why wouldn't it do it.
There is order in a serious company, this is a serious company.
RL: in my career, I've never seen a supervisor take work away from techs, it just doesn't
happen in the cable industry where management takes over.
CC: not saying it will or that's the intention, but it's one sentence and maybe it's clear but
it's very open.
JBK: no question it's wide open. But have to read into the opening how many techs there
are, supervisors, reality, what exceptions already exist, that's how you have to evaluate
this.
BG: let's put this to the side and we'll look at something the next time we take a break.
On October 26, 2012, Respondent introduced several revised proposals on these
subjects, as follows:
ARTICLE [ ]
PERFORMANCE OF BARGAINING UNIT WORK
(RESPONDS TO UNION PROPOSALS 29 AND 29A)
The Company in its sole discretion may use managers, supervisors or other
non-bargaining unit employees to perform work covered by this Agreement.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
90
ARTICLE [ ]
COVERED WORK
Section 1: The work performed by bargaining unit employees shall be non-exclusive;
Accordingly, pursuant to Article [ ] [Performance of Bargaining Unit Work], the Company
shall be permitted to assign other persons to do one, some or all of the duties of a
covered job title or titles. While it is recognized that the consistent assignment and
performance of bargaining unit work by other persons might permit the Union to claim
that a particular person should be included within the unit, it is the parties’ intention that
only those persons who are full-time or regular part-time employees and who are
permanently assigned to the job title or titles set forth in Article [ ] [Recognition of the
Union], Section 2 shall be considered bargaining unit employees.
Section 2: The work covered by this Agreement is limited to work performed by
employees in the job titles set forth in Article [ ] [Recognition of the Union] as of February
7, 2012.
Section 3: Remote technology and equipment relating thereto which controls any
processes within the Brooklyn franchise area: (a) that is located at the Company's
facilities at 1095 East 45th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11234; 827 East 92nd Street, Brooklyn,
NY 11236; or 9502 Avenue D, Brooklyn, NY 11236; or (b) that is located in the Brooklyn
franchise area but outside of the Employer's facilities at 1095 East 45th Street, Brooklyn,
NY 11234; 827 East 92nd Street, Brooklyn, NY 11236; or 9502 Avenue D, Brooklyn, NY
11236, is not work covered by this Agreement.
Section 4: The Company may assign work to bargaining unit employees which is not set
covered by this Agreement. The assignment of such work, over a short period of time or
an extended period of time, shall not expand the work jurisdiction, the geographic scope
or coverage of this Agreement and any such assignment may be discontinued by the
Company in its discretion. The Company may, in its discretion, establish terms and
conditions of employment for the performance of such work.
Section 5: In the event of any dispute (a) under Section 1as to whether a person should
or should not be included in the bargaining unit; (b) under Section 3 as to whether a
person performing work not encompassed by Section 3 should or should not be included
in the bargaining unit; or (c) under Section 4 as to whether any person performing work
using remote technology or equipment related thereto should or should not be included
in the bargaining unit, shall not be subject to Article[ ] [Grievance Procedure] or Article [ ]
[Arbitration], but shall be subject solely and exclusively to a determination by the
National Labor Relations Board.
ARTICLE [ ]
GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE
The geographic scope of work covered by this Agreement shall be limited to the
Company's facilities located at 1095 East 45th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11234; 827 East
92nd Street, Brooklyn, NY 11236; and 9502 Avenue D, Brooklyn, NY 11236 and to work
performed within the Brooklyn franchise area by bargaining unit employees both
permanently assigned to and permanently working out of those facilities. In the event of
any dispute as to whether any work is or is not included in the geographic scope, the
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
91
dispute shall not be subject to Article [ ] [Grievance Procedure] or Article [ ] [Arbitration],
but shall be subject solely and exclusively to a determination by the National Labor
Relations Board.
The parties then discussed Respondent’s proposals, but no agreements were reached.
The discussion was as follows:
JBK: Gives out Covered Work (Company proposal 24) @ 3:03p.m. It says we can assign
any work. It's a way of saying that we don't expand the bargaining unit by assigning
bargaining unit work to others. The work that is covered here is work that the company
has assigned, and has been performed, as of the date of recognition. It doesn't include
work that may be assigned in the future. Also, if the company develops remote
technology and equipment that relates to remote technology, and that technology is in
the facility, and we don't have it right now (so work after Feb. 7), this work is not covered
by the CBA, and if the company locates work inside the franchise area, but outside
covered locations, then it is not covered by the CBA. Section 4: The word “set” is
stricken. This section explains that certain work is excluded work, but the company has
the right to assign employees to that work. This means that bargaining employees can
do other work. We are aiming for flexibility that permits complete assignment. The
company may assign outside work to bargaining unit employees. The company has the
right to assign remote work, but that does not expand the work jurisdiction of the
agreement. Section 4: "work jurisdiction" is struck and replaced with "work covered by
this agreement".
Let's talk about what happens if the union believes that the assignment of certain work
expands the unit. Or if the union believes that giving work to a person of a certain title
expands the agreement. We say this is not a matter for an arbitrator, but rather
something to be addressed by the labor board, in a unit clarification proceeding. That is
what this Covered Work gets at.
Company 25 distributed (@ 3:11).
JBK: This goes with covered work and mentions 3 facilities.
BG: does Cablevision own the three facilities?
PH: Not sure.
BG: What if 45th St is a lease and the owner of the property says that it is not renewing
the lease, so Cablevision moves across the street.
JBK: I want to answer that question when we know how long the lease is.
BG: it doesn't matter.
JBK: it matters if the lease is in excess of the CBA.
BG: What if you own the property, you sell it and move across the street. What
happens?
JBK: Good question -- we should answer the question. We could say "or a facility that is
a substitute facility which assigns out of it the same bargaining unit employees that were
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
92
assigned to the bargaining unit facility." We can address this.
BG: We keep trying to address this and keep giving the proposals back without the
addresses in them.
JBK: for this moment, these are the facilities, there is no thought of moving out of these
facilities. The questions you raise are theoretical and we think the contract should be
limited to those facilities. We should find out if your questions about selling/moving are
realistic what ifs.
PH: 92nd street has our Head End. It would be hard for us to leave from that facility.
GV: But we are also doing remote systems -- so it could be a possibility.
PH: We would not be -- able to move quickly.
BG: Note that: (a) in this proposal, the Company says that disputes should not be
decided by arbitration, but should instead be decided by the Board (i.e., the NLRB);
however, (b) with respect to the Union's proposal 13A (re: an earlier discussion
regarding regional decisions), the Company did not want to go to the Board to decide
issues in 13A.
On December 5, 2012, the parties discussed these proposals again, and Kauff and
Calabrese expressed different views on how the Board might rule on the issues that
Respondent wanted to be resolved by the Board, in the event of a dispute. The Union
concluded the discussion by stating that it would have a new proposal next time.
On December 17, 2012, as promised, the Union submitted another proposal on this
subject, revising the language of its prior proposal to permit the use of managers and
supervisors or non-bargaining unit employees to perform work covered by the agreement during
training or instructional periods.
At the meetings of February 13 and 25, 2013, Respondent made some revisions in its
proposal on covered work and geographic scope. The revisions included adding a sentence in
geographic scope, after referencing that scope shall be limited to the three present facilities with
their addresses, that reads “or if one of these locations is closed, any replacement facility in the
Brooklyn franchise area to the extent that the same work is performed by the same bargaining
unit employees.”
On March 6, 2013, Respondent agreed to the Union’s version of the performance of
bargaining unit work (limiting Respondent’s use on non-unit employees to emergencies,
training, instruction and servicing the customers). The Union offered a package of proposals on
that date, including performance of unit work in a package of other proposals. Respondent
agreed to the Union’s latest revisions, as detailed above, on performance work, but the subject
was also part of Respondent’s package.
On March 14, 2013, Respondent suggested uncoupling the issue of performance of
bargaining unit work from their respective packages in order to get to a TA on that subject. The
Union agreed and a TA was signed by both parties.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
93
2. Discipline and Discharge
At the July 2, 2012 session, Respondent made a proposal, entitled, “Discharge.” It
reads:
Section 1. The Company shall have right to immediately discipline or discharge
employees for “proper cause.” This includes the right to investigate and to have
employees cooperate in such investigations. The Company will consider the severity of
the offense and the employee's overall work record when making such decisions. Proper
cause for any decision shall be found to exist unless the Union proves that the Company
did not have a good faith belief that the employee engaged in the conduct at issue.
Section 2. Proper cause for immediate termination includes, but is not limited to the
following circumstances: theft of time, money or goods; theft of services and/or the
unauthorized selling of Company services, material, or equipment; possession, sale or
use of a controlled substance on Company time or Company or Customer property;
possession, sale or use of alcohol on Company time or Company or Customer property;
being under the influence of alcohol or drugs or having illegal substances in one's
system on Company time or Company or Customer property; recklessness resulting in
an accident; fighting or threatened physical violence; insubordination (unjustifiable
refusal to follow a direct order by management); negligent, reckless or willful destruction
of Company property or equipment; excessive damage to Company or Customer
property or equipment caused by an employee's negligence or recklessness; possession
of a gun, deadly instrument or weapon on Company or Customer premises or in
Company vehicles; excessive or proven pattern absenteeism; gross misconduct;
sleeping on the job during working time (which excludes waiting for work in the break
room or while on approved breaks); walking off the job; fraud; dishonesty; gambling on
Company or Customer premises (other than office pools); recklessness, incompetence
or carelessness; violation of a safety rule; horseplay; falsification of records; verbal
disputes with customers; engaging in conduct that creates safety or health hazard or
violation of federal, state or local anti-discrimination, retaliation, or harassment laws;
violation or disregard of traffic laws or safety rules which could endanger the health and
safety of the employee, a coworker, or the general public; knowingly making false
accusations against other employees; knowingly making false statements or failing to
cooperate during the course of a Company investigation; disregard of customer safety;
disregard of customer experience; selling products that are not Company products to
customers; disclosure of Company confidential information; and any other similarly
severe circumstances constituting proper cause for immediate termination.
Section 3. A copy of any written discipline will be provided to the Shop Steward and
the Union.
The parties discussed this proposal at the meeting. Calabrese asked Model to define
proper cause versus just cause. Model responded that arbitrators decide if there is just cause.
Model added that Section 1 stated, “Good faith belief that employee engaged in conduct.”
Calabrese asked if Respondent was trying to shift the burden of proof to the Union. Model
replied that the Union has to prove that Respondent did not have good faith belief.
Gallagher asserted that he had never seen proper cause before in any contract that he
had dealt with before. Gallagher asked Model if he had any collective agreements with that
language in it in the past. Model replied that he has had some in the past.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
94
At the next meeting, July 31, 2012, the Union rejected Respondent’s discharge proposal
and made a counterproposal, entitled, “Discipline Discharge.”
CWA Proposal Proposal-10-A
Proposal Date July 31, 2012
Proposal Time _______________________
Discipline and Discharge
Section 1. Except that a new employee will be on probation for the ninety days and
subject to discipline and discharge at Employer's will, no employee will be disciplined or
discharged without just cause, and Employer will, within seven days, notify the Union in
writing of any discipline or discharge.
Section 2. An employee apparently subject to summary discharge shall ordinarily
first be placed on indefinite suspension to afford the Union an opportunity to pursue the
circumstances with the Employer. On receipt of written notice pursuant to Step 1 of the
grievance procedure, the Union will, within fourteen (14) days, schedule a second step
meeting as described in Step 2 of the grievance procedure.
Section 3. Except in instances where an employee's misconduct constitutes just
cause for summary discharge, the Employer subscribes to the principle of progressive
discipline, a progression consisting generally of an oral warning, followed by a written
warning, followed by a one to three day suspension without pay, followed by more
extensive discipline up to and including discharge.
Section 4. The Employer agrees to furnish the Local Union and Shop Steward, as
soon as possible, copies of all written warnings and suspensions given to any of its
employees. It is understood that whenever possible, the Shop Steward will be notified
prior to any disciplinary action.
This proposal was discussed at the July 31 meeting with Gallagher, noting that the
Union believes in progressive discipline, and the parties discussed what offensives can warrant
immediate termination.
On September 14, 2013, the parties discussed Respondent’s discharge proposal. The
Union again asked about just cause versus proper cause. Model replied good faith belief that
employees engaged in the conduct. Calabrese observed that Respondent was creating a new
definition and that arbitrators and parties already know the meaning of “just cause.”
Model asked for the Union’s definition of “just cause.”
Calabrese responded, “Whatever has been decided by the arbitrator. I don’t have to
prove it. I have to prove that the employer did not really believe that the employee did not
engage in conduct.”
Hilber provided an example, where, based on a video, Respondent found an employee
to have put a box in a van and discharged him. Later, it became clear that that employee didn’t
take the box. Thus, according to Model, Respondent, based on the evidence available at
discharge had “good faith” belief that that employee engaged in misconduct.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
95
Calabrese and Gallagher both responded that that is completely unacceptable.
The parties then turned to a discussion of some of the grounds for automatic discharge,
and Model explained that it does not mean that Respondent will fire the employee, but only
reserves its right to fire when appropriate.
Gallagher then commented, “The biggest problem is with Section 1, re “proper cause.”
Some things are very generous, like a violation of safety rules, which could involve use of failure
to use goggles or carrying deadly instrument, which can be anything.”
On November 12, 2012, the parties again discussed Respondent’s discharge proposal.
Calabrese asked Kauff what is the intention of the last sentence of the paragraph. Kauff replied,
“It puts the burden of proof on the Union, that’s the intention.”
The Union confirmed with Kauff, the understanding with Model that is, even if the Union
proved that the employee didn’t commit the act that he was fired for, the Union loses as long as
the Union cannot prove that Respondent did not have a good faith belief that the employee
committed the offense.
Calabrese asked if the company believes that an employee stole and finds it was
mistaken, and an arbitrator finds that, the company can leave him terminated.
Kauff replied, “Yes, that’s what it says.”
Both Calabrese and Gallagher vehemently objected to this, saying it is not ok and that it
is impossible for the Union to prove lack of good faith.
Kauff responded that it is not impossible and that Union can show it by the
circumstances, including the Union bringing up information during the grievance procedure to
test whether the company had a good faith belief. Finally, Kauff observed, as follows:
JBK: I don't want the company to, in good faith and after hearing all of the evidence in
the grievance procedure and continuing to believe in good faith that the person did it and
we investigate it and still believe the person did it, that an arbitrator could second guess
our good faith judgment. It's a check on an arbitrator frequently.
On December 5, 2012, Respondent issued a revision of its proposal. It retitled its
proposal as “Discipline and Discharge” and added the following language to Section 1 of its
prior proposal.
“Good faith belief” shall include whether the Company conducted a good faith
investigation. The Company’s decision not to exercise a right of discipline or discharge
shall not be deemed to establish a precedent for any case involving another bargaining
unit employee.
Kauff explained the revision in Respondent’s proposal as follows:
Discharge is pretty much the same. This adds a sentence addressing an observation the
union made. There was a discussion about good faith belief and what happens if the
company was wrong. Our view is our process of investigation of workplace issues is
rather thorough. We don't have situations where it turns out that the company is
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
96
incorrect. If our process works right, we know what happens in a situation where there is
some kind of misconduct. We know if someone has damaged company or customer
property -- there may be an initial question as to whether there was damage, but there
isn't after we conduct the investigation (talk to the tech and customer, view the situation
and come to an informed decision). In addition, in the grievance and arbitration
proposals, there's a step asking the union to provide any info on the subject. Our adding
“good faith belief” about conducting investigations -- I meant to say that if we don't
conduct a good faith investigation, that's something that we would be responsible for and
the union could then prove the company didn't have a good faith belief that the person
didn't engage in the conduct. If you can show that we didn't conduct a good faith
investigation, then that certainly would go to your ability to prove that we didn't have a
good faith belief that the person did the act.
We also moved the precedential language. It was a signal to you that we don't want to
be in a situation…let me restart from a different direction. We have language about
considering work record. It’s a signal to the union that we don’t want to be in a situation
in which we're making a tougher decision on the employee because we’re concerned
that sometime in the future, someone will say you were lenient to another employee so
you have to be lenient here too. It lets us be lenient without precedential effects. If we
don't say this, then we have to say every time we're doing this that it's “without prejudice
to any other case.” This does that broadly and gives the company flexibility.
We added discipline to the title because the clause says discipline and discharge.
The Union responded that the proposal, even with the revisions was still unacceptable to
the Union because, even if Respondent conducted a good faith investigation in the end, if the
person didn’t do anything wrong, why wouldn’t Respondent want to give them their job back.
At the December 20, 2012 session, Kauff stated that on discharge, Respondent
reiterated its outstanding proposal, “Which we think it’s correct.” He then distributed a revised
proposal on arbitration, which added a sentence when referring to the arbitrator’s discretion. It
reads, "Pursuant to Article (Discipline and Discharge), proper cause for any decision shall be
found to exist unless the Union proves that the Company did not have a good faith belief that
the bargaining unit employee engaged in the conduct at issue.”
On January 12, 2013, Gallagher complained that Respondent’s December 12 proposal
was “regressive” since it added “proper cause” and “good faith belief” to the arbitration proposal,
neither of which were in Respondent’s previous arbitration proposals and were not part of the
Union’s proposal either.
Kauff disagreed that it was a regressive proposal since it was already included in
Respondent’s discharge/discipline proposal, and Respondent also believed that the arbitration
proposal should be clarified and it makes sense to remind the arbitrator that it is there.
Kauff then asked if the Union believed that the standard in the discharge clause binds
the arbitrator. Gallagher replied yes.
Kauff asked why did the Union object to putting the standard into the arbitration clause.
Gallagher responded that there was no agreement on Respondent’s discharge proposal and the
parties chose arbitration. He added that Respondent didn’t have it in its first proposal and
reminded Kauff that the Union was “trying to get a TA like you say all the time.”
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
97
Gallagher then returned to the issue of just cause and proper cause and asked if the
corporation had contracts with the unions that have just cause clauses in theirs. Kauff replied
that he would get back to the Union on that question.
At the January 30, 2013 session, Kauff gave the Union a new proposal as a package,
Discipline and Discharge and Arbitration. With respect to the arbitration proposal that Gallagher
had characterized as “regressive,” Kauff explained that Respondent acceded to the Union’s
concerns and deleted the references to proper cause and good faith investigation from the
arbitration provision. Respondent also made several other revisions to the discipline discharge
proposal, which Kauff explained, including removing some grounds for immediate termination,
such as recklessness, carelessness and horseplay. Kauff observed that there are still other
issues with discipline and discharge, particularly “proper vs. just cause” but added if the parties
make more progress and that it is these only remaining issues, there is hope for a TA on the
subject.
At the end of the session, Respondent uncoupled its arbitration proposal from its
package in order to get a TA and asked the Union to agree. After a caucus, the Union agreed,
the parties TA’ed the arbitration proposal.
At the February 5, 2013 session, Kauff responded to the Union’s request for other
Cablevision-related companies with a “just cause” provision in their contracts. He listed three,
Newsday, Optimum West and Clearview Cinema. The Union asked for the number of
employees at these companies covered by the contracts. Respondent’s representatives replied
26 for Optimum West, 20 for Clearview and 200 for Newsday. Groveman added that all of these
contracts are “legacy relationships,” none are first-time contracts that have been negotiated by
Cablevision.
The parties then exchanged proposals on discipline, and more specifically relating to the
grounds for termination, and the parties discussed these proposals and made some progress in
narrowing the parties’ differences in these areas.
There was no discussion about the proper cause and good faith belief portions of its
discharge proposal, which was still on the table.
On February 11, 2013, Kauff amended his prior response concerning other Cablevision
companies with just cause provisions. He clarified that with Newsday, while the number of
employees previously given was correct, there were several contracts, one with Teamsters, spilt
into six units, and one with Local 14156 of the CWA, which have just cause provisions. Kauff
further clarified that the CWA 14156 agreement just says “for cause” and doesn’t say “just
cause.” Gallagher asked if that contract said good faith belief. Kauff replied, “No, none of them
do. When I said just cause, I meant just cause and no good faith belief.”
Later on at this meeting, Respondent made a new proposal on discipline and discharge,
in which it changed “proper cause” to “just cause” in response to one of the Union’s expressed
concerns about its proposal and packaged it with other proposals.
Kauff explained the proposals as follows:
JBK: this will sound like an anti-climax now. While we understand that you are
disappointed with the standard set forth in discipline, you've raised in the course of our
discussion another important point for you. Our feeling is that we've listened to various
proposals on discipline and discharge and maybe there's a way of indicating to you a
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
98
real desire to get an agreement not only on discipline and discharge, but also the other
six items we have on the table as part of the package -- maintenance of membership,
deduction, BU work, covered work, geo scope and contracting. We have a new proposal
on discipline, and we are hoping that if we package this with the other package, maybe
we can have a grand package and wrap up these 7 items. [Company 8D given at 4:54
p.m.] We'll take out proper and substitute just. I know the U asked us on a number of
occasions, and I think this addresses a concern that the U has raised, although not
every concern, I want to be clear on that. What we did was in all the places where we
used proper cause, we've substituted just cause. We made two other changes -- for
threatened physical violence we put in clear threat of physical violence. We think it's
stronger for the U, it's gross misconduct and it's helpful for you. You objected to walking
off the job and observed that it was in several places, like management rights and more
importantly, you made the point that it was in no-strike, so we're taking that out. We think
that for the other paragraphs, we've made lots of changes in them during the course of
meeting with you on this and we're hoping that this language with just cause will push us
over the line. We'll make this a grand package and try to settle 7 important items, which
would leave us with very few items, a few policy items and then we can turn to
economics.
After a caucus, Gallagher commented that the Union needed time to get back to
Respondent on discipline and discharge since it was packaged with six other proposals. He
promised a response at the next session.
The parties next met on February 25, 2013. The Union rejected Respondent’s package,
and the parties discussed the Union’s continued rejection of the discipline and discharge
provisions, including Respondent’s modifications.
Kauff explained that the Union had continually objected to the wording of “proper” vs.
“just” cause and had argued that Respondent’s proposal signals to the arbitrators that
something different exists from just cause. Thus, Kauff felt that it was making a significant
concession.
Gallagher disagreed, arguing that changing the word does not change the standard (i.e.
the good faith belief remained in the proposal as well as the shifting of the burden of proof to the
Union). Gallagher added, “I find it hard to believe that the company for 10-11 months thought
that the Union’s big problem was the word.”
Kauff replied that he didn’t mean to suggest that, but he had said that the Union raised
two issues, and he didn’t mean to characterize one as a big problem and one as a little problem.
He simply said that the Union had two objections, proper vs. just and the standard, and
Respondent understands that the Union wanted both.
The parties further discussed the significance of the proper vs. just cause issue, during
which Gallagher conceded that the just cause language is better for the Union and that “proper
cause is an advantage to you (Respondent) on every single case.”
Gallagher added that Respondent does not have any other contract with this standard.
Finally, Kauff observed, “We said no to the standard, we didn’t say no to the substitution
of just cause for proper cause because we thought that was one of the things, although maybe
not the most important, that the Union wanted.”
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
99
Gallagher responded, “We don’t see it that way. We don’t see that you’ve made a
change, we can debate it all day.”
The parties then discussed other parts of Respondent’s package, and the Union
expressed its objections to them as well.
On March 14, 2013, Respondent made a new proposal on discipline, containing some
minor adjustments but with no changes to the good faith belief language to which the Union
objected.
On September 11, 2013, Respondent introduced a revised proposal on discipline and
discharge (Proposal 8G). According to Kauff, the revision was made in response to the repeated
concerns expressed by the Union concerning it objections to the “good faith” standard in
Respondent’s prior proposals and the possibility that a person, who didn’t commit the act, could
still be terminated. Therefore, Respondent removed the “good faith” belief language from its
proposal and substituted the following: “Just cause for any decision shall be found to exist by
any arbitrator appointed under Article (Arbitration) unless the Union proves and the arbitrator
finds that the bargaining unit employee did not engage in conduct justifying the discipline or
discharge.”
Later on in this meeting, the Union rejected Respondent’s proposal and made a
counterproposal by substituting the following: “Just cause for any decision shall be found to
exist by any arbitrator appointed under Article (Arbitration) provided the Company proves and
the arbitrator finds that (1) the bargaining unit employee engaged in conduct justifying the
discipline or discharge and (2) the penalty involved was reasonable.”
Respondent rejected the Union’s counterproposal on discipline and discharge.
Kauff testified that he and his law firm have negotiated a number of contracts with
various unions that do not contain just cause provisions or standards. The contractual clauses
from these contracts as well as contracts posted on the U.S. Department of Labor website.
The contracts are as follows:
ï‚· A contract between the Contractors Association of New York (Building Construction
Agreement) and District Council of Carpenters. This contract states that the right to hire
and discharge employees rests with the general foreman or foreman. The contract
contains no just cause provision or standard for the discharge.
ï‚· Similarly, a contract between the contractors Association of Greater New York and
Laborers’ Union, Local 66 do not contain just cause or standards for discharge clauses.
 A contract between St. Michael’s Cemetery and Local 47, United Service Workers Union
contains the following clause:
ARTICLE 20
DISCHARGEAND DISCIPLINE
Maintaining discipline and order is a responsibility of the Employer. Accordingly,
the Union recognizes the right of the Employer to take disciplinary action up to
and including discharge. No employee shall be disciplined or discharged except
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
100
for just cause, exercised in the Employer’s reasonable discretion. Discipline short
of discharge shall be at the employer's exercise of reasonable discretion.
 A contract between God’s Love We Believe and Teamsters, Local 202 does contain a
just cause provision, relating to discharge but adds the following to its definition: “The
Employer’s reasonable judgment that an Employee’s skill, ability, performance and skill
are unsatisfactory.”
ï‚· A contract between River Operating Company (Yankee Stadium) and IATSE contains
the following language:
ARTICLE VIII
DISCHARGE AND DISCIPLINE
Maintaining discipline and order is a responsibility of the Employer. Accordingly,
the Union recognizes the right of the Employer to take disciplinary action up to
and including discharge. No employee shall be disciplined, up to and including
discharge except for just cause, exercised in the Employer's reasonable
judgment.
ï‚· The contract between Madison Square Garden and Local 817, Teamsters is silent on
discharge, and according to Kauff, gives the employer the right to discharge with or
without cause since the resolution of disputes clause requires disputes under the terms
of the agreement.
ï‚· A contract between True Entertainment and Local 700, Motion Picture Edison Guild
(IATSE) contains no standards with repeat to the discharge of employees and goes
further by providing the absolute right of the employer to discharge employees and the
management rights clause.
ï‚· Finally, the contract between American National Insurance Company and United Food
and Commercial Workers Union states the following: “The right to suspend or discharge
its agents. The parties recognizes that nothing contained herein establishes a “just
cause” standard for discharge or discipline.”
3. Management Rights/Meeting Company Standards
On July 2, 2012, Respondent submitted a management rights proposal. It reads:
Article – Management Rights
Section 1. Except to the extent expressly abridged, delegated, granted or modified
by a specific provision of the Agreement, nothing herein shall be construed to limit the
Company’s exclusive right to manage its facilities and direct its workforce. It is agreed
that the Company alone shall have the authority to determine and direct the policies and
methods of operating the business, without interference by the Union. Without limiting
the generality of the foregoing, the sole and exclusive rights of management which are
not abridged by this Agreement include, but are not limited to: the right to plan, direct
and control facility operations; the right to direct the work force including the right to
transfer employees and assign duties to employees; the right to determine the size of
the work force, hire, layoff, recall, promote and demote employees; the right to hire
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
101
temporary employees; the right to fill vacancies with new employees and/or to not fill
vacancies; the right to determine the qualification of employees and to select its
employees; the right to reprimand, assess performance, take action on performance
issues, discipline, demote, suspend or discharge employees for proper cause (as
described in Article ); the right to plan, direct, control, subcontract without regard to
the reasons, continue, sell, discontinue, close or relocate all or any part of its operations;
the right to determine and change the method and manner of operations and the number
of employees necessary to perform operations; the right to determine and re-determine
job content and prorate the amount and types of work needed; the right to expand,
reduce, alter, combine, transfer, assign or cease any job, job classification, department
or operation; the right to introduce or change technology (hardware or software), new or
improved methods of operation including cloud based technology, processes, products
and equipment; the right to determine the number and type of equipment, materials and
supplies to be used; the right to transfer work or equipment to other facilities; the right to
establish and change working shifts and schedules; the right to establish, maintain,
modify and enforce a drug/alcohol testing policy consistent with state and federal law;
the right to establish, maintain, modify and enforce safety procedures; the right to require
employees to work in any job classification; the right to assign equipment and vehicles;
the right to conduct and re-conduct background checks and motor vehicle licensure
checks; the right to change existing business practices; the right to set all production
goals, customer satisfaction standards, metrics, and any other standards and goals
applicable to the standards of service; right to investigate complaints of violations of any
Company policy; and the right to require training both impromptu and mandated as well
as required certifications.
It is specifically agreed that the enumeration of the above management
prerogatives shall not be deemed to exclude other management prerogatives not
specifically enumerated above, and it is further specifically agreed that all of the rights,
powers and authorities vested in the Company, except those that have been indisputably
abridged, delegated, deleted or modified by the express terms of this Agreement, are
retained by the Company. In no event shall any right, function or prerogative of
management be deemed or construed to have been modified, diminished or impaired by
any past practice or course of conduct, and the Company will not be deemed to have
forfeited a management right simply because it has chosen not to exercise a particular
right in the past.
Section 2. The parties further agree that the Company has the right to establish,
modify and terminate, and the right to require employees to observe Company policies,
safety procedures, motor vehicle procedures, rules, regulations, handbook and work
performance or conduct standards. A copy of any policies, rules, regulations and/or
standards shall be provided to the Union.
The Union rejected Respondent’s proposal on July 21, 2012 and stated it will present a
counterproposal. Later on in the meeting, the Union presented its counterproposal on
management rights as follows:
CWA Proposal Proposal -- 30
Proposal Date July 31, 2012
Proposal Time __________________________
Management Rights
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
102
The Company has the exclusive right and power to manage and operate its business,
and to direct the working forces, including the right to hire, suspend, discharge, promote,
demote, or transfer, provided, however, that in exercising this right and power the
Company shall not violate any of the provisions of this Agreement.
At the next meeting, August 15, 2012, Model rejected the Union’ s counterproposal,
stating that Respondent needed more than the Union’s language and wanted full control to run
their business.
On October 12, 2012, the Union submitted a revised proposal on management rights,
which adopted most of Respondent’s language, except for the right to transfer work to another
facility. It reads:
CWA Proposal Proposal – 30A
Proposal Date October 12, 2012
Proposal Time __________________
Management Rights
Section 1. Except to the extent expressly abridged, delegated, granted or modified
by a specific provision of the Agreement, nothing herein shall be construed to limit the
Company's exclusive right to manage its facilities and direct its workforce. It is agreed
that the Company alone shall have the authority to determine and direct the policies and
methods of operating the business, without interference by the Union. Without limiting
the generality of the foregoing, the sole and exclusive rights of management which are
not abridged by this Agreement include, but are not limited to: the right to plan, direct
and control facility operations; the right to direct the work force including the right to
transfer employees and assign duties to employees; the right to determine the size of
the work force, hire, layoff, recall, promote and demote employees; the right to hire
temporary employees; the right to fill vacancies with new employees and/or to not fill
vacancies; the right to determine the qualification of employees and to select its
employees; the right to reprimand, assess performance, take action on performance
issues, discipline, demote, suspend or discharge employees for just cause; the right to
plan, direct, control, subcontract; the right to introduce or change technology (hardware
or software), new or improved methods of operation including cloud based technology,
processes and equipment; the right to determine the number and type of
equipment,·materials and supplies to be used; the right to transfer work or equipment
within the bargaining unit; the right to establish and change working shifts and
schedules; the right to establish, maintain, modify and enforce a drug/alcohol testing
policy consistent with state and federal law; the right to establish, maintain, modify and
enforce safety procedures; the right to conduct background checks and motor vehicle
licensure checks; the right to change existing business practices; the right to set all
production goals, customer satisfaction standards, metrics, and any other standards and
goals applicable to the standards of service; right to investigate complaints of violations
of any Company policy; and the right to require training as well as required certifications.
It is specifically agreed that the enumeration of the above management
prerogatives shall not be deemed to exclude other management prerogatives not
specifically enumerated above, and it is further specifically agreed that all of the rights,
powers and authorities vested in the Company, except those that have been abridged,
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
103
delegated, deleted or modified by the express terms of this Agreement, are retained by
the Company. In no event shall any right, function or prerogative of management be
deemed or construed to have been modified, diminished or impaired by any past
practice or course of conduct, and the Company will not be deemed to have forfeited a
management right simply because it has chosen not to exercise a particular right in the
past.
Section 2. The parties further agree that the Company has the right to establish,
modify and terminate, and the right to require employees to observe Company policies,
safety procedures, motor vehicle procedures; rules, regulations, handbook and work
performance or conduct standards Changes to any policies, rules, regulations or
standards shall be provided to the Union at least 45 days prior to the implementation of
any such changes.
On December 17, 2012, without responding to the Union’s counterproposal, Respondent
made a new proposal, entitled “Meeting Company Standards.” It reads:
COMPANY PROPOSAL 28
MEETING COMPANY STANDARDS
Separate from the provisions of Article[ ] [Discipline & Discharge] that mostly addresses
immediate discharge in the event of serious misconduct, the Company shall also be
permitted to sever the services of the bargaining unit employee for the failure or inability
to meet Company standards including but not limited to not meeting performance
objectives, failing to satisfy training requirements, not possessing the qualifications or
skill levels necessary for the job or not performing the job in an acceptable manner, in
each case provided that such standards, objectives, requirements or qualifications have
been communicated to the relevant, bargaining unit employees. The Company's
judgment with respect to whether the bargaining unit employee failed or was unable to
meet Company standards shall prevail. The Company's judgment with respect to
whether or not to sever a bargaining unit employee under this paragraph shall not be
deemed to set a precedent for any case involving another employee.
The parties discussed Respondent’s proposal, and Kauff explained as follows:
JBK: I have a proposal for you. Last time we talked about company standards and a hole
that I thought existed in how you treat someone who isn't meeting company standards,
i.e. a person who isn't engaged in negative conduct. This is an attempt to address that
issue. [Company 28 given at 4:28 p.m.]
We're also giving you the conforming language of the oral changes we made last time to
Company Union Relationship and No Strikes, which we had TA'ed with these changes.
[Given at 4:31 p.m.]
BG: Can you explain Meeting Company Standards?
JBK: we have situations in which a person is trained and is expected to move up in the
progression and it has a general time frame that we've talked about. There are situations
in which a person is trained but still doesn't seem to pick up on things, and is not passing
the tests. The company, in order to maintain its standard of quality and skilled
technicians, may sever the person's employment. The person could be trying, could be a
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
104
good employee, no drug problems, no injury to company property, the person means
well.
There was extensive discussion about the proposal with the Union asking several
questions about how it has been applied in the past since Kauff insisted that “there’s nothing in
this proposal that is different from the way the company does business now.”
The Union expressed some concerns about the severing of employment aspects of the
proposal an indicated that it leave a counter.
On January 9, 2013, Gallagher responded to Respondent’s proposal by asserting that it
was unnecessary since it is already included in the management rights proposals of
Respondent as well as in the Union’s counter on management rights.
Kauff disagreed, stating that Respondent’s proposal is more specific, and it wants to be
clear that this issue is separate from “proper cause” under discipline.
The Union still continued to assert that the management rights clauses are sufficiently
clear, so that Respondent’s proposal is unnecessary but said that the Union would look at it
further.
On January 16, 2013, there was a brief discussion of the issue with the positions of the
parties the same.
At the meeting of February 28, 2013, Respondent withdrew its proposal, entitled,
“Meeting Company Standards,” and tendered a revised proposal on management rights, which
incorporated what it intended in its company standards proposal. The revision is as follows:
Proposal 7A
Management Rights
Section 1: Except to the extent abridged, delegated, granted or modified by a specific
provision of the Agreement, nothing herein shall be construed to limit the Company's
exclusive right to manage its facilities and direct its workforce. It is agreed that tThe
Company alone shall have the authority to determine and direct the policies and
methods of operating the business, without interference by the Union.
Section 2: Without limiting the generality of the foregoingSection 1, the sole and
exclusive rights of management which are not abridged by this Agreement include, but
are not limited to:
(A) the right to plan, direct and control facility operations; the right to direct the
work force including the right to transfer bargaining unit employees and assign duties to
bargaining unit employees; the right to determine the size of the work force, hire, layoff,
recall, promote and demote bargaining unit employees; the right to hire temporary
employees; the right to fill vacancies with new employees and/or to not fill vacancies; the
right to determine the qualification of bargaining unit employees and to select its
bargaining unit employees.;
(B) the right to reprimand, assess performance, and take action on performance
issues (including, without limitation, the utilization of performance improvement plans),
and the right to sever the services of bargaining unit employees for the failure or inability
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
105
to meet Company standards including but not limited to not meeting performance
objectives, failing to satisfy training requirements, not possessing the qualifications or
skill levels necessary for the job or not performing the job in an acceptable manner, in
each case provided that such standards, objectives, requirements or qualifications have
been communicated to the relevant bargaining unit employees.
(C) the right to discipline, demote, suspend or discharge bargaining unit
employees for proper just cause (as described defined in Article ); [ ] [Discipline &
Discharge]).
(D) the right to establish, modify, interpret, eliminate and enforce compliance with
all Company policies, including but not limited to drug/alcohol testing policies, safety
procedures, motor vehicle procedures, rules, regulations, handbook and work
performance or conduct standards. A copy of any written policies, rules, regulations and/
or standards applicable to bargaining unit employees shall be provided to the Union.
(E) the right to plan, direct, control, subcontract without regard to the reasons,
continue, sell, discontinue, close or relocate all or any part of its operations; the right to
determine and change the method and manner of operations and the number of
bargaining unit employees necessary to perform operations; the right to determine and
re-determine job content and prorate the amount and types of work needed; the right to
expand, reduce, alter, combine, transfer, assign or cease any job, job classification,
department or operation; the right to introduce or change technology (hardware or
software), new or improved methods of operation including cloud based technology,
processes, products and equipment; the right to determine the number and type of
equipment, materials and supplies to be used; the right to transfer work or equipment to
other facilities or to non-bargaining unit employees; the right to establish and change
working shifts and schedules; the right to establish, maintain, modify and enforce a
drug/alcohol testing policy consistent with state and federal law; the right to establish,
maintain, modify and enforce safety procedures; the right to require bargaining unit
employees to work in any job classification; the right to assign equipment and vehicles;
the right to conduct and re-conduct background checks and motor vehicle licensure
checks; the right to change existing business practices; the right to set all production
goals, customer satisfaction standards, metrics, and any other standards and goals
applicable to the standards of service; the right to investigate complaints of violations of
any Company policy; and the right to require training both impromptu and mandated as
well as required certifications.
Section 2:Section 3: It is further specifically agreed that tThe enumeration of the
above management prerogatives shall not be deemed to exclude other management
prerogatives not specifically enumerated above, and it is further specifically agreed that
aAll of the rights, powers and authorities vested in the Company, except those that have
been indisputably abridged, delegated, deleted or modified by the express terms of this
Agreement, are retained by the Company. In no event shall any right, function or
prerogative of management be deemed or construed to have been modified, diminished
or impaired by any past practice or course of conduct, and the Company will not be
deemed to have forfeited a management right simply because it has chosen not to
exercise a particular right in the past.
Section 3: The parties further agree that the Company has the right to establish,
modify and terminate, and the right to require bargaining unit employees to observe
Company policies, safety procedures, motor vehicle procedures, rules, regulations,
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
106
handbook and work performance or conduct standards. A copy of any policies, rules,
regulations and/or standards shall be provided to the Union.
At the March 6, 2013 meeting, the Union submitted a counterproposal on management
rights (packaged with other proposals), which Gallagher explained as “we adopted your format
and not all of your language in Section 2(B), but just about all of it.” The Union’s proposal is as
follows:
CWA Proposal Proposal – 30B
Proposal Date March 6, 2013
Proposal Time 5:13 PM [HANDWRITTEN]
Management Rights
Section 1: Except to the extent expressly abridged, delegated, granted or
modified by a specific provision of the Agreement, nothing herein shall be construed to
limit the Company's exclusive right to manage its facilities and direct its workforce. The
Company alone shall have the authority to determine and direct the policies and
methods of operating the business, without interference by the Union.
Section 2: Without limiting the generality of Section 1, the sole and exclusive
rights of management which are not abridged by this Agreement include, but are not
limited to:
(A) the right to plan, direct and control facility operations; the right to
direct the work force including the right to transfer bargaining unit employees and assign
duties to bargaining unit employees; the right to determine the size of the work force,
hire, layoff, recall, promote and demote bargaining unit employees; the right to hire
temporary employees; the right to fill vacancies with new employees and/or to not fill
vacancies; the right to determine the qualification of bargaining unit employees and to
select its bargaining unit employees.
(B) the right to reprimand, assess performance and take action on
performance issues (including, without limitation, the utilization of performance
improvement plans) and the right to sever the services of discipline bargaining unit
employees for the failure or inability to meet Company standards including but not
limited to not meeting performance objectives, failing to satisfy training requirements, not
possessing the qualifications or skill levels necessary for the job or not performing the
job in an acceptable manner, in each case provided that such standards, objectives,
requirements or qualifications have been communicated to the relevant bargaining unit
employees and progressive discipline has been utilized.
(C) the right to discipline, demote, suspend or discharge bargaining unit
employees for just cause (as defined in Article[ ] [Discipline & Discharge]).
(D) the right to establish, modify, interpret, eliminate and enforce
compliance with all Company policies, including but not limited to drug/alcohol testing
policies, safety procedures, motor vehicle procedures, rules, regulations, handbook and
work performance or conduct standards. A copy of any written policies, rules, regulations
and/or standards applicable to bargaining unit employees shall be provided to the Union
before instituting such policies, rules, regulations, and standards.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
107
(E) the right to plan, direct, control, subcontract without regard to the
reasons, continue, sell, discontinue, close or relocate all or any part of its operations; the
right to determine and change the method and manner of operations and the number of
bargaining unit employees necessary to perform operations; the right to determine and
re-determine job content and prorate the amount and types of work needed; the right to
expand, reduce, alter, combine, transfer, assign or cease any job, job classification,
department or operation; the right to introduce or change technology (hardware or
software), new or improved methods of operation including cloud based technology,
processes, products and equipment; the right to determine the number and type of
equipment, materials and supplies to be used; the right to transfer work or equipment to
other facilities or to non-bargaining unit employees; the right to establish and change
working shifts and schedules; the right to require bargaining unit employees to work in
any job classification; the right to assign equipment and vehicles; the right to conduct
and re-conduct background checks and motor vehicle licensure checks; the right to
change existing business practices; the right to set all production goals, customer
satisfaction standards, metrics, and any other standards and goals applicable to the
standards of service; and the right to require training both impromptu and mandated as
well as require certifications.
Section 3: The enumeration of the above management prerogatives shall not be
deemed to exclude other management prerogatives not specifically enumerated above.
All of the rights, powers and authorities vested in the Company, except those that have
been indisputably abridged, delegated, deleted or modified by the express terms of this
Agreement, are retained by the Company. In no event shall any right, function or
prerogative of management be deemed or construed to have been modified, diminished
or impaired by any past practice or course of conduct, and the Company will not be
deemed to have forfeited a management right simply because it has chosen not to
exercise a particular right in the past.
The parties discussed the Union’s revised proposals, and Respondent had a number of
questions about it, which were answered. Kauff stated that “this is productive. I think we’ll be
able to address some of this.”
On March 19, 2013, both Respondent and the Union tendered revised proposals on
management rights. The Union’s revised proposal was part of a package that included union
security and discipline and discharge.
Kauff urged the Union to remove the management rights clause from the Union’s
package and agree to Respondent’s latest modification and separately TA that clause since, in
Kauff’s view, the parties are more close to agreement on the management rights language.
The Union disagreed, arguing that it had already compromised significantly by agreeing
to most of Respondent’s language on management rights and needed to get something in
exchange. Thus, the Union wanted agreement on all three of its proposals. Gallagher
commented that the Union doesn’t get anything with management rights, adding “I don’t want
one as far as I am concerned.” The Union continued to assert that it needed agreement on both
union security and discipline and discharge along with management rights.
Respondent replied that it did not agree to the package and continued to urge the Union
to break the package and agree to TA management rights.
At the close of the meeting, the Union tendered a new proposal of management rights
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
108
with some slight changes and packaged it with the Union’s discipline and discharge proposal.
Thus, it removed union security from its package.
Kauff replied that Respondent was not interested in the package but was interested in
the Union’s changes on management rights. He added that Respondent reviewed these
changes.
On August 15, 2013, Kauff referred to some off the record discussions that the parties
had on union security and management rights, wherein he believed the parties had reached a
meeting of the minds on the language of these two subjects. Thus, Respondent packaged union
security and management rights and gave the proposals to the Union. The Union agreed, and
the parties TA’ed the proposals on that day.
4. Contracting
Respondent has had a long-standing practice, consistent with industry standards, of
contracting out approximately 50% of its “trouble calls” (calls, where technicians respond to
customer complaints and diagnose and/or repair problems) and almost all of its installation work
(about 95%). The Union was aware of this practice.
On the first day of bargaining, the Union presented a series of proposals, including on
contracting, which reads of follows:
Contracting
The company will not contract out work if such contracting out will cause, currently and
directly, layoffs from employment with the company or part-timing of present employees.
The amount of contracting being done at the time of the signing of this agreement will be
reduced to ten percent (10%) of all work currently being contracted.
The company will provide to the Union a list of all contractors doing work in the
jurisdiction of the bargaining unit employees along with a list of all jobs completed by
contractors in the preceding ninety (90) days.
The company will create a position for a Bargaining Unit employee to provide oversight
to the companies contracting initiatives. The Union shall agree upon the employee
assigned to such assignment. If the company and the Union cannot agree upon the
employee to be assigned, the Union will submit a list of five (5) Bargaining Unit
employees. The company may only object to three (3).
Only July 2, 2012, Respondent briefly commented on each of the Union’s proposals. On
the contracting proposal, Model stated, “It is pretty severe and we are not agreeable to it. This
represented a significant shift to the way business is performed. For example, paragraph A, we
have a unit position.” Calabrese answered that the Union proposed to monitor that the level at
10%. Model replied that Respondent is not interested in doing that and moved onto other parts
of the Union’s proposal.
Respondent’s initial proposals did not contain a specific provision on contracting, but its
management rights provided a clause mentioned subcontracting and provided Respondent with
complete discretion in that regard. Kauff characterized that as “status quo” on contracting, which
he reiterated when he took over as chief bargaining representative.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
109
On July 30, 2012, the Union revised its initial proposal and eliminated its previous
request to limit contracting to 10% of work performed and its request for an employee monitor.
The proposal reads:
CWA Proposal Proposal – 7A
Proposal Date July 31, 2012
Proposal Time _____________
CONTRACTING
The company will not contract out work if such contracting out will cause, currently and
directly, layoffs from employment with the company or part-timing of present employees.
The company shall not increase the amount of contracted work from the levels being
performed as of January 26, 2012.
The company will provide to the Union a list of all contractors doing work in the
jurisdiction of the bargaining unit employees on a quarterly basis beginning with the
signing of this agreement.
At the October 26, 2012 meeting, Respondent made a number of proposals, including
an article on contracting, responding to the Union’s proposals in that regard. It reads:
ARTICLE [ ] CONTRACTING
(RESPONDS TO UNION PROPOSALS 7, 7A)
Contracting shall be defined as the performance of work referred to in Article [ ] [Work
Jurisdiction], Section 1and Article [ ] [Geographic Scope] by independent contractors
either at the Company's facilities (as defined in Article [ ]) or outside of its facilities.
Contracting is part of management's prerogative, is a permitted manner of doing
business, and may be engaged in at the Company's discretion.
Gallagher commented that this proposal was not acceptable to the Union, and it wanted
guarantees that the work performed today, under the recognition clause, will not be contracted
out.
On December 20, 1012, the Union submitted a slightly revised contracting proposal, as
follows:
CWA Proposal Proposal – 7B
Proposal Date December 20, 2012
Proposal Time 4:41 PM [HANDWRITTEN]
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
110
CONTRACTING
The company will not contract out work if such contracting out will cause, currently and
directly, layoffs from employment with the company or part-timing of present employees.
The company shall not increase the amount of contracted work from the levels being
performed as of September 1, 2012.
The company will provide to the Union a list of all contractors doing work in the
jurisdiction of the bargaining unit employees on a quarterly basis beginning with the
signing of this agreement.
At the March 6, 2013 meeting, the Union made a revised proposal on contracting, which
was packaged with a number of other proposals, including union security, management rights
and discipline and discharge. The revised contracting proposal of March 6 is as follows:
CWA Proposal Proposal – 7C
Proposal Date March 6, 2013
Proposal Time 5:09 [HANDWRITTEN]
CONTRACTING
The company will not contract out work if such contracting out will cause, currently and
directly, layoffs from employment with the company or the diminishment of wages,
benefits, or any other terms and conditions of employment. part timing of present
employees.
The company shall not increase the amount of contracted work from the levels being
performed as of September 1, 2012.
The company will provide to the Union a list of all contractors doing work in the
jurisdiction of the bargaining unit employees on a quarterly basis beginning with the
signing of this agreement.
Kauff testified that in his judgment, the Union’s proposal was more “stringent” than its
previous proposals, where, for example, the contracting results in loss of overtime. However,
Kauff did not testify that he expressed this view at negotiations or, indeed, made any comments
about this proposal. Further, the negotiation notes do not reflect any discussion about this
proposal at this meeting, although it does reflect discussion about positions of the Union’s
proposal as well as an unfair labor practice charge that the Union had filed with the Board
concerning alleged unilateral contracting.
On March 14, 2013, Respondent submitted a new proposal, entitled, “Contracting,” as
follows:
PROPOSAL 23A
CONTRACTING
Contracting shall be defined as the performance of work referred to in Article [ ]
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
111
[Work Jurisdiction], Section 1 and Article [ ] [Geographic Scope] by independent
contractors either at the Company's facilities (as defined in Article [ ]) or outside of its
facilities. Contracting is a permitted manner of doing business, except that the Company
shall not increase the percentage of trouble calls performed by contractors absent an
emergency or an unexpected circumstance which could affect the ability of the Company
to service its customers, from the highest levels being performed by contractors in any
month over the 12 months prior to the date of execution of this Agreement by in excess
of 15% for a consecutive three-month period of time unless thereafter the Company shall
forthwith provide the Union notice thereof and an opportunity to discuss the matter. For
example, if the highest percentage of trouble calls performed by contractors in any
month during the 12 months preceding this Agreement’s execution was 40%, this
provision shall be triggered if the percentage of trouble calls performed by contractors
exceeds 55% for a consecutive three-month period of time.part of management’s
prerogative, is a permitted manner of doing business, and may be engaged in at the
Company’s discretion
There was no discussion of this proposal at the March 14, 2013 meeting. However, on
March 19, 2013, the parties had an extensive discussion about Respondent’s proposal as well
as the Union’s contracting proposal. Kauff explained its proposals that since trouble calls
represented most of the work not presently contracted out, Respondent sought to address
concerns of more contracting out of trouble calls in the future. Thus, if the percentages increase
by the amounts specified, it requires Respondent to give the Union notice and an opportunity to
bargain about it. The Union representatives observed that there is “no teeth” in the proposal and
that the opportunity to bargain gives the Union very little. As Gallagher explained, “Do you think
this should be acceptable, that you should be able to raise the rates, and I should come and say
how are you, please stop, and you’ll say we don’t want to. All you did was give me a percentage
to talk to you.”
Kauff replied that Respondent is unlikely to change the ratio, but it could increase for
business reasons, and Respondent wanted the flexibility to do that. He added that Respondent
had always had 275-280 unit employees and have not had any layoffs. So layoffs are extremely
remote.
Gallagher responded that the Union’s proposal gives Respondent the right to contract an
unlimited amount as long as there are no layoffs and added that the Union had changed its
proposal drastically.
Kauff asked if Respondent needed to layoff employees for business reasons, could it lay
off 10% of employees and eliminate 10% of contractors. Calabrese replied that all the
contractors should go first before any unit employees are laid off.
On July 31, 2013, Respondent presented a new proposal on contracting, which forbids
contracting of trouble calls if it results in the layoff of employees in the field service classification.
Kauff characterized this proposal as a major concession by Respondent since it adopts
the Union’s no layoffs for trouble calls, which is the “heart of the Union’s vulnerability.” Kauff
added that this proposal was substantially different from its previous proposal and addressed
the Union’s concerns and he believed that the parties should be able to reach agreement on this
clause.
Kauff asked for some discussion, and the Union said it would talk and come back. The
Union them caucused from 10:17 AM to 1:32 PM and returned with a new proposal of their own.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
112
It reads:
7-31-13 Union Proposal
@ 1:34 PM [HANDWRITTEN]
Union Proposal – 7D
Contracting
Contracting shall be defined as the performance of work by independent contractors,
either at the Company's facilities or outside its facilities. Contracting is a permitted
manner of doing business, except that the Company shall not engage in the contracting
of work currently performed by bargaining unit employees if it results in the layoff of
bargaining unit employees.
The company will provide to the Union a list of all contractors performing work that is
also performed by bargaining unit employees on a quarterly basis.
Kauff said thanks, the Union’s attorneys replied, “We’ll hear from you shortly” and the
parties moved on to discuss other issues.
On August 15, 2013, the parties discussed the proposals made by each side but could
not reach agreement. The Union’s primary objection to Respondent’s proposal was that only
trouble calls were covered and that there are other bargaining unit employees, such as OSP
and construction, which could be laid off as a result of contracting and would not be covered by
Respondent’s proposal. The Union asserted that its proposal of prohibiting layoffs of bargaining
unit employees, where Respondent contracts out work, currently performed by bargaining unit
employees, is a narrow proposal and consistent with how Respondent operates.
Weissman, the Union’s attorney, asked how many field service, OPS and construction
employees were currently on staff. Respondent’s officials replied 160, 50 and 7 or 8,
respectively. Respondent also stated that OSP work is contracted “occasionally, very minimal.”
After further discussion, Weissman said that the Union had made a fair proposal and
asked Respondent to counter.
On September 11, 2013, the Union introduced a revised proposal on contracting, as set
forth below:
9-11-13
UNION PRPOSAL 7E CONTRACTING
Contracting shall be defined as the performance of work by independent
contractors either at the Company’s facilities or outside of its facilities. Contracting is a
permitted manner of doing business, except that the Company shall not engage in the
contracting of trouble calls if it results in the layoff of employees in the Field Service
classification. In the event the Company intends to contract work other than trouble calls
and such contracting would cause a layoff of bargaining unit employees, it shall provide
the Union with notice thereof and provide the Union with the opportunity to present and
discuss other options; absent mutual agreement between the Company and the Union
on other options, the Company may not proceed with the contracting and the layoffs.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
113
Weissman observed, when presenting the proposal, “We basically accepted your
language, we just made one minor change—absent mutual agreement the company can’t
proceed with contracting, other than that minor change, we have an agreement on language.”
Kauff responded by rejecting the Union’s counter.
Kauff explained Respondent’s position, Weissman asked a question and Kauff
responded. Their exchange follows:
JBK: On Discipline and Discharge, we’re rejecting that proposal. On Contracting, we’re
rejecting that proposal as well. On Discipline and Contracting, we’re holding to our
proposals. On Contracting we couldn't operate a business with the way you've modified
it because if we needed to go forward with contracting out and couldn't reach an
agreement, we would essentially be prohibited from doing it. For us, that's not a proper
business path to this. We wanted you to understand that.
SW: it's only if it would cause layoffs, right?
JBK: yes, but we're talking about areas, like we've given you a sheet, in Field Service
now, Installation, north of 95% of installations are done by contractors. When we made
the proposal we said your exposure in those areas is extremely limited. So yes, your
observation is correct, but only in the areas where our contracting out is overwhelming.
Kauff testified that his law firm had negotiated collective bargaining agreements with
unions, including with the CWA that permitted employers the right to contract out at their
discretion. Respondent introduced into the record several contracts signed by the CWA with
various employers, which specifically permits the employers to contract out work without any
restrictions. Further contracts from other industries were also introduced, which provide similar
language, including, for example, a contract between Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield and Local
32, Office and Professional Employees, AFL-CIO, which reads as follows:
Article XIII – Subcontracting
It is and will be the general policy of the Employer to utilize its employees to perform
work they can do in a qualified manner, meet customers' needs and be competitive.
However, no restriction is placed on the Employer's right to subcontract when the
Employer believes it is necessary to meet the needs of the customer, the interest of
efficiency, economy, improved work product or service, or in the event of an emergency.
When the Employer believes that time permits, it will notify the Union thirty (30) days
prior to commencing the subcontracting and may advise generally what it believes may
be the present impact on Bargaining Unit employees and solicit and consider any
suggestions or comments made by the Union.
Any employee who is concurrently displaced as a direct result of the Employer's decision
to subcontract may exercise his seniority rights under Article XV, Section 3.
An employee who is placed on layoff as a result of the Employer's subcontracting shall
receive four (4) weeks of base pay or one (1) week of base pay for each completed year
of service, whichever is greater as severance payment.
The Employer may continue to subcontract in those areas where it presently does
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
114
without any new or additional obligation.
E. The Alleged Refusal to Discuss Union Security and
Alleged Raising of Philosophical Objections to Such a Clause
On May 30, 2012, the Union in its list of initial proposals requested a standard union
shop provision, requiring union membership as a condition of employment, after 30 days of
employment.
On that day, the parties went over each of the Union’s proposals, Respondent had some
questions and there was some discussion of each of them. When it came to the union security
proposal, Model asked how the union security proposal of the Union would work with the
probationary period, regarding probationary period versus the time period for union security.
Gallagher responded that the Union was proposing a probationary period of six months and
made reference to the Union’s arbitration proposal. Model asked if the Union had a proposal for
seniority. Gallagher answered not today.
Model never made a counterproposal on union security during the time that he was chief
negotiator because Respondent didn’t have an agreement on management rights, which was
important to Respondent. Thus, according to Model, bargaining is give and take and without
having movement or agreement on management rights, Respondent wasn’t going to yet
propose union security.
At the close of the October 12, 2012 meeting, the Union provided a list of items that it
wished to discuss at the next meeting. Included on that list was union security.
The parties’ next meeting was October 26, 2012. Union security was not discussed nor
brought up by either party. The parties discussed other issues and made several proposals on a
number of issues.
The parties met again on November 7, November 27, December 5 and December 17,
2012. Similarly, union security was not discussed, and the Union made no request to do so at
any of the meetings. The parties discussed other issues and proposals of both parties.
At the December 20, 2012 meeting, the Union gave Respondent a list of non-economic
proposals that haven’t been addressed. Included on that list was union security.
Kauff responded, “Whether we have an understanding that we characterize union
security as economic—we think it is economic. We may respond on an economic basis, but we
think it’s economic and has economic implications.”
At the next meeting on January 9, 2013, Respondent made a proposal on union security
and a maintenance of membership clause and packaged it with a number of other proposals it
had made at that time (payroll deduction). Kauff explained Respondent’s reasoning on why it
considered union security economic and why it was proposing a maintenance of a membership
clause, instead of a union security clause.
Kauff’s comments are as follows:
JBK: We thought we had momentum last session and would like to continue that
momentum. We have a package for you that addresses what you asked us to address:
Union Security and Payroll Deduction. You asked in a prior session why we thought that
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
115
the union shop proposal was economic. We believe it is economic. A Union Shop
provision that requires everyone to join or pay dues or fees as a condition of
employment is economic. When you have a paragraph that compels everyone to pay
dues, whether or not they wish to be a member of the union, or whether or not they wish
to pay union dues, you are setting yourself up for the potential that you will lose skilled
labor. We have an investment in a workforce. We don't want to do anything that could
potentially drive someone away from the workforce which we think is artificial. Some
people might not want to work for us because they don't like the wages, hours and
working conditions. That is one thing. It is another thing, however, when people don't
want to work for us because they don't want to be a member of the union. If we lose
people, we have the cost of training and hiring. The loss of skilled labor is significant.
These are costs that are frequently overlooked and are significant.
People might not want to be a member of the union out of principle. Or they may not
want to pay the dues. Or they may have some antagonism. Who knows what goes
through their minds? They may not like the shop steward, as an example. We need to
recognize this reality. We've tried to find a way to get away from these economic
problems. We are going to propose a “maintenance of membership” union security
provision. It is a common form of union security. This provision says that if someone
voluntarily joins, they have to remain a member of the union for the length of the
agreement. They make a choice and they are a member. They are bound. The same is
true for new employees. If someone is hired 5 days after the contract is ratified, the
union signs the person up, they are in the union ranks for the length of the agreement.
This is the way we have proposed this union security paragraph.
Company 33 -- Union Security distributed @ 11:29 a.m.
At the close of the meeting, Gallagher stated that the Union was rejecting Respondent’s
package as the Union thinks that there are still substantial differences in the four existing
proposals. He added that the Union was reviewing Respondent’s counterproposal on union
security and said most likely it would have a counter.
At the next meeting, January 16, 2013, the Union made a “counterproposal” on union
security. It is as follows:
Union Security
It shall be a condition of employment that all employees of the Company covered by this
Agreement who are members of the Union in good standing on the effective date of this
Agreement, shall remain members in good standing and those who are not members on
the effective date of the Agreement on the 30th day following the effective date of this
Agreement, become members and remain members in good standing in the Union. It
shall also be a condition of employment that all employees covered by this Agreement
and hired on or after its effective day, shall, on the 30th day following the beginning of
such employment become and remain members in good standing in the Union.
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, an employee shall not be required to
become a member, or to continue membership, in the Union as a condition of
employment, if employed in any state which prohibits, or otherwise makes unlawful,
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment.
The parties briefly discussed the Union’s proposals, and Kauff observed that the Union’s
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
116
revision of its initial proposal (paragraph 2) was probably meaningless. Gallagher argued that it
was not meaningless, reminding Kauff what had happened in Michigan, where the law was
changed.
On March 19, 2013, Kauff brought up the fact that Respondent had proposed a form of
union security “which the Union treats as though it’s a pittance.” He added that the Union should
accept it and TA Respondent’s proposal.
Gallagher responded that the Union had a package of eight proposals, including union
security, but it was breaking it up into a smaller package of three proposals. They were
management rights, discipline and discharge and union security. Gallagher pointed out that the
Union had adopted most of Respondent’s language on management rights, so it is asking for
Respondent’s agreement on discipline and discharge and union security.
Kauff responded, and which led to additional exchanges between Kauff and Gallagher. It
is set forth below.
JBK: we'll look at these closely, but I'll tell you now that I think the package you proposed
is not going to move us forward. We're not going to agree as part of this package to
change our position on Discipline and Discharge and we won't agree to change our
position -- which is extremely forthright and giving -- with respect to the Union Security
clause we put forth to the Union. What light I do see, and we'll look at this, is in
Management Rights and maybe we're nearing close to the possibility of a TA if we don't
have a package.
BG: a TA on what?
JBK: Management Rights, if we don't have a package.
BG: I don't see how we'll agree without a package, that would give you the whole
language on Management Rights, and we would be getting nothing back.
JBK: it's traditional in an agreement to have Management Rights, Union Security.
BG: not four pages of management rights.
JBK: I've seen all different lengths. When you look at a CBA, very little goes in the
company's direction. The whole point of a CBA is what is the Union going to get in terms
of terms and conditions of employment -- what are the things that go into a CBA and fix
what the Union will get. Once you're there, you say, either in a short or long form, that
the residual rights are in the company. Anything we haven't agreed to remains with the
company; this is the whole notion of management rights, you either say it in a short form
or long form. I don't think it's the question of how many pages it takes you, it's
conceptual.
At the next session, April 9, 2013, Respondent presented a full economic proposal,
included in a proposal for a complete collective bargaining agreement. Kauff commented that
Respondent “intends to discuss and negotiate any of the items in this document and any
rejected union proposals and any new proposals that the Union wants to offer.”
The proposed agreement submitted by Respondent contained the same maintenance of
membership clause that Respondent had proposed earlier. The parties discussed a number of
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
117
items in Respondent's proposal, but union security was not one of them.
On April 26, 2013, the parties met again and discussed several of Respondent’s
proposals, primarily wages and benefits. There was no discussion of union security, and the
Union made no attempt to discuss it.
As noted above, the parties then engaged in several negotiation sessions with the
federal mediator in May of 2013.20
After the negotiations with the mediator did not result in an agreement, negotiations
resumed.
The parties next met on July 31, 2013. At that meeting, Kauff observed that the Union
had not responded to Respondent’s proposals, so Respondent assumed that aside from the
items TA’ed that the Union was rejecting Respondent’s proposal. Kauff stated further that “we
have to get off the dime,” and Respondent wanted to try to move forward and “in a sense
bargain against ourselves” and would make some revised proposals.
Respondent made new proposals on contracting, salary, covered work and geographical
scope. There were no new proposals on union security. The parties briefly discussed the
contracting out proposal, and the Union said it would be in touch with Respondent on these
proposals.
On August 15, 2013, the parties met once again. The Union began by presenting a
counterproposal on geographic scope and added that it was working on counters on covered
work and salary.
Kauff responded, while the Union is working on that, Respondent had a proposal to
make. The proposal packaged management rights, wherein the parties had essentially agreed
on the language with a union security clause, requiring all unit members to become and remain
members in the union after 30 days of employment. Kauff added that he hoped that this “get’s
toward agreement.” The Union agreed to TA Respondent’s package of union security and
management rights.
F. Alleged Regressive Proposals
1. Performance of Bargaining Unit
On July 2, 2012, Model proposed the following, entitled, “Performance of Bargaining Unit
Work”:
Article – Performance of Bargaining Unit Work
The Union understands and agrees that the Company may use managers,
supervisors or non-bargaining unit employees to perform work covered by this
Agreement.
On October 12, 2012, when Kauff took over negotiations, Respondent proposed the
following clause in that regard:

20 The parties met seven times between May 13 and May 22, 2013.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
118
ARTICLE [ ]
PERFORMANCE OF BARGAINING UNIT WORK
The Union understands and agrees that the Company in its sole discretion may
use managers, supervisors or non-bargaining unit employees to perform work covered
by this Agreement.
The Union stated at negotiations that it believed that this proposal was “regressive” as
compared to the previous proposal of Respondent. Kauff testified that he considered that the
two proposals had the same meaning and that he had a different writing style than Model but
the meaning was the same.
Ultimately, as detailed above in the discussion concerning performance of bargaining
unit work, the parties TA’ed the proposal after several back and forth counters on March 14,
2013.21
2. Complete Agreement
On July 2, 2012, Respondent by Model submitted a proposal, entitled, “Complete
Agreement.” It reads as follows:
ARTICLE -- COMPLETE AGREEMENT
The Company and the Union acknowledge that during the negotiations which resulted in
this Agreement, each party had and exercised the unlimited right and opportunity to
make demands and proposals with respect to any and all lawful and proper subjects of
collective bargaining. This written Agreement fully and completely incorporates all such
understandings and agreements and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings
and past practices, oral or written, expressed or implied. Accordingly, this written
Agreement alone shall govern the entire relationship between the parties and shall be
the sole source of any and all rights of the parties. Any and all past practices, employee
benefits, or other terms and conditions of employment not specifically included in this
Agreement are hereby waived.
On July 31, 2012, the Union submitted its own complete agreement proposal, adopting
word-for-word Respondent’s proposal but adding the following additional sentence:
The Union is working under the understanding that the company has provided to the
Union all employee benefits, policies and practices, and compensation plans.
On October 12, 2012, Kauff presented a new complete agreement proposal, as follows:

21 The agreement TA’ed by the parties was similar to the Union’s last proposal on the
subject.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
119
COMPANY PROPOSAL
Complete Agreement
The Company and the Union acknowledge that Dduring the negotiations which resulted
in this Agreement, each party had and exercised the unlimited right and opportunity to
make demands and proposals with respect to any and all lawful and proper subjects of
collective bargaining. This written Agreement fully and completely incorporates all such
understandings and agreements and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings
and past practices, oral or written, expressed or implied. Accordingly, (1) this written
Agreement alone shall govern the entire relationship between the parties; (2) this written
Agreement and shall be the sole source of any and all rights of the parties; (3) the
parties hereby waive all further negotiations; and (4) neither party shall be required to
bargain regarding any terms or conditions of employment for the duration of this
Agreement. Any and all past practices, employee benefits, or other terms and conditions
of employment not specifically included in this Agreement are hereby waived.
On November 7, 2012, Calabrese commented on the complete agreement proposal of
Kauff and asserted that it was regressive. His comments were:
On Complete Agreement, the company proposal -- I don't agree with 3 and 4 and to me.
it's a regressive demand from the last one received from Alan because of 3 and 4.·I think
GPC said last time that it's a zipper clause to say if I forget to bring up pension during
this agreement, I can't demand we talk about it 6 months from now and I understand
that. But it also means, as unlikely as it may be, 2 months from now someone from the
company could come up with an idea -- we had a gas shortage and now instead of
having the big vehicles, we're going to have employees drive on mopeds and one truck
drops off supplies and tell the workers they have to get a motorcycle license as part of
the terms and conditions of their employment. Under this article, I can't object to that. It
doesn't stop you from making a unilateral change and I don't have a right to say that I
want to talk about this -- that's our concern.
Kauff responded later on during the meeting, and exchanges occurred between
Calabrese and Patrick O’Neill, another union representative, and Kauff with respect to this
subject:
JBK: I look at the Complete Agreement Alan [Model] drafted and to say that 3 and 4
don’t follow what Alan [Model] was getting at -- 3 and 4 is just a clarification. If you think
it isn't a clarification, then we would have had an argument, because that's all it was. His
original language [JBK read in] means it's zipped and the parties waive all further
negotiations and neither party is required to bargain with the other and if it doesn't mean
that, I'm surprised. It meant that to me, but I wanted to make sure it meant that to the U.
That's why 3 and 4 are there, it's a clarification.
CC: are you saying if the company made a unilateral change to a term and condition?
JBK: and it's not covered by the management rights clause? That would be different.
Everything should be covered by the agreement. The management rights clause should
be the residual right of the company to make changes (i.e., require motorcycle licenses),
and if it isn't, it isn't properly drafted. There shouldn't be anything to bargain. You may
disagree that the management rights clause is too broad -- that's not my point. My point
is our proposal should lock up job descriptions, requirements, etc.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
120
PO: what about a different example. If I'm an employee in a truck and a year from now
the company says we don't want so many trucks and I have to have my own truck. Now
you've changed the terms and conditions and we can't raise our hand and say we have
to talk about that?
JBK: I would have to look at the management rights clause, but it should be there by
implication. If it's there, then no, you have to wait for the next bargaining session.
PO: so this language has nothing to do with that concern, I should tighten up
management rights instead?
JBK: [reads back Company proposal 17.] We're finished if it's in the management rights
clause.
CC: what if the company decides to change something that isn't in the management
rights clause?
JBK: you're saying what if the company presented a different proposal -- it's our intention
that the management rights covers it.
PO: I get what you're saying, but if we have concerns, we should be focusing on the
management rights clause in your opinion and this is just saying the agreement is the
agreement.
JBK: not just the management rights clause, the whole agreement.
On November 27, 2012, Gallagher (who was not present at the November 7, 2012
meeting) expressed concerns similar to that expressed by Calabrese that the Union considered
Kauff’s proposal regressive. An exchange between Kauff, Gallagher and O’Neill ensued
regarding this, as follows:
BG: no, we still have those other concerns. Let's move on to the next issue -- Complete
Agreement. We were given CA multiple times and you gave us a revised one on 10/12,
which we think is regressive. I believe this was stated at the last time -- when you look at
section 3, for most agreements, there is no issue during the agreement, but to waive that
right to bargain is a lot. We want to have the right to request bargaining if we need to.
The last sentence is a give on the union's part and we put that in our proposal 31. We
have issues with this revision.
JBK: we will make another comparison between the Littler proposal and ours. Are you
saying you'd accept the Littler proposal?
BG: I'd have to look at it, we'll look at it on the break.
JBK: I think I said this before.
BG: I might not have been here since I know you discussed this last time.
JBK: a lot of negotiators present proposals which are saying something but not saying
something clearly and directly. I think the Littler proposal is intended to say exactly what
our proposal says explicitly. There are ways of saying things and if you look at the Littler
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
121
proposal, it doesn't come to the conclusion but puts everything in the language which
makes the conclusion inevitable. I don't like to do that, I like to say it so it's open. When
we say "the parties waive all further negotiations..." this is exactly what they were saying
with "each party had and exercised... implied." If this isn't a source of a compelling
argument that the bargaining is over and we waive any future bargaining, I don't know
what it means. So I looked at it and said I don't like to bounce something off the wall, I
like to get it in the open and that's what we thought was happening. We have no quarrel
with doing the Littler provision, I just think that we ought to say what we think it means
and this is what I think it means. If you disagree, that's okay.
BG: we don't agree that it says that. I agree with you that I like things to be clear but I
think it's clear that we aren't waiving things in the Littler one.
JBK: if you agree to the Littler proposal, then we may have at some point a
disagreement.
PO: we're concerned that you're excluding us from addressing a new issue in the future
with parts 3 and 4. You could interpret this as meaning "too bad."
JBK: that's what complete agreement means. It's a waiver of bargaining and it's crazy to
have this discussion, this is what it's supposed to mean. I like clarity.
BG: I don't think the Littler proposal says that we can't bargain, but I want to look at it on
the break.
JBK: If Alan was here, I'm sure he'd say this is what he intended. If you'd asked him
what it means...
PO: so we're further apart than we thought we were?
JBK: I don't want to be accused of regressive bargaining, if you think it is regressive, we
don't want to do that.
PO: you're saying the original proposal and this say the same thing?
JBK: yes. So do you want to take a short break now or go on?
On December 5, 2012, Kauff observed that the parties still had the complete agreement
outstanding and asserted that Respondent owed the Union an answer and would have one a
the next meeting on December 17, 2012.
However, Respondent did not make a response on this subject at the December 17,
2012 or the December 20, 2012 meetings. The parties discussed other issue during these
meetings.
On January 3, 2013, Respondent submitted a revised proposal on the complete
agreement, which essentially mirrored the proposal made by Model on October 12, 2012.
Kauff commented again that he felt that Respondent’s proposal that he proposed meant
the same thing as Model’s proposal but that Respondent respected that Model’s proposal was
put across the table and that, therefore, Respondent was proposing the original provision
proposed by Model with one minor change in the first sentence.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
122
The Union agreed to Respondent’s proposal.
3. Applicable Company Benefits
On November 27, 2012, Respondent made a proposal, entitled, “Applicable Company
Benefits as of January 1, 2012.” The proposal was as follows:
COMPANY PROPOSAL 27
APPLCIABLE COMPANY POLICEIS AS OF JANURAY 1, 2012
Subject to the Company’s rules of eligibility and applicable law, each bargaining
unit employee shall be covered by the following Company policies as they existed and
they provided as of January 1, 2012. The Company’s discretion and judgment as to the
interpretation of and eligibility for the respective policy shall prevail.
ï‚· Jury Duty Policy
ï‚· Bereavement Leave Policy
Kauff stated that Respondent contemplated adding other items as it moved forward but
wanted to use the proposal as a framework. The Union agreed to this proposal on that day and
a TA was reached.
On December 20, 2012, Respondent made a new proposal on this subject, adding
leaves of absence and changing the language in some respects. This proposal is as follows:
COMPANY PROPOSAL 27A
APPLCIABLE COMPANY POLICEIS, PROGRAMS AND PLANSBENEFITS AS OF
JANURAY 1, 2012
Subject to the Company’s rules of eligibility and applicable law, each bargaining
unit employee shall be covered by the following Company policies, programs or
plansbenefits as they existed and as they were practiced as of January 1, 2012. The
Company’s discretion and judgment as to the interpretation of. and eligibility for, and
practice, with respect to any the respective policy, program or planbenefit shall prevail.
The Company, in its discretion and judgment, may apply or not apply past practice as it
determines. The Company may provide any such policies, programs, or plans itself or
through a third-party vendor or by changing a third-party vendor.
ï‚· Jury Duty Policy
ï‚· Bereavement Leave Policy
ï‚· Leaves of Absence Policy
Kauff explained that Respondent was merely adding leaves of absence to the list of
benefits previously agreed upon. He stated that he believed that the document, Proposal 27A,
“will be a template as we move to add other policies.”
Later on during the meeting, the Union objected to the new proposal, more specifically,
the new language added referencing “past practice.”
Kauff responded that in his view there was no change in the meaning between the two
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
123
proposals, but Respondent wanted to clarify that past practice is part of interpretation and
eligibility, and Respondent’s discretion prevails in either proposal.
However, Kauff recognized that the parties had TA’ed the prior proposal with the old
language and told the Union that if it prefers, that Respondent would take out the “practice
language” with respect to jury duty and bereavement and put in only with leaves of absence,
Respondent will do that and provided a separate proposal on leaves of absence with the new
language.
Gallagher replied that the Union would look at it and get back to Respondent.
On January 3, 2013, Kauff made a separate proposal (Proposal 32) with the additional
language and including leaves of absence as the benefit. The proposal reads:
COMPANY PROPOSAL 32
APPLCIABLE COMPANY BENEFITS AS OF JANURAY 1, 2012
Subject to the Company’s rules of eligibility and applicable law, each bargaining
unit employee shall be covered by the following Company benefits as they existed and
as they were practiced as of January 1, 2012. The Company’s discretion and judgment
as to the interpretation of, eligibility for, and practice, with respect to any benefit shall
prevail. The Company, in its discretion and judgment, may apply or not apply past
practice as it determines. The Company may provide any such policies, programs, or
plans itself or through a third-party vendor or by changing a third-party vendor.
ï‚· Leaves of Absence Policy
Kauff distributed again Proposal 27 (which had been TA’ed) and stated that when
Respondent reflected on 27, it decided that it wanted additional language, which it included in
Proposal 27A, but the Union objected to it. Kauff commented, “We’re not going to be regressive
about it.” We’d agreed to 27. O’Neill observed, “At the end, we can merge things.” Kauff replied,
“It will have to come from you.”
The Union, after a caucus, agreed to TA Respondent’s Proposal 32 with the additional
language that the Union objected to in 27A.
On March 6, 2013, Respondent added six policies to its previous list of benefits using
the same language as in Proposal 32, which the Union had TA’ed.
This proposal is as follows:
COMPANY PROPOSAL 32A
APPLCIABLE COMPANY BENEFITS AS OF JANURAY 1, 2012
Subject to the Company’s rules of eligibility and applicable law, each bargaining
unit employee shall be covered by the following Company benefits as they existed and
as they were practiced as of January 1, 2012. The Company’s discretion and judgment
as to the interpretation of, eligibility for, and practice, with respect to any benefit shall
prevail. The Company, in its discretion and judgment, may apply or not apply past
practice as it determines. The Company may provide any such policies, programs, or
plans itself or through a third-party vendor or by changing a third-party vendor.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
124
ï‚· Leaves of Absence Policy
ï‚· Educational Assistance
ï‚· Retirement Product Benefit
ï‚· Employee Referral
ï‚· Standby Policy
ï‚· Shift Differential
ï‚· Life and AD&D Insurance
On March 14, 2013, the parties discussed Respondent’s proposal 32A. The Union
objected principally to the inclusion of shift differential and standby pay in this proposal, arguing
that no interpretation is necessary for these benefits and that they should be in other parts of the
contract.
At the close of this meeting, Kauff presented a revised proposal (32B) and commented
that Respondent had deleted some of the language in the proposal to reflect the benefits that
are “frozen.” The proposal was:
COMPANY PROPOSAL 32B
APPLCIABLE COMPANY BENEFITS AS OF JANURAY 1, 2012
Subject to the Company’s rules of eligibility and applicable law, each bargaining
unit employee shall be covered by the following Company benefits as they existed and
as they were practiced as of January 1, 2012. The Company’s discretion and judgment
as to the interpretation of, eligibility for, and practice, with respect to any benefit shall
prevail. The Company, in its discretion and judgment, may apply or not apply past
practice as it determines. The Company may provide any such policies, programs, or
plans itself or through a third-party vendor or by changing a third-party vendor.
ï‚· Leaves of Absence Policy
ï‚· Educational Assistance
ï‚· Retirement Product Benefit
ï‚· Employee Referral
ï‚· Standby Policy
ï‚· Shift Differential
ï‚· Life and AD&D Insurance
On March 19, 2013, the parties discussed Respondent’s proposal several times. The
Union continued to object, again arguing that shift differential and standby pay do not belong in
this proposal.
Respondent offered another proposal with minor revisions (32C), as follows:
COMPANY PROPOSAL 32C
APPLCIABLE COMPANY BENEFITS AS OF JANURAY 1, 2012
Subject to the Company’s rules of eligibility and applicable law, eEach bargaining
unit employee shall be covered by the following Company benefits, subject to the rules
of eligibility, as they such benefits and rules of eligibility existed and as they were
practiced as of January 1, 2012. Subject to Article [ ] [Non-Discrimination], Tthe
Company’s judgment as to the interpretation of, eligibility for, and practice, with respect
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
125
to any benefit shall prevail. The Company may provide any such policies, programs, or
plans itself or through a third-party vendor or by changing a third-party vendor.
ï‚· Leaves of Absence Policy
ï‚· Educational Assistance
ï‚· Retirement Product Benefit
ï‚· Employee Referral
ï‚· Standby Policy
ï‚· Shift Differential
ï‚· Life and AD&D Insurance
After further discussion, and after Respondent inquired about what the Union intended to
do with respect to shift differential and standby pay, the Union presented a proposal that
included shift differential and standby pay along with Hours and Overtime.
Kauff then suggested putting shift differential and standby pay aside and try to obtain
TAs on the other portions of Respondent’s proposal. The Union agreed to TA Educational
Assistance, Life and AD&D Insurance and Employee Referral. The Union did not agree to TA
Retirement Product Benefit in this proposal, although the Union did not provide any reason at
the negotiations as to why it would not TA the inclusion of that benefit in Respondent’s proposal.
4. Arbitration
After the Union made its arbitration proposal on May 30, 2012, Respondent countered
on July 2, 2012 with its contract agreement proposal, which included an article entitled,
“Arbitration,” reading as follows:
ARTICLE -- ARBITRATION
Section 1: If the grievance is properly appealed to arbitration, representatives of the
Company and the Union shall meet to select an arbitrator from a panel requested and
received from the American Arbitration Association (AAA) in New York and in
accordance with AAA procedures. The Arbitration shall be conducted pursuant to AAA
rules.
Section 2: The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the Employer,
the Union and the employee(s) without either party waiving its right to a court review.
The arbitrator shall have no authority to expand the grievance beyond the written
grievance the parties have submitted for arbitration. The arbitrator shall only have the
authority to determine whether the Company has violated a specific provision of this
Agreement. In this regard, the arbitrator may not substitute his or her discretion or
judgment for that of the Company and shall have no right to amend, modify, nullify,
ignore, add to or imply things into the provisions of this Agreement, or impose upon any
party hereto a limitation or obligation not provided for in this Agreement. In any award of
backpay in a discharge case, the arbitrator must reduce such back pay by all outside
earnings and income, including but not limited to unemployment insurance benefits,
disability payments, and other employment.
Section 3: The expenses of the arbitrator, including transcripts, shall be shared
equally by the Company and the Union.
Section 4: The party requesting arbitration shall pay all administrative fees related to
the AAA’s services.
On December 5, 2012, Kauff presented several new proposals, including revised
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
126
proposals on grievance procedure and on arbitration. The revised arbitration proposal (5A) is as
follows:
PROPOSAL 5A
ARBITRATION
Section 1: If the grievance is properly appealed to arbitration, representatives of the
Company and the Union shall meet to select an arbitrator from a panel requested and
received from the American Arbitration Association (AAA) in New York and in
accordance with the Labor Arbitration Rules of AAA procedures. The Arbitration shall be
conducted pursuant to AAA rules.
Section 2: The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the
EmployerCompany, the Union and the bargaining unit employee(s) without either party
waiving its right to a court review. The arbitrator shall have no authority to expand the
grievance beyond the written grievance the parties have submitted for arbitration. The
arbitrator shall only have the authority to determine whether the Company has violated a
specific provision of this Agreement. In this regard, (1) tThe arbitrator may not substitute
his or her discretion or judgment for the Company’s exercise of its discretion or
judgment; and, pursuant to Article [ ] [Discharge], proper cause for any decision shall be
found to exist unless the Union proves that the Company did not have a good faith belief
that the bargaining unit employee engaged in the conduct at issue. that of the Company
and The arbitrator shall have no right to amend, modify, nullify, ignore, add to or imply
things into the provisions of this Agreement, or impose upon any party hereto a limitation
or obligation not provided for in this Agreement. In any award of back pay in a discharge
case, the arbitrator must reduce such back pay by additional outside earnings and
income from the date of discharge, including but not limited to unemployment insurance
benefits and, disability payments., and other employment This reduction shall not apply
to outside earnings and income from employment (not in violation of Article [ ], [Outside
Employment/Conflicts of Interest] obtained prior to discharge, but shall apply to any
increase in outside earnings and income received after discharge.
Section 3: The fees and expenses of the arbitrator, including transcripts, shall be
shared equally by the Company and the Union.
Section 4: The party requesting arbitration shall pay all administrative fees related to
the AAA’s services.
Kauff explained that the change from the previous proposal was meant to conform to the
language in Section 2 to what Respondent had proposed on discipline and discharge, “so the
arbitrator doesn’t have to go to two places and the standard in the Discharge clause is put in the
Arbitration clause.”
Kauff further elaborated on the reason for his proposal in his testimony as follows:
A I did.
Q How did you modify it and when?
A Oh, god, I'll tell you how and I'll pause a bit about when. I've got to think about
that. But what I did is the Company and the Union had been talking a lot about the
discharge standard. And I was troubled by the possible long-term misunderstanding
about that language. And I wanted it absolutely clear, so I took that language, the exact
language that's in the -- that we were proposing in the discharge clause and I repeated
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
127
it in the arbitration clause. And I explained to the Union the reason. I said I didn't want
there to be a misunderstanding. I wanted the Union to understand it. I wanted the
employees to understand it. And, most important, I wanted an arbitrator to understand
it. I kind of wanted it in arbitrator's face.
Q And, Mr. Kauff, could you just tell us what did you want -- exactly what did you
want the arbitrator to understand, the employees to understand, and the Union to
understand?
A. I wanted them to understand the burden of proof in the standard. And that
standard was the good faith standard that the Union had the obligation to prove that
the Company did not have a good faith belief that the person didn't do the act. It’s the
exact language. I lifted it from the discharge clause if I can direct your attention to Joint
Exhibit 75.
The Union made no comments about this proposal at this meeting, and the parties went
on to discuss other proposals.
On December 17, 2012, the Union submitted a counterproposal on arbitration (12C),
adopting most of Model’s July 2 language but without the proper cause language.
Respondent did not accept the Union’s modified proposal, and the parties discussed the
issue. Gallagher contended that Respondent's proposal meant that an arbitrator could not put
an employee back to work, even if the arbitrator found that the employee had not committed the
misconduct. Kauff responded that if the Union provided all its evidence in connection with the
alleged misconduct, Respondent would be able to conduct a good faith investigation.
Gallagher replied that the Union still had to prove that Respondent did not have good
faith and continued to object to Respondent’s proposal.
On December 20, 2012, the issue was again discussed. Gallagher stated that the
difference between the parties is the part that proper cause and good faith belief are in
Respondent’s proposal, and the Union does not agree. He suggested discussing those issues in
the content of discipline and discharge and agreeing on arbitration.
Kauff replied, “That won’t work for us.”
Gallagher responded, “What’s the company’s need for it? It wasn’t originally there.”
Kauff answered that he understood that, but Respondent wanted the standard to appear
in both places.
The parties met on January 17, 2013, Gallagher again protested Kauff’s proposal,
characterizing it as “regressive, it wasn’t there” (referring to Model’s original proposal).
Kauff replied, “You can call it regressive, but it’s not—if you propose it in discharge,
you’ve proposed it, if you didn’t put it in arbitration and you want in both, it’s not regressive.”
Kauff and Gallagher continued to argue about whether Respondent’s proposal was
regressive or not. Kauff continued to argue that it was just a clarification, and it makes sense to
remind the arbitrator that it is in there.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
128
Gallagher responded, “But you didn’t think you needed to do that when you originally
started bargaining.”
Gallagher continued to argue that the parties should TA the arbitration clause without the
issue and resolve them in discharge and discipline discussions.
On January 30, 2013, Respondent proposed a package of revisions on both discharge
and discipline and arbitration. He added the Union had made a point of saying that the
arbitration clause contains language embedded in discharge and asked why Respondent
needed it in both places. Kauff commented, “We still think it’s appropriate to have it in both
places, but as you’ll see we’ve acceded to your notions and deleted it from the arbitration
paragraph.”
Kauff explained in his testimony the reason for his change of position (the Union
persuaded him). He testified as follows:
THE WITNESS: 2013. Billy says I think that is – I think your proposal is regressive. This
is six weeks after I -- I think he meant redundant, but maybe he meant regressive. It
clearly was redundant. But he called it regressive. And he said to me, Jerry, we can
have an agreement on arbitration. We have no other dispute with respect to arbitration
except for this line that you have in it. And I didn't think I was being regressive. I
understood his redundant article. And he persuaded me. He persuaded me that it would
be better in terms of reaching a collective bargaining agreement, it would be better to
have a T/A if you balance -- I balanced whether it would be better to have a T/A or get
the clarification I wanted. And I thought he was right in the balance and we T/A'd it.
MR. SILVERSTEIN:
Q And you removed the language that he objected to, correct?
A Yeah, yeah. We T/A'd it the way he—
Q And that resulted in a T/A on January 30th
A Right, correct.
Q —as you testified.
A Correct.
After the parties discussed the discharge and discipline modifications, without reaching
agreement, Respondent agreed to uncouple its package and urged that the parties TA the
Respondent’s last arbitration proposal (5C).
The Union agreed, and the parties TA’ed the proposal, which is set forth below:
PROPOSAL 5C
ARBITRATION
Section 1: If the grievance is properly appealed to arbitration, representatives of the
Company and the Union shall meet to select an arbitrator from a panel requested and
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
129
received from the American Arbitration Association (AAA) in New York and in
accordance with the Labor Arbitration Rules of AAA. The Arbitration shall be conducted
pursuant to AAA rules.
Section 2: The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the Company,
the Union and the bargaining unit employee(s) without either party waiving its right to a
court review. The arbitrator shall have no authority to expand the grievance beyond the
written grievance the parties have submitted for arbitration. The arbitrator shall only have
the authority to determine whether the Company has violated a specific provision of this
Agreement. The arbitrator may not substitute his discretion or judgment for the
Company’s exercise of its discretion or judgment.; and, pursuant to Article [ ]
[Discharge], proper cause for any decision shall be found to exist unless the Union
proves that the Company did not have a good faith belief that the bargaining unit
employee engaged in the conduct at issue. The arbitrator shall have no right to amend,
modify, nullify, ignore, add to or imply things into the provisions of this Agreement, or
impose upon any party hereto a limitation or obligation not provided for in this
Agreement. In any award of back pay in a discharge case, the arbitrator must reduce
such back pay by outside earnings and income from the date of discharge, including but
not limited to unemployment insurance benefits and disability payments. This reduction
shall not apply to outside earnings and income from employment (not in violation of
Article [ ], [Outside Employment/Conflicts of Interest] obtained prior to discharge, but
shall apply to any increase in outside earnings and income received after discharge.
Section 3: The fees and expenses of the arbitrator, including transcripts, shall be
shared equally by the Company and the Union.
G. The Alleged Withdrawal from a Tentative Agreement
The Union’s initial proposal of May 30, 2012 contained a proposal for the payroll
deduction of union dues. On July 2, 2012, when the parties went over the Union’s proposal,
Model said there was an agreement in concept and that Respondent would come back with a
counter.
On October 12, 2012, Gallagher listed payroll deduction on a list of items still open, and
the parties had not spoken about in a while.
On January 9, 2013, Respondent presented a proposal on payroll deduction, which it
packaged with proposals on union security, covered work, performance of bargaining unit work,
geographic scope and contracting.
Kauff explained the Respondent’s proposal on payroll deduction as follows:
Company 34 -- Payroll Deduction of Union Dues and Reports is distributed @ 11:31 a.m.
(JBK crosses out "and reports" from this proposal's title @ 11:31 a.m.)
Payroll Deductions -- We understand that this is a touch economic. We are providing a
service to the union. We understand that this is not in every collective bargaining
agreement. Not all collective bargaining agreements call for the employer to check off
union dues from payroll. Nevertheless, our view is that the union asked for this payroll
deduction and we feel as though we would be willing to provide this service. It does cost
Cablevision money in the administration, but we are prepared to do it. Two things that I
want to bring to your attention:
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
130
(a) At the end of the first section -- it says that this applies during the term of the
CBA. Two weeks ago, the NLRB changed the law. Previously, union check off
provisions expired with the expiration of the contract. The Labor Board changed
this -- check off continues, but union security does not continue. The parties then
have to negotiate with respect to check off. We are therefore saying that check
off expires at the end of the contract, as it used to, two weeks ago (prior to the
NLRB's decision).
(b) We make the authorization by the employee revocable at anytime. The point
here is that if an employee does not want us to take dues out, we do not want to
do so. They just have to tell us they don't want to do it. This doesn’t meant that
they don’t have an obligation to pay the dues to the union; we are not taking it out
of their paycheck. If they don't pay their dues to the union, the union can invoke
section 4. We just don't want to take something out of someone's pay if they don't
want this.
Respondent’s proposal, which Kauff explained, as set forth above, was as follows:
COMPANY PROPOSAL
PAYROLL DEDUCTION OF UNION DUES AND REPORTS
Section 1: The Employer shall deduct each month the dues and fees owed to the
Union from the wages of a bargaining unit employee, when authorized by the employee
in writing in accordance with applicable law. The amounts deducted shall be forwarded
to the Union not later than the twentieth (20th) day of the month following the month in
which they are deducted. This Article shall not survive or continue after the expiration of
this Agreement, and, the Employer's obligations pursuant to this Article shall terminate
and be of no further force and effect from and after [date of cba expiration].
Section 2: The Union shall furnish to the Employer the executed wage assignment
for each bargaining unit employee from whom wage deductions are to be made, which
shall be effective in the second payroll period following the Employer's receipt of the
wage assignment.
Section 3: The employee's wage assignment shall be voluntary and may be revoked
by the employee at any time upon two (2) weeks' advance, written notice to the
Employer. The Employer shall provide a copy of the employee's notice of revocation to
the Union.
Section 4: The Union shall defend (with legal counsel satisfactory to the Employer),
indemnify and save the Employer harmless against any and all claims, demands, suits,
or other forms of liability that arise out of or by reason of action taken or not taken by the
Employer for the purpose of complying with any of the provisions of this Article or in
reliance on any list, notice, authorization or wage assignment furnished by the Union
under any of these provisions.
On January 17, 2013, Gallagher informed Respondent that the Union would agree to
Respondent’s proposal on payroll deduction of dues22 but not as part of the package. Kauff

22 Respondent had made a slight revision of its proposal earlier in the meeting. Its new
Continued
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
131
replied, “We’ll note that, but it’s part of the package.”
On March 14, 2013, Respondent agreed, as the Union had suggested in January, to
uncouple Respondent’s proposal on payroll deduction of union dues, and the parties agreed to
TA that proposal.
H. The Alleged Refusal to Discuss Mandatory Subjects of Bargaining
1. Seniority
On July 2, 2012, the Union submitted a proposal on seniority, as follows:
SENORITY
Section 1. Seniority, as used in this Agreement, is defined as Net Credited Service.
Net credited service shall mean continuous employment with the Employer, beginning
with the date on which the employee began work and after being hired and including any
time spent in the armed services, interrupting otherwise continuous employment, or any
other absence approved by the Employer.
Section 2. If more than one (1) employee has the same Seniority date, the last four
digits of the Social Security Number will be used to establish the ranking. The employee
with the lowest number will be considered the most senior.
At the end of October 12, 2012 session, Gallagher provided Respondent a list of union
issues that the parties had not spoken about for a while and the list included seniority.
On November 27, 2012, the Union asked Respondent for a response on the items it had
previously requested, including seniority. Kauff responded with respect to seniority, which
resulted in a brief exchange with Calabrese and Gallagher on this subject. Kauff’s comments
and the Union’s responses are set forth below:
JBK: we're prepared on two of them -- seniority and successors and assigns. To take the
mystery away, we're not inclined to agree to either of them, but it's important that we
express our reasons and POV on them. Our view is that seniority is a flawed concept,
fundamentally so and inconsistent with rewarding merit. It sets up a hierarchy that's
based on an arbitrary concept of time of service and there's no reason that time in
service should be inherently rewarded because we should collectively be rewarding
effort, skill, initiative and teamwork. Seniority, to us, is demoralizing for a newer
employee who possesses initiative and skill, particularly if they're losing out in some way
to someone who doesn't possess the same skills and ability in their judgment. There
must be a reason for the seniority clause. It doesn't talk about what seniority does --
preference in vacation? I've seen seniority provisions say that. Preference in
downsizing? I've seen that too. In either case, those are concepts that we aren't
interested in. Example: if you have a situation, which no one contemplates right now, of
downsizing -- from our point of view, and this should be something the union should
embrace, you shouldn't protect the most senior people, that's silly. You want to keep
your best people, it's fundamental. If you are going to have 20 less people, you want the
remainder to be your best people. Example: if you send your kids to school, do you want
_________________________
proposal was 3A.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
132
them taught by the most senior teacher or the best? You’re always going to answer the
best, no one would say otherwise, everyone fights to get their kid taught by the best. Do
you put the most senior person or the best person in a position on a baseball or
basketball team? Why would you impose on a company a system that does that when
you operate a company? I'm sorry to be so impassioned about it, but this isn't something
the union should be raising, it should be withdrawn.
BG: we're not withdrawing it. How many contracts have you done that don't have
seniority?
JBK: many.
BG: there are not many that I've seen.
JBK: if you ask me how many times a union asks for it, I'd say frequently, but not all the
time. But there are many contracts that I have that don't agree with the seniority concept.
CC: we just gave the definition of seniority. The reason was for us to have this
conversation and then to have the rest of negotiations to figure out where it would fit.
JBK: that's what I understand.
CC: That's what we meant. I think you probably have a definition somewhere, like time in
service, in the company, net service date. You probably have it.
JBK: of course we have a record of when someone joins the company, you have it too.
But what's the point? You don't need seniority without circumstances. Instead of saying I
don't want to discuss this until there are other proposals, I'm being direct.
BG: you have our proposals on that stuff.
JBK: this is why I could answer.
On March 19, 2013, the Union submitted a proposal, entitled “Force Adjustment,” as set
forth below:
FORCE ADJUSTMENT
Section 1: In the event of a planned reduction in force, the Company shall provide
the Union with five (5) business days' advanced notice of the number (not the identity) of
the affected bargaining unit employees affected, along with their respective titles and
department. Within this five (5) day notice period, the Union may request a meeting with
the Company, at which the Company and the Union shall discuss any suggestions the
Union may have concerning to alleviatethe such reduction in force.,including any
suggestions concerning the possible reduction in the use of contractors. At the expiration
of the five business days referred to above, the final decision with respect to any
alternatives and the reduction in force shall be that of the Company, except that
temporary employees shall be separated before the Company exercises its reduction in
force rights, and ceases contracting pursuant to Union.Proposal 7C.
Section 2: Under the circumstances set forth in Section 1. preceding, regular
employees will be given preference, in accordance "With their seniority, subject to their
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
133
skills and experience, to perform the remaining work in the event of a reduction in force.
Affected bargaining unit employees who met Company standards at the time of the
reduction in force shall be entitled to be considered for any open bargaining unit position,
subject to the Company’s judgment as to whether or not the employee is the most
qualified therefore.
Section 3: The Company shall meet with the affected bargaining unit employees and
advise them of their official separation date; their rights under unemployment
compensation laws, if any; their re-employment rights with the Company, if any; the
opportunity, if any, for severance pay; and their rights to health care transition (COBRA)
and 401(k) transition, if any. Affected bargaining unit employees who met Company
standards at the time of the reduction in force shall be entitled to be considered for any
open bargaining unit position, subject to the Company's judgment as to whether or not
the employee is the most qualified therefor.
Section 4: Any bargaining unit employee subject to a reduction in force shall receive
two (2) weeks' severance pay if they have completed fewer than ten (10) full years of
Continuous Service. Any bargaining unit employee subject to a reduction in force shall
receive four (4) weeks' severance pay if they have completed ten (10) or more full years
of Continuous Service. "Continuous Service" shall mean the number of full years served
by the bargaining unit employee with the Company beginning with the date of the
bargaining unit employee's most recent engagement (or reengagement) and ending with
the effective date of the bargaining unit employee's termination.
Section 5: If a bargaining unit employee is recalled to work in a time frame which is
less than the duration of his scheduled weeks of severance pay, the bargaining unit
employee shall reimburse the Company the difference in weeks.
Section 6: A former surplus employee who has been laid off and who files an
application for employment will be considered prior to off-street applicants for vacancies
for which he/she qualifies for a period of (18) eighteen months from the date of layoff.
The parties had an extensive discussion about this proposal as well as Respondent’s
previous proposal on force adjustment, which the Union’s proposal responded to. During the
course of this discussion, Kauff reiterated his previous comments that Respondent rejects the
principle that mandates that seniority be the determinative factor in layoff and recall decisions
but asserted that Respondent does consider seniority or length of service in these decisions.
However, Respondent believes skills and performance are the most important factors
considered by Respondent in these decisions, and it does not want to be mandated to rely
solely on seniority. Kauff explained Respondent’s position after he asked the Union if it was
proposing that layoffs be made pursuant to seniority. Calabrese answered correct.
Kauff responded, “We rejected and continue to reject the notion that seniority would play
a role in any preferential position—I shouldn’t say seniority. I should say time in service—
because the company doesn’t do that. It might consider time in service, but it doesn’t say that
time in service trumps.”
Gallagher replied that the Union’s proposal refers to “subject to their skills and
experience,” which in his view is “the same thing.”
Kauff asked, “So, you’re saying if skills are equal, then seniority governs.” Gallagher
responded, “Yes.” Kauff answered, “We reject that.”
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
134
2. Safety
At the July 2, 2012 meeting, the Union submitted a proposal, entitled “Safety.” It is as
follows:
SAFETY
Section 1. Safety and health is a mutual concern of the Company and the Union. It
benefits all parties to have employees work in safe and healthful environments and for
employees to perform their work safely and in the interests of their own health. It is also
necessary to promote a better understanding and acceptance of the principles of safety
and health on the part of all employees, in order to provide for their own safety and
health and that of their fellow employees, customers and the general public.
To achieve the above principles, the Company and the Union agree to establish
for the duration of this Agreement an advisory committee known as the Safety and
Health Committee. The committee shall consist of not more than three (3)
representatives each from the Company and the Union (to be appointed by the
Company and the Union, respectively). This committee shall meet from time to time as
required, but at least semi-annually and more often as mutually agreed upon by the
parties.
This committee shall be charged with the responsibility to develop facts and
recommendations so that both parties can make well-informed decisions regarding the
occupational safety and health matters.
The committee shall focus on all matters pertaining to occupational safety and
health, including ergonomic concerns in the workplace. It shall also consider existing
practices and rules relating to safety and health and formulate suggested changes in
design and adoption of new practices and rules.
In connection with the Safety and Health Committee meetings under this Article,
the employee representative(s) designated by the Union shall suffer no loss in pay for
time consumed in, and necessarily consumed in traveling to and from, these meetings.
Section 2. None of the terms of this Agreement shall be applied or interpreted to
restrict the Company from taking whatever actions are deemed reasonably necessary to
fully comply with laws, rules and regulations regarding safety, and grievance and
arbitration provisions of this Agreement shall not apply to any such actions. Discipline for
failure to observe safety rules shall be grievable and arbitrable under the terms of this
Agreement. Other matters relating to safety also be grieved and arbitrated.
On October 12, 2012, Gallagher listed safety as one of the Union’s proposals that were
still open.
On December 20, 2012, Kauff addressed the Union’s proposal, and a discussion ensued
between Kauff, Gallagher, Calabrese and Henderson on this subject, as follows:
JBK: Next is safety, Union 27. There is no question about the first paragraph of Section
1, although we might want to re-write it, but there is the notion that the company listens
to the employees and deals with these issues, so we think it's redundant to have a
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
135
committee, and to have time off for people on the committee. We'd rather approach it by
asking if you if there are safety issues that haven't been taken seriously.
CC: that's not the impression we have or were trying to make. We were trying to set it up
so that twice a year, we have a cup of coffee and talk about ideas. I have two examples
from other companies: one had a splicing gun that was causing Carpel-Tunnel over time,
and the committee came up with a way to change the gun to stop those injuries. For the
other -- 10 years ago, no one had to worry about working close to cell towers and the RF
they came in contact with -- another committee came up with a way to ensure that if
employees were working close to towers, there were certain procedures we'd use. We
wanted to have an exchange of ideas beneficial to both the company and the
employees.
JBK: It's interesting you say twice a year -- how often are toolbox meetings?
RL: every week.
JBK: our position is that safety isn't something that people meet twice a year about, we
should be doing it every day.
BG: we agree, but then the bigger committee meets to bring back any issues to the rest
of the group. To cut to the chase, it comes to you not wanting to have a joint committee
with the union. What's the problem with safety?
JBK: we want to do things that are good for the business, we'll respond when we think
it's valuable. We've had this discussion, we'll consider the feedback and respond to it. To
automatically have committees to address things that the company does time and time
again and pays attention to on a daily basis -- we don't want to waste time or effort. If
this is a problem at the workplace, it ought to be addressed, and the question is whether
it's a problem. You phrase it as a philosophic notion, there isn't one.
BG: that's our opinion.
JBK: there isn't a philosophic notion.
BG: This one should be easy, it's on safety; this isn't financial thing, it isn't a waste of
time, you just used waste of time to describe this.
JBK: I said it would be a waste of time to have a committee when the company spends a
lot of time on it.
BG: safety is never a waste of time. During toolbox meetings, there isn't a back and forth
on ideas.
PH: the safety manager has meetings
RL: he meets employees in the field.
LH: him talking to you isn't a meeting with an employee. How do you view meeting with
employees as a waste of time? I get that you spend a lot of time keeping employees
safe, but what's the harm in talking about improvement?
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
136
JBK: that's why we said we'll take it under advisement.
BG: I thought this was your response, that it's in management rights.
JBK: I thought I made it clear, we'll take it under advisement.
On January 9, 2013, Kauff presented Respondent’s proposal in response to the Union’s
safety proposal with the following comments:
JBK: Separate from the package. We've had discussions about safety. Our original
response was, and we still don't think, that a safety committee is necessary. There is
something that we wanted to say about safety and the broader issue of consultation with
the union. There is value in having semi-annual meetings, as proposed, with the union to
discuss matters of mutual interest including safety. We have a proposal to you on this.
We think it is a recognition of an ongoing relationship. Please consider this proposal.
Company 35 -- Employee Relations Consultations is distributed @ 11:42 a.m.
The proposal submitted by Respondent (Company Proposal 35) reads:
COMPANY PROPOSAL 35
EMPLOYEE RELATIONS CONSULTATIONS
The Union and the Employer shall meet on a semi-annual basis to discuss
matters of mutual interest and concern including matters of safety. These consultations
shall be subject to Article [ ], Complete Agreement, and shall not address grievances or
any dispute that is or may be subject to the grievance or arbitration procedures of this
Agreement.
At the parties’ next meeting, January 16, 2013, Gallagher responded that the Union
agreed to TA Respondent’s counterproposal (Proposal 35) with Kauff and Gallagher agreeing
that “Company 35 takes care of Union 27.”
I. The Alleged Delay in Providing Wage Information to the Union
On August 23, 2012, the Union submitted the following information request to
Respondent:
August 23, 2012
Alan I. Model, Esq.
Littler Mendelson, P.C.
1 Newark Center
1085 Raymond Blvd., 8th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102-5235
Re: Document Request
Dear Mr. Model:
In connection with the current contract negotiations between Cablevision
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
137
Systems New York City Corporation and Communications Workers of America, Local
1109, the Union requests the following information:
Documents reflecting any changes made during the period of April 1, 2012 to the
present with respect to the following:
1. The wages and benefits of all non-Brooklyn Cablevision employees employed in the
same or similar job classifications as members of the CWA bargaining unit who are
employed in Brooklyn, New York.
2. The Career Progression Plan for all non-Brooklyn Cablevision employees employed in
the same or similar job classifications as members of the CWA bargaining unit who are
employed in Brooklyn, New York.
3. The Salary Matrix for all non-Brooklyn Cablevision employees employed in the same
or similar job classifications as members of the CWA bargaining unit who are employed
in Brooklyn, New York.
Thank You.
Sincerely,
William Gallagher
CWA Staff Representative
District 1
1-212-344-7332
Respondent responded to the Union’s request by letter of September 5, 2012 from
Denise Barton Ward of Littler Mendelson, who was filling in for Model, who on his honeymoon.
September 5, 2012
VIA E-MAIL wgallagher@cwa-union.org
William Gallagher, CWA Representative
Communication Workers of America AFL-CIO, District 1
80 Pine Street, 37th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Re: Cablevision Information Request
Dear Mr. Gallagher:
This letter responds to the Union's information requests dated August 23, 2012. Your
requests ask for wages and benefits, career progression plan, and salary matrix "for all
non-Brooklyn Cablevision employees employed in the same or similar job classifications
as members of the CWA bargaining unit who are employed in Brooklyn, New York."
The request, as written, is unclear. If you are requesting information for "non-Brooklyn
Cablevision employees" "employed in Brooklyn," there are no such employees. If you
are requesting information for non-Brooklyn employees in the same or similar job
classifications as the Brooklyn employees, the information you request is not
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
138
presumptively relevant as it relates to non-represented employees. Therefore, please
explain the relevancy and we will reconsider the request and respond.
If you feel your request requires further clarification, please do so and we will review and
respond to the clarified request. Otherwise we believed we have fully responded to this
information request.
Very truly yours,
Littler Mendelson, P.C.
Denise Barton Ward
DBW
Cc: Cablevision
Alan Model, Esq.
On September 11, 2012, Gallagher replied with the following letter to Ward:
September 11, 2012
Denise Barton Ward, Esq.
Littler Mendelson, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305
Melville, NY 11747
Re: Information Request
Dear Ms. Ward:
This will respond to your letter dated September 5, 2012, concerning the Union's
August 23, 2012 information request made in connection with our ongoing contract
negotiations.
First, I would dispute your assertion that the request was unclear. It would make
no sense to request information for "non-Brooklyn" employees "employed in Brooklyn,"
and I do not think my request could reasonably be read that way. Rather, I requested the
wages and benefits, career progression plan, and salary matrix for non-Brooklyn
Cablevision employees employed in the same or similar job classifications as the
employees in the CWA bargaining unit.
Second, the requested information is relevant to the Union's role as the
employees' collective bargaining representative. In the last bargaining session, the
parties specifically discussed the pay raises given to employees by Cablevision in other,
non-Brooklyn geographic areas, as well as the changes made to the free cable plan for
those employees. In fact, Chris Calabrese was told that his understanding of the free
cable plan was incorrect, and Paul Hillberg explained the changes to this particular
benefit in other areas. The parties also discussed automatic career progression in other
areas where Cablevision operates, particularly the recent creation of a Grade 13. These
issues -- wages, benefits, and promotions -- are central to the Union's bargaining
demands, and some knowledge of company and industry norms would be of obvious
utility to the Union in its efforts to negotiate a contract with Cablevision. Furthermore, the
Union should not have to simply accept representations made over the bargaining table
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
139
when documents are readily available to verify or refute such assertions.
The Union renews its August 23rd request.
Very truly yours,
William Gallagher
WG/cd
Cc: Alan Model, Esq.
Christopher Calabrese, Exec. Vice President-Local 1109
On October 12, 2012, as related above, Kauff replaced Model as Respondent’s chief
negotiator. Kauff commented, as follows, concerning the Union’s information:
U has a pending information request relating to non-unit bargaining people. Putting aside
whether you're legally entitled to it and reserving our legal rights, in the spirit of
cooperation and because having a fight over entitlement wastes time, we'll comply with it
and send you responses before the next meeting or give it to you at the next meeting.
We'll give you the info on the drug policy as well, either on or before the 26th.
On October 26, 2012, Respondent produced documents, consisting of 12 pages, which
Kauff asserted was Respondent’s compliance with the Union’s information request. The parties
discussed Respondent’s response, and questions were asked by the Union and responded to
by Respondent.
The portion of the response concerning wage comparisons consisted of a one-page
document, comparing wages of Bronx and Brooklyn employees, in only two titles, techs-inside
plant and rep. SR-RCC. Kauff conceded that these were the only two titles that Respondent
compared. Kauff testified that the information requested by the Union should encompass over
10,000 employees. Thus, Respondent provided a comparison of two titles in Brooklyn and
Bronx. Hilber commented at the meeting as to why Respondent did not make more
comparisons. Hilber stated, “We can’t really do other comparisons because we have a lot of
movement. We don’t have 13s here.”
Henderson commented that the Union wanted 13s compared to 12s. Calabrese added,
“We will provide a list of what we want compared.” Hilber responded, “When you come back
with more, we can do a comparison and come back with a career progression.”
With respect to the request for a progression plan, Respondent provided a PowerPoint
document showing titles and grades for each department but did not contain any wage or salary
information.
No one from the Union pointed out this information was missing or that Respondent’s
request was inadequate or insufficient, other than Calabrese’s comments, detailed above, that
we’ll provide a list to Respondent of other comparisons that it wanted.
Thus, Kauff testified that he believed that Respondent was in compliance with the
Union’s information request at the close of the October 26 meeting and we were awaiting the
Union’s possible request for more information as indicated by Calabrese at the meeting.
The Union did not make any additional requests until December 31, 2012, when
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
140
Gallagher sent the following email to Kauff:
From: Bill Gallagher wgallagher@cwa-union.org
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:48 PM
To: Jerome B. Kauff; Chris Calabrese
Subject: Information request
Jerry
In order to make a wage proposal CWA is requesting the following information:
Wage comparisons as given to us on October 26, 2012 (ER0750) for all titles in the
bargaining unit.
Thanks
William Gallagher
CWA Staff Representative
District 1
1-212-344-7332
At the start of the parties’ January 9, 2013 session, Kauff provided the Union with its
response to Gallagher’s December 31, 2012 request. It consisted of lists of all Brooklyn and
Bronx unit employees (without names) and included job titles, grades and salaries for each
employee.
After the Union reviewed the document, and after the parties discussed some other
issues, the Union brought up the information request and had some questions. Gallagher asked
for the time range on the salary details provided. Hilber responded that it was of January 2,
2013. Hilber also commented that performance appraisals take place monthly, so someone
could get a performance review and be making more.
Calabrese asked about what happened on May 1, 2012 outside of Brooklyn and how the
progression raises were calculated. Hilber responded and described the process. Calabrese
observed that the Union was confused about what happened on May 1. Hilber replied, “It was a
confusing process. The analysis was months and months of activity.”
Calabrese asked if Respondent is continuing with its annual merit increase system in
addition to the career progression, and Hilber answered yes.
Groveman added that “the merit increase process did not stop in Brooklyn either.”
The parties continued their discussion with several more questions by the Union, which
were answered by Hilber.
Gallagher requested an updated salary structure. After a break, Kauff provided a
document to the Union, entitled “2013 Salary Structure.” It reads:
2013 SALARY STRUCTURE
Applicable to Corporate, Cable & Communications, Optimum Lightpath,
CAMSC, MSG Varsity and Clearview
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
141
Grade Minimum 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile Maximum
17 $ 56,600 $ 66,700 $ 76,800 $ 96,000 $ 115,200
16 $ 54,400 $ 61,200 $ 68,000 $ 85,000 $ 102,000
15 $ 48,300 $ 54,400 $ 60,400 $ 75,500 $ 90,600
14 $ 43,100 $ 48,500 $ 53,900 $ 67,400 $ 80,900
13 $ 38,200 $ 43,000 $ 47,800 $ 59,750 $ 71,700
12 $ 34,100 $ 38,400 $ 42,600 $ 53,250 $ 63,900
11 $ 30,300 $ 34,100 $ 37,900 $ 47,400 $ 56,900
10 $ 27,000 $ 30,400 $ 33,800 $ 42,250 $ 50,700
9 $ 24,200 $ 27,200 $ 30,200 $ 37,750 $ 45,300
8 $ 21,400 $ 24,100 $ 26,800 $ 33,500 $ 40,200
7 $ 19,100 $ 21,500 $ 23,900 $ 29,900 $ 35,900
Kauff commented, “We have a 2013 Salary Structure that we applied everywhere but
Brooklyn. If you have no objections, we would like to apply this to Brooklyn as well. If you have
feedback, please let us know as soon as possible.”
Kauff asked if the Union had any questions about the document. Gallagher replied no,
and the parties moved on to discuss other matters.
At no time at this meeting did anyone from the Union indicate in any way that
Respondent’s information responses were inadequate, deficient, delayed or that anything was
missing or that any other information was needed.
At the February 5, 2013 meeting, Kauff said to the Union, “Will you review your notes
and let us know if there is any additional information that has been requested and not provided?
We think we’re up to date, but we want to take stock and make sure we are.” The Union did not
identify any unaddressed requests.
It was not until February 28, 2013, seven bargaining session after Respondent provided
the Union the information requested by the Union on December 31, 2012, that the Union
informed Respondent that additional wage information was needed. Gallagher stated as follows:
BG: On that note, you had given us a document on January 9, showing the salary detail
of the Bronx employees. What we need with this -- this is the current salary of the Bronx
employees as of January 2, 2013. What we would like, and I don't believe we received
this, is a document of what they made before they got their increases. As we went
through this and on other times with the career progression plan, there were comments
from the company that we could never figure this out because it's so hard, that we can't
figure out what you did. For the wages, we don't need names, but we want to know what
each person made before the wages changed.
Gallagher informed Kauff that the Union needed this information in order to make a
comprehensive wage proposal that Respondent had been pressing the Union to make.
Kauff stated that Respondent “put it on priority” (the responses) and let the Union know
by the end of the meeting when it would provide the information requested to the Union.
At the end of the session, Respondent informed the Union that it would have the
information by “next week.”
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
142
As promised, Respondent provided the Union with the information it requested at the
start of the parties’ next meeting on March 6, 2013.
Kauff gave the Union the information, which consisted of seven pages and listed each
Bronx employee (without name), the employees’ grade, annual salary, job title and a column,
entitled “Yrs. Srv. in Grade.” Kauff commented that the Union would want to look the document
over and might have questions, if so, Respondent would try to respond.
The Union asked no questions about the document, and the Union did not indicate that
anything was missing. In fact, there was no discussion of the information at all during the
meeting.
The parties did discuss the subject of wage increases during this meeting, primarily
focusing on the Union’s current wage proposals and why Respondent needed a comprehensive
wage proposal from the Union.
Gallagher finally responded that Respondent would have such a proposal by the next
meeting. More specifically, Gallagher stated, “The next time we meet, you will know where we
are coming from.”
As detailed above, the Union did provide a comprehensive wage proposal in March of
2013, which was discussed by the parties, and there have been back and forth wage proposals
by the parties at subsequent meditation sessions.
During the mediation sessions that the parties engaged in during May of 2013, the Union
attorney, Steven Weissman, asked for the production of information concerning the starting and
maximum wage rates of non-unit employees. Respondent furnished a multipage document to
the Union during the mediation containing the requested information. According to Kauff, this
information was never requested before by the Union in any of its previous requests or by the
Union during bargaining.
Kauff further testified that subsequent to the mediation ending at the August 15, 2013
session, the Union made a wage proposal. Respondent looked at the proposal and realized that
the Union had made the proposal based on the information provided by Respondent during
mediation and the one rate given to the Union was incorrect. Thus, Respondent corrected this
error by an email sent to Weissman, attaching a one-page document, reflecting the correction,
which related to field service grade 14 and was characterized by Hilber as “a single
administrative error.”
The document is as follows:
Summary of impact…Field Service
Advanced Service Tech II Grade 15
• Promotion increase for Grade 14's moving into this position
• Future 15s require applying, Training and Certification
• Start $29.04 ($60,400) / Max $43.56 ($90,600)
Advanced Service Technician Grade 14
• Promotion increase
• Train and Certify - Apply to next level after 24 months
• Start $24.27 ($50,500) / Max $38.89 ($80,900)
Field Operations Technician IV Grade 13
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
143
• Market Adjustment or Promotion Increase
• Existing grade 12's with 2 or more years of service
• **Train, Certify - Natural progression in 24 months**
• Start $22.12 ($46,000) / Max $34.47 ($71,700)
**Current grade 12's with three years or more will only be required to stay a grade 13 for
one year**
Field Operations Technician III Grade 12
• Market Adjustment (2012)
• Train, Certify - Natural progression in 24 months
• Start $19.75 ($41,078) I Max $30.72 ($63,900)
Field Operations Technician II Grade 11
• Market Adjustment (2012)
• Train, Certify - Natural progression in 12 months
• Start $17.43 ($36,256) I Max $27.36 ($56,900)
Field Operations Technician I Grade 10
• New Hire Salary adjusted (2012)
• Train and Certify - Natural progression in 12 months
• Start $15.38 ($32,000) I Max $24.38 ($50,700)
The August 15, 2013 bargaining notes reflected that there was a brief discussion
between Weissman and Hilber at that meeting “re grade 14 start rate correction,” which is
corroborative of Kauff’s testimony.
Gallagher, in his testimony, however, disagreed with Kauff’s characterization of this
information as a new request. According to Gallagher, this information, documenting the career
progression plan for field service in other areas, except for Brooklyn, was not new but covered
by the Union’s request of August 23, 2012.
The Union had never made an assertion that Respondent was not supplying requested
non-unit information promptly enough until it filed its charge in 29-CA-100175 on March 12,
2013.
At the March 14, 2013 meeting, Kauff brought up these charges and asked the Union
about them. Kauff asked about the allegation that Respondent failed and delayed in providing
information. The bargaining notes reflected that Gallagher and Calabrese looked at each other
and said, “We need to research that one too.”23
VI. The Alleged Surveillance
On February 7, 2013, the CWA held a press conference and rally at Madison Square
Garden to protest the alleged “termination” of 22 employees on July 30, 2013. Speakers at this
event included New York City mayoral candidates Bill De Brasio, Christine Quinn and John Liu.
Also present were most of the 22 employees allegedly discharged along with other employees
and union officials.
Marlon Gayle and Clarence Adams were two of the employees allegedly terminated,
who attended the rally. Gayle testified that he and Adams travelled together to the rally by train

23 Kauff had also asked about the allegation in the charge of “creating the impression that
unionization is futile.” The notes reflected that Gallagher and Calabrese looked at each other
and said, “We don’t know what this is about.”
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
144
and arrived at the subway at 33rd Street and 8th Avenue. At that time, he and Adams ran into an
individual, who Gayle recognized as a security officer of Cablevision, who Gayle had seen at
other rallies. Gayle testified that he said, “Hi” to this individual but did not testify to any
response.
Gayle further testified that he and Adams continued walking to the corner of 33rd Street
and 7th Avenue. A few minutes later, the individual was in the middle of the block, facing Adams
and Gayle. According to Gayle, the individual had a phone in his hand, and he appeared to be
taking a picture of Adams and Gayle. Gayle asserts that he said to Adams, “Clarence, we are
on camera, smile and look over.” Adams, according to Gayle, said, “What?” and by that time,
the individual was on his phone talking to someone.
Gayle testified further that when he and Adams arrived at the meeting, he went to
Calabrese and informed him that Cablevision knows that we are here because the security
guards are here and “I believe he was taking pictures of us.” According to Gayle, Calabrese
advised him that he wanted Gayle to speak to the lawyers about the individual taking pictures of
them.
Calabrese testified that he attended the rally on February 7, 2013, and when he arrived
he noticed a Cablevision security official, named Harry, whom he had seen before at other
events and at Respondent’s facilities, observing union activities.
When Calabrese saw Harry, they approached each other. Calabrese shook Harry’s
hand, and according to Calabrese, “teased” Harry by saying, “What are you doing here, this is
union surveillance, you’re surveilling the workers.” Harry replied, “No, I’m not, there is an event
here, I work here.” Calabrese responded, “Well that’s funny because he was always telling me
that Cablevision and Madison Square Garden are two different companies. Now you work here.
And so I sort of teased him about the surveillance of the workers.”
Calabrese admitted that he did not know whether Harry had a camera or a phone with
him and did not see Harry take any pictures or appear to take any pictures.
Further, Calabrese did not corroborate that Gayle informed him on that day that a
security official of Respondent had taken or appeared to have taken pictures of Gayle and
Adams and/or that Calabrese had informed Gayle that he (Calabrese) wanted Gayle to speak to
the lawyers about the individual taking pictures of the employees.
Furthermore, although Adams was called as a witness by General Counsel and was
examined by General Counsel and Charging Party with respect to other issues in this case, he
was not asked about this alleged incident. Thus, Adams did not corroborate Gayle’s description
of the events of that day, more specifically, he did not corroborate Gayle’s testimony about the
alleged photographing or that Gayle said to Adams, “Clarence, we are on camera, smile and
look over.”
Harry Hughes is a security official employed by Respondent. He testified that he was
instructed by the vice-president of security to attend the press conference that the CWA was
holding at Madison Square Garden on February 7, 2013, and to “observe.” Hughes admitted
that he had an iPhone with him that day (paid for by Respondent) and that the phone had
picture taking capability. Hughes emphatically denied that he took pictures on that day.
Hughes sent an email to his supervisors at about 1:57 PM on that day, reading as
follows:
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
145
From: Harry Hughes HHUGHES4@cablevision.com

Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 1:57 PM
To: Paul V. Ryan
Cc: Joseph Flaim (Security); John Young; Kori Keaton; Ralph Barrea: Robert
Gaissert: Rick Levesque
Subject: Union activity
At 12:15 PM today 23 Cablevision employees along with CWA union officials were
present at 8th ave & 33rd the site of MSG for a press conference being held by Christine
Quinn and Bill DeBliso. This conference ended around 1:00 PM without incident. All
parties have left the location.
Several days later, on or about February 13, 2013, Hughes sent an incident report to his
supervisors, reporting on his observation of the demonstration. It is as follows:
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
146
Hughes testified that his report contained an error in that he reported on February 13,
2013, but the incident was on February 7, 2013, and his report was filed on February 13, 2013.
Hughes further testified that had he taken a picture at the demonstration, the picture would have
been included in his report and that this report reflected “No attachments included.”
VII. The Alleged Direction of Employees to Cease Their Union Activities
On January 24, 2013, the Union appeared at Respondent’s 92nd Street facility at about
6:00 AM. Calabrese was present along with several other union representatives, a videograpper
and a reporter from Labor News. The Union used the day as a combination of celebrating Martin
Luther King Day and the one-year anniversary of its election victory at Cablevision. The Union
set up a table and put up a union sign on a fence. The Union had t-shirts to give out to
employees, which had a photo of Martin Luther King and said, “workers rights equals human
rights.”
Management representatives observed Calabrese and the union representatives talking
to employees after about 7:30 AM.
At about 7:43 AM, a van driven by McDaniel Paul drove up to the 92nd Street location.
Inside the van, there were about six employees in the van. These employees were new hires,
and Paul was transporting these employees to Respondent’s 45th Street location from the
Respondent’s 96th Street location, scheduled to begin work at 8:00 AM.
Paul decided to stop off at the 92nd Street location on that day to get a t-shirt and
introduce the new employees to the union representatives. Paul double parked the van and
approached the union officials. He informed Calabrese that he had some new hires in the van.
Calabrese replied that he would like to meet them. Paul then signaled to the employees to come
out. Three or four employees came out of the van and approached Calabrese and Paul.
Calabrese told the employees welcome and informed them to pick up a t-shirt.
At that moment, Respondent’s supervisor, Gaines, from 92nd Street appeared and
addressed Paul and the other employees. He told the workers to get back in the van. He said to
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
147
Paul, “You can’t do this, these are my guys, I own them.” He told Paul to get back into the van
and drive off.
Paul and the employees complied with Gaines’s instructions, returned to the van and
Paul drove them to 45th Street. Neither Paul nor the employees said anything to Gaines nor did
they take a t-shirt or have any further discussion with Calabrese or anyone else from the Union.
Paul noted that employees are not paid prior to 8:00 AM and that they, therefore, were
not on work time when Gaines ordered the employees to “get back in the van.”
According to Paul, he arrived at 45th Street at 7:55 AM and dropped off the employees
for their training.24
VIII. The Alleged Threat of Futility
On January 31, 2013, Lawrence Hendrickson, who was, as noted, a member of the
Union’ s bargaining committee and its chief shop steward, went to speak with Levesque. At first,
they spoke about the events of the day before (January 30, 2013), and Hendrickson complained
that it was unfair that Respondent fired the 22 people. Levesque responded that the employees
were not fired but were replaced, and Levesque gave his version of the events of January 30 to
Hendrickson. Hendrickson responded that the employees were telling him something different,
and Levesque replied that he had always been truthful with Hendrickson.
Levesque then commented that a person with Hendrickson’s leadership skills and
capabilities should be focusing on trying to become, perhaps, a field service supervisor and
suggested that he focus on that. Hendrickson responded that he couldn’t abandon the people
that fought for this, and he would be leaving the workers behind. Levesque replied that most
people in Brooklyn are selfish anyway and that he “needed to start thinking for yourself and your
family.” Hendrickson answered that he did not think “that’s something that a person with integrity
or character would do.”
Levesque then commented that he and the Union “were leading the people down…a
rabbit hole, where they would not have a way out because the company wasn’t going to give us
(the Union) anything at the table, anything different than what they gave to anybody else, except
that we were going to bargain for it one piece at a time.”
Hendrickson answered that he disagreed with Levesque’s opinion. Levesque responded
that Hendrickson had a right to his opinion and he had a right to think the way he wants to.
Levesque added that he admires Hendrickson, and he always enjoys speaking with him.
My findings above concerning the January 31, 2013 conversation between Hendrickson
and Levesque are based on a compilation of the credit portions of the testimony of Hendrickson
and Levesque. I note that Levesque did not deny Hendrickson’s testimony concerning their
discussion, wherein Levesque suggested Hendrickson look into a supervisory position, and
Levesque’s comment that Hendrickson needed to “start thinking for yourself and your family.”
Levesque did deny that he made the comments attributed to him by Hendrickson about
bargaining and the “rabbit hole,” but I credit Hendrickson’s testimony in that regard as I have

24 The above findings are based on a compilation of the credited testimony of Paul and
Calabrese. Gaines did not testify.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
148
detailed above.
I find that Hendrickson’s testimony on direct and in questioning by the undersigned was
consistent with respect to these comments. Further, in my view, these statements are kind of
remarks that one is unlikely to make up or fabricate.
IX. The Alleged Unlawful Unilateral Changes Concerning Training on Smart Meters
In April of 2013, Cablevision began rolling out new "smart" meters throughout the
footprint. Technicians use meters to troubleshoot and analyze service related problems and to
measure signal strength within a home. Unlike the old meters, with which the technicians still
had to input by hand all of their test results on a work order, the new "smart" meters transfer the
readings electronically to the technician's supervisor who can see how many places within the
house the technician checked and took readings. Those readings are stored and sent to a
central server where a supervisor can review the results in real time. The new "smart" meters
also allow supervisors to download reports evaluating and comparing one technician's
performance to another. The new "smart" meters make the technicians more accountable, and
the real time reports generated by the "smart" meters are currently being used to help evaluate
performance, identify where additional training is required, and make decisions regarding career
progression and promotions. A technician's performance using the "smart" meters can also
result in discipline. None of these things were possible using the old meters.
Respondent’s Brooklyn field technicians did not receive the smart meters or the training
at that time. However, Respondent did give similar smart meters to OSP technicians, although
Respondent asserts that there are differences between the two types of meters.
On July 15, 2013, Respondent distributed the smart meters to its field technicians and
started to train them in their use. The Union was not notified about this action and were not
given an opportunity to bargain about it.
On August 1, Kauff sent the following email to Gallagher advising the Union that
Respondent had implemented and then stopped the new training. The email also referred to
Respondent’s explanation about this decision to employees, contained in a memo from
Levesque. These documents are as follows:
From: Kauff, Jerome B.
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 4:59 PM
To: wgallagher@cwa-union.org
Subject: Update
Attachments: 20130801_165211.pdf
Billy,
A couple of weeks ago, the Company started training Field Service Techs on a new
meter, but we've quickly realized we got ahead of ourselves. As you know, the company
and the CWA are continuing to negotiate a whole array of topics including performance
management, compensation, promotions and of course training. Because these issues
are all linked and thus practically required to be resolved together in negotiations, we are
holding off on this training for now. We are telling the Field Service Techs that the
training is cancelled, and directing those Techs already trained to return the meters. This
is reflected in the attached letter, in which the company has also updated employees on
its perspective concerning the status of negotiations, legal proceedings and related
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
149
i
matters. We hope we will be able to successfully address this issue of training and
performance management and all the other outstanding issues, in negotiations.
Jerry
Jerome B. Kauff, Esq.
Kauff McGuire & Margolis LLP
950 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10022
212.909.0706 (phone)
212.909.3506 (fax)
kauff@kmm.com
To: Brooklyn Cablevision Employees
From: Rick Levesque, Vice President, Field Operations
Re: Update
Date: August 1, 2013
It has been some time since we updated you regarding the ongoing negotiations with the
CWA. As you know, in May the CWA and Cablevision agreed to participate in a
mediation facilitated by a federal mediator. This process was separate from and in
addition to the regular negotiation sessions we have been engaged in. The main reason
the Company agreed to participate in this special mediation is that we insisted that if
mediation resulted in a collective bargaining agreement our employees would first be
provided with the right to vote on whether they still wanted to be represented by the
CWA. We felt this was important because close to half of you signed a petition last
winter seeking to decertify the CWA (A copy of the petition was mailed to us
anonymously on May 30, 2013·after it's dismissal by the NLRB). Unfortunately, you have
not been able to vote because the CWA filed unfounded complaints and the NLRB
wrongfully dismissed that petition. The vote through the mediation process was our
attempt to restore the voting rights you should have had through the decertification
petition.
The mediation was unsuccessful, mainly because the CWA failed to show any flexibility
on Brooklyn employees getting an overall better deal for Brooklyn than the rest of
Cablevision's employees. We returned to regular collective bargaining negotiations
yesterday and have sessions scheduled for August 15 and September 11.
In addition, we also want you to know what is taking place away from the bargaining
table. The CWA has been engaged for several months on an unending series of
coercive -- and often illegal -- tactics to try to put pressure on the Company to cave.
Here are just a few:
ï‚· CWA picketed an event dedicated to raising funds for pancreatic cancer victims.
ï‚· CWA launched, a deceptive and harassing robo-calling campaign designed to
take advantage of the tragedy of Hurricane Sandy.
ï‚· CWA launched a defamatory advertising campaign criticizing the quality of the
Company’s Internet service in Brooklyn, effectively calling the Brooklyn
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
150
employees’ work efforts substandard.
ï‚· CWA disrupted the Company shareholder and investor meetings and harassed
executives.
ï‚· More recently, the CWA has turned its sights on MSG which is an entirely
independent business from Cablevision and Jim Dolan personally. For example,
they have tried to interfere with MSG's efforts to redevelop the Nassau Coliseum,
engaged in efforts to keep MSG from hosting the NBA All Star Game and
opposed the extension of MSG's operating permit.
We have filed various lawsuits against the CWA for these and other activities and will
continue to do what it takes to protect the Company's legal rights -- including the legal
rights of our employees. Of course, the CWA tries to justify these outrageous tactics by
claiming that we have acted illegally. The NLRB has set a trial date for these unfounded
claims for September, and we very much look forward to our “day in court.” It is
important to understand there have NOT been any decisions on the legality or illegality
of any of the accusations. More importantly we know the facts will demonstrate the
company's continued commitment to the negotiation process and we are willing to fight
the legal fight until we are vindicated and you have been given the right to vote in
accordance with your decertification petition.
I need to review some concerns on a training issue. Since Jim Dolan resumed day-to-
day operational management of the Company approximately 18 months ago, the
Company has been undergoing major changes to get us on a new growth trajectory. And
as part of the changes, we have made enormous new investments in new technology
and upgraded facilities, as well as in our people. For example, we increased salaries
across the board because we want to be among the most competitive in the industry and
are beginning to increase the performance expectations regarding our employees -- and
we want our salary structure to reflect the new demands. These demands include
training on new skills and equipment, such as training on new meters.
Brooklyn employees recently began training on new meters but we quickly realized we
got ahead of ourselves. The Company and the CWA are continuing to negotiate a whole
array of topics including performance management, compensation, promotions and of
course, training. Because these issues are all linked and thus practically required to be
resolved together in negotiations, we are holding off on this training for now.
We apologize for the confusion around canceling the recent training. No one is more
interested in resolving these issues with the CWA than us. We want all of you to be able
to come to work and know the terms you are working under. We are pressing ahead with
collective bargaining and we hope to achieve a comprehensive agreement soon.
At the parties’ bargaining session of August 15, 2013, the Union brought up
Respondent’s actions and urged that Respondent reconsider the cancellation of the training and
reinstitute it for the field technicians. Kauff refused to do so, arguing that the parties were now
bargaining and that until there is agreement on related issues, such as discipline, discharge,
promotion and training, Respondent would not resume the training for the field technicians.
The Union continued to press for Respondent to do so, pointing out among things that
OSP employees already have the meters. Kauff insisted that these meters were different and
made reference to the Board charges filed by the Union about the meters.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
151
The bargaining about these issues is set forth below:
BG: you sent me an email on August 1 saying that you were stopping meter training. No
one brought it to our attention until that time. We don't have a problem with meter
training. In the past you've called us when you're doing something. Why did you stop it?
JBK: you know you've put this before the Board, we'll respond there. I think we pretty
much explained what happened in the August 1 communication/email.
BG: so you're not going to continue, you'll end it even if we say it's ok? JBK: correct.
SW: we want to be clear that we support going ahead with the training and we don't
have any objection to it but we think you should be training folks.
JBK: as we said, this is one that we think requires an overall agreement. There are
elements in the meter which involve, as we said, evaluations. It may implicate discipline
and discharge and our feeling is that we ought to have, when we deal with this, a
comprehensive CBA so that we can, certainly when we have a comprehensive CBA,
deal with, going forward, with this training.
SW: can you explain that a little better? I'm assuming that any new technology that is
introduced that people are normally trained on, wouldn't you proceed with it? Why
wouldn't you do it?
JBK: I think I responded. SW: Tell me again.
JBK: I think it implicates other parts of the agreement, I mentioned Discipline &
Discharge.
SW: How?
JBK: we're only addressing the meter now -- it had elements of performance evaluation.
SW: why does that matter? Doesn't everything have elements of performance
evaluation?
JBK: we don't agree. If we had sign off on Discipline and a complete CBA ... I think we
view the issue differently and what we'd like to see is a speedy and comprehensive
conclusion of these negotiations where this matter is behind us and our strong feeling is
that we have an opportunity to reach a CBA on the basis of our April 9 proposal
augmented by our substantial change in our position on Contracting, change in position
for Geographic Scope and Covered Work, the change in Salary and we believe that
we're at the point where we should see much more movement by the Union on some of
the substance that we've put forward. We haven't had a response from the Union on
Benefits.
BG: you know we asked a question about meters right?
JBK: yes, when asked why I said an overall agreement, you asked why.
SW: I wasn't asking why you want one, we want one too, we're looking for and expect
substantial movement in other areas. For meter training, you discipline people now on
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
152
4
an as needed basis on current policies, you evaluate people constantly, our expectation
is that if you train people on meters as you do in other areas and would implement and
apply those same policies with respect to performance relative to meter training, so I
can't see any correlation between the need for a comprehensive CBA and whether or
not people are trained on meters.
JBK: there is obviously disagreement on corollaries and implications. You have our
position which was stated in the August 1communication with BG, you responded by
filing a Charge, we are going to be responding to the Charge. You asked for an
explanation today, you don't believe it's adequate, but that's our explanation.
SW: I’m just trying to understand. Can you explain what discipline has to do with training
on meters? I don't understand the connection.
JBK: the communication indicated that this meter has an ability to measure and indicate
certain performance and just for a specific -- when we had some discussions about
whether or not the company's ability to engage in performance and PIPs could or could
not implicate the Discharge and Discipline provision, we had some disagreement. When
we resolve that, using that as one example, we can better evaluate whether the
company wants to issue and train people on something that has implications across this
table like the Discipline and Discharge clause.
SW: every time someone does work, performs their duties, doesn't that have
implications on Discipline, just by working for the company?
JBK: you're not listening to me or wanting to hear me, I respect that. Why don't we just
leave it at that, you have our explanation.
SW: leave it at you don't listen...
JBK: I've listened, heard, responded, we've had more conversation about this today than
Covered Work or Geographic Scope. Why don't we try to TA those two items and see if
we can even TA Contracting Out and go towards a comprehensive CBA?
SW: we're going to do that, one doesn't preclude the other.
BG: is this a meter that the ees currently have?
AG: which ees?
JBK: no, they don't, the meters have been returned.
LH: with the exception of Engineering -- OSP has them, FS doesn't.
BG: Anyone we represent?
LH: OSP
PH: they aren't the same meters, they're the same brand but not the same meter.
LH: what's different?
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
153
PH: it's not the same meter
LH: different functions?
SW: what's the meter used for?
JBK: we have a question about meters, as I understand that there were meters issued to
certain people without evaluation, the company decided to stop and asked the ees to
return them and as far as we know all were returned.
RL: all were returned. OSP has meters they got a few months ago, same brand name,
but different function.
LH: it's the same meter
CC: so a couple of months ago OSP was given a different meter and trained on it but it
wasn't stopped or taken back?
JBK: no idea, can you tell me the question again?
CC: sounds like OSP was given a new/different meter, it wasn't taken back, and we
weren't told about it.
RL: they got a new meter, trained on it, not the same meter, same brand name.
SW: OSP got a new meter and were trained -- what's the difference between FS
receiving it and being trained?
JBK: it's a different meter.
SW: that's the only reason?
JBK: it's a different meter.
SW: it has nothing to do with Discipline, just the fact that it's a new meter?
JBK: that's not correct. If you want to know, let's take a break, I'll try to find out and if I
get it, I'll communicate it to you.
BG: to clarify, the meter that was recently given -- were all ees given it, how many
trained on it?
JBK: I will find out.
BG: was anyone performing any of the tasks they were trained on?
JBK: I will find that out also.
[Union left at 2:48 p.m.]
[Company said it was ready at 2:57 p.m.; Union returned at 3:17 p.m.]
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
154
JBK: three or four things. The OSP meter is different. The performance implications for
the two meters are different and for the two categories are different, it's different for FS
and OSP. 101 FS techs were initially trained. If you look at a couple of the sentences
that are in the letter that we sent to the ees and BG, it contains essentially what I said to
you, that the company continues to negotiate a whole array of topics and because all of
these issues are linked and practically required to be resolved together, we’re holding off
training. [JBK read the exact language.] Our next step, as I said, is to respond to the
Region, which we are in the process of doing. So my next question is, do you have a
response to anything we gave you today?
SW: how were the performance implications different?
JBK: I think we’ll be responding to the NLRB.
SW: you just responded to us by saying performance implications are different.
JBK: that's all I will say for now, we will tell it to the NLRB.
BG: I had asked before, out of the people who were trained, are they using any of the
training on the job?
RL: no, they don't have the meters.
X. The Alleged Discharge of 22 Employees
A. The Open Door Policy at Respondent
For many years, Respondent had maintained an open door policy in its employee
handbook. In relevant part, the policy provides:
Cablevision's Open Door Policy assures that you will receive ready access to
management and a fair consideration of any problem or question that you raise. If you
have an issue or suggestion that you would like to discuss, you should initially speak
with your supervisor/manager. This initial discussion between you and your
supervisor/manager will give you the opportunity to directly impact your situation at the
local level. You may request a private meeting, or if you prefer, your Human Resource
representative may be present. If for any reason you'd rather not take your issue or
suggestion to your immediate supervisor/manager, you may speak directly to your
department manager, his or her department head or your Human Resource
representative.
Your supervisor/manager or individual to whom you have brought your issue or
suggestion, after learning of and investigating the problem, will provide you with an
answer in a timely fashion. If this discussion does not provide you with a satisfactory
answer, you may discuss your issue or suggestion with your department manager or his
or her department head. If at any time you do not wish to discuss the matter with your
Human Resources representative or your management team, you may bring it to the
attention of a senior manager in your business operation. If you believe it is appropriate,
you may also contact Corporate Human Resources or any member of Corporate senior
management to voice your concerns, including the President & CEO.
If something is troubling you within the workplace, please report it as soon as possible
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
155
so that we can provide you with a quick response. Retaliation by anyone toward any
employee who makes use of Cablevision’s Open Door Policy will not be tolerated.
This policy is also posted on the walls of Respondent’s facilities, employees are told
about it when they are hired and managers tell employees that they can come and talk to them
at any time and that there will always be someone available to talk to them.
Respondent’s employees have frequently asked for meetings in the past, both
individually and in groups. No appointments were necessary, and the employees had always
been able to have the requested meetings.
For example, in May of 2012, shop steward Jerome Thompson was terminated. The
Union and some employees felt that Thompson’s discharge was unfair and that he was
“railroaded because of his union activity.”
Calabrese and some employees devised a plan, where employees put a sticker on their
shirt, mentioning Thompson’s name, and the employees would ask to meet with Levesque to
express the employees’ concerns.
About 20-22 employees, in furtherance of this, went to 96th Street facility and went to
Levesque’s office. The group included Hendrickson and Clarence Adams. Levesque escorted
the group from his office to the conference room and told employees that he would meet with
them there. Tommy McCollum, director or field services in Brooklyn, was also present at the
meeting.
The meeting started at 8:30 AM. Some of the employees present at the meeting had
start times prior to 8:30 AM. For example, Hendrickson’s shift started at 7:30 AM. None of the
employees present were asked what their start times were on that day.
The employees’ spokespersons, Adams and Hendrickson, expressed their concerns
about Thompson’s discharge and their belief that he had been “railroaded.”
Levesque responded that he was unfamiliar with all the facts concerning the discharge
and promised to look into it and get back to the employees. The meeting lasted about a half an
hour.
A few days later, Levesque notified Adams and Hendrickson that based on
Respondent’s investigation, Thompson would be returning to work. Hendrickson and Adams
thanked Levesque for his quick response, and the meeting ended. Thompson was returned to
work about a week after the initial meeting.
Later on, in 2012, a dispatch employee named Frances (last name unknown) was
discharged. Adams, Thompson and employee McDaniel Paul requested a meeting with
Frances’s manager to discuss her discharge. The requested meeting was in the afternoon, and
all three employees were “on the clock.” The manager agreed to meet with the employees, and
they met for 15-20 minutes. The employees were unable to convince the manager to rescind the
termination, and when the employees asked “if there was a personal issue” between the
manager and Frances (as Frances had stated to the employees was her belief), the manager
said that he would not talk about it and that the employees had to go to talk to someone else.
In August of 2012, Thompson along with several other employees, including Adams and
Marlon Gayle and some employees, who work in the audit department, went to speak with
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
156
Levesque sometime between 8:30 AM and 9:00 AM. All of these employees were “on the clock”
at the time, and none were asked whether they were working or intended to work.
Thompson asked Levesque for a few minutes of his time to talk about the recent
changes in the audit department. Levesque replied no problem but to give him about 15 minutes
to finish up some work he needed to complete. He suggested that the employees wait for him in
the cafeteria. Fifteen to twenty minutes later, Levesque came into the cafeteria as promised.
Thompson asked about the changes in the audit department. Levesque replied that the
system security system has been phased out everywhere, except for Brooklyn. Everywhere
else, except for Brooklyn, the system security system will be part of CLI-OSC team. In Brooklyn,
however, everything is status quo because of collective bargaining. Thompson responded that
all Respondent had to do was to contact Calabrese if Respondent wanted to make the change
in Brooklyn.
Levesque answered that everything is going to remain status quo until it is resolved at
the bargaining table.
B. The Union’s January 24, 2013 Meeting
On the evening of January 24, 2013, the Union held a union membership meeting,
attended by approximately 60 Brooklyn employees of Respondent. Calabrese discussed how it
had been almost a year since the Union became the exclusive representative of the Brooklyn
employees and that they still were no closer to an agreement. Calabrese and the employees
began to discuss possible things that could be done to move the process along. Some
employees suggested a “sick out,” but Calabrese stated that that action was too aggressive and
instead scheduled another meeting for January 29, 2013.
C. The Union Files Charges
On January 24, 2013, the Union filed an unfair labor charge in Case No. 29-CA-097013,
alleging that Respondent was not bargaining in good faith and had engaged in a pattern of
surface bargaining. The amended charge was amended in that case on January 28, 2013,
repeating the surface bargaining allegation and allegations concerning alleged unlawful
surveillance, threats and unlawful polling of employees.
D. The Union’s January 29, 2013 Membership Meeting
On January 29, 2013, Calabrese hosted a membership meeting. About sixty employees
were present. Calabrese presided, and he and the employees discussed options that the Union
and employees might consider to protest the lack of progress at bargaining that Calabrese
described. They discussed various options, such as a sick out, taking lunch at the same time
and the option of striking. All of these options were ruled out.
Finally, it was suggested that the employees use Respondent’s open door policy to be
able to speak to Levesque and protest the lack of progress in bargaining and to let management
know that they were united and strong.
This suggestion was agreed upon, and Adams and employee Trevor Mitchell were
selected to be spokespersons for the group. The employees agreed to meet the next morning,
January 30, 2013, at 8:00 AM at the 96th Street facility. It was also mentioned that if Levesque
was not available, the employees would ask to speak to with any other available manager.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
157
After the meeting, Thompson called his fellow audit technicians, Corey Williams,
Raymond Williams, George Bell, Shane Maxwell, Keith Frazer and Jason ??? to tell them about
the plan for the next day. Thompson informed these employees that “our plan was to express
our right to Cablevision’s open door policy and go speak with management about the status of
the bargaining.”
Calabrese asked Tim Dubmau to notify employees by text to meet at the cafeteria at
8:00 AM on January 30, 2013. Dubmau, who was not present at the January 29 meeting, sent
the following text to employees at 8:00 PM on January 29, 2013: “CWA Alert: All techs, please
meet tomorrow (Wed) at 8 am sharp at 96th St. Garage, Cafeteria. Ready to demand a fair
wage? Questions, please call a steward.”
Dubmau sent another text on January 30, 2013 at 7:05 AM, reading: “All techs please
report at 8 am this morning to the 96th cafeteria. This is important. See you soon.”
E. The Events of January 30, 2013
On the morning of January 30, 2013, a number of Respondent’s employees from all
three locations converged at the 96th Street location in furtherance of the Union’s plan to attempt
to meet with Levesque or others of Respondent’s officials by utilizing Respondent’s open door
policy.
The employees with start times earlier than 8:00 AM reported for work at their regular
start times. For example, Corey Williams, whose start time was 7:00 AM at 92nd Street, reported
to that location at 7:00 AM. There was no sign-in sheet or time clock. He tested and signed in
for “bat gloves” (protective gear) and waited for his route, which he received at 7:25 AM. He
received his company phone, got his company van, checked the van to make sure that he had
tools and equipment needed for the day, got gas and proceeded to the 96th Street facility to
meet with his co-workers as planned.
Raymond Reid arrived for work at his regular start time of 7:30 AM dressed in his
uniform at Respondent’s 92nd Street location. He was a fiber optic technician. Reid logged onto
his laptop to download information, but he was denied access. He spoke to Tim Bloom, his
supervisor, about this problem, and Bloom informed Reid not to worry about it he would do it for
him. Bloom shortly, thereafter, gave Reid his itinerary for the day. Reid informed Bloom that he
was going to 92nd Street to meet with Levesque. Bloom asked if Reid had an appointment. Reid
replied, “No, I don’t, but I am going to be exercising my open door policy.” Reid added that “it
wouldn’t take more than 20 minutes.” Bloom responded ok, and Reid proceeded to 96th Street,
arriving at about 8:00 AM.
Jerome Thompson was an audit technician, who worked at Respondent’s 92nd Street
location. He also started work at 7:00 AM. Thompson reported for work at 92nd Street at 7:00
AM. Initially, he was locked out of the system but after a discussion with the help desk was able
to get back on the system. He entered his information into the system and received his route
sometime between 7:30 AM and 7:45 AM. He was assigned to disconnects on that day, so he
did not have a specific time or appointment to be present at the stop. Thompson did a vehicle
inspection, made sure he had his supplies for the day and proceeded to E. 96th Street at around
8:00 AM.
The employees began gathering in the cafeteria at around 8:00 AM, all of them in
uniforms.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
158
Lakeisha Johnson was employed by Respondent initially as a field service technician.
After five and a half years, she was promoted to a quality control position about a year and a
half prior to January 30, 2013, and her start time was 8:00 AM. She picked up her truck at 92nd
Street and drove it to 96th Street. She arrived at 96th Street at about 8:10 AM. She went to the
cafeteria for about five minutes and then went to the quality control office at about 8:15 AM to try
to sign in. However, the office was locked so she was unable to sign in at that time.
Johnson was scheduled to attend a toolbox meeting scheduled for 8:00 AM along with
her fellow quality control employees, Courtney Graham and Andre Bellato. Johnson testified
that although she was aware of the 8:00 AM toolbox meeting, she thought that she would be a
little late and that she had tried to sign in, but the door to the office was locked. Johnson further
testified that, therefore, she returned to the cafeteria at about 8:15 AM.
Levesque came into the cafeteria at about 8:15 AM. There were between 40-60
employees there at that time. Levesque approached several employees and asked them what
time they started and if they were going to work. These employees included Thompson, Corey
Williams, Ray Williams and Ray Reid. The employees told Levesque their start times. When
Levesque asked if they were going to work, Thompson responded, on behalf of himself, Corey
Williams and Ray Williams,25 saying that the employees were going to work, but they were
exercising Cablevision’s open door policy to speak to management. Thompson added that the
employees just needed to speak with Levesque for five minutes, and then they will go back to
work.
When Levesque asked Ray Reid about going back to work, Reid replied that the
employees just wanted to speak with someone to find out a little about what’s going on, and we
will go right back to work.
At some point, Adams asked Levesque if the employees could speak with him.
Levesque replied that he did not have time. Adams asked if the employees could speak with
another manager. Levesque said no and left the cafeteria.
About 8:00 AM, John Bartels, Respondent’s operations manager, arrived. Supervisor
Phillip Furlong, the supervisor of Respondent’s quality control technicians, is under Bartels’s
supervision.
The quality control technicians had an 8:00 AM toolbox meeting on January 30, 2013,
which was mandatory for all employees, and which was conducted by Furlong. Bartels went into
the toolbox meeting and noticed that two of the quality control technicians, Bellato and Graham,
were not present. At about 8:10 AM, Bartels went into the cafeteria and observed Bellato and
Graham. Bartels approached the employees, who were together. Bartels first spoke to Bellato,
and Bartels informed him that the toolbox meeting was starting and that Bartels needed Bellato
to come into the meeting along with everyone else. Bellato replied that he was not going and
was going to stay right there. Bartels asked, “Are you saying to me that you’re refusing to go to
work?” Bellato responded, “I am refusing to go to work. I am staying in here with my boys.”
Bartels then said to Graham that it is past 8:00 AM, and he needs to come into the
toolbox meeting with everyone else. Graham replied that he was not going to the toolbox
meeting. Bartels asked Graham if he was saying that he was refusing to work. Graham

25 All three were fellow audit technicians. Thompson was a shop steward.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
159
answered, “Yes, I am refusing to go to work.” Bartels said ok and left them in the cafeteria.
Bartels then reported to Levesque his discussions with Bellato and Graham.
Johnson, as noted above, was also a quality control technician, and she also was not at
the toolbox meeting.
Sometime between 8:15 AM and 8:30 AM, Levesque returned to the cafeteria. He again
asked some employees for their start times and asked if they were going to work. The
employees responded that they would return to work once Levesque spoke to him. One of the
employees, with which Levesque spoke, was Steve Ashurst, who responded, “We’re going to
work, but we need to speak to you for five minutes.” Levesque replied, “Not right now.”
Levesque then spoke to the employees as a group. He asked, “Are you guys working
today or not?” Adams replied that the employees were exercising their rights under the open
door policy and wanted to speak with Levesque. Levesque said no because he had to go to a
meeting. Several employees responded to Levesque that they were going to work and were in
their uniforms. Johnson, who by that time had arrived and was in the cafeteria, “screamed” that
she as in full uniform and was going to work. Johnson further recalled that some employees
mentioned that they had signed in already.
At about 8:25 AM to 8:30 AM, Corey Williams informed Thompson that he was going to
work and informed Thompson that if the employees get a chance to talk with Levesque to let
him know. Corey Williams then headed out to his first stop.
Meanwhile, after Corey Williams left, Levesque returned to the cafeteria. He approached
a number of employees, including Thompson, Ray Williams, Ashurst and Ray Meyers.
Levesque informed these employees that he wanted to speak to them in his office after their
meeting was completed.26
A few minutes before 8:30 AM, Kent Strachan, supervisor for the OSC department,
came into the cafeteria. He went up to a group of OSC employees, who were together. Strachan
told the members of his team that were there, “I know I’m going to see you guys in the meeting.”
Strachan then left the cafeteria.
Five minutes later, Strachan returned to the cafeteria. He again addressed members of
his team and directed them to go back to work. Thompson and Adams then approached
Strachan and asked if he was willing to speak to “all of us.” Strachan responded that “I’m just
talking to my guys only.” All of the OSC employees, spoken to by Strachan, left the cafeteria
and returned to work.
At around the same time, Curtis Sheppard, supervisor for technicians employed at 45th
Street, entered the cafeteria. Sheppard approached employee Steve Ashurst. Sheppard asked
Ashurst what is going on and what time does his shift start and is he going to work. Ashurst
replied 7:30 AM, that he intends to go to work, he had his things, everything is in his truck, but

26 While Levesque testified that he spoke to another employee, who he thought was Corey
Williams and told that employee the same thing, Levesque testified that he was mistaken in this
identification, and the employee was Ray Williams. Levesque realized his error after hearing
Corey Williams’s testimony that he had left the cafeteria and gone back to work, and after
reviewing tapes that Respondent had made of the events in the cafeteria.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
160
the employees needed to speak with Levesque for five minutes. Ashurst added that the
employees can speak with him if that is ok.
Ray Meyers tried to inject something, but Sheppard told Meyers that he wasn’t speaking
to Meyers, he was speaking with Ashurst. Adams also asked Sheppard if he could speak to the
employees. Sheppard did not respond.
At that point, Marlon Gayle interrupted and asked why is it that managers keep coming
in while we want to speak with Rich, it is Rich we need to speak to and he’s not allowing you to
speak to us, and you guys are coming in and speaking to technicians individually.
Gayle was speaking loudly, and some of the other technicians urged Gayle to calm
down because they like Sheppard and that Sheppard is “just in the middle of it.” Sheppard then
informed the employees that if all they want is a five-minute conversation with Levesque, he
would go and speak to Levesque about talking to the employees for five minutes. Sheppard
then left the cafeteria. He did not return, and the record does not reveal whether or not he spoke
to Levesque about meeting with the employees for five minutes or what Levesque’s response
was to the request.
Sheppard did not testify, and Levesque did not testify about any such conversation with
Sheppard. Levesque also did not deny that Sheppard had spoke to him and transmitted the
employees’ request to meet with him for five minutes. Based on the above as well as other
evidence, I conclude that Sheppard did as promised and transmitted the employees’ request to
meet with Levesque for five minutes.
Levesque did testify to a conversation that he had with Sheppard on January 30, 2013.
According to Levesque, he had asked Sheppard to come over to the 96th Street facility from 45th
Street, where Sheppard was the area operations manager. Levesque asserts that he asked
Sheppard to look into the cafeteria, identify any of his people that started at 7:00 AM or 7:30
AM, and if so, make sure they get back to work. Levesque testified that he gave the same
instructions to Sheppard that he had previously given to Bartels. He instructed them to inform
the employees that they needed to get back to work and to report back to him on what the
employees said.
According to Levesque, Sheppard reported to him that he had spoken to employee Brent
Ramdeene, another employee under Sheppard’s supervision at 45th Street. Sheppard reported
that Ramdeene had responded to Sheppard’s direction to go back to work by saying that he
wasn’t going to leave and go to work and that he was going to stay until someone talked to
them. Sheppard reported further that he then reiterated that Ramdeene should go back to work
because no one is going to talk to you. Ramdeene allegedly replied, “I’m staying.”
I note that Levesque did not testify as to precisely when he had this conversation with
Sheppard.
Interestingly, Levesque did not testify about a conversation with Sheppard concerning
Sheppard’s conversation with Ashurst in the presence of other employees, wherein Ashurst, as I
have found above, informed Sheppard that he was ready and willing to work but needed only to
speak with Levesque for five minutes.
I credit Levesque’s testimony concerning his conversation with Sheppard and find that
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
161
the report by Sheppard was an accurate description of the conversation between Sheppard and
Ramdeene.27
I further find that Levesque’s failure to testify about a conversation with Sheppard about
Sheppard’s conversation with Ashurst and other employees was not inadvertent and that, as
detailed above, Sheppard did report to Levesque on his conversation with Ashurst and others,
wherein Ashurst said that he would be willing to go to work but needed to speak with Levesque
for five minutes. I further find that Sheppard told Levesque that he would, as he told employees
that he would, transmit their request for a five-minute meeting to Levesque.
Shortly before 9:00 AM, it became apparent that no one from management was going to
meet with them. Thompson, Adams and other shop stewards strategized as to what to do. They
decided that since Levesque had asked to speak with certain employees, those people should
meet with Levesque and the shop stewards would accompany them. Adams told the remaining
employees that no one was going to meet with them and that they should go to work. The
employees started to disperse. At this point, Johnson went to sign in. She did so, and after she
signed in, her supervisor, Phillip Furlong, told her that she needed to go see Levesque and then
she could return and make up the toolbox meeting by watching a safety video that she had
missed.
Bellato and Graham also went to sign in. The record does not reflect whether they
signed in or not, but it does reflect that Furlong had instructed them that they needed to see
Levesque.
Levesque testified that he had instructed Furlong to inform Bellato, Graham and
Johnson to come and see him.
Graham, Bellato and Johnson then informed Adams that they had also been instructed
to see Levesque. Adams told them that he would go with them to meet with Levesque.
As the employees were walking to meet with Levesque, Levesque stopped Adams and
said that he had time to meet with them and instructed them to go into the conference room.
There were about 24-25 employees present at that time. Five minutes later, Levesque entered
the conference room. He said that there was only supposed to be 10 employees there and
asked what the rest of them were doing there. The employees replied that they wanted to meet
with Levesque.
Levesque asked all of the employees to raise their hands when he mentioned their start
time (i.e. 7:00 AM, 7:30 AM, 8:00 AM and 8:30 AM). The employees raised their hands
according to their start time. Levesque asked if they were going to work. Employees replied that
they wanted to go to work but that they wanted to speak to him for five minutes.
Levesque responded, “I’m not here to answer your questions,” and asked again, “Are
you guys going to work today?”
Gayle replied that we just need a few minutes of his time or any supervisor or
representative to discuss one issue.
Levesque then commented, “So, you guys don’t want to cooperate?” Levesque left the

27 Ramdeene did not testify.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
162
conference room.
After about ten minutes, the employees decided again that Levesque was not going to
speak with them and decided to leave and return to work. Two or three workers, including Boris
Reid, left and returned to work. As the group was leaving toward Levesque’s office to let him
know that they were going to work, Levesque came out of his office and told the workers that he
was ready to meet with them and to go back to the conference room.
Meanwhile, as noted above, Corey Williams had left earlier to go to work. Williams
headed out to his first stop on Nostrand Avenue in Brooklyn, NY. About 15 minutes later, he
arrived at the job and received a call from his supervisor, Rich Lai. Lai asked Corey Williams if
he attended the meeting in the cafeteria that morning. Williams responded yes. Lai instructed
Corey Williams to stop what he was doing and return back to the shop. Williams complied with
the instructions and returned to 96th Street at about 9:20 AM.
When Williams arrived, he went to the cafeteria, but it was empty. He then went to the
conference room. Williams saw a number of supervisors as well as Levesque standing outside
the conference room with a number of employees inside. Williams approached Levesque and
asked, “You wanted to speak with me?” Levesque responded, “Are you in or are you out?”
Williams replied that Levesque had called him back (from the field) because Levesque wanted
to speak to him. Levesque said, “Alright, go inside the room.”
At about 9:30 AM, Levesque returned to the conference room, accompanied by Angela
King and Nadine Garcia, human resources representatives. There were 23 employees there at
the time.
Levesque apologized to the employees but added “Unfortunately, you’ve all been
permanently replaced.” Levesque directed the employees to hand in their identification badges
and phones. Johnson asked what does “permanently replaced” mean. No one from
management responded to her inquiry. Johnson asked, “We’re fired?” Levesque corrected and
said that they were “permanently replaced.”
Adams asked King what the group did to be permanently replaced. King responded that
they had an “unauthorized meeting” and that they “refused to go to work.” Adams asked which
employees refused to go to work. King did not answer. Gayle pointed out that employees never
had to schedule a meeting with management previously under the open door policy.
Steve Ashurst said, “We only wanted to talk to you for a couple of minutes, and you
didn’t even hear what we have to say. You didn’t even ask us what was going on or anything,
you tell us we are being permanently replaced.”
Raymond Raid stated that his supervisor knew where he was and he was going back to
work.
Adams commented that he did not understand why the employees were being
permanently replaced and added that the employees were going to work until Levesque
stopped them.
Adams asked Levesque if employees were being permanently replaced because they
were “insubordinate.” Levesque replied that the employees had not been insubordinate. Adams
or Thompson stated they would not leave until they see their union representative and were
exercising their “Weingarten rights.” Ashurst called Calabrese on his phone and told him what
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
163
happened. Calabrese immediately came to the shop but was not allowed into the facility.
Finally, Levesque called the police and informed them that employees had been
permanently replaced and were refusing to leave. He asked for their help.
At close to 10:00 AM, two police officers arrived. One officer came into the conference
room and asked if the employees were on strike. The group responded no. The police officer
replied, “Well your manager is asking that you guys leave the building and that you are being
fired.” Levesque then corrected the police officer and said, “No, they’re being permanently
replaced.”
Finally, the employees agreed to turn in their badges and phones and left the facility.
As noted above, Boris Reid was not in the conference room at the time since he had left
to go to work. At about 10:55 AM, Boris Reid received a communication from his supervisor,
Patrick Golden, to wait at the job he was completing and that the supervisor was coming there
to meet him. A few minutes later, Golden arrived along with supervisor Malcom Fox. They told
Reid to put his tools in his truck and hand the keys to Fox. Reid was driven back to 96th Street
by Golden and told to see Garcia.
Garcia told Reid that he was “permanently replaced.” Reid asked what does
“permanently replaced” mean? Garcia responded, “Basically fired.” Reid asked why this was
happening. Garcia responded that it “may” have to do with the activities in the cafeteria that
morning but indicated that Reid would have to speak to Hilber to find out the exact reason.
Garcia also spoke to Myles Watson and Trevor Mitchell, who had also gone to work
before the last meeting in the conference room, and were called back from their routes. She
informed them that they were “permanently replaced,” and they had no further conversation
other than Garcia asking them for their IDs and phones, which the employees gave to her.
Twenty-two employees were “permanently replaced” on January 30, 2013. They were
Clarence Adams, David Gifford, Lakeisha Johnson, Courtney Graham, Myles Watson, Andre
Bellato, Jerome Thompson, Trevor Mitchell, Ray Meyers, Marlon Gayle, Richard Wilcher, Eric
Ocasia, Malik Coleman, Andre Riggs, Raymond Reid, Boris Reid, Steve Ashurst, Shaun
Morgan, Stanley Galloway, Brent Ramdeene, Corey Williams and Ray Williams.
Another employee, who was present in the conference room when the employees were
notified of their being permanently replaced, was Oliver Davidson. As Davidson was walking
out, and employees were handing in their badges and phones, Davidson asked Levesque, “Do I
put mine in there?” Davidson added, “I took a sick day, am I replaced?” Levesque answered if
he took a sick day, and he came in on his own time, he was not replaced and he didn’t have to
turn in his badge, and “you stay with the company.”
My findings above with respect to the events of January 30, 2013 are based on a
compilation of the credited portions of the testimony of eight of General Counsel’s witnesses as
well as Levesque, Bartels, Garcia and King, witnesses called by Respondent, who testified
about these matters. For the most part, the facts are largely not in dispute with some minor
discrepancies concerning the times of certain discussions. There is one major factual dispute
among the witnesses concerning whether Levesque in any of his discussions on that day, either
ordered or directed the employees to return to work.
Levesque insisted that he did so, both in individual conversations with some employees
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
164
and in addressing employees in groups. While Levesque’s testimony was corroborated in part
by King with respect to his comments to the group, I have credited the mutually consistent and
corroborative testimony of eight employee witnesses,28 who all testified that in all of the
conversations between Levesque and the employees that Levesque, as I have detailed above,
asked employees if they intended to return to work or to go to work but did not order or direct
them to return to work.
In addition to relying on the mutually corroborative and consistent testimony of eight
witnesses, I also note that all of these witnesses are current employees of Respondent and
testified contrary to the testimony of their supervisors. Such testimony is likely to be particularly
reliable. Farris Fasions, 312 NLRB 547, 554 fn. 3 (1993), enfd. 32 F.3d 373 (8th Cir. 1994);
Flexsteel Industries, 316 NLRB 745 (1995), affd. mem. 83 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 1996); Advocate
South Suburban Hospital, 346 NLRB 209 fn. 1 (2006).
On January 30, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Levesque sent the following email to its Brooklyn
bargaining unit employees as well as to its supervisors at the facility, as follows:
From: Rick Levesque
To: BK-Supervisor's & AOM Team; Bargaining Unit Group
Date: 1/30/2013 7:54 AM
Subject: Information
Some Union representatives are expressing the opinion that there won't be a
decertification vote. Also, the Union just filed a baseless Labor Board charge that we
think was filed in order to block a decertification election.
You should know that the decertification election process is governed by law. While
Cablevision cannot and will not encourage or discourage you from supporting, signing or
filing a decertification petition, we can tell you that under the law a decertification petition
is timely one year after the union has been certified; the CWA was certified in Brooklyn
on February 7, 2012.
If you want to know more about a decertification election petition, you may call the
National Labor Relations Board at 718/330-7713 or 7714 and ask for the Information
Officer.
Respondent’s evidence concerning its action on January 30, 2013 was presented
through several witnesses, primarily Levesque, Bartels and Garcia.
Levesque testified that Respondent decided to permanently replace the 22 employees
because they refused to go work, and Respondent considered them to be engaged in a strike or
a work stoppage. I will detail further below the evidence supporting Respondent’s belief in this
regard as well as Levesque’s testimony about the decision making process to permanently
replace the 22 employees.
Bartels was Respondent’s area operating manager (AOM) for field service at 96th Street.
In his capacity as AOM on January 30, 2013, Bartels was responsible for ensuring that
all the installations, trouble calls, upgrades and downgrades performed by Cablevision’s

28 Adams, Thompson, Gayle, Boris Reid, Ray Reid, Corey Williams, Johnson and Watson.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
165
'
contractors followed process and procedures. Additionally, Bartels oversaw the quality control
technicians, or QC techs, who are directly responsible for overseeing the work performed by
contractors in the field. At that time, Supervisor Phil Furlong reported to Bartels, and Bartels
reported to Tommy McCollum, director of field service for Brooklyn. Tommy McCollum reported
to VP Levesque.
Bartels testified that he originally heard about a potential work stoppage from McCollum
about a week prior to January 30, 2013. During that conversation, McCollum informed Bartels
that Respondent had received word that there might be some type of job action, where
employees would walk off the job. McCollum informed Bartels that a contingency plan had
already been engaged with TSI to use their employees, and McCollum notified Bartels that he
would be responsible for signing up replacement technicians at TSI. According to Bartels,
McCollum instructed him to take the conditions of employment letter, review it with the
technicians, have them sign it and to bring it back to the HR department.
In that same vein, Replacement Employee Darryl McCorey testified that approximately a
week prior to January 30, 2013, he received a call from Ortiz inquiring about his interest to work
at Cablevision. Similarly, Replacement Employee Eric Stewart, testified to being on standby on
January 23, 2013 and being told he could be offered a job to work for Respondent if employees
there walked out.
On January 30, 2013, Bartels reported to work at approximately 7:00 AM, and after
checking in with his supervisors and a few technicians, he went to his office. Levesque was
there. Levesque informed him that the job action the Respondent anticipated for the week or
two prior was going to happen that morning. Levesque instructed Bartels to wait for further
instruction but plan to engage the contingency plan, where under the plan Bartels would meet
with TSI's Regional Manager Walter Ortiz, to sign up TSI technicians as replacements to work
for Cablevision.
Meanwhile, at TSI, Office Manager Melissa Jackson made the TSI employees'
contractor routes for the day.
Bartels recalled that he left Respondent's 96th Street facility to sign up replacements at
TSI just after 8:05 AM to 8:10 AM. According to Bartels, his superior, either McCollum or
Levesque, called him while he was driving to TSI to say that he needed to sign up six to eight
replacements and that he would receive further instructions. Bartels explained that by the time
he arrived and was pulling up to the TSI shop, he received a second call at about 8:25 AM, this
time from McCollum, explaining that Cablevision needed in total 12 replacements.
Bartels reported to the TSI shop in the front, near the garage, parking and warehouse
area, where he met with TSI Regional Manager Ortiz, who told him that he, Ortiz, had informed
the techs what was going on and had picked the best of the best for Cablevision.
As instructed, Bartels brought with him the conditions of employment letter approved by
legal for employees to sign. The conditions of employment letter states, in relevant part:
This will confirm your employment as a permanent replacement for a striker at
Cablevision Systems New York City Corporation, Brooklyn, New York. You understand
that your employment is intended to continue after the end of the current strike by Local
1109 of the Communication Workers of America ("CWA").
Your rate of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment during
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
166
the period of the strike will be those determined by the Company. You will be required to
submit an authorization for a background check, schedule a Physical Capabilities test,
and complete a drug test within the next few days. Your continued employment is
contingent on your successful completion of the background check, Physical Capabilities
test and drug test. Note that your terms and conditions of employment could change
following the conclusion of the current strike depending on negotiations with the CWA.
In the event that there is an order or settlement of any charge or complaint of unfair labor
practices before the National Labor Relations Board or any court, or an agreement with
the CWA or Local 1109, providing for reinstatement of strikers, then your employment
may be terminated by the Company in order to comply with the settlement, order or
agreement, and the Company shall have no further liability for your employment.
Being a permanent replacement does not constitute a contract of employment with the
Company for any specific duration. You also retain the same rights as any other
employee-at-will to resign or quit, without notice.
Please confirm in writing below or by immediate email to aking3@cablevision.com and
then report immediately for your assignment.
Sincerely, Angela King
Director of Human Resources
Brooklyn Field Operations
Bartels contended he went through the conditions of employment letter with the group in
detail. Specifically, Bartels claimed that he told a group of TSI employees the following:
1) Cablevision needed technicians who were willing to become Cablevision employees
and replace some Cablevision technicians who were refusing to go to work because
there were customers waiting to receive services, and it needed them to service the
customers as best as possible.
2) Their position with Cablevision would be "a permanent employment, it was not
temporary." And that their employment with Cablevision wouldn't end unless they didn't
qualify or there was a court order saying they had to be terminated.
3) That by signing the letter, they were agreeing to start work immediately.
4) That he was unsure of wage rate or salary, but that it would be discussed with them at
a later date.
5) That if they were unhappy with what Cablevision had to offer, they could go back to
work at TSI without any repercussion whatsoever.
Testimony from some replacement employees, however, contradicted some of Bartels'
assertions. Replacement Employees Stewart and McCorey both testified about being in
attendance for Bartels' conversation about the opportunity for TSI employees to work in-house
at Cablevision.
Although Stewart mentioned that Bartels was present, Stewart specifically recalled Ortiz
leading the conversation about TSI employees going in-house at Cablevision and explaining
that Cablevision was having some problems with their employees. According to Stewart, Bartels
never really said anything but good morning to employees. Additionally, Stewart noted that
Bartels handed him a letter to sign, around 11:25 AM, and told him to report to Respondent's
96th Street facility the next morning at 6:00 AM. Moreover, Stewart testified that the contract, not
Bartels, said the employees "were being offered a position and if through litigation or it was
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
167
seen fit that the workers returned…the opportunity to work for them would be rescinded.”
McCorey, more generally, recalled both Bartels and Ortiz speaking during the meeting
about TSI employees working in-house for Respondent. According to McCorey, Bartels told TSI
employees they would be replacing some Cablevision employees, although McCorey couldn't
recall whether there was any mention about the position being temporary or permanent.
McCorey repeatedly testified that Bartels and Ortiz spoke about the opportunity to work
at Cablevision and the benefits. But again, McCorey didn’t remember what benefits were
promised, only that they would be good. McCorey, like Stewart, noted that the letter provided
that employees had the "opportunity to work at Cablevision, but it may not be a guarantee that
you're still going to be there. You have the opportunity to go back to TSI, if it doesn't work out."
Although McCorey cited Bartels as explaining this verbally, when asked what Bartels said,
McCorey only recalled that Bartels said, "There was an opportunity to work at Cablevision.
There are lots of benefits going on."
According to Bartels, he stressed again that the employment was permanent. Then, he
had the employees come up one by one to sign the conditions of employment letter. Bartels
referenced that the employees signed up in bunches. The first bunch of six or eight signed, then
the next bunch, of four, bringing the total up to twelve. These twelve were selected by Ortiz.
After initially sending over just the names of the replacements, Bartels received a request from
Levesque to also send over the forms. Accordingly, Bartels began providing the signed
conditions of employment letters to TSI's Office Manager Jackson to scan them and email them
over to Levesque, McCollum and Human Resources Director Angela King.
At some point, Ortiz informed Jackson that Cablevision had a situation. Jackson claimed
she wasn’t aware of the specifics of the situation. Jackson insisted that she wasn't involved in
any way with the signing of the forms, but that she witnessed a few employees sign the forms.
Instead, Jackson testified that she received the names of the employees who were supposed to
complete the work that day for Respondent from Ortiz. Throughout the day, Jackson scanned
the signed forms she received from Ortiz and emailed them to herself. From her email, Jackson
emailed them to Respondent. Throughout her testimony, Jackson made clear that the
replacements were working directly for Cablevision that day.
By email to Bartels and Levesque, on January 30, 2013, at 8:37 AM, Jackson provided
the names and tech numbers for the following TSI employees:
TECH 5721 Christopher Dulcio
TECH 5736 Dennis Seaward
TECH 5728 Ricardo James
TECH 5744 Richard Felix
TECH 5720 Richard Roberts
TECH 5723 Robert Batista
TECH 5708 Rogent Young
TECH5712 Solomon Isles
Jackson explained she submitted that list to Respondent to represent the technicians,
who were scheduled to cover Respondent's in-house work that day.
By email to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum, on January 30, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Jackson
submitted conditions of employment letters for the following TSI employees:
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
168
Christopher Dulcio
Dennis Seaward
Ricardo James
Richard Felix
Richard Roberts
Robert Batista
Rogent Young
Solomon Isles
By email to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum, on January 30, 2013, at 8:54 AM,
Jackson provided the names and tech numbers for the following TSI employees:
TECH 5742 Darryl McCorey
TECH 5738 Eric Stewart
TECH 5739 Jermaine Clarke
TECH 5741 Kevin Mattison
TECH 5750 Michael Grant
TECH 5737 Omar Livingston
By email to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum, on January 30, 2013, at 8:55 AM.,
Jackson provided the name and tech number for the following TSI employee:
TECH 5743 Jeff Dalberis
By email to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum, on January 30, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Jackson
submitted conditions of employment letters for the following TSI employees:
Jeff Dalberis
Omar Livingston
By email to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum, on January 30, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Jackson
submitted conditions of employment letters for the following TSI employees:
Darryl McCorey
Eric Stewart
Jermaine Clarke
Levi Francis
By email to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum, on January 30, 2013, at 9:28 AM, Jackson
provided the names and tech numbers for the following TSI employees:
TECH 5733 Deshaun Weston
TECH 5705 Dwayne Jason
TECH 5724 Justin Browne
TECH 5730 Kenneth Sales
TECH 5761 Romano Johnson
TECH 5760 Sashane Lawson
By email to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum, on January 30, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Jackson
submitted conditions of employment letters for the following TSI employees:
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
169
Kenneth Sales
Stephen Holmes
By email to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum, on January 30, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Jackson
submitted a conditions of employment letter for the following TSI employee:
Deshaun Weston
By email to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum, on January 30, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Jackson
submitted a conditions of employment letter for the following TSI employee:
Justin Browne
By email to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum, on January 30, 2013, at 9:45 AM, Jackson
submitted a list of the replacement employees, which included the following replacement
names:
Christopher Dulcio
Darryl McCorey
Dennis Seward
Deshaun Weston
Eric Steward
Jeff Dalberis
Jermaine Clarke
Justin Browne
Kenneth Sales
Levi Francis
Omar Livingston
Ricardo James
Richard Felix
Richard Roberts
Robert Baptista
Rogent Young
Solomon Isles
Stephen Holmes
That's 18 sheets signed and scanned.
Dwayne Jason
Romano Johnson
Sashane Lawson
Are coming in to sign.
Still working on one more.29
By email to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum, on January 30, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Jackson
provided the names and tech numbers for the following TSI employees in response to

29 All listing of names have been placed in alphabetical order by first name for ease of
comparison.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
170
Levesque's request for a complete list:
TECH 5721 Christopher Dulcio
TECH 5742 Darryl McCorey
TECH 5736 Dennis Seward
TECH 5733 Deshaun Weston
TECH 5705 Dwayne Jason
TECH 5738 Eric Stewart
TECH 5743 Jeff Dalberis
TECH 5739 Jermaine Clarke
TECH 5724 Justin Browne
TECH 5730 Kenneth Sales
TECH 5741 Kevin Mattison
TECH 5750 Michael Grant
TECH 5737 Omar Livingston
TECH 5728 Ricardo James
TECH 5744 Richard Felix
TECH 5720 Richard Roberts
TECH 5723 Robert Batista
TECH 5708 Rogent Young
TECH 5761 Romano Johnson
TECH 5760 Sashane Lawson
TECH 5712 Solomon Isles
According to Bartels, there was a call to Respondent confirming that there were 22
technicians willing to serve as replacements. However, Bartels failed to recall what time he
called Respondent's 96th Street facility to confirm this. He believed he may have informed them
before he left TSI around noon since he knew what technicians were coming in for the
assignment.
Bartels conceded that some TSI techs changed their minds and that for the next couple
hours, the number of replacements on the list moved up and down. Bartels further conceded
that when he left around noon, all of the conditions of employment letters had not been scanned
and emailed to Respondent. Specifically, Bartels recalled two employees who came to
Respondent's 96th Street facility and signed the conditions of employment letters in his presence
that day.
By email to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum, on January 30, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Jackson
provided the name and tech number for the following TSI employee:
TECH 5725 Dexter Marshall
By email to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum, on January 30, 2013, at 10:17 AM,
Jackson submitted conditions of employment letters for the following TSI employees:
Tremaine Gaitling
Dwayne Jason
Dexter Marshal
Sashane Lawson
By email to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum, on January 30, 2013, at 11:03 AM,
Jackson provided the names and tech numbers for the technicians, who made up the updated
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
171
., iV
complete list of replacements. Compared to the prior list, the following name and tech number
was removed:
TECH 5761 Romano Johnson
And the following names and tech numbers were added:
TECH 5725 Dexter Marshall
TECH 5757 Tremaine Gaitling
By email to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum, on January 30, 2013, at 11:50 AM,
Jackson provided the names and tech numbers for the technicians, who made up the updated
complete list of replacements. Compared to the prior list, the following name and tech number
was removed:
TECH 5736 Dennis Seaward
And the following name and tech number was added:
TECH 5747 Tyrone Powell
By email to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum, on January 30, 2013, at 11:52 AM,
Jackson submitted a conditions of employment letter for the following TSI employee:
Tyrone Powell
By email to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum, on January 30, 2013, at 12:03 PM,
Jackson provided the names and tech numbers for the technicians, who made up the updated
complete list of replacements. Compared to the previous list, the following name and tech
number was removed:
TECH 5760 Sashane Lawson
And the following name and tech number was added:
TECH 5754 Charles Aaron
By email to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum, on January 30, 2013, at 12:34 PM,
Jackson provided the names and tech numbers for the technicians who made up the updated
complete list of replacements. Compared to the previous list, the following name and tech
number was removed:
TECH 5750 Michael Grant
Around 1:40 PM, on January 30, 2013, Bartels emailed Jackson, seeking confirmation
that the replacement list was final. By email to Bartels, on January 30, 2013, at 2:57 PM,
Jackson provided the names and tech numbers for the technicians, who had been added to and
removed from her previous updated list. Compared to the previous updated list, the following
names and tech numbers were removed:
TECH 5708 Rogent Young
TECH 5750 Michael Grant
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
172
And the following names and tech numbers were added:
TECH 5709 Livingston Bandie
TECH 5710 Levi Francis
Replacement employee Nicholson Pierre (Pierre) testified that he reported to TSI on
January 30, 2013 and received a route that day. After completing the route, he returned to TSI
around 7:00 PM. Pierre recalled speaking with Jackson around 7:30 PM or 8:00 PM, and she
asked him whether he wanted to work for Cablevision. Pierre said he did. According to Pierre,
about 30 minutes or so later, Jackson instructed him to report to Respondent's 96th facility the
following morning. Jackson didn't tell Pierre he was going to be a Cablevision employee. Pierre
didn't sign a conditions of employment letter until February 4 after he started working for
Respondent on Sunday, February 3, 2013.30
Replacement Employee Livingston Bandie (Bandie) testified that a friend informed him
about the opportunity for TSI technicians to work in-house for Respondent.
Although it was Bandie's day off, he went to TSI around 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM to find out
about the opportunity, but Jackson told him that the list was full. Bandie later testified that at
some point after he had left TSI, Jackson called him back and told him to bring in his TSI
property and to include his truck and his equipment. According to Bandie, he returned to TSI at
approximately 8:00 PM and spoke with Jackson. Jackson told him to report to Respondent's 96th
Street facility the following morning. Bandie signed a conditions of employment letter, dated
January 30, 2013. He couldn't recall, however, if he signed it on January 30, 2013.
Replacement Employee Charles Aaron (Aaron) testified that he was also home on
January 30, 2013, when a friend called him around 8:30 AM to 9:00 AM, and told him that
Respondent was hiring. According to Aaron, when he arrived at TSI around 9:30 AM, he spoke
directly to Bartels about working for Respondent, but Bartels informed him that the list was full.
After a time, Aaron left. On his ride home, Aaron received a call from Jackson around 11:00 AM
or 12:00 PM, telling him to put on his work uniform and return to TSI. Aaron explained that he
returned to TSI with his uniform after lunchtime and that he was relaxing with most of the
technicians, who were there, and was told to wait. After two hours, Aaron received instruction
from Jackson to report to Respondent's 96th Street facility to sign some paperwork. Aaron met
with Bartels that afternoon and signed his conditions of employment letter.
Replacement Employee Dexter Marshall (Marshall) testified that he reported to work at
TSI on January 30, 2013. According to Marshall, he received a TSI route, and went into the field
by 8:00 AM. Around 9:00 AM to 9:20 AM, he received a call from a co-worker informing him
about the hiring by Respondent. Marshall finished his job and returned to base around or after
10:00 AM. According to Marshall, he arrived and spoke with Ortiz first, who informed him that
Respondent was hiring. Ortiz instructed him to speak with Jackson, but Marshall recalled that
before arriving to meet Jackson, he met Bartels and confirmed with him his interest in working
for Respondent. Marshall went to Jackson and filled out the conditions of employment letter.
Marshall confirmed that he signed it on January 30, 2013, despite the January 29, 2013 date on
the conditions of employment letter.
Marshall further testified that he returned to Bartels addressing the group. At this time,

30 Pierre did report to Respondent on January 31, 2013 to start training.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
173
Bartels informed the replacements that they had to report to Respondent's 96th Street facility the
next morning at 7:00 AM or 8:00 AM. During direct examination, when asked whether Bartels
told him anything about the job, Marshall responded that "they said they’re hiring, and put down
your name and that was it." Marshall noted that Jackson told him that if he didn't like it he could
return to TSI within 50 or 90 days. Further, Marshall noted that he received a route that day to
complete additional jobs around 11:00 AM and that before he left, Bartels told him specifically
that he would be getting paid by Respondent that day. On cross examination, Marshall testified
that Bartels was addressing the whole group of technicians.
In addition to the emails that Jackson sent about the list of replacements, Jackson
exchanged email correspondence with Respondent's Dispatch Manager Craig Brennan
regarding the in-house Cablevision routes that needed to be reassigned to the replacements.
Jackson testified that she informed Brennan of the replacements, who were "being held back,"
given the situation at Cablevision. Jackson testified that Brennan emailed her the in-house
Cablevision routes that were to be assigned to the replacements. Jackson stated that she
divided the in-house routes and submitted them to replacements. According to Jackson, the TSI
uniform consists of black pants with a TSI shirt and the TSI truck contains a Cablevision logo
and TSI logo on it. In her testimony, Jackson confirmed that the replacements went into the in-
house Cablevision work, using TSI trucks and wearing a TSI uniform.
Bartels also testified that he believed the guys went into the field after receiving
assignments from Brennan, who sent the assignments to Jackson, stating that the replacements
used TSI trucks that day to service the routes.
Although some employees signed Respondent's conditions of employment letter, other
issues with respect to orientation, formal application completion, rate of pay, position, job
assignment and supervisor assignment, remained undecided.
By email to Levesque, McCollum and Rafael Sampayo, on January 30, 2013, at 2:01
PM, Bartels inquired about, among other things, the employees' rate of pay, rate of pay for
experienced techs, benefits start time, revisions to the contractor wfp, formal applications and
paperwork and where they were to report the following day.
According to HR Director King, on the afternoon of January 30, 2013, someone asked
her to schedule orientation for the replacements. King said she scheduled orientation for
January 31, 2013 at 7:00 AM. King did not testify about how replacements received this
information.
By email dated January 30, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Senior Associate Garcia asked Levesque
to approve the requisition she needed so that she could send the links that would allow the
replacements to begin Respondent's on-boarding process.
By email dated January 30, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Garcia initiated an email chain inquiring
about the hours the new hires would be working and requesting their resumes to see what pay
they should receive given their experience.
Replacement Employee Nicholson Pierre testified that he didn't fill out any paperwork on
January 30th. Pierre testified to receiving materials about the job application, background check
and benefits from Respondent during his first full week working for Respondent, starting
February 3, 2013.
By various emails, beginning on January 31, 2013 and onward, Garcia submitted
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
174
multiple links for replacement employee Nicholson Pierre to fill out paperwork with respect to his
employee application, background check and drug test. Pierre also received emails confirming
his employment, explaining the benefits package and seeking his social security and driver's
license information. Other replacement employees testified to filling out the employee
application, background check and drug test during their first week working for Respondent
also.
Garcia provided no testimony about the replacement employees' application process or
about sending Pierre or any other replacement employees the above-referenced emails. Garcia
only testified that for someone to work for the company, they typically applied online first, then
went through a formal interview, then certain testing, including a drug test, background check,
and an online assessment related to driving and reading maps. She stated that employees are,
however, allowed to work pending the outcome of their background check and drug test.
Employee Johnson testified to her transition from working for Cablevision contractor ACI
to working as an in-house technician for Respondent. Similar to the process described by
Garcia, Johnson submitted her resume to Respondent and attended a formal, all-day interview.
Johnson met with Respondent's vice president, the head of the QC department and a trainer,
had to take a test and did a urine test and background check.
On January 31, 2013, King conducted new hire orientation for the replacement workers.
There, Respondent discussed with the replacements Respondent's policies and procedures,
benefits, general information about company, employment practices and safety. Pierre testified
to reporting to orientation. He testified to receiving a uniform and his pay rate and grade on this
date.
Replacement Employee Stewart testified to reporting to orientation. According to
Stewart, he received the safety handbook, instruction to fill out an application and other forms,
his rate of pay and information about benefits.
Replacement Employee Livingston Bandie testified to reporting to orientation. According
to Bandie, employees were assigned supervisors at random. Employee names were written on
a piece of paper and placed in a container. Supervisors selected names from the container and
employees selected by a specific supervisor were assigned to work on that supervisor's team.
Replacement Employee Charles Aaron testified to reporting to orientation. According to
Aaron, during the orientation, he received instruction to fill out an application online, a uniform,
his rate of pay and a truck assignment. Aaron also recalled being assigned a supervisor by
supervisors selecting the names of technicians from a bag.
Personnel action forms show that Replacement Employees Levi Francis, Omar
Livingston, Tyrone Powell and Deshaun Weston were all terminated approximately one week
later because of “displace[ment] by recalled striker."
TSI time and attendance records confirm that Replacement Employees Levi Francis,
Omar Livingston, Tyrone Powell and Deshaun Weston returned to TSI. They also show that
Replacement Employee Justin Browne worked at TSI the week of February 4, 2013. TSI time
and attendance show that replacement employees Nicholson Pierre and Dwayne Jason worked
a full day's work for TSI on January 30, but they were paid by Respondent for that same day.
Levesque testified that Respondent had anticipated the possibility of a work stoppage
prior to January 30, 2013. Martin Luther King Day was on January 21, 2013 and was a holiday
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
175
under Respondent’s contract with the Union. Nonetheless, Respondent’s employees worked on
that day as it is a 24-hour a day operation. Employees work on holidays at their option.
Levesque testified that, prior to Martin Luther King Day, he received information that
some employees at Respondent’s 45th Street location were talking about a possible walkout or
work stoppage on or about Martin Luther King Day to show support for the Union. Upon receipt
of that information, there was a conference call with senior management and counsel, in which
options were discussed to deal with a possible walkout. As a result of these discussions,
Respondent decided to plan to use contractors to fill in, in the event employees walked out on
Martin Luther King Day. Thus, Respondent called various contractors that it uses and asked
them if they could have extra people available for that day to fill in. Thus, the decision by
Respondent for that day was to use contractors to fill in and not to permanently replace
employees or to use contractor employees as permanent replacements.
Martin Luther King Day came and went, and there was no walkout. However, on
Tuesday, January 22, 2013, the day after Martin Luther King Day, according to Levesque,
Respondent received information about a possible walkout on Thursday, January 24, 2013. This
information was reflected in an email from McCollum to Levesque on January 27, 2013 at 2:45
PM as follows:
From: Tommy McCollum tmccollu@cablevision.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 2:45 PM
To: Rick Levesque
Subject: FYI-Walkout talk
Attachments: TEXT.htm; IMAGE.BMP
A tech from 45th St was called by a member of the union (trying to find out who) and
was requested to be at 96th on Thursday for a walkout. I am going to get people on
standby again.
Thank you,
Tommy McCollum
Director of Operations
Brooklyn, NY
336-516-0536
tmccollu@cablevision.com
Further, Respondent also received information that the Union intended to have a rally
and give out t-shirts and coffee at around that time.
Levesque also testified that he received a copy of an email, dated January 23, 2013,
between two of Respondent’s officials referring to a flyer from the Union that was circulating and
that was attached. The email and the attached flyer are as follows:
From: “Robert Gaissert”

Subject: IMG958340.jpeg
Paul, See the attached flyer that’s circulating
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
176
ONE YEAR AGO ON A THURSDAY IN JANUARY WE MADE HISTORY WHEN THE
NLRB COUNTED OUR VOTES AT EAST 96TH ST. THIS THURSDAY JOIN US AS WE
CELEBRATE OUR ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY AND REMIND CABLEVISION THAT
WE DESERVE A FAIR CONTRACT.
THURSDAY JANUARY 24, 2013
DAY OF ACTION
MORNING – REMEMBER DR. KING AND HIS LEGACY – Wear Red
5PM – AVE D AND EAST 96TH STREET
RALLY FOR OUR FUTURE
6.30 PM – ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION
BRINGING IN IT BACK TO WHERE IT ALL STARTED
3915 FLATLANDS AVENUE
FOOD AND OPEN BAR
Levesque testified additionally that, as a result of the above information, Respondent
feared that a walkout might occur on January 24, 2013 and that another conference call was
held. After that call, it was decided that if employees walked out on January 24, 2013 that
Respondent would exercise its right to hire permanent replacements.
As a result of that decision, Respondent contacted contractors and asked them if they
had any employees, who would agree to work in-house for Cablevision in case Respondent
needed to use that option. TSI, one of the contractors utilized by Respondent, notified
Respondent that it could provide 25 individuals, who would be willing to work for Respondent as
Respondent’s employees. In that regard, Respondent prepared the conditions of employment
documents to be signed by the potential replacement employees.
January 24, 2013 came, and there was no work stoppage.31
Levesque further testified that he received a copy of the Union’s alert, sent out after its
January 29, 2013 meeting, wherein the Union requested technicians to meet at 8:00 AM on
January 30, 2013 at the cafeteria at 96th Street and added, “Ready to Demand a Fair Wage.”
Levesque testified that as a result of that email, Respondent believed that a work
stoppage was possible on January 30. In that connection, Levesque testified that another
conference call was conducted on the evening of January 29. After that call, the decision was
made by Respondent that if the employees did refuse to work and Respondent had a walkout,
then “we were going to permanently replace them.”
As a result of this decision on January 30, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Levesque sent a copy of the

31 As noted above, the Union did have an event, wherein it gave out coffee and t-shirts to
employees, outside Respondent’s facility.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
177
CWA alert to McCollum and asked McCollum to contact TSI and see if TSI can be ready to
supply employees to be hired as permanent replacements by Respondent in the event of a
walkout. The email chain described above is set as follows:
From: Tommy McCollum TMCCOLLU@cablevision.com

Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 6:22 AM
To: Rick Levesque
Cc: John Bartels
Subject: Re: Tomorrow morning
I asked him last time and he said he will be ready whenever we need. Ill try to reach
them now.
On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:11 AM, "owRick Levesque" wrote:
Can we get with TSI and see if we can be ready like last week in case some walk out
this morning?
>>>Greg Guillaume 1/29/2013 9:43PM<<<
Team
One of our reps just received a text from the CWA about a rally tomorrow morning at
96th street in meeting in the cafeteria. This is the text she forwarded me
CWA ALERT: All techs, please meet tomorrow (Wed) at 8 am sharp at 96th St Garage,
cafeteria. Ready to demand a Fair Wage? Questions, please call a steward.
Thought I would give you the heads up in case you haven't heard yet.
Greg
Subsequent to this email exchange, prior to 7:00 AM, McCollum telephoned Levesque
and informed him that he (McCollum) had spoken to TSI, and TSI could supply the employees
and that it was calling people to get them to come in to TSI’s facility.
Levesque spoke to Bartels at about 7:15 AM after he arrived at Respondent’s facility and
informed Bartels that there may be an issue on that day and that Bartels needed to go to TSI to
see about signing up some employees.
Prior to 8:00 AM on January 30, Levesque testified that he instructed a number of
supervisors to go into the cafeteria to speak to the employees under their supervision and make
sure that they went to work. According to Levesque, these supervisors included Richie Lai, the
supervisor for the audit technicians, who worked at 92nd Street, and whose start time was 7:00
AM.
Levesque testified that he also spoke to Bartels prior to 8:00 AM. Levesque told Bartels
to go into the cafeteria and check when employees under his supervision were scheduled to
start. Bartels told Levesque that the quality control technicians had a toolbox meeting scheduled
for 8:00 AM. Levesque instructed Bartels to go into the cafeteria and make sure that none of the
QC techs are in there and that they are in the toolbox meeting because that is where they need
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
178
to be.
At about 8:00 AM, Levesque testified that he was informed that a large group of
employees were in the cafeteria. Levesque further testified that at about 8:00 AM, Bartles
reported to him that he had spoken to three QC techs, who were in the cafeteria, Bellato,
Graham and Johnson, and he (Bartels) had asked them if they were going to the toolbox
meeting, and the employees responded to him that they were not, and they were going to stay
until they talk to Levesque. Levesque testified further that he told Bartels, during that
conversation or shortly after that conversation, that he needed to go to TSI and be ready in case
we need to sign up some people in case Respondent needed to replacement some workers.32
According to Levesque, he entered the cafeteria at about 8:11 AM. Levesque asserts
that Lai informed Levesque that there were three audit techs under Lai’s supervision at 92nd
Street, who had 7:00 AM start times, and who were in the cafeteria.
According to Levesque, between 8:11 AM and 8:21 AM, he spoke to employees, Ray
Reid, Jerome Thompson, Corey Williams, Ray Williams, Steve Ashurst and Ray Meyers,
individually and addressed other employees as a group. Levesque admitted, as I have found
above, that he asked each of these employees and the employees as a group, “Are you going
back to work today?” Levesque also insisted that he also told the employees both individually
and as a group that they “needed them to go back to work.”33 Levesque testified somewhat
consistently with the facts that I have found above that employees replied either directly or
indirectly that they would not return to work until Levesque or someone else speaks to them. I
note that I have found above that some of the responses by employees refers were somewhat
different, i.e. “We are going to work, but we need to speak to you for five minutes” or similar
such comments. I note that Levesque did not deny that employees made such responses to his
inquires about whether they intended to return to work.
Levesque testified that he then left the cafeteria at 8:22 AM. The evidence reflects that
after Levesque left the cafeteria, a number of employees did return to work. Included in that
group was, as detailed above, Corey Williams, who left the cafeteria at 8:33 AM and went out on
his route.
As also noted above, Levesque was informed by Curtis Sheppard, an AOM at 45th
Street, that he had spoken with Brent Ramdeene, who was under Sheppard’s supervision, and
that Sheppard had instructed Ramdeene to return to work and that Ramdeene had refused and
told Sheppard that the was staying until someone talked to the employees. Sheppard also
informed Levesque that Ramdeene’s start time was 7:30 AM.
Levesque further testified that at about 8:16 AM, he or McCollum phoned Bartels and

32 I have found above that Bartels largely corroborated Levesque’s testimony as reflected
above, including his conversation with the QC techs and Bartels’s report of his conversation to
Levesque. However, as reflected above, Bartels did not corroborate Levesque that Johnson
was included in the group of employees when Bartels spoke to them. According to Bartels, he
spoke to Bellato and Graham only on that day and so reported to Levesque that they refused to
go to the toolbox meeting and said they were staying until the employees spoke to Levesque.
As I outlined above, Johnson was late that day, and although she was supposed to be at the
meeting, she did not arrive until about 8:14 AM, and she then went to the cafeteria.
33 As noted above, I found consistent with the testimony of eight General Counsel witnesses
that Levesque did not direct or instruct employees to return to work.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
179
instructed Bartels to hire ten replacements from TSI and to call Levesque when the ten had
signed conditions of employment forms.
According to Levesque, at 8:40 AM, McCollum informed Levesque that Bartels had
obtained signed conditions of employment forms from ten TSI employees.
According to Levesque, the ten employees, whom he decided to replace (along with
their start times), were Ashurst (7:30 AM), Bellato (7:00 AM), Graham (8:00 AM), Johnson (8:00
AM), Meyers (7:30 AM), Ramdeene (7:30 AM), Ray Reid (7:30 AM), Thompson (7:00 AM),
Corey Williams (7:00 AM) and Ray Williams (7:00 AM). Levesque then went into the cafeteria to
speak to each of the six employees that he had spoken with personally. These employees were
Thompson, Ray Reid, Ashurst, Meyers, Ray Williams and Corey Williams. Levesque spoke to
all of these employees except Corey Williams. Levesque told these employees to come to his
office to speak to him. He intended to inform them that they had been permanently replaced.
Levesque testified that he thought that he had also spoken to Corey Williams and informed him
to see him in his office but realized (after hearing Corey Williams’s testimony at trial and looking
at Respondent’s videotape) that Levesque had made a mistake and had not spoken to Corey
Williams at that time and that Corey Williams had left the cafeteria to go to work at 8:33 AM.
Levesque did not know the QC technicians, Johnson, Bellato and Graham, so he asked
QC supervisor Phil Furlong to notify these three technicians to come see Levesque in his office.
Levesque also asked Sheppard to similarly instruct Ramdeene. Levesque then returned to his
office and waited for the ten employees to come into his office.
Levesque testified further that he was then informed by McCollum that a large group of
employees had left the cafeteria and were in the administrative area. Levesque claims that he
came out of his office and asked Adams, “What are you doing here?” Adams answered that “we
want to hear what you have to say.” Levesque explained that he wanted only to speak to the ten
employees and then directed the employees into the conference room when Adams allegedly
replied, “We’re not going back to work until we hear what you have to say.”
Levesque testified that he then directed the employees to return to the conference room,
and he would speak with them. Levesque then went back to his office. In his office, Levesque
instructed Garcia, King and Sheppard to get him a list of all the employees in the conference
room so Respondent would “know who is in there.”
At about 9:13 AM, Levesque entered the conference room. Levesque asked employees
present for their start times, and the employees raised their hands to correspond to their start
times. He then asked if they were going to work. While Levesque testified that he said, “I would
strongly suggest that you go back to work,” I do not credit that testimony as it is inconsistent
with the testimony of the employees, as detailed above.
While Levesque also testified that when he asked the employees if they were going to
go back to work, they answered either “No” or “No, we’re not going, we want to hear what you
have to say.” I have credited the version of the employees’ responses, as detailed above, that
they responded that they wanted to go to work but they wanted to speak with Levesque for five
minutes and that Gayle responded that we just need a few minutes of your time or any
supervisor to discuss our issues. Levesque then commented, “So, you guys don’t want to
cooperate” and then left the room.
Thus, the bottom line is that with respect to the discussions that Levesque had with
employees in the cafeteria and in the conference room, he did not order or direct them to return
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
180
to work but repeatedly asked them to return to work. Further, while the employees did not
unequivocally refuse to return to work, they answered Levesque using similar various words that
they would return to work once he spoke to them for five minutes or for a short time.
Levesque testified that as he left the conference room at about 9:15 AM, Corey Williams
arrived. Levesque confirmed Williams’s testimony that he (Levesque) asked Williams, “Are you
in or out?” Williams replied, “You’re the one, who called me back and told me to come back.”
Levesque testified that this triggered in his memory that Corey Williams was one of the ten
people, who he had asked to come to see him and was one of the ten original people replaced.
Levesque conceded that he had erred in believing that he had spoken to Corey Williams to
come see him and that he had, in fact, tapped and instructed someone else. He admitted that
he hadn’t realized that Corey Williams returned to work at 8:30 AM. Therefore, Respondent
decided, according to Levesque, after hearing Williams’s testimony and reviewing videotapes of
the events, to give Williams back pay for the days that he was out of work.34
Levesque then went back to his office. He waited for Garcia to come in and tell him how
many employees were in the conference room. According to Levesque, substantially
corroborated by Garcia, she informed him that there were 22 employees on her list and in the
room.
Levesque then asserts that as a result of this information, he informed McCollum that
Respondent needed 12 more replacements. (He had already been allegedly informed of 10
replacements having signed forms and, therefore, Respondent needed 12 more.) According to
Levesque, at 9:19 AM, McCollum informed him that Bartels had informed McCollum that Bartels
had signed up the other 12, and Respondent had 22 signatures.
Levesque then entered the conference room at about 9:30 AM and informed the
employees present that they had been permanently replaced. There is virtually no dispute as to
what was said thereafter by the employees and Levesque as well as the events leading to the
calling of the police to remove the employees when they refused to leave and/or turn in their
badges and phones. These facts are set forth above, and Levesque essentially agrees with the
versions of the employees that I have detailed above. Levesque conceded that he called the
police when the employees refused to leave.
The additional 12 employees, who were permanently replaced, all of whom had 8:30 AM
start times, were Clarence Adams, Malik Coleman, Stanley Galloway, Marlon Gayle, David
Gifford, Trevor Mitchell, Shaun Morgan, Eric Ocasio, Boris Reid, Andre Riggs, Myles Watson
and Richard Wilcher.
Neither Levesque nor any of Respondent’s witnesses furnished any testimony naming
employees Coleman, Galloway, Gifford, Morgan, Ocasio, Riggs or Wilcher. Thus, the record
contains no direct testimony as to how Respondent knew that these seven employees were in
the conference room, or for that matter, in the cafeteria at all on that day. While Levesque did
testify that Garcia informed him that there were 22 employees on the list of employees in the
conference room, he did not testify that she either gave him a copy of the list that she had
prepared or that she at any time informed him of who was in the room. Further, Garcia, although
corroborating Levesque that she told him that there were 22 employees in the room, did not
testify that she either gave him the list of told him who was on it. I also note that Respondent did

34 Williams had already been returned to work by the time of the trial. As will be detailed
below, all of the “replaced employees” were recalled by sometime in March of 2013.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
181
not introduce the list that Garcia prepared into the record.
It appears, therefore, that Levesque simply accepted the number of employees in the
conference room from Garcia’s oral statement and obtained the names from the employees,
who eventually turned in ID badges and phone before they left after the police were called.
Levesque testified that a few days after January 30, Respondent reviewed the
videotapes that Respondent had made and discovered that four employees, who were in the
conference room, and who did not turn in their IDs and phones, had actually left the conference
room to return to work. These four employees were Watson, Mitchell, Boris Reid and Wilcher.35
According to Levesque, upon discovering these facts, he and his management group had a
discussion and concluded that Respondent was wrong in replacing these employees, that they
had not refused to return to work and Respondent should not have replaced them. Therefore,
Respondent decided to rectify this error and brought these employees back to work with
backpay. Respondent did so and consequently had to terminate four of the replacements.
Levesque testified that he personally informed the four replacements that Respondent
was bringing back four of the workers, and Respondent would have to let the replacements go.
Levesque did not explain why Respondent was bringing back four of the workers.
On the day of the replacements, Respondent needed some individuals from other
contractors, such as Corbel, to fill in for the TSI contractors, who had routes as contractors for
Respondent and were now becoming employees. The record is not clear for how many days
Respondent used these contractors to fill in the prior routes serviced by the TSI replacements
as contractors or how many routes there were that needed to be filled. Levesque, at one point,
testified that on the first day of the “walkout,” January 30, Corbel, one of the contractors, had
offered five to ten employees to help but only five showed up from Corbel. Levesque explained,
however, that while Respondent had 22 replacements and these replacements all had routes to
fill, some of the employees replaced, such as the QC techs, fiber techs and audit techs, did not
have customer impacting routes. So, Respondent didn’t need all 22 contractors to fill in.
Respondent needed only a few to fill in the first 8:00 AM to 11:00 AM jobs, and then
Respondent had cancellations, so it could backfill and clean up the rest of the jobs.
On February 1, 2013, Levesque went to the 45th Street facility, where he encountered
Calabrese and a number of the permanently replaced technicians in uniform. Calabrese told
Levesque that the 22 permanently replaced strikers are “here, and they’re dressed, they’re
ready to come back to work, and the company should take them back.” Levesque responded
that “there were no positions available, and the positions were filled.”
Subsequently, over the next two months, as a result of openings that developed,
Respondent recalled all of the remaining employees, who had been replaced.

35 While these four employees had gone out on their routes and were called back by
supervisors, Levesque explained that he was not involved in that decision but that HR had
Garcia’s list and must have ordered these four to be called back from their routes.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
182
XI. Analysis and Conclusions
A. The Bronx Related Allegations
1. The Wage Increases and Benefits
The announcement, promise or grant of benefits in order to discourage union support is
unlawful. As the Supreme Court has stated, “[T]he danger inherent in well-timed increases in
benefits is the suggestion of a fist inside the velvet glove. Employees are not likely to miss the
inference that the source of benefits now conferred is also the source from which future benefits
must flow and which may dry up if it is not obliged.” NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405,
409 (1964).
It is well-settled that the Exchange Parts principles are applicable to promises,
announcements and granting of wage increases or other benefits, if they are made in response
to union organizational activity, regardless of whether a representation petition had been filed.
Kingspan Benchmark, 359 NLRB #19 ALJD slip op at 5 (2012); Manor Care Health Services,
356 NLRB #39 ALJD slip op at 21 (2010); Network Dynamics, 351 NLRB 1423, 1424 (2007);
Hampton Inn NY-JFK Airport, 348 NLRB 16, 17 (2006); Curwood Inc., 339 NLRB 1137, 1147,
1148 (2003), enfd. in pert. part 397 F.39 548, 553-554 (7th Cir. 2005); Leisure Time Tours, 258
NLRB 986, 994 (1980).
Where a benefit is promised, announced or implemented after an employer obtains
knowledge of union organizing, the Board will draw an inference that the employer’s actions
were unlawfully motivated. Kingspan Benchmark, supra; Manor Care, supra; Jewish Home for
the Elderly of Fairfield County, 343 NLRB 1069, 1088 (2004); Kanawha Stone Inc., 334 NLRB
235, fn. 1, 243 (2001); Yale New Haven Hospital, 309 NLRB 363, 366 (1992).
However, the employer can rebut this inference by establishing that it acted based upon
legitimate business interests, unrelated to the organizing campaign. Kingspan Benchmark,
supra; Manor Care, supra; Mariposa Press, 273 NLRB 528, 544 (1984); American Sunroof
Corp., 248 NLRB 748 (1980), modified on other grounds 667 F.2d 20 (6th Cir. 1981).
Another way of assessing the employer’s burden of proof in such situations is that it
must establish that it decided to act “precisely as it would if the union were not on the scene.”
United Airlines Services Corp., 290 NLRB 954 (1988); MEMC Electronic Materials, 342 NLRB
1188 (2004).
To determine whether an employer has met, or failed to meet its burden of proof, the
Board considers whether all the evidence, including the employer’s explanation for the timing of
the increase, supports “an inference of improper motivation and interference with employee free
choice.” Holly Farms Corp., 311 NLRB 273, 274 (1993), enfd. 48 F.3d 1360 (4th Cir. 1995), affd.
517 US 392 (1996). Among the factors used to determine whether a pre-election grant of benefit
is unlawfully motivated are: the size of the benefit conferred in relation to the stated purpose of
granting it; the number of employees receiving it; how employees reasonably would view the
purpose of the benefit; the timing of the benefit; the employer’s explanation for the timing of the
benefit; whether the grant of benefit was consistent with the employer’s prior practice; and the
employer’s knowledge that the benefit involved was an important issue in the union organizing.
See also Register Guard, 344 NLRB 1142 (2005) (employer must demonstrate persuasive
reason demonstrating that timing of the benefit grant was governed by factors other than union
campaign); Donaldson Bros. Ready Mix, 341 NLRB 958, 961-962 (2004) (employer must show
it would have conferred the same benefits in the absence of the union, “to meet this burden of
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
183
proof, the employer needs to establish that the benefits conferred were part of a previously
established company policy and the employer did not deviate from that policy on the advent of
the union”).
In applying the principles of the above precedent to the instant matter, the first and
crucial issue to be determined is whether Respondent had knowledge of the Union’s
organizational activities at the Bronx facility when it made it promises and decision to grant the
benefit and wage increases. Hampton Inn NY-JFK Airport, supra. I find the evidence clear that it
had such knowledge well before the decisions were promised and announced in April of 2012,
and even before the possibility of increases were first suggested (although not decided upon) in
Dolan’s February 1 speech to employees.
The Union’s organizing, of course, started in Brooklyn in August of 2011, resulting in a
petition being filed on December 9, 2011 to represent these employees. However, even before
the Union began organizing in the Bronx, there was talk amongst managers in the Bronx about
the possibility of the organizing spreading to the Bronx. Indeed, after a group of managers
viewed a CWA video, Respondent’s construction manager, House, commented, “It doesn’t look
good, and this is probably what we’re going to be dealing with soon after.” After this viewing,
House informed Gomez, another supervisor under House’s supervision, that since there is a
close relationship between Brooklyn and Bronx technicians (noting that many technicians hired
in the Bronx were transferred to Brooklyn and vice versa) that House thought it was only going
to be a matter of time before whatever problem was going to permeate its way to the Bronx.
Gomez agreed and replied that it was a good possibility because there was a close relationship
between the Bronx and Brooklyn employees and many of them know each other.
Gomez also testified that “whatever happens in Brooklyn eventually happens in the
Bronx.” He added that the managers on a regular basis were saying that because of the
association between the two areas, everybody knew that it was coming to the Bronx.
Respondent immediately reacted to the petition by trying to head off organizing at other
facilities by Mott’s December 9, 2011 communication, in which he made reference to the petition
filed in Brooklyn and added, “Don’t be surprised if union organizers show up at your location and
start asking Cablevision employees to sign union authorization cards.” He then spent the rest of
the memo urging employees not to sign union cards and giving some reasons why they should
not do so.
Later, in December of 2011, emails received from Respondent’s supervisors revealed
knowledge of some union organizing at other facilities of Respondent, including Trenton Falls,
NJ and Freeport, CT.
The Union started organizing in the Bronx in January of 2012, including in mid-January
by distributing flyers at Respondent and talking to employees in front of the Brush Avenue
facility. The Union representatives were seen by management officials engaging in such
activities, which continued subsequently to mid-January of 2012 as much as five times a month.
On January 20, 2012, a Cablevision senior staff meeting revealed clear evidence of
Respondent’s knowledge of such organizing. The report reflected that the vote (in Brooklyn)
occurs on January 26 and “as anticipated, CWA has begun circulating handouts in other areas
within our footprint (Bronx and Freeport)…we are reacting accordingly.”
On January 24, 2012, Hilber emailed that a union letter had been found in the men’s
bathroom at Respondent’s Newark, NJ facility.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
184
The election was conducted on January 26, 2012, and the Union was successful. Coffey
then sent an email to all Cablevision employees, expressing Respondent’s disappointment with
the results of the Brooklyn election. On January 27, 2012, Coffey had a phone call discussing
reports from various locations about reactions to the Brooklyn vote. In some locations, the
reports reflected that no one ever knew about the outcome of the election, but in others, such as
the Bronx, everyone knew about the results. For the report on the Bronx, it reflected that the
Union websites says, “With this win in Brooklyn, we can push for the same victory in the Bronx.”
Further, on the same day, January 27, 2012, Respondent’s supervisors in the Bronx
conducted a meeting, and Supervisor Williams emailed a report summarizing the meeting. The
report reflected that “technicians were very vocal and complaining about salary increases” and
that “some Bronx technicians may have signed union cards already” and “the Union is getting in
touch with employee using Facebook, Twitter, etc. to voice their opinions that a manager
overheard that the Union will be having a meeting at the American Legion Hall that evening and
some technicians will be attending and finally that there were two CWA personnel walking
around Brush/Schley Avenues, trying to speak to the technicians.”
Shortly after that day, House informed Gomez, “Basically, what’s going to happen, what
happened in Brooklyn, is going to spread like a contagion to the Bronx.”
It is, therefore, clear, and I so find, that by the time when Dolan made his February 1,
2012 televised speech to all of Respondent’s employees that Respondent was aware that the
Union had begun organizing at its various facilities, including the Bronx, and further that
Respondent feared that due to the close relationship between Brooklyn and Bronx employees
that the organizing in the Bronx was most likely to be successful.
In Dolan’s speech, which I recounted in full in the Facts Section above, he mentioned
that he has now assumed direct responsibility for cable operations, a position that he had before
and had given up for 10 years. Dolan talked about a number of changes he intended to
implement, at first discussing business related issues, such as WiFi, outages, service to
customers and digital and internet issues.
Dolan then turned to a discussion of how the company relates to employees. He referred
to Cablevision’s values, which were posted in the workplace, and said that these are values that
he believes in and observed that Respondent had gotten away from these values, and he
wanted to return to these values that he put in place 10-12 years ago.
Dolan specifically mentioned and discussed a few of these values such as “employees
must receive fair and respectful treatment from supervisors and managers and have ready
access to management regarding any concerns as well as have the freedom to speak without
fear of reprisal.” Dolan also mentioned a safe workplace, proper tools and the best equipment
and training necessary to do the job.
Dolan then turned to salaries and benefits and stated, “Our employees have the right to
competitive salaries and benefits period.” He then commented, “That needs to be a value that
the company adheres to.”
Dolan then went on to explain that Respondent has a process, wherein it surveys job
descriptions and market rates to determine whether Respondent’s salaries are competitive.
Dolan added that he was not absolutely “positive that the system had been tendered to as well
as it should be” and that Respondent is going to back to that system and conduct a new survey
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
185
and determine where employees are and that they have an opportunity for promotion and
growth. Dolan then stated that he knows that Respondent is living by these values, “but if you
don’t, I’m going to give you an opportunity to change things.”
Immediately after Dolan made that comment, he turned to a discussion of the union vote
in Brooklyn and his reaction to it. It is appropriate to repeat these comments verbatim:
I want to turn to another topic -- just briefly -- that you probably know about. Last week
there was a vote by some of our employees in Brooklyn to join a union. And I'm
disappointed in that vote. The reason that I'm disappointed in that vote is because I think
those employees were making a statement about their working environment and their
relationship with the company, and they decided that they needed to have somebody
speak for them in order to improve that. That's the assumption that I make by the vote
that they had. I'm sorry that they feel that way. They may very well be justified. I don't
know. But I'm going to find out.
We think that when you have a direct relationship with your company, that that enhances
our ability to change the company. You can see that there are a lot of changes that we
have to make in order to stay competitive, in order to be successful together as a
company. I don't think having a party in between us helps us. I think it hurts us, and
that's why I'm disappointed. But we're supposed to do a good job there. Management is
supposed to do a good job there. We're supposed to uphold these values, and we're not
supposed to put you in a position where you would think that somebody else can better
represent you than yourself. So we're going to change that.
We're putting a lot of changes in place now and I'm kind of thinking that if I had done this
a year earlier, that maybe that vote would have been different in Brooklyn. But I do want
to ask you something today. Give this company a chance. Give this management team a
chance to show you that it does care about you as employees and values you as
employees. I'm making changes. So if you happen to be in a position where you get
approached about signing a card to bring a union vote to another one of our facilities, I'm
asking you not to sign it -- yet. I'm not asking you to not sign it forever. I'm asking you not
to sign it yet, and give us a chance to change some of the things that I obviously think
we need to change, and prove to you that you can have faith in the relationship that you
have directly with this company. I'm not asking you to do that forever. Just give me a
chance and give this company a chance to prove it to you. I think we will.
After he concluded, this area of his speech, Dolan discussed changes in the HR
department that he was instituting, so that employees can voice their concerns without fear of
reprisal and their concerns can be heard.
Dolan added as follows:
And as sort of a stop gap from that, if you have concerns now that you feel you need to
voice while we're making this change, remember this: jdolan@cablevision.com. You may
write me; email me. That doesn't mean that I'm going to be able to email back everyone
that does that but I will make sure that every concern that gets emailed to me gets
handled professionally and, of course, without any thought of reprisals.
I find that Dolan’s February 1 speech provides substantial evidential evidence of a link
between Respondent’s decision to grant benefit and wage increases and the Union’ organizing
activities. Indeed, in my view it is a virtual admission that these raises and benefits were
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
186
motivated by Respondent’s desire to thwart unionization throughout the footprint, including in
the Bronx. Thus, Dolan implored the non-unionized employees to give him a chance to remedy
their concerns and not choose to support the Union, like the Brooklyn employees did. Dolan’s
comment that “if I had done this a year earlier, that maybe the vote would have been different in
Brooklyn” is most significant since it clearly demonstrates that Respondent intended to make the
changes it needed to thwart further unionization (i.e. raises and benefits increases).
This conclusion is further supported by subsequent events, prior to and after the
promises and announcement of the raises and benefits in April of 2012. Immediately after the
speech, Hilber reported on a meeting that night of 35 Bronx employees. Hilber commented that
common themes were about base wages and job security, and base wages was the primary
topic. Hilber reported on the reaction to Dolan’s speech today: “CWA it is like honey and
vinegar. We believe the honey comment is referring to ‘honey give us more time’ and the
vinegar is referencing the concept of an empty promise of more pay.”
On March 8, 2012, Monaghan emailed reports on a conversation that he had with
employees, relating to union conversation and benefits and issues raised by employees.
Monaghan stressed that the most prominent issues mentioned by employees were pay and
additional costs in benefits, such as higher co-pays and co-insurance.
Respondent’s senior staff meeting on April 2, 2012 referred to union organizing in the
Bronx and Long Island. An email from supervisors, dated April 5, 2012, reported a CWA
meeting the night before and that 60-80 employees were there and that almost all have or were
signing cards that night.
Other emails amongst Respondent’s supervisors reflected that on March 11, 2012,
“There has been some CWA noise in the Bronx” (email from Livoti to Dolan).
On April 2, 2012, Livoti emailed LoCascio, stating, “I think the new comp plan is gonna
be a huge win for us…as well as some tweaks to the benefit plan.”
On March 30, 2012, Hilber reviewed an email from Robert O’Neill (a supervisor in the
Bronx), reporting that there was a union meeting at a local VFW Hall and four technicians from
the Bronx were observed leaving the meeting.
On April 4, 2012, Hildenbrand emailed Dolan, discussing the impending comp plan.
Hildenbrand observed that he and LoCascio feel that the plan will be great and “go a long way
to limiting speculating and will be very well received.” Hildenbrand then turned to a discussion of
union activities as follows: “As to other activities, seem like Nassau is still under control, but
we’re expecting an upsurge after your talk which is partially why I think the point above on
information distribution is vital. Bronx needs watching, and we are but others seem okay at the
moment.”
It is, therefore, clear that by April 10, 2012, the date that Dolan first promised and
announced the wage increases and benefit changes, that the Union’s organizational activities
had been most prominent and successful in the Bronx and that Respondent knew about it, was
most concerned about the Bronx and that it was hopeful that the announcement of the raises
and benefits would stem the tide of the Union’s organization in the Bronx.
On April 10, 2012, Dolan gave another speech by teleconference to Respondent’s
employees. He began by referring to his previous speech (of February 1), wherein he asked
employees to email him with their comments and concerns. He added that he received
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
187
hundreds of responses and that the “feedback helped guide us as we make changes in the
workplace.”
Dolan then gave employees an update on changes it intended to make, including
technology, tools and other customer-related issues. Dolan then outlined some changes in
benefits, including lifetime cable, extra 30 days after disability to look for a position and a
rollback of co-pay rates to 2011 levels.
Dolan then announced a new salary structure and career progression timelines. He
explained that the market survey had been completed and “all market data is updated to bring
pay levels into the competitive position.”
He explained the process that there were four phases in implementation and field
service would be included in Phase I and the employees in Phase I would see their changes
right away, effective May 1, 2012. The other employees in Phases II through IV would have to
wait for several months to see their raises, but their raises would be retroactive to May 1, 2012.
He further explained that HR will have details of how pay increases were calculated for each
employees.
Dolan then observed as follows:
This is to bring us in line with the values that are posted about having competitive salary.
I just want to put my notes aside for a minute. What we did here is we went back to
everybody's job description; we've updated them to make sure they were accurate. We
looked at career progression, we looked at where folks were stopped in career
progression. We looked at grade levels. In some cases, these changes not only involve
a pay increase but they also involve a grade change because it was apparent to us that
they were due.
The work that's gone into this so far has already been substantial. There's more to come
and we aren't done. But we're going to hold to that value where we keep our salaries
competitive and where our employees have an opportunity to advance. And this is just
one indication of it.
At the close of the meeting, Dolan commented as follows:
I want you to know that I believe in the company values for all of our employees. Our
employees are the lifeblood of this company. And this company needs to change. We
need to do so to ensure that we remain a healthy company and we can't do it without
you and without your enthusiasm.
That's it. Thank you very much for listening. I know you'll probably have questions about
some of the things that I've gone over. Your HR. dept has the answers and if they don't
have the answers, jdolan@cablevision.com.
Thank you very much.
On April 14, 2012, Hildenbrand emailed Dolan concerning a discussion between
LoCascio and Hildenbrand about campaign strategy in the Bronx. LoCascio had observed that
he sensed an election is inevitable in the Bronx. Hildenbrand commented, “I assume we could
be proactive in other places as well, but for now seems Bronx could use it.”
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
188
O’Neill emailed on April 10, 2012, reporting on feedback in the Bronx to Dolan’s April 10
speech. He reported a positive reaction to the changes in benefits, including changes in co-pays
but that the employees were less than pleased that specifics were not discussed in terms of
changes in career progression and comp and the employees wanted to know how it personally
affects them. He also reported that after the telecast, Monopoli had a talk with a large group of
techs, wherein Monopoli stressed all positives coming out of the call, the changes in comp and
career progression, that employees will see shortly and that they should gather all the facts
before deciding whether or not joining the CWA makes sense for them and their families.
On April 20, 2012, Clarke reported on his meeting in the Bronx for a Total Rewards
presentation and observed a significant number of employees still wearing red bracelets.
On April 21, 2012, LoCascio and Monopoli met with Bronx employees individually and
explained the details of the new wage progression increases and what it would mean for each
employee. LoCascio commented in his report, Overall, many techs were not expecting such a
large adjustment. Even some of the staunch union supporters had to hold back any positive
reaction, but you could read their body language.”
Monopoli reported, “One tech very happy with his increase and said he would take off
his band but they would be all over me.”
On April 25, 2012, Dolan went to the Bronx facility and addressed the Bronx employees
at a meeting. During this meeting, he reiterated that there was a need for change and that
Respondent had gotten away from its original Cablevision values. Dolan also informed
employees that the reason that the company can be competitive is because they don’t have a
cumbersome union to tie their hands. He added that with a union, you cannot speak directly to
employees, he would have to speak to the union. Thus, implementing new technology or other
changes would have to go through the union, and Respondent would have to get permission.
Dolan also informed employees that he had read complaints that employees sent him
via email and given the chance, he would try to rectify some of the major issues.
Dolan then mentioned the new wage and benefit program that the first phase would
include technicians, who would receive raises as of May 1, 2012, everyone would be moving up
a salary grade and co-pays would be reduced to pre-2011 levels.
The raises were implemented for Phase I on May 1, 2012 as promised. Similarly, the
decrease in co-pays was also effective on that date.
The Union’s petition was filed on May 14, 2012 and ultimately an election was scheduled
for and held on June 28, 2012.
On June 26, 2012, Dolan again met with the Bronx employees at the Brush Avenue
facility. He made reference to the upcoming election as well as the changes Respondent had
made. Dolan stated, “Changes have been made everywhere, not just to defeat the Union in the
Bronx. We will change with or without the Union, we do not want to leave you behind.”
He then talked about Cablevision values and that the values had not been adhered to.
He added, “Vote the Union, these signs come down. It’s about a relationship between you and
the Union, not between you and Cablevision.”
Dolan then made reference to Brooklyn, where the Union is not interested in success of
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
189
the company.
Dolan made reference to a letter that he had sent to employees. The letter talked about
the changes that Respondent made in the first half of 2012 and added that it will continue to do
so. He mentioned that Bronx employees had received wage increases and changes in health
insurance and added that he appreciated the emails sent to him praising these efforts.
Dolan then stated that employees have earned these wages and benefits and they
represent core Cablevision values and they represent the relationship Respondent wants to
have with our employees. Dolan then commented, “As it stands now, Bronx employees can
speak directly with management to discuss any issues, good or bad, without union interference.
This direct relationship is what enables management to implement positive changes quickly, in a
rapidly changing technological and competitive environment. Unfortunately, this is not the case
for the employees in Brooklyn who voted to let the Communications Workers of America union
(CWA) speak for them, because the Company cannot unilaterally increase their pay or improve
their benefits, as those issues are now subject to negotiation with the union. In fact, since
January when the union was voted in to represent the Brooklyn employees, nothing positive has
happened.”
Dolan then again urged employees to vote “No” and concluded his remarks with the
following comment:
At the very least, I would encourage you to wait and see what happens in Brooklyn
before making a commitment to the CWA. The choice is clear – whether or not you want
to continue to speak directly with me and the rest of your management team or whether
you want to put a union in between us. We'd prefer to treat you like all other Cablevision
employees, in the Bronx and elsewhere, but the union is now trying to separate you from
the others.
The election was held on June 28, 2012. The Union lost by a margin of 121 to 43.
I also rely on Monopoli’s comments at the supervisory meeting, a few weeks before the
election. In that meeting, Monopoli urges Respondent’s supervisors in the Bronx to “convince
the technicians of the new perks that they were going to be getting as a result of this, that they
have all this on the table for the employees and that if the vote goes a different way, all that stuff
is open for negotiations.36
This comment of Monopoli is consistent with Dolan’s message in all his speeches that
changes, such as increases in wages and benefits, were possible in the Bronx (and elsewhere,
except for Brooklyn) because there was no cumbersome union to deal with. Indeed, Dolan’s
June 26 letter to employees openly proclaimed that the Bronx employees have received wage
and benefit increases, but employees in Brooklyn, where the Union had been certified, have
received nothing. See Overnite Transportation, 329 NLRB 992, 1014 (1999).37

36 While, as I detailed above, I have struck portions of Gomez’s testimony relating to some
of Monopoli’s remarks at these supervisory meetings because they reveal “bargaining strategy,”
I did not strike all of Gomez’s testimony about these meetings. The comment by Monopoli,
referring to the “new perks” that technicians were receiving, is not reflective of bargaining
strategy and was not stricken.
37 Board affirms judge’s unlawful wage increase findings that company president linked the
increase and other changes in correcting past errors and giving him a chance to make the
Continued
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
190
Finally, I also rely on the March 28, 2012 email chain between Dolan and Robert
Sullivan, Respondent’s vice-president of sales and marketing, referring to Sullivan’s request to
Dolan for approval of a wage increase for sales employees in Bronx and Jericho, NY and
Piscataway, NJ. Sullivan made specific reference to the CWA’s attempts to organize
Respondent’s sales representatives based on a comparison between union-represented sales
employees at Verizon and Time Warner. Sullivan informed that he needed approval of a base
salary and commission increase to “deliver the final blow” in his efforts to extinguish union
support amongst Respondent’s sales employees. Dolan replied, “Go for it,” and, in fact, the
raises were approved and implemented shortly thereafter. While Respondent objected to the
receipt of these emails inasmuch as the sales employees were not part of the unit, are paid
differently (commission) and were not included in the May 1, 2012 increases that were the
subject of this complaint, I received the emails, somewhat reluctantly, as Respondent points out
in its brief, but upon further reflection, I conclude that it is relevant to the instant matter and is
reflective of Respondent’s response to union organizing. It does demonstrate that Respondent
was quick to approve a wage and progression increase for sales employees to thwart union
organization amongst its sales employees. Although the sale employees are not in this
bargaining unit and their increases were not part of the analysis conducted by Respondent that
resulted in the increases for the bargaining unit employees, I conclude in agreement with
General Counsel and Charging Party that this is evidence relevant to and probative of
Respondent’s motivation in granting wage increases at the same time and during the same
organizing campaign to the Bronx employees.
I conclude that the above evidence, on top of the inference of unlawful motivation that
derives from Respondent’s knowledge of union organization that General Counsel has
established compelling evidence that Respondent’s decision to announce and implement wage
increases was motivated by the intent to thwart union organization.
The burden then shifts to Respondent to prove that it acted based upon a legitimate
business interest, unrelated to union activity, Kingspan Benchmark, supra; Manor Care, supra;
or put another way, that it decided to act “precisely as it would if the union were not on the
scene, MEMC Electronics, supra; United Airlines Services, supra.
I conclude that Respondent has fallen short of meeting its burden of proof in this regard.
Respondent relies principally on the testimony of Questell and Hildenbrand, designating them
as the alleged “decisionmakers,” who testified to preparing the wage progression program and
recommending it to Dolan. They further testified that union organization had no bearing on their
decisions. However, contrary to Respondent’s contentions, the evidence discloses that neither
Hildenbrand nor Questell were the decisionmakers in Respondent’s action but that it was James
Dolan, who made all the decisions.
Indeed, the first notice that Questell, or indeed, anyone else at Respondent, had about
possible increases was in Dolan’s February 1, 2012 speech. This speech, wherein Dolan
mentioned that Respondent would be conducting an analysis to see if some adjustment or wage
increases would occur, was what set in motion the wage and progression increase analysis,
conducted by Questell with help from Hildenbrand. This event, coming after the Union’s election
victory in Brooklyn, and shortly after Respondent became aware of the Union’s organizing in the
Bronx, as noted above, creates an inference of unlawful motivation for the wage increases.
_________________________
employees happy. President noted company could move forward if it and its employees could
solve their own problems and not have the union between them.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
191
However, Dolan did not testify, so the record does not reflect any testimony from Dolan that the
Union’s organizing in the Bronx and elsewhere did not have effect on his decision to start the
ball rolling with respect to computing possible wage and progression increases. Therefore, there
is no evidence that Respondent was even considering a wage increase (other than its normal
yearly merit increases) prior to or until after it became aware of the Union’s organizing
campaign. Latino Express Inc., 358 NLRB #94, ALJD slip op at 2 (2012). Further, Respondent
made no attempt to communicate to employees that the increase was independent of the
Union’s organizing campaign. Latino Express, supra. Indeed, to the contrary, as detailed above,
Dolan’s speeches and letters as well as various comments of supervisors of Respondent
expressly or implicitly linked the raises to the Union’s organizing campaign.
With respect to the failure of Dolan to testify, General Counsel urges that I draw an
adverse inference from Respondent’s failure to call Dolan, the decisionmaker in Respondent’s
decision to implement and ultimately to grant the increases. Gerig’s Dump Trucking, 320 NLRB
1017, 1024 (1996); Overnite Transportation, supra, 329 NLRB 990, 1014 (1990); International
Automated Machines, 285 NLRB 1122, 1123 (1987). While it might be appropriate for me to do
so, I find it unnecessary to draw such an adverse inference. I do, however, find that the absence
of Dolan’s testimony on such crucial matters as Respondent’s motivation for the decision to
commence the market analysis that eventually led to the granting of the increases on May 1,
2012 as well as explanations for the timing of the increases and the decision not to grant the
increases to everyone at the same time is significant and detracts substantially from
Respondent’s attempt to establish that its decision was unrelated to the union campaign. Manor
Care, supra, slip op at 22 (no one, who made decision to implement or approve wage increases,
testified); Mercy Hospital, 338 NLRB 545, 545-546 (2002) (employer failed to met its burden of
showing legitimate basis for wage increases when its only witness, who had developed wage
survey, had no knowledge of or participation in timing of wage announced).
It is significant that Questell, Respondent’s primary witness, had previously
recommended in 2011 that Respondent stick to its normal yearly merit increase of
approximately 3% per employee to be given out on the anniversary of the employee’s hire. As
detailed above, her first notice of a possible change was Dolan’s February 1 speech when he
notified employees that a new market analysis would be done, inferring that a wage increase
was possible in the future. Questell was not involved in the decision to grant the increase,
effective May 1, 2012, and the record contains no testimony or evidence that answers that
question.
The record does reveal that Respondent’s decision to grant such a large increase in May
is largely unprecedented. While Questell did testify that once before, sometime in 1999, there
was a similar market survey ordered, which resulted in some increases, she could not recall the
amounts of such increases or the dates of these increases. Nor did Respondent introduce any
documentary evidence establishing these matters and corroborating Questell’s testimony.
I find that the fact that these increases were granted at a time different than its normal
increases to be another significant detriment to Respondent’s attempt to meet its burden of
proof. Donaldson Bros, supra, 341 NLRB 958, 961, 962 (2004) (employer, whose practice to
confer raises in November, granted wage increases in May); Village Thrift Store, 272 NLRB 572
(1983) (employer’s wage increase significantly different from past practice, unlawful).
I find it also significant and unexplained by Respondent why the increases were granted
in phases and that, although everyone would receive raises retroactive to May 1, 2012, some
employees would not receive anything for several months. Indeed, no analysis had ever been
conducted for these employees, and no decision had been made as to their increases. Indeed,
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
192
it was possible that when the increases were announced in April of 2012, including that Phase I
would receive increases on May 1, that employees in the other three phases might not receive
any increases depending on the market analysis of their classifications and individual
progression.
Since Phase I included bargaining technicians, which comprise the largest groups of
employees in the bargaining unit, it raises a serious question as what was the rush to grant
these employees increases before a final decision was made as to increase for everyone. The
inference that the Union’s organization is the reason for this decision is strong and has not been
satisfactorily rebutted by Respondent. Once again, I note the absence of Dolan’s testimony with
respect to this issue.
Respondent also relies on the testimony of Hildenbrand and Questell that the reason for
Dolan’s decision to make changes was in the management philosophy between Dolan and
Rutledge, who Dolan replaced in late 2011. However, Questell and Hildenbrand’s testimony, in
my view, amounts to little more than speculation, bereft of any factual support. Indeed, neither
of the two witnesses testified to even any conversations with Dolan about this subject or any
direct evidence as to Dolan’s motivation for recommending possible changes in benefits and
wage increases in his February 1 speech. Once again, as I have observed above, the failure of
Dolan to testify on these issues is significantly damaging to Respondent’s defense.
In this regard, I recognize that Dolan did mention in his speech of February 1, 2012 that
he had recently taken over from prior management in direct charge of Cablevision and that prior
management had “taken its eye off the ball” and gotten away from Cablevision’s values. He
further listed a number of changes that he was instituting as a result, including the ordering of a
market survey. However, Dolan did not testify and was not subject to cross-examination. Thus,
his self-serving assertions in his speech cannot substitute for his testimony, particularly
involving such a crucial issue as Respondent’s motivation. I note, of course, as detailed above,
that in the very same speech, Dolan noted his disappointment with the Brooklyn election results,
including making the comment that if Respondent put the changes in place that he was
discussing (including the possible increases) “maybe the vote would have been different.” He
then proceeded to ask employees not to sign a card for the Union and give Respondent a
chance to prove that employees can have faith in the direct relationship with the company (i.e.
without the Union). I again emphasize that I view Dolan’s comments as a virtual admission that
his decision to “change” and to grant benefit and wage increases were motivated (at least in
part) by the Union’s organization. I note that nowhere in his speech did Dolan deny that union
organization activity was a motivation for his decisions, so it cannot be concluded that
Respondent had established that it would have granted these benefits, even if the union had not
been on the scene.
Respondent’s primary argument in support of its position that it has met its burden of
proof in this regard is that the increases in wages and benefits were applied uniformly to all
unorganized facilities of Respondent. Holly Farms Poultry Industries Inc., 194 NLRB 952, 955
(1972) (“An employer's conferral of a wage increase will be sanctioned by the Board if...the
increase applies to the unorganized locations owned by the respondent as well as to the plant
being organized by the union."); Casey Mfg. Co., 167 NLRB 89, 91-92 (1967) (wage increases
made at employer's three plants during an organizing campaign were not unlawful where
motivated in part by employee requests); Noah's Area Bagels, LLC, 331 NLRB 188, 189, 202-
203 (2000) (stating that changing health plan in response to employee complaints during
organizing campaign for all employees would not violate Act); Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 165
NLRB 1, 11 (1967) (wage and benefit increases did not violate Act where granted to employees
at 10 plants); Nalco Chem. Co., 163 NLRB 68, 70-71 (1967) (announcement of increased
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
193
vacation benefits during organizing campaign did not violate Section 8(a)(l) where change would
affect 1,000 employees and proposed unit was only 34).
Respondent also cites American Sunroof, supra, 248 NLRB 748 at 749, where the Board
in finding no violation in the granting of pay raises and benefit increases observed that “where
benefits result from a corporatewide decision and are implemented on a corporatewide basis, it
suggests that the employer did not grant such benefits for the specific purpose of interfering with
an election at one of its many locations.”
However, I find that Respondent’s reliance on these cases is misplaced since they do
not stand for the proposition that Respondent seems to be asserting that the fact that an
increase in wages or benefits is granted corporatewide is sufficient to establish that its granting
such benefits for employees at one facility (where there is union organization) is unrelated to
union organizational activities and lawful.
The Board had clearly stated that “merely changing benefits at multiple locations does
not by itself establish a lawful motive in such cases. MEMC Electronics, supra, 342 NLRB at
1178.
In Holly Farms Corp., 311 NLRB 273, 274 (1993), the Board stated:
“The Respondents also contend that the fact that the increase was given to all 11,000
Holly Farms employees who were not represented by bargaining units indicates the lack
of an intent to coerce or discriminate against the 201 members of the live haul unit.
Although we recognize that the unit employees comprised only a small percentage of the
total number of employees receiving the increase, this factor does not persuade us,
under the totality of the circumstances here, that the wage increase was not unlawful. In
addition to the factors discussed above, we note that at the time the wage increase was
given, Holly Farms' production employees were in the midst of union activities. Thus, the
wage increase might have been reasonably calculated to discourage union activity
throughout Holly Farms. See St. Francis Federation of Nurses v. NLRB, 729 F.2d 844,
852 (DC Cir. 1984), enfd. 263 NLRB 834 (1982).”
See also Evergreen America, 348 NLRB 178, 240 (2006).38
Here, as in Holly Farms, supra and St. Francis, supra, there is evidence that in addition
to union organizing in the Bronx, there was organizing by the Union throughout the footprint and
that Respondent was aware of such organizing by the Union at the time of the implementation
of and promise of the benefits and wage increases as well as at the time that Dolan announced
the possibility of a wage increase in his February 1 speech. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude,
which I do, that the wage and benefit increases might have been reasonably calculated to
discourage union activity throughout the footprint. Holly Farms, supra; St. Francis, supra;
McAllister Towing and Transportation, 341 NLRB 394, 424 (2004). This conclusion is further

38 I also note that in Evergreen America, the Board found that excessive amounts of wage
increases to be unlawful, even where they were part of a regular pattern of increases granted at
the same time every year, 348 NLRB at 237. See also Comcast Cablevision, 313 NLRB 220,
248 (1993). Here, of course, the timing of the increases was not part of a regularly established
pattern. However, even if they were, they were clearly “excessive” based on this precedent and
is another reason for finding them unlawful and that Respondent has not met its burden of
proving that it acted as if the union was not on the scene.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
194
supported by the fact that the “footprint” here consists of several facilities located within the
metropolitan area in New York City, New Jersey, Long Island and Connecticut, in relatively short
distance from another, thereby, strengthening the inference that the increases were calculated
to discourage union activity throughout the footprint.39
Further, the Board in Network Ambulance Services, 329 NLRB 1, fn. 4 (1999), while
affirming the dismissal of an allegation that a grant of benefits at one facility is consistent with a
corporatewide grant of benefits was unlawful and that the inference of illegality had been
rebutted, observed as follows: “The Board’s approach in these cases had been based on the
premise that, where there is no other indication of an antiunion motive, a multiunit entity is
unlikely to have granted a benefit to all of its employees, solely for the purpose of influencing an
election that affected only a few.”
Here, unlike Network Ambulance Services, supra, there is ample evidence of an
antiunion motive in Respondent’s decision to grant increases in the speeches of Dolan himself
as well as in comments of supervisors, as I have detailed above. Evergreen America, supra;
McAllister Towing, supra; Holly Farms, supra.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing analysis and precedent, I conclude that Respondent
had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by announcing and granting the wage increases to its
Bronx employees, effective May 1, 2012.40
The analysis with respect to granting of the benefit of reducing the co-pays for
employees is similar to the analysis concerning the wage increases. Once again, this benefit
was implemented well after Respondent became aware of union organizational activity in the
Bronx. Here, unlike the wage increase, which Dolan made in reference to in his February 1,
2012 speech, there was no mention of Respondent’s intention to reduce co-pays or its decision
to do so until Dolan’s April speeches.
I do note that Dolan talked about changes Respondent intended to implement in his
February 1 speech and asked employees to email him or otherwise notify Respondent of any
changes they might wish to see or concerns they may have considering that this solicitation of
employees’ views came in the context of Dolan’s aforementioned comments about his
disappointment in the results of the Brooklyn election that if the changes he was instituting were
in place, the results in Brooklyn would have been different and asking employees to give the
company a chance, not to sign a card and give Respondent a chance to change some of the
things that needed to be changed “to prove to you that you can have in the relationship that you
have directly with the company” (i.e. without the Union). These comments by Dolan would
amount to an unlawful solicitation of grievances with a major promise to remedy the grievances,
except that the speech was outside the 10(b) period. Desert Aggregates, 340 NLRB 289, 298
(2003); Reno Hilton, 319 NLRB 1154, 1156 (1995); St. Francis, supra, 263 NLRB at 840, enfd in
relev. part 729 F.2d at 852.

39 Indeed, here, the evidence disclosed a close relationship between Bronx and Brooklyn
employees, in view of prior transfers among employees at these facilities, and that
Respondent’s Bronx supervisors reportedly commented to each other that whatever happens in
Brooklyn, will happen here.
40 While the complaint also alleges that this conduct is also violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, I find it unnecessary to decide that issue inasmuch as such a finding would not materially
affect the remedy. MEMC Electronics, supra, 342 NLRB at 1174; Manor Care, supra, 356 NLRB
#39 at ALJD slip op at 22; In Home Health, 334 NLRB 281, 284 (2001).
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
195
While I cannot find an 8(a)(1) violation with respect to Dolan’s comments, it is
appropriate and permissible to utilize the remarks as relevant evidence to establish motivation
for Respondent’s conduct within the 10(b) period.
Thus, Respondent, by Dolan, solicited employees to email him or otherwise contact
Respondent with their suggestiosn for changes that the employees might want in response to
Dolan’s request to give Respondent a chance to prove that they did not need a union. In
response to this request, employees did respond and, indeed, Dolan thanked them for
responding to his April 10 speech when he announced the benefit of reducing co-pays. Indeed,
Respondent’s own witnesses, Clarke and Questell, admit that the decision to reduce the co-
pays back to 2011 levels was in response to employee complaints. Indeed, Respondent’s
written notification to employees, notifying them of the reduction, specifically states that “these
changes, which are in direct response to employees’ feedback I have received, reinstate your
2011 copayment rates.”
Further, the evidence reflected that on March 8, 2012, Monaghan met with employees to
discuss union conversations as well as potential issues that Dolan may face when he visits field
locations. Monaghan reported that the issue of high co-pays and co-insurance was a high
priority amongst the employees and that he (Monaghan) was a little shocked to hear that the
benefit issue was such a high priority amongst employees.
Thus, similar to the wage increase, the grant of the benefit of decreasing co-pays for the
Bronx employees was implemented in April in the midst of substantial organizational efforts by
the Union in the Bronx, of which Respondent was fully aware. This raises an inference, just like
the wage increase, that the grant of this benefit was motivated by intent to thwart unionization.
This inference, also similar to this wage increase is strengthened and supported by Dolan’s own
words, as detailed above, as well as other comments and emails by supervisors.
Once more, these findings shift the burden to Respondent to establish that it would have
granted the benefit, even if the union was not on the scene.
I find that it has failed to meet its burden in this regard. Once again, I note the failure of
Dolan to testify. He was the ultimate decisionmaker as to the granting of the benefit, and he did
not testify as why he approved it or that he would have approved this benefit, even if there were
no union organizational activities.
Respondent makes the same arguments that it made with respect to the wage increases
(i.e. that it was granted across the footprint) and cites the same cases. My conclusion and
analysis is the same as it was with respect to the wage increase concerning this issue. The
record established that organizational activity was in progress across the footprint and that it is
reasonable to conclude that the grant of this benefit would likely have been calculated to
discourage union activities throughout the footprint. Holly Farms, supra; Evergreen America,
supra; McAllister Towing, supra.
Respondent also presented evidence and testimony from Clarke that over the past
several years, Respondent granted some benefits based on employee feedback at meetings.
However, this testimony is far from sufficient to prove that Respondent had a regular and
established practice of always granting any requests of employees to change or institute
benefits. This evidence is insufficient to establish that Respondent would have granted the
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
196
reduction in co-pays, even if the union was not on the scene.41
I, therefore, conclude that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by this
conduct.42
2. The Alleged Promise of Benefits
The Complaint alleges, and General Counsel contends, that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promising employees improved wages and benefits in his April
speeches to employees. The principles and analysis that I have outlined and discussed above
concerning Respondent’s decision to grant the increases and reductions in co-pays is equally
applicable to the allegation of unlawful promise of benefits. Latino Express, supra, 358 NLRB
#94 ALJD slip op at 10; Curwood, supra, 339 NLRB at 1147.
Dolan updated employees on Respondent’s progress since his February 1, 2012 speech
and thanked employees for emailing their comments and their concerns and added that the
feedback helped guide Respondent as it makes changes in the workplace. I note, of course,
that, as I detailed above, in the February 1 speech, Dolan explicitly referred to the Brooklyn
election results and his disappointment about it, talked about changes he intended to make and
implored employees to wait and see the changes before deciding to sign a card.
Thus, in that context, Dolan announced the changes that Respondent was intending to
make, including the wage increases and reductions in co-pays, effective May 1, 2012.
Thus, under the rationale of Exchange Parts, supra and its progeny, these promises of
benefits coming in the midst of an organizational campaign in the Bronx (as well as in other
locations within the footprint) creates an inference that the promises of benefits had an improper
motive to discourage unionization. I so find.
Further, as was the case with the grant of these benefits, the inference is strengthened
and supported by Dolan’s statements as well as by comments of various supervisors.
While Respondent could rebut these inferences of illegality by establishing that it would
have granted these increases and benefits, even if the union was not on the scene, I have found
above that it did not meet that burden of proof with respect to the grant of the increases and
benefits, and I also conclude, based on the same reasoning and analysis, that Respondent has
not met this burden with respect to the promise of and announcement of these changes in April
of 2012.
I, therefore, conclude that Respondent has further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
unlawfully promising benefits in Dolan’s April speeches. Latino Express, supra; Exchange Parts,
supra; Rainbow News 12, 316 NLRB 52, 62 (1995).

41 I again note the absence of Dolan’s testimony as significantly undermining Respondent’s
defense to this allegation and its attempt to meet its burden of proof.
42 Once again, I find it unnecessary to decide whether this conduct violates Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act as alleged in the complaint. MEMC Electronics, supra; Manor Care, supra.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
197
3. The Alleged Solicitation of Grievances and Promises of Increased Benefits
and Improved Terms and Conditions of Employment
The complaint alleges, and General Counsel and Charging Party contend, that during
these same April speeches and meeting with employees, Dolan unlawfully solicited grievances
and promised employees increased benefits and improvements in their working conditions in
order to discourage unionization of its employees.
The relevant principles of law concerning the solicitation of grievances were summarized
by the Board in Center Construction Company, 345 NLRB 729 at 730 (2005).
The Board has long held that, in the absence previous practice of doing so, the
solicitation of grievances by an employer during an organizational campaign violates the
Act when the employer promises to remedy those grievances. See, e.g., Uarco, Inc., 216
NLRB I, 2 (1974). The solicitation of grievances alone is not unlawful, but it raises an
inference that the employer is promising to remedy the grievances. This inference is
particularly compelling when, during a union organizational campaign, an employer that
has not previously had a practice of soliciting employee grievances institutes such a
practice. Amptech, Inc., 342 NLRB 1131, 1136-1138 (2004). While an employer who has
had a past practice and policy of soliciting grievances may continue to do so during an
organizational campaign, an employer cannot rely on past practice if it "significantly
alters its past manner and methods of solicitation during the campaign." House of
Raeford Farms, 308 NLRB 568, 569 (1992), enfd. mem. 7 F.3d223 (4th Cir. 1993), cert.
denied 511 U.S. 1030 (1994).
In applying these principles, I conclude that Respondent violated the Act by soliciting
grievances with an implied, if not an expressed promise, to remedy these grievances.
During Dolan’s teleconference with employees on April 10, he thanked them for
responding by email to his February 1, 2012 request for feedback. He added that this feedback
helped guide Respondent as it makes changes in the workplace. Dolan then announced a
number of changes that Respondent was intending to implement, including the aforementioned
wage increase and changes in co-pays that I have found to have been unlawful.
After reciting these changes, Dolan added, “There’s more to come and we aren’t done.”
Dolan then solicited employees to further express their concerns and questions and instructed
employees to email him, providing his email address.
On April 25, 2012, Dolan met with Bronx employees at a meeting, also attended by
managers and HR representatives. He again talked about and stated that the reason that
Respondent can be competitive is “because they don’t have a cumbersome union to tie their
hands.” Dolan also informed employees that he read the complaints employees sent to him and
given the chance he would try to rectify some of the major issues. Finally, he told employees
that if they emailed him, they would receive a response and encouraged employees to email
him if they did not see the changes that he was promising.
I find that Dolan’s comments at these meetings reflect a clear message to employees.
That is that we are making changes, which we cannot do “with a cumbersome union to tie their
hands,” that these changes were in response to employees’ previous emails and that
Respondent will be making more changes and would respond to employees’ requests for such
changes. Such comments by Dolan represent implied, if not explicit, promises to remedy the
expressed concerns by employees to make further changes and are violative of Section 8(a)(1)
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
198
of the Act. Manor Care, supra, slip op at 19-20 (employer stated that it was looking for solutions
that wouldn’t involve a third party); Reno Hilton, supra, 319 NLRB at 1156 (employer reminded
employees of benefits already granted, including unlawfully granted benefits, and asked
employees to vote “no” and give employer a chance to show its commitment to employees).
Respondent argues that Dolan’s comments cannot be considered unlawful because they
were simply an extension of Respondent’s pre-existing open door policy. Wal-Mart, 339 NLRB
1187 (2003). I disagree.
Initially, I note that while Respondent’s open door policy is detailed in its manual, which
includes a reference to the right of employees to contact the CEO, if they so desire, no evidence
was adduced by Respondent that this policy had even included in the past televised speeches
from the CEO or personal visits by the CEO to Respondent’s facilities to discuss employees’
concerns. Indeed, whatever record evidence that does exist reflects that Dolan’s visits were
unprecedented. For example, after the April 25 speech in a question and answer session, one
employee asked, “Why did it take a union vote for you to come and speak to us?” Notably,
Dolan did not respond that Respondent has had an open door policy that he was following or
that he had ever visited the Bronx facility (or any facility for that matter) to discuss employees’
concerns.
Dolan’s response was simply, “I’m here now. I can’t speak for the past. It’s time to more
on.” Further, the email sent by pro-camping employee Randy Molina to Dolan after the April 25
meeting, further supports the conclusion that this was the first time that he had personally
visited the facility to talk to employees about their concerns. Molina thanked Dolan for appearing
and added, “It was sorely needed. Prior to your arrival many wondered if you would ever
show…is he coming…will he show up…But you did. You silenced the pessimists.”
I, therefore, conclude that Dolan’s conduct in April of 2012 represented a substantial
departure from Respondent's prior policy and that the existence of the open door policy is
insufficient to refute the inference of illegality from Dolan’s comments. Manor Care, supra; Clark
Distribution Systems, 336 NLRB 747, 748 (2001) (record does not show that high level officials
had a previous practice of soliciting grievances form employees); Carbonneau Industries, 228
NLRB 597, 598 (1977) (past practice of employer of maintaining open door policy not adequate
justification for manner and method of solicitation of grievances during organizing campaign).
Furthermore, a past practice of soliciting grievances can protect an employer from an
inference that its solicitations include an implicit promise of benefits. But in the midst of a union
campaign, a past practice of solicitation does not sanction express promises to remedy newly
solicited grievances in a direct effort to discourage employees form choosing union
representation. Manor Care, supra. Cf. Wal-Mart, supra, 340 NLRB 637, 640 (2003) (although
there was a union organizing campaign at employer’s store, employer was entitled to utilize
established open door policy to solicit grievances so long as it did not express or indirectly
promise to remedy these grievances).
Here, as I have detailed above, Dolan expressly promised that more changes were
coming and that he would try to rectify some of the employees’ concerns, while at the same
time, observing that the “cumbersome union” would prevent Respondent from making these
changes.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing analysis and precedent, I conclude that Respondent
has further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by soliciting grievances along with promises to
remedy the employees’ concerns.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
199
4. The Alleged Threats
On June 26, 2012, two days before the election, Dolan met again with employees in the
Bronx and gave a speech, in which he explained why employees should vote “no” in the
pending election. He discussed technological and other changes that Respondent was making
and added that the changes were made everywhere, not just to defeat the Union in the Bronx.
Dolan also commented to the Bronx employees, “We do not want to leave you behind.” Dolan
also stated that Respondent can’t make the changes it wants “in a union environment.”
Dolan also commented, “This vote is about values—we did not adhere to them, vote the
Union in, these signs come down.” He then pointed to the Cablevision values posted on the wall
and added, “It’s about a relationship between you and the Union, not between you and
Cablevision.”
After the meeting ended, there were questions and answers between Dolan and
employees. Questions were asked about WiFi and technology, and Jerry Genova responded
and talked about the ability to learn with extra training and create new opportunities for
employees. Another employee then asked, “Are you really going to leave Brooklyn behind?”
Dolan answered, “Yes, why would I train and invest in our employees when I have to relate to
the Union and not to employees? If I want to made changes, I have to talk to the Union. I’m not
going to let the Union make unreasonable demands.”
An employee followed up with a question, “Why not bargain in good faith with the Union.
It sounds like a threat.” Dolan responded, “It’s not a threat, it’s a reality. The company needs to
change, and the Union is not conducive to change. About the technology itself, it’s not a threat
to leave Brooklyn behind because the Union won’t let me change.”
Another employee then commented, “I don’t want to be left behind—I buy into a ‘wait a
year.’ I don’t want to be associated with Brooklyn.”
The General Counsel and Charging Party contend that Dolan’s remarks, as set forth
above, reveal two separate unlawful threats of reprisal. The first alleged violation is based on
Dolan’s statement that if the Union comes in, Cablevision values signs come down since that
results in a “relationship between you and the Union, and not between you and Cablevision.”
The Cablevision values that Dolan stated would be no longer be in effect, if the Union
wins, included, “fair and respectful treatment, direct access to management, safe and clean
working environment, an opportunity for training and development, salary and benefits that are
fair and competitive, tools and equipment necessary for the proper performance of your job, fair
procedures for promotional opportunities and career growth and opportunities in a growth
environment.”
I agree with General Counsel and Charging Party that Dolan’s remarks about taking
these values down, in the event that the Union comes in, represents unlawful threats to reduce
benefits and of more onerous working conditions because employees select the Union to
represent them in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. BP Amoco Chemical, 351 NLRB 614,
616-618 (2007) (threat of loss of benefits); Venture Industries, 330 NLRB 1133, 1139 (2000)
(threat of loss of promotional opportunities); K-Mart Corp., 336 NLRB 455 (2001) (threat of loss
of work opportunities); United Artists Theatre, 279 NLRB 115, 121 (1985) (threat of stricter
working conditions); National Micronetics, 277 NLRB 993, 1005 (1985) (threat of loss of
promotion); L’ Eggs Products Inc., 236 NLRB 354, 383-389 (1978) (threats of more onerous
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
200
working conditions and loss of benefits); NLRB v. General Fabrications Corp., 222 F.3d 218,
231 (6th Cir. 2000) (changes in work rules and working conditions if employees select a union);
General Electric Co., 246 NLRB 1103, 1106 (1979) (threat of loss of training and job
opportunities).
Respondent argues that Dolan’s comments cannot be considered unlawful or even proof
of animus since they merely are accurate statements of the law, in that it must bargain with the
Union about many of the items in the Cablevision values, such as wages, training, promotions,
tools/equipment, and that it cannot pledge to provide employees with direct access to
management but must deal with the Union as the representative of the employees and may not
deal directly with employees. Thus, Respondent argues that taking down the Cablevision values
are not unlawful since it plainly states the realities associated with a union. Glens Falls
Newspaper, 303 NLRB 614, 622 (1991); Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 244 NLRB 1015,
1018, 1021 (1979).
The fact that Respondent is obligated to bargain over some or even most of the items in
its values that it took down does not mean that it is privileged to eliminate or reduce them
merely because the Union is not the bargaining representative. I find that is the clear message
from Dolan’s remarks.
I also note some of the values, for example, fair and respectful treatment is such an
obvious term and condition of employment that is not likely to be undermined by any
negotiations with a union. The fact that Respondent is required to bargain over many of the
items in Respondent’s values does not privilege Respondent to threaten to change or eliminate
them based on its obligation to bargain with the Union. I note that Dolan did not explain the
economic realities of collective bargaining or explain why the employees would lose these
benefits. Thus, the message to employees was that if the Union was elected employees would
lose benefits at the start of negotiations, and the Union would be forced to get them back. BP
Amoco Chemical, supra; Webco Industries, 327 NLRB 172 fn. 4 (1998); Taylor-Dunn Mfg. Co.,
252 NLRB 799, 800 (1980), enfd. 679 F.2d 900 (9th Cir. 1982).
The cases cited by Respondent43 do not support Respondent position that Dolan’s
conduct was lawful and are clearly distinguishable from the facts here. I, therefore, conclude
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Dolan’s comments that Respondent
would take down Cablevision’s values in the event that the Union comes in.
It is also alleged, and I agree, that Dolan’s comments to the Bronx employees in the
question and answer session that Respondent intended to leave the Brooklyn employees
behind and his related comments and explanations represent an unlawful threat of loss of
training opportunities for the Bronx employees, if they chose to unionize.
I conclude that the threat to leave the Brooklyn employees behind in the context of
discussion of training opportunities represents an implicit threat that the same fate awaited the
Bronx employees should they too select to be represented by the Union. Such comments by
Dolan violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Baptist Medical Center, 338 NLRB 346, 388 (2002)
(threat that employees would not receive complete training); St. Vincent’s Hospital, 344 NLRB
84, 91 (1979) (threat of loss of opportunity for on-the-job training); General Electric, supra, 246
NLRB at 1105 (threat of loss of training and job opportunity). See also SKC Electric Inc., 350
NLRB 857, 872 (2007) (denying training opportunities based on union activity violative of 8(a)(1)

43 Glens Falls, supra and Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, supra.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
201
and (3) of the Act). Accord Scott-New Madrid-Mississippi Electric Cooperative, 323 NLRB 421,
423 (1997) and International Paper Co., 313 NLRB 280 (1993).
Respondent argues that Dolan’s comments, particularly in light of his further explanation,
were not unlawful but were restatements of Respondent’s legal obligations or descriptions of
possible consequences of unionization. United Rentals Inc., 349 NLRB 190, 190-191 (2007)
(employer did not violate 8(a)(1) when it told employee that it would discuss employee’s job
classification in the future if the union was not elected since “truthful statements that identify for
employees the changes unionization will bring inform employee free choice, which is protected
by Section 7 and the statements are protected by Section (c)”); Flexsteel Industries, 311 NLRB
257 (1993) (employer did not violate 8(a)(1) but lawfully stated, “what could lawfully happen
during the give and take of bargaining” when it told employees that present benefits could be
lost “and company could not unilaterally give a wage increase”); Oxford Pickles, 190 NLRB 109
(1971) (accurate statements of law and facts do not amount to implied threats” violation of
Section 8(a)(1)).
Respondent further argues that Dolan’s responses to the question merely replied that
Respondent had a legal obligation to negotiate with the Union in Brooklyn before it would
introduce new technology there. Dolan also made clear that he was not threatening employees
and he “lawfully provided accurate factual information to employees in an effort to inform them
of the dynamic changes occurring at Cablevision to improve customer service and employee
morale.”
Once again, I cannot agree with Respondent’s contentions and find that the cases that it
has cited are not dispositive and distinguishable.
The cited cases privilege Respondent when it makes accurate statements of the law and
facts in its comments about possible effects of unionization. Here, I find that Dolan’s comments
did not reflect “accurate” statements of the law or facts. Nothing in the law requires of even
suggests that unionization would results in employees being “left behind” by being deprived of
training opportunities (which were given to all non-represented employees of Respondent),
simply because the employees were now represented by the Union.
Dolan’s explanatory comments did not accurately explain the bargaining process in that
benefits could be lost during the give and take of bargaining, or simply inform employees that
Respondent was obligated to bargain with the Union about training or technological changes.
Rather, he unequivocally stated, “Why would I train and invest in our employees when I have to
relate to the Union and not to employees? If I want to make changes, I have to talk to the Union.
I am not going to let the Union make unreasonable demands.” When an employee stated that
Dolan’s comments sounded like a threat, Dolan responded, “It’s not a threat, it’s a reality. The
company needs to change, and the Union is not conducive to change. About the technology
itself, it’s not a threat to leave Brooklyn behind because the Union won’t let me change.”
Dolan provided no explanation or proof that the Union was going to make unreasonable
demands or that the Union wouldn’t let Respondent make the changes it wishes to make
concerning technology.
To the extent that his comments can be construed as a “prediction” of the consequences
of unionization, they must be based on objective facts to convey the employees’ belief as to
demonstrably probably consequences beyond the employee’s control. NLRB v. Gissel Packing
Co., 395 US 575 (1969); UPS Supply Chain, 357 NLRB #106 slip op at 3 (2011). Here,
Respondent distorted the reality of the collective bargaining process. A union cannot impose
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
202
terms on an employer and had no power to ‘not let me change’ as Respondent informed
employees. Rather, an employer and the union have equal roles in negotiating an agreement.
Aldworth Co., 338 NLRB 137, 143 (2002). Thus, Dolan’s comments proffered a worst case
scenario, equating choice of the Union and loss of training opportunities. Aldworth, supra.
Indeed, subsequent events in Brooklyn with respect to training only serve to reinforce
the inaccuracy of Dolan’s remarks. As will be detailed more fully below, Respondent instituted
training on smart meters for Brooklyn employees briefly and then stopped that training, both
without bargaining with or notifying the Union. The legality of that conduct will be discussed
more fully below.
However, once the decision was made to stop the training for Brooklyn employees, the
Union, during bargaining, continually pressed Respondent to reinstate it for Brooklyn employees
since it had instituted the training for other similar employees throughout the footprint. However,
it was Respondent, who refused to do so, asserting that since they were bargaining with the
Union, it would not agree to the training for the Brooklyn employees, unless the Union agreed to
other proposals of Respondent involving discipline and other matters. Thus, it was not the
Union, who wouldn’t let Respondent change, but Respondent itself, who wouldn’t institute the
changes that it had instituted elsewhere and had, in fact, initially instituted in Brooklyn, even
though the Union urged Respondent to do so.
Although these events occurred subsequent to Dolan’s comments, I believe that they are
relevant to my assessment of whether Dolan’s remarks in June represented a good faith and
accurate statement of the law and the facts as Respondent contends. I conclude that these
events support my conclusion, as detailed above, that they were not.
Further, Respondent’s reliance on Dolan’s statements that his comments were not a
threat but “it’s a reality” is misplaced. Such self-serving statements and characterizations of
statements as reality and not a threat are insufficient to make lawful, otherwise, threatening
comments, which reasonably could be perceived as threatening. K-Mart Corp., supra, 336
NLRB at 456.
I, therefore, find that Respondent threatened Bronx employees with loss of training in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
B. The Brooklyn Related Allegations
1. The Alleged Unlawful Direction of Employees to Cease Engaging in Union Activities
This allegation related to the events at Respondent’s 92nd Street location on January 24,
2013. The facts, which are undisputed, inasmuch as supervisor Darryl Gaines did not testify,
established that on that morning, McDaniel Paul was transporting new employees from 96th
Street facility to its 45th Street facility for training due to start at 8:00 AM. Paul stopped off at
Respondent’s 92nd Street facility, where the union representatives were giving out t-shirts and
speaking to employees.
The van arrived at about 7:43 AM. Paul parked the van and approached the union
officials. He informed Calabrese that he had some new hires in the van. Calabrese replied that
he would like to meet them. Paul then signaled to the employees to come out. Three or four
employees came out and approached Paul and Calabrese. Calabrese told the employees
welcome and informed them that they could pick up a t-shirt. At that moment, supervisor Gaines
appeared and addressed Paul and the other employees. Gaines ordered the workers to get
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
203
back in the van. Gaines turned to Paul and said to him, “You can’t do this. These are my guys, I
own them.” Gaines then instructed Paul to get back into the van and drive off.
Paul and the employees complied with Gaines’s instructions and directions without
comment. Neither Paul nor the employees took the t-shirts offered by Calabrese or had any
further discussions with Calabrese or anyone else from Respondent.
Paul noted that the employees in the van were not paid prior to 8:00 AM and were,
therefore, not on work time when Gaines ordered them to “get back” in the van.
General Counsel and Charging Party contend that Gaines’s conduct constituted an
unlawful direction to employees not to engage in union activities, particularly since they were on
non-work time and in non-work areas at the time. Rivers Casino, 356 NLRB #142 slip op at 1
(2011) (prohibiting off-duty employee from passing out union t-shirts in non-work area during
non-work time unlawful); Nashville Plastic Products, 313 NLRB 462, 463 (1993) (prohibiting off-
duty employees from engaging in union activities on premises violative of Section 8(a)(1); PSK
Supermarkets, 349 NLRB 34, 36 (2007) (employee’s direction to employee not to speak to
anyone from the union, violative of the Act); Airport 2000 Concessions LLC, 346 NLRB 958, 959
(2006) (prohibition of speaking to anyone from the union).
I agree and find that the facts establish that Gaines directed employees, who were not
on working time or in working areas to cease union activities that they were engaging in.
Respondent argues that no violation should be found inasmuch as there was no explicit
direction by Gaines that the employees not engage in union activities and that Respondent was
entitled to order the employees to return to the van, so that they could be on time for their 8:00
AM start time. However, whether or not Gaines explicitly told the employees not to talk to the
union representatives or to accept a union t-shirt is in my view immaterial. In fact, the
employees were openly engaged in union activity, and Gaines obviously knew that they were so
engaged when he saw them talking with Calabrese. Thus, by ordering them back to the van and
telling Paul, “You can’t do this, these are my guys, I own them,” Gaines was clearly referring to
union activities by the employees and Paul, and the employees so reasonably perceived.
Respondent’s further contention that Gaines was simply trying to get employees back to
work, so that they could be on time for their training is misplaced. First of all, Gaines did not
testify, thus, an adverse inference is appropriate that if he testified, his testimony would not
support Respondent’s position. It is, thus, appropriate to conclude, which I do, that Gaines was
simply ordering the employees not to engage in union activities since “he owns them.” Further,
the facts, as detailed above, establish that the employees in the van were not on working time,
regardless of Gaines’s motivation, and Respondent cannot prohibit them from engaging in union
activities during that time. Rivers Casino, supra.
I find it inappropriate to speculate as Respondent contends that employees would have
been late for their training had they not left immediately as ordered by Gaines. The fact is that
Paul arrived at 45th Street facility at 7:55 AM, five minutes early after leaving 92nd Street.
Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
Gaines’s conduct.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
204
2. The Alleged Surveillance
This allegation related to the events at a rally and press conference held on February 7,
2013 at Madison Square Garden held by the Union with various political candidates present,
along with 22 employees allegedly discharged by Respondent on January 30 and other
employees and union officials.
Marlon Gayle and Clarence Adams were two of the allegedly terminated employees, and
Gayle testified that he and Adams traveled together to the rally.
Gayle further testified that he ran into an individual, who he recognized as a security
officer of Respondent, and noticed that this individual had a phone in his hand and appeared to
be taking a picture of Adams and Gayle. Gayle asserts that he said to Adams, “Clarence, we
are on camera, smile and look over.” Adams, according to Gayle, said, “What?” and by that
time, the individual was on his phone talking to someone.
Gayle further testified that he informed Calabrese that the security guard was the one
that he believed was “taking pictures of us.”
Calabrese did not corroborate Gayle’s testimony concerning what Gayle allegedly
informed him on that day or even that he had a discussion with Gayle on that day or at any time
about the alleged picture taking.
Calabrese did testify to a conversation that he did have with Harry Hughes, who he knew
to be a security officer of Respondent, wherein Calabrese accused Hughes of surveillance of
the workers because he was there observing. Hughes denied surveilling the workers and
replied, “No, I’m not, there is an event, and I work here.”
Hughes admitted that he was present at the event as part of his job to observe and file a
report, subsequently reflecting “union demonstration without incident” and also indicating that
there were 17 replaced Brooklyn workers there, plus some political candidates and union
officials. Hughes denied that he took a picture of any employees on that day and noted that if he
had, the picture would have been attached to his report, which reflected “no attachments
included.”
I also note that Adams, who testified about other matters, did not testify about this
incident, so he did not corroborate Gayle’s version of the events on that day, particularly Gayle’s
alleged statement to Adams that their pictures were being taken.
Based on the above facts, General Counsel and Charging Party contend that these facts
establish that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by photographing or appearing to photograph
employees. Cobb Mechanicals Contractors, 356 NLRB #96 slip op 1-2 (2011).
I do not agree.
I find the evidence insufficient to establish a violation of the Act. I conclude that even if
Gayle’s testimony is credited, it is insufficient inasmuch as it does not prove that Hughes either
took a photograph or appeared to do so. Rather, his testimony establishes at best that Hughes
held his phone up, and Gayle “believed” his photo was being taken but admits that seconds
later, Hughes was on the phone talking to someone. It is just as reasonable to conclude that
Hughes was simply holding up the phone to check the phone for the number before making a
call than taking a photograph since it is General Counsel’s burden to prove its use. I found that it
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
205
had failed to do so.
Furthermore, I credit Hughes’s testimony that he did not take a photograph, particularly
in view of the facts that his report did not contain a photograph.
Finally, I also note the failure of both Adams and Calabrese to corroborate Gayle’s
testimony with respect to this incident.
I, therefore, recommend dismissal of the allegation of the complaint.44
3. The Alleged Threat of Futility
This allegation relates to Levesque’s comments to Hendrickson on January 31, 2013.
After their discussion of the events of January 30, 2013, Levesque suggested that Hendrickson
might consider becoming a supervisor, which Hendrickson rejected.
Levesque then commented that Hendrickson and the Union “were leading the people
down a rabbit hole, where they would not have a way out because they company wasn’t going
to give us (the Union) anything at the table, anything different than what they gave to anybody
else, except that we were going to bargain for it one piece at a time.”
I conclude that Levesque’s comments constituted unlawful threats of futility because it
conveyed “to employees that the outcome of negotiations between the Union and the
Respondent was foreordained.” Smithfield Foods, 347 NLRB 1225, 1229 (2006) (statements by
employer that “this plant will continue to get pay and benefits similar to the other plants, not
more, not less”); Baptist Medical Center, 338 NLRB 346, 392 (2002) (statement by employer
supervisor that “there really wasn’t any room left for the nurses to get any more money than
they had or were currently getting”); Webco Industries, 327 NLRB 172, 180, 189 (1998), enfd. in
relev part 217 F.3d 1306, 1317 (10th Cir. 2000) (statement by supervisor that if the union was
voted in, respondent, “wouldn’t give the employees any more than what we would negotiate
for”); Aqua Cool, 332 NLRB 95 (2000) (employees were unlikely to win anything more (any
more, any less) at the bargaining table than the bulk of the respondent’s employees); St.
Vincent’s Hospital, 244 NLRB 84, 92 (1979) (any new or improved benefit the union secured for
employees in negotiations would be offset by a loss or reduction in current benefits enjoyed by
employees).
Respondent spent much of its brief in an attempt to convince me to discredit
Hendrickson and credit Levesque’s denials of the statements that I have found above that
Levesque made. I reject Respondent’s contentions in this regard and credit Hendrickson that
Levesque made the disputed comments. In addition to the reasons that I set forth in the Facts
Section for this decision, I also note that Hendrickson is a current employee, and as noted
above, his testimony, contrary to his supervisor, is likely to be particularly reliable. Farris

44 Cobb Mechanical, supra cited by General Counsel is not dispositive. While I note that the
Board reversed an ALJ, who dismissed a similar allegation based on similar reasoning (i.e.
possibility of other reasonable explanations for the alleged “appearance” of photographing an
employee). The Board did not reverse the ALJ’s finding in this regard. Rather, it found a
violation with respect to other undisputed testimony of another incident, wherein the employer’s
operations manager appeared with a “regular camera” and was “taking pictures of us.” It was
based on that undisputed testimony, which the judge had ignored, that the Board found a
violation.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
206
Fashions, supra, 312 NLRB at 554; Flexsteel Industries, supra, 316 NLRB at 745.
Respondent also argues alternatively that even if Hendrickson is credited that no
violation should be found, citing Alamo Rent-A-Car, 338 NLRB 275, 276 (2002), where the
Board in a 2-1 decision (Member Liebman dissenting) reversed an ALJ’s finding that statements
by a supervisor was merely explaining the employer’s current benefits to employees and when
she added, “That the same benefits that we have in the FAMPACT, we have vacation, we have
medical plan, we have 401(k), all the benefits we have in FAMPACT will be the same benefit
that the union will negotiate for us. That is just like the contract the union will get for us,” the Act
was not violated.
The majority opinion reasoned as follows:
Nowhere in this credited testimony is there the slightest suggestion that the Respondent
would not negotiate in good faith with the Union about the various benefits mentioned or
that the Union could not secure a different or better benefits package through
bargaining. Soyk’s personal prediction about the results of bargaining cannot reasonably
be viewed as a threat that no other outcome would be possible. We dismiss this
complaint allegation.
I find that, although the findings in this case are somewhat supportive of Respondent’s
position that no violation should be found, the facts are different, and in my view, Levesque’s
comments here, contrary to the Alamo Rent-A-Car opinion further comments, reasonably
suggested a cap on what could be obtained in good faith bargaining. Id fn. 6 at 276.
Furthermore, I find the majority opinion in Alamo Rent-A-Car seriously flawed inasmuch
as it stresses the supervisor’s “personal opinion” about the results of bargaining, which is hardly
a relevant defense in my view. I conclude that more dispositive precedent are the cases that I
have cited above, particularly Smithfield Foods, supra, a more recent case than Alamo Rent-A-
Car, as well as Baptist Medical Center, supra; Aqua Cool, supra; Webco, supra; and St.
Vincent’s Hospital, supra.
I, therefore, find that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Levesque’s
comments to Hendrickson since comments are a threat of futility and are “inconsistent with good
faith bargaining and tend to coerce employees.” Smithfield Foods, supra, at 1229.
4. The Alleged Unlawful Changes Concerning Training of Smart Meters
The parties have stipulated that on July 15, 2013, Respondent provided its technicians in
Brooklyn with training on smart meters without notifying or bargaining with the Union. It is also
undisputed that the training on smart meters had been instituted previously for technicians
throughout the footprint and that the use of meters had implications with respect to discipline
and possibly wage increases.
In such circumstances, there can be no question, and in fact, Respondent concedes and
admits that it was obligated to notify and bargain with the Union before it instituted such training.
Crittenton Hospital, 343 NLRB 717, 741 (2004); King Soopers, 340 NLRB 628, 628-629 (2003).
While Respondent admits that it violated the Act by unilaterally instituting this training, it
argues that no violation should be found with respect to this conduct since Respondent a week
later rescinded the policy and restored the status quo. Thus, it argues that by its subsequent
action, it cured the violated and dismissal of the allegation is warranted.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
207
Respondent argues as follows:
Well-established NLRB law holds that it is unnecessary to order restoration of the
status quo where unilateral changes have already been rescinded and the Employer has
voluntarily cured the violation by its subsequent acts. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 286 NLRB
219, 224 (1987) ("I will not order Respondent to restore the status quo by rescinding its
unilateral changes for the reasons that it has already rescinded most if not all of the
changes..."). In these circumstances, the Board has found that no remedy is necessary.
See River's Bend Health and Rehab. Serv., 350 NLRB 184, 193 (2007) (where employer
unilaterally increased prices of employee lunch and dinner and subsequently rescinded
the increases via memo to employees, the Board found no remedy was necessary); see
also Kendall Call. of Art and Design, 288 NLRB 1205, 1213 (1988); Borgess Med. Ctr.,
342 NLRB 1105, 1006-07 (1987).
Here, it is plain under this precedent that no remedy is necessary. Upon realizing
the ramifications of the training and use of the "smart" meter, Cablevision cured the
unilateral change within one week of starting the training by returning to the status quo
and bargaining with the CWA. The bargaining began at the next bargaining session,
August 15, 2013, and is continuing in the context of bargaining over all the potential
ramifications of the introduction of the "smart" meter, including discipline and discharge,
salary and career progression, and management rights.
In these circumstances, NLRB precedent mandates dismissal of the charge.
I disagree.
I find that Respondent’s actions of rescinding the training two weeks after it was
instituted on August 1, 2013 by Levesque’s letter to the employees as well as Kauff’s email to
the Union fall far short of meeting the requirements of Passavant Memorial Hospital, 237 NLRB
138 (1978) to cure Respondent’s violation of the Act. See Claremont Resort & Spa, 344 NLRB
832, 839 (2005). I note that there is no admission in either of these documents that Respondent
violated the law of the employees’ rights by unilaterally instituting the training. It merely
commented that Respondent realized “that we got ahead of ourselves” when it instiuted the
training while it was bargaining with the Union over terms of a new contract.
Nor did Respondent implicitly or explicitly agree that it would not interfere with employee
rights or fail to notify the Union about any future training or other changes in terms and
conditions of employment. River’s Bend, supra, 350 NLRB at 193 (2007), is not to the contrary
and is clearly distinguishable from the instant matter.
There, the Board affirmed a judge’s dismissal of a complaint allegation that an employer
unilaterally increased prices of meals of employees by 75 cents. The judge found that the
employer rescinded the increase by posting a memo, reflecting that the NLRB, pursuant to the
union, had found the price increases to be unlawful and did not bargain with the Union and that
the Region requested that respondent return the meal prices that were previously in effect and
reimburse any employees the difference in prices to any employees, who purchased meals
since the increase was in effect.
The judge concluded that given “the relatively minor importance of the 75 cents price
increase” that the employer’s memo was sufficient to cure the violation, even though some
Passavant requirements were not met. He concluded further that the memo “at least implicitly
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
208
conceded that the price increases violated the Act due to Respondent’s failure to bargain with
the union and implicitly provides assurances that respondent will not increase prices in the
future without bargaining.”
However, here, as I observed above, no such implicit assurances can be derived from
Respondent’s comments to the Union or to the employees. Further, this violation can be
construed as “minor” since based on Respondent’s own assertions, the training could
reasonably affect discipline, wage increases and promotional opportunities for employees.
Finally, the violation cannot be construed as cured since, as I conclude below,
Respondent’s decision to cancel the training without notifying and providing the Union with an
opportunity to bargain about that decision is further violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act.
In that regard, once Respondent had unilaterally made the change by instituting this
change, it became a condition of employment of its employees (regardless of whether it should
have bargained about it initially). In such circumstances, Respondent was obligated to notify
and bargain with the Union about its decision to cancel the training before it instituted that
change just as it is obligated to do so before it makes any other changes in terms and
conditions of employment of its employees. Albuquerque Phoenix Express, 153 NLRB 430, 441
(1965).
Indeed, subsequent events, i.e. the positions during bargaining on this issue, serve to
highlight and support this conclusion.
As detailed above in the Facts Section, in several bargaining sessions, including the one
immediately after the cancellation of the training, the Union requested that Respondent
reinstitute the training and chastised Respondent for not notifying the Union about these matters
as in the past when they made such changes.
Respondent’s response by Kauff was that the Union had filed charges with the Board
about these issues, and it would respond there. The Union continued to urge Respondent to go
ahead with the training and stated that it had no objection to it.
Kauff answered that since the training involves discipline and other issues, Respondent
believes that it requires an overall agreement and, in effect, stated that Respondent will not
resume training until it has a comprehensive collective bargaining agreement.
The Union was not satisfied with this explanation, continued to urge Respondent to
reinstitute the training, pointing out among other things that OSC employees, also in the
bargaining unit, had these meters and is still using them. Kauff replied that although the OSC
employees did have meters, they are different meters and the performance implications are
different. When asked what the differences were, Kauff refused to answer and said he would tell
it to the NLRB.
Based on the above evidence, it is clear that the Union, at all times, was in favor of
Respondent instituting the training for its Brooklyn technicians as it did with other employees
throughout the footprint. Therefore, had Respondent complied with its obligation to notify the
Union in advance about its intention to institute the training, the Union would have consented,
and there would have been no violations and no charges about these issues.
Respondent, however, chose not to do that and then compounded its violations by
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
209
cancelling the training once more without notifying the Union about that decision in advance as
it was obligated to do. Had it done so, once again, the Union would have protested this action
and urged Respondent to proceed with the training for the Brooklyn technicians as it did with the
employees in the rest of the footprint. At that point, Respondent could have simply not cancelled
the training since again the Union would have consented to the unlawful unilateral change and
the matter would have been mooted.
Respondent, however, chose not to pursue that route and comply with its obligation to
notify the Union about changes in conditions of employment because, in my view, it knew full
well that the Union would agree to the training, and Respondent preferred to cancel the training
and use the issue as a wedge in bargaining to compel the Union to accept other parts of its
proposals.
Accordingly, I conclude based on the foregoing analysis that Respondent had violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by cancelling the training for technicians without notifying and
affording the Union an opportunity to bargain about that decision.
The General Counsel and Charging Party also contend that Levesque’s August 1, 2013
memo to employees, wherein he explained the reasons for Respondent's decision to cancel the
training for its Brooklyn technicians was violative of Section 8(a)(1) since it implied that the
Union was responsible for the cancellation of the training. Kentucky Fried Chicken, 341 NLRB
69, 69-70 (2004); RTP Corp., 334 NLRB 466, 467 (2001), enfd. 315 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2003);
Grouse Mountain Lodge, 333 NLRB 1322, 1323 (2001); Hillhaven Rehabilitation, 325 NLRB
202, 220 (1997).
Respondent disagrees, contending that Levesque’s memo “did nothing more than supply
the employees with an accurate, non-threatening update on the status of negotiations and
relations with the Union” and that this allegation should be dismissed.
I agree with General Counsel and Charging Party that Levesque’s memo places the
onus on the Union for Respondent’s decision to cancel the training for the technicians. Grouse
Mountain Lodge, supra, 333 NLRB at 1323, 1324.
Here, Levesque explained Respondent’s decision to cancel the training after informing
its employees that it had increased salaries across the board and in conjunction with that,
Respondent wanted its new salary structure to reflect the new demands. These demands
include, according to Levesque, “training on new skills and equipment, such as training and
equipment.” Levesque then further explained as follows:
Brooklyn employees recently began training on new meters but we quickly realized we
got ahead of ourselves. The Company and the CWA are continuing to negotiate a whole
array of topics including performance management, compensation, promotions and of
course, training. Because these issues are all linked and thus practically required to be
resolved together in negotiations, we are holding off on this training for now.
We apologize for the confusion around canceling the recent training. No one is more
interested in resolving these issues with the CWA than us. We want all of you to be able
to come to work and know the terms you are working under. We are pressing ahead with
collective bargaining and we hope to achieve a comprehensive agreement soon.
However, I find, as I have detailed above, Levesque’s comments to not be an accurate
statement of the law but misleading and unlawfully placing the onus on the Union for the
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
210
cancellation of the training. Levesque’s statement that those issues, training, promotions,
compensation and discipline are “all linked and thus practically required to be resolved together
in negotiations” is simply not accurate or correct. As I noted above, the Union could have, would
have, and, in fact, did consent to the training irrespective of the other issues that needed to be
bargained. Indeed, as I also related above, had the Respondent complied with its statutory
obligations to notify and bargain with the Union about its decision to both implement and cancel
the training, the Union would have agreed to the training. I note that this was training that
Respondent instituted throughout the footprint and that it felt that it was a sound business
decision to institute the training for everyone.
Thus, the issues were not required to be resolved together in negotiations, but were
merely Respondent’s position in bargaining.
I, therefore, conclude the memorandum had the effect of telling employees that but for
the Union’s presence, they would have obtained the benefits, i.e. training earlier. Grouse
Mountain Lodge, supra.
Based on the above analysis and precedent, I find that Respondent had further violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The Alleged Surface Bargaining
Under Section 8(d) of the Act, an employer and its employees’ representative are
mutually required to "meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment ... but such obligation does not compel
either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a consession …” "Both the employer
and the union have a duty to negotiate with a sincere purpose to find a basis of agreement,’”
Atlanta Hilton & Tower, 271 NLRB 1600, 1603 (1984) (quoting NLRB v. Herman Sausage Co.,
275 F.2d 229, 231 (5th Cir. 1960)), but "the Board cannot force an employer to make a
'concession' on any specific issue or to adopt any particular position." Id. (quoting NLRB v. Reed
& Prince Mfg. Co., 205 F.3d 131, 134 (1st Cir. 1953), cert. denied 346 U.S. 887 (1953)). The
employer is, nonetheless, "obliged to make some reasonable effort in some direction to
compose his differences with the union, if [Section] 8(a)(5) is to be read as imposing any
subtantial obligation at all." Ibid. (Emphasis in original.) Therefore, "mere pretense at
negotiations with a completely closed mind and without a spirit of cooperation does not satisfy
the requirements of the Act." Mid-Continent Concrete, 336 NLRB 258, 259 (2001), enfd. sub
nom. NLRB v. Hardesty Co., 308 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting NLRB v. Wonder State
Mfg.Co., 344 F.2d 210 (8th Cir. 1965)). A violation may be found where the employer will only
reach an agreement on its own terms and none other. Id.; Pease Co., 237 NLRB 1069, 1070
(1978).
In determining whether a party has violated its statutory obligation to bargain in good
faith, the Board examines the totality of the party's conduct, both at and away from the
bargaining table. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (PSO), 334 NLRB 487 (2001), enfd. 318 F.3d
1173 (10th Cir. 2003); Overnite Transportation Co., 296 NLRB 669, 671 (1989), enfd. 938 F.2d
815 (7th Cir. 1991); Atlanta Hilton & Tower, supra, at 1603. From the context of the party's total
conduct, the Board must decide whether the party is engaging in hard but lawful bargaining to
achieve a contract that it considers desirable or is unlawfully endeavoring to frustrate the
possibility of arriving at any agreement. PSO, 334 NLRB at 487.
The Board considers several factors when evaluating a party's conduct for evidence of
surface bargaining. These include delaying tactics, the nature of the bargaining demands,
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
211
unilateral changes in mandatory subjects of bargaining, efforts to bypass the union, failure to
designate an agent with sufficient bargaining authority, withdrawal of already-agreed-upon
provisions, and arbitrary scheduling of meetings. Atlanta Hilton & Tower, supra, at 1603. It has
never been required that a respondent must have engaged in each of those enumerated
activities before it can be concluded that bargaining has not been conducted in good faith.
Altorfer Machinery Co., 332 NLRB 130, 148 (2000). Indeed, avoidance of the statutory
bargaining obligation can be demonstrated without engaging in wholesale and wide-ranging
activities in every one of these areas; rather, a respondent will be found to have violated the Act
when its conduct in its entirety reflects an intention on its part to avoid reaching an agreement.
See id. at 130 fn. 2.
The complaint, here, alleges that Respondent engaged in “surface bargaining with no
intent to reaching agreement” from May 30, 2012 through March 4, 2013 by nine specifically
enumerated actions and by its overall conduct, including the above described nine instances of
unlawful conduct, by which Respondent has failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the
Union.
Thus, the complaint alleges that each of the nine enumerated examples of unlawful
conduct are independent violations of the Act as well as indications of overall surface
bargaining, I have considered these assertions below and will assess whether they are
independent violations of the Act and/or if they are not, whether they can be construed as
evidence of or indicia of surface bargaining. Universal Fuel, 358 NLRB #150 slip op 1 (2012).
A. The Alleged Refusal to Meet at Reasonable Times
Although the complaint alleges a refusal to meet at reasonable times by Respondent
from May 30, 2012 through March 4, 2013, General Counsel asserts in a bill of particulars
response, and somewhat amended at trial, that it was asserting that the refusal to meet at
reasonable times by Respondent was through the end of September of 2012 and that,
thereafter, Respondent satisfied its obligation to meet with sufficient regularity.
Respondent asserts that in view of the fact that the charge, herein, was not filed until
January 25, 2013, Section 10(b) bars an unfair labor practice finding based on events prior to
July 25, 2012. Accordingly, Respondent argues that the period at issue regarding the frequency
of meetings is only July 25, 2012 through the end of September, a period of little over two
months.
I disagree.
Where as here, the surface bargaining allegations include an overall bad faith allegation
and the refusal to meet at reasonable times is one part of that allegation and the refusal to meet
encompasses conduct both prior to and after commencement of the 10(b) period that
consideration of events occurring prior to the start of the 10(b) period if appropriate to consider
in assessing post-10(b) conduct. Fruehauf Trailer Services, 335 NLRB 393, fn. 5, 404-405
(2001); Regency Service Carts, supra, 345 NLRB at 675 fn. 5; Tennessee Construction Co.,
308 NLRB 763, fn. 2 (1992).
I shall, therefore, evaluate Respondent’s conduct in scheduling meetings from the date
of certification through the end of September 2012.
General Counsel and Charging Party assert that the evidence, as detailed above in the
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
212
Facts Section, discloses that Respondent failed to satisfy its obligation to meet at reasonable
times inasmuch as it agreed to meet on the average of once a month during this period of time.
Calex Corp., 322 NLRB 977 (1997); Caribe Staple Co., 313 NLRB 877, 893 (1994); Regency
Service Carts, supra, 345 NLRB at 673, Fern Terrance Lodge, 297 NLRB 8, 17 (1989).
This precedent as well as other Board cases condemns similar conduct of employers,
wherein a policy of meeting only once a month has been held to be insufficient to meet its
obligation to meet at reasonable times. People Care Inc., 327 NLRB 814, 825 (1999); Bryant &
Stratton Business Institute, 321 NLRB 1007, 1042 (1996); Radisson Plaza, 307 NLRB 94, 96
(1992).
However, none of these cases establish an automatic rule concerning the number of
meetings required in any particular period and an examination of them disclose their analysis of
facts involved to determine why the parties met so infrequently, and particularly, whether the
Union objected to or protested the infrequency of the meetings.
Here, upon examination of all the relevant facts, both outside and inside the 10(b)
period, concerning the scheduling of meetings, I am in agreement with Respondent that the
facts do not demonstrate an unreasonable or unlawful delay by it in this regard.
I note that the Union sent its initial bargaining request to Respondent on February 24,
2012 (three weeks after the certification) and added that it intended to send an information
request to Respondent via a separate correspondence.
Respondent responded by letter from its attorney on March 6, 2012 and reminded the
Union that Respondent had still not received the information request that the Union had stated
on February 24, 2012 that it was sending and asked that it be forwarded so that Respondent
could prepare a response and negotiations could proceed “in the near future.”
The Union, thereafter, failed to respond to the letter until March 23, 2012, wherein it
included a four-page information request and suggested 18 dates of availability between April
17 and May 31 of 2012.
Model responded by letter on April 18, 2012, wherein he offered to meet on May 30 and
May 31, 2012 and that due to the voluminous nature of the information request submitted by the
Union, Respondent will provide it by May 9, three weeks before the commencement of
negotiations.
Gallagher replied by letter on April 24, 2012, agreeing to meet on May 30 and May 31,
2012. Model responded on May 8, 2012, stating that Respondent did not believe that meeting
two days in a row would be productive and added, “If the Union believes otherwise, please let
me know at your earliest convenience.”
The next day, May 9, 2012, Model and Gallagher spoke on the phone. Model explained
his reasons for not believing it would be productive to meet two days in a row and that Gallagher
was “fine with that explanation.” The parties agreed to meet on May 30, 2012, and as promised,
Respondent submitted the information requested by the Union on May 9, 2012.
The parties met on May 30, 2012 as scheduled. At the close of the meeting, the parties
discussed scheduling the next meeting. Gallagher stated that the Union could be available any
day in June. After a caucus, Respondent offered June 29 and July 2. Gallagher accepted both
dates. Model replied as he had concerning his prior suggestion of dates. He noted that June 30
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
213
was a Friday and July 2 a Monday. Gallagher agreed to July 2 for the next meeting.
At the close of the July 2 meeting, again Gallagher stated that the Union would be
available any day in July, and Model replied with three possible dates, July 31, August 1 and
August 2, due to vacation schedules, of which the Union could choose one. Gallagher replied,
“Is that all you are offering?” Model replied that Respondent would try to find another date in
July but eventually was unable to do so. Gallagher agreed to meet on July 31.
The parties met on July 31 as scheduled. At the close of this session, the Union asked
for additional meetings. Respondent proposed August 15 and September 14. Model explained
that vacation schedules made it difficult for Respondent to meet prior to August 15 and added
that he was getting married on August 25 and would be on his honeymoon until after Labor Day.
The Union agreed to the two dates proposed by Model without objection and, in fact, kidded
Model about his getting remarried. Significantly, the Union did not propose any other dates in
August or September.
The parties met on August 15 as scheduled. The Union made no request for additional
meetings during the end of this session. As noted, the Union had no problem with the previous
agreement for the next meeting on September 14 and the explanation for the delay (i.e. Model’s
marriage and honeymoon).
The parties met on September 14 as scheduled. At the close of this meeting, Gallagher
commented that the Union wanted to start meeting more times to make progress and asked for
5-6 dates in October.45
The parties met on October 12 as scheduled, and at this meeting, Kauff replaced Model
as Respondent’s chief negotiator. Kauff confirmed the next meeting scheduled for October 26
and offered meetings for November 7 and 27.
At the close of this session, Gallagher agreed to the two dates but added, “I put down
20-25 dates at the start. Model took only one. The Union would like to meet more often and get
to a fair contract, meeting one or two times a month isn’t enough time to move forward.”
There is no dispute that after this meeting and Gallagher’s comments, the parties met
regularly and frequently. In fact, the evidence discloses that for the most part it was Respondent
that pushed for more meetings and, at times, the Union was somewhat reluctant to meet,
particularly during the pendency of and the conducting of the instant trial, even though there
were days during this time period when Respondent was pressing the Union to meet.46
Based on the above facts, I conclude that although the parties did meet approximately
once a month between May and October of 2012 that the Union essentially acquiesced in this
scheduling proposed by Respondent and accepted its explanation for the failure to schedule
more meetings with minimal protest. Thus, although the Union offered a large number of dates
in its initial March 31, 2012 letter, and Model accepted only one, Gallagher accepted Model’s
explanation for not wishing to meet two days in a row and that Respondent was in the process

45 It made no requests for meetings for the remaining days of September. Model offered to
meet on October 12 and October 26, and the Union agreed to both dates.
46 Indeed, the Respondent had even proposed that the parties meet to bargain at a hotel in
Mid-Town New York, close to where the trial was being held, in the evening after the trial ended.
The Union did not agree to that suggestion.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
214
of preparing a response to the Union’s information request.
Again, after the May 30, 2012 meeting, Model suggested two dates, June 30 and July 2,
and gave the same explanation of why it could not meet two days in a row. Gallagher again
agreed to July 2 and made no protest or objection to Respondent’s failure to schedule other
dates. Indeed, the Union sent another information request and asked that it be provided prior to
the July 2 meeting.
Thus, up to that point, the Union had not even hinted that it was dissatisfied with the
frequency of bargaining, other than having requested more dates than Respondent had agreed
upon.
Finally, on July 2, 2012, still outside the 10(b) period, after Model offered three dates for
the next session, from which the Union could choose one, Gallagher, at last, questioned
Respondent about it by asking, “Is that all you are offering?” Model replied that he would try to
get another date in July but was not able to do so.
Notwithstanding that failure, the parties met again on July 31 as scheduled. This was the
first meeting within the 10(b) period. At the close of this session, the Union asked for additional
meetings. Model proposed August 15 and September 14 due to vacation schedules and
Model’s marriage and honeymoon. Significantly, the Union made no protest or complaint about
Respondent continuing its once a month scheduling, acquiescing in Respondent’s explanation.
Similarly, on August 15, the parties met again as scheduled, and the Union made no
requests for additional meetings, including any requests for meetings in September, after Model
returned from his honeymoon.
It was at the September 14 meeting when Gallagher commented for the first time that
the Union wanted to meet more frequently and was seeking 5-6 dates in October. Model
proposed two dates in October, the 12th and 26th, and the Union agreed.
Indeed, it was not until the October 12 meeting when Gallagher vigorously protested the
Respondent’s failure to meet more frequently (to which it had acquiesced, as I have detailed
above) by relating back to the 20-25 dates he had initially offered when Model accepted only
one and stating that meeting once or twice a month is insufficient in the Union’s view. After that
comment and equivocal request for more frequent meetings, as noted, Respondent complied,
and the parties met frequently.
I conclude, therefore, that based on the foregoing that the Union’s failure to protest the
Respondent’s apparent decision to schedule meetings once a month over a seven-month period
and the Union’s acquiescence to Respondent’s explanations of the delays preclude a finding
that Respondent had violated its obligation to meet at reasonable times.
I shall, therefore, recommend dismissal of this allegation of the complaint and also find
that based on the above analysis that Respondent’s scheduling proposals do not constitute an
indicia of bad faith bargaining.
B. The Alleged Refusal to Discuss Economic Terms
An employer violates its statutory obligation to bargain in good faith with a union by
refusing to discuss or negotiate with the union over economic issues until an agreement is
reached on all non-economic matters. John Wanamaker Philadelphia, 279 NLRB 1034 (1986);
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
215
Trumbull Memorial Hospital, 288 NLRB 1429, 1447 (1988); South Shore Hospital, 245 NLRB
848, 858-859 (1979), enfd. 630 F.2d 40, 43 (1st Cir. 1980); Bartlett-Collins Co., 230 NLRB 144,
173 (1977); Adrian Daily Telegraph, 214 NLRB 1103, 1111-1112 (1974); Federal Mogul, 212
NLRB 950 (1974), enfd. 524 F.2d 37, 38 (6th Cir. 1975).
I note that a union violates Section 8(b)(3) of the Act when it engages in similar conduct
during negotiations with an employer. Teamsters, Local 122 (August Busch Co.), 334 NLRB
1190, 1238, 1239 (2001).
Such conduct by an employer or union is construed as creating a “procedural straight
jacket,” which is incompatible with the statutory duty to negotiate in a manner, which facilitates
agreement. Pillowtex Corp., 241 NLRB 40, 47 (1979), enfd. 615 F.2d 917 (5th Cir. 1980); NLRB
v. Patent Trader Inc., 415 F.2d 190, 198 (2nd Cir. 1969); Cal-Pacific Furniture Mfg. Co., 228
NLRB 1337, 1342 (1977).
General Counsel and Charging Party both contend that the principles incorporated in the
above precedent are applicable to Respondent’s conduct here. They argue that although the
Union initially agreed with Model’s suggestion to proceed with discussing non-economic items
first, and then proceed to discuss economic issues, it made clear to Respondent at the time of
the first meeting of May 30, and subsequently, that the Union reserved the right to demand
bargaining on economic issues, if it felt that sufficient progress was not being made. Further,
similar comments were made by the Union representatives throughout the negotiations. I agree
with General Counsel and Charging Party with respect to these contentions, as my factual
findings detailed above reflect.
General Counsel and Charging Party further assert that as of the October 12, 2012
meeting when Kauff took over negotiations, the Union demanded that Respondent start
bargaining over economic issues that Respondent refused to do so and, therefore, continued to
refuse the Union’s continued requests to discuss economic issues until Respondent finally
submitted a comprehensive economic proposal on April 9, 2013 (11 months after bargaining
began). Therefore, they argue that by such conduct Respondent has violated its obligation to
bargain in good faith.
However, my assessment of the facts and Respondent’s conduct between October 12,
2012 and April 9, 2013 does not support the assertions made by General Counsel and Charging
Party. I do not find that the record establishes that Respondent ever unequivocally refused
(subsequent to October 12, 2012)47 to discuss economic issues.
On October 12, 2012, Kauff, after introducing himself as the new chief negotiator,
commented that he had been informed by Model that the parties had agreed to leave
economics to the end. Gallagher responded, “We were proceeding in that way, but we need to
see movement or something getting done, otherwise, we’re going to start wanting to talk about
economics.”

47 Prior to October 12, 2012 when Model was chief negotiator, he frequently would
comment, when going over union proposals, that they were economic and would be discussed
later. The Union did not protest Model’s refusal to discuss further any of these issues nor did it
demand that Respondent discuss any of the economic issues since Model’s comments were
consistent with the Union’s agreement at the first session. The Union would, at times, remind
Model that it did not have a problem proceeding in that fashion, but if things do not progress, the
Union was going to want to talk about economics.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
216
Notwithstanding that comment by Gallagher, the Union made no specific demand to talk
about any economic issues at that meeting nor did Respondent refuse to discuss any issues. At
the close of the session, the Union presented a list of open items that it wanted to discuss at the
next meeting. This list consisted of primarily non-economic items but did include some items,
such as bereavement and jury duty, which clearly have economic implications, and some which
might, such as promotions and equalization of overtime.
Calabrese provided another list of items the Union wished to discuss at the November 7,
2012 meeting, which included some of the same issues on Gallagher’s list, and added audit
department and Grade 13 upgrades. Calabrese commented on that list, emphasizing his view
that these items did not involve “cost” issues or are merely proposals to follow current policy or
to ensure that Respondent made the same changes in Brooklyn as elsewhere (audit
department).
However, one characterizes these proposals and, to some extent, they can be construed
as economic, the record does not disclose any refusal by Respondent to discuss any of these
items at that meeting.
Indeed, to the contrary, at the next meeting on November 27, 2012, Respondent made a
proposal entitled, “Applicable Company Benefits,” wherein it agreed to continue these policies,
including jury duty and bereavement, which were part of the Union’s “economic” proposals,
previously submitted.
Notably, on December 4, 2012, Calabrese sent an email to bargaining unit members
concerning negotiations, which reflected, “Once we get past these important issues (grievances
and arbitration), we can finally start working on economics.”
On December 5, 2012, the Union brought up its proposal on the audit department, which
was, as noted, to have the same thing in Brooklyn as it did elsewhere (dismantle the audit
department and place the employees in other departments).
Kauff replied that in Respondent’s view this was an economic proposal, and Respondent
would discuss it when it treats other economic proposals and will respond in that context.
The Union disagreed that its proposal was economic, and they discussed that issue. At
one point, Calabrese asked if the Union made a proposal on audit department that doesn’t have
economic implications, would Respondent be open to it. Kauff answered, “If you have a
proposal, make it.”
I do not construe this exchange between Kauff and the Union as establishing a refusal to
discuss economics but a disagreement between the union officials and Respondent as to
whether or not the union proposal on the audit department was or was not an economic
proposal.
On December 20, 2012, Kauff stated that Respondent had previously included jury duty
and bereavement as applicable company benefits and was now adding leave of absence to that
list.
Kauff then stated, “There’s a number of proposals that are on the border of economics
and non-economics. We’d like to talk about them now.”
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
217
The parties discussed these proposals, which included work schedules, overtime
assignments, swapping tours, job bidding, transfers, travel and entertainment reimbursement.
On January 3, 2012, Respondent distributed proposals on hours, overtime, layoffs and
employee benefits, which Kauff stated were in response to certain of the Union’s proposals.
During that same meeting, Respondent responded to some of the Union’s proposals on night
differentials.
Kauff asserted that this was an economic proposal but added that Respondent is
generous with what they do now and, “We are not inclined to change what we consider to be a
rather generous and forthcoming night differential payment.” Notwithstanding that comment, the
subject of night differential was discussed further at the meeting, and Hilber agreed to send
something in writing to the Union, detailing Respondent’s current policy.
At the January 9, 2013 meeting, Kauff explained why Respondent believed that union
security and payroll deductions were economic proposals but, nonetheless, made
counterproposals on both of these subjects.
On January 17, 2013, the Union submitted a proposal on medical benefits. On January
30, 2013, Kauff referred to that proposal and said, “While we have an understanding that we’re
trying to settle non-economic issues first, it makes sense for us, I’m sure, you have to try to get
ready for our economic discussions. We are not there yet, but we want to get ready.”
Kauff asked for information from the Union so that it can evaluate the Union’s proposals
on medical, dental, vision and pension and added, “We want to prepare a counter.”
Later on, in the meeting, Gallagher criticized Respondent for not making the information
request earlier. Kauff responded by reminding Gallagher of the parties’ informal understanding
to focus on non-economic matters and then turn to economics. Kauff added that at the last
meeting, the Union provided a new proposal on medical, Respondent acknowledged it was
economic and because “we were getting close” to disposing of non-economic issues and
addressing economic items, “we were on the cusp of discussing economics.” Thus, since the
parties are about to turn to economic matters, Respondent asked for the information. Kauff
added, “When we have economics, we want to know the total,” and the discussion will be
“packaged.” Kauff also mentioned that the parties had already discussed some “marginal”
economic matters, such as jury duty and bereavement.”
Gallagher responded by once again disputing Kauff’s assertion of an “informal
agreement” about deferring economic discussions. Gallagher reminded Kauff that he had said,
“I can agree to that and let’s see how we do. Today is February 5 and that was May 30—we’re
not doing too well.”
Thus, up to this point, the evidence does not disclose any specific request by the Union
to talk about any economic issue nor any refusal by Respondent to do so.
There was clearly a difference of opinion between Kauff and the Union concerning what
had been agreed to between the Union and Model and whether there was an explicit, tacit or
informal agreement to defer economic discussions until non-economic issues were resolved.
These issues were discussed, and Kauff expressed the view that there had, at least, been an
informal understanding to proceed in that fashion. While the Union continued to insist, it had
reserved the right to decide that progress was insufficient and that economic issues should be
discussed before all non-economic issues are resolved, it had yet stated it had made that
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
218
decision and it did request bargaining over any economic issue.
At the February 11, 2013 meeting, the Union did take the position that it wished to
bargain over an economic matter after the discussion began when the Union complained that
Respondent was paying the former contractor employees hired to “replace” the 22 employees
on January 30, 2013, $17.79 per hour, which was higher than many incumbent employees, who
had been working for Respondent for many years.
Kauff explained Respondent’s rationale for paying the contractors the $17.79 rate and
stated that if the Union felt the rate was too high, Respondent was ready and willing to bargain
about it and listen to the Union’s views about that subject.
Gallagher responded that the Union is not contending that the rate for the replacements
was too high and, in fact, believes they should be paid more. Rather, the Union’s problem is that
there are a number of unit employees, who have been working for Respondent and who are not
making this amount, and this is unfair.
Kauff responded as follows:
“It’s a good point for the Union to raise. We understand that we have to reach some
critical economic discussions and these will be important and you’ll make this point in the
course of arguing about wages, I respect that, but let’s do it in the context of proposals,
we aren’t there yet. I’m saying hold your fire, you’ll get to that. You asked for the update
on the wages and we gave it. I think four times ago you asked for additional info on
wages and we provided that. We’re in the context now, I think I said this last time, on
being on the cusp of getting into econ items -- wages, retirement, health/medical,
vacation, holidays, sick days -- we have to have that discussion and want to. What you
said about…
Gallagher interrupting and said, “Some things can’t wait. We’ve been waiting for 10
months on economics.” Kauff answered, “I’ll get to waiting, but let’s get to discipline.”
Thus, even at this meeting, while Gallagher commented to Kauff that “some things can’t
wait” in response to Kauff’s comments that economic discussions were about to begin, he made
no request to discuss any economic issues nor did Respondent refused to do so. Further,
although the Union complained about the salaries of replacement workers vis a via current
employees, it did not, at that meeting, make any proposal to remedy that complaint.
The Union did so at the next meeting on February 25, 2013 when it submitted a two-part
wage proposal (Union 54 and 55). Union 55 provided, effective immediately, any technicians not
currently a Grade 12 will be immediately upgraded to Grade 12 and any technicians, who are
not currently earning $17.79 an hour, shall have his hourly rate increased to that amount,
retroactive to January 30, 2013. Proposal 54, entitled, “Career Progression, included the
Union’s proposal on career progression with a chart for various grades. The Union’s proposals
were discussed, and Respondent had several questions about the interplay between the two of
them, which were answered. The parties then discussed other issues, including a proposal on
double time for the seventh day of work (another economic issue) although no agreement was
reached.
The parties next met on February 18, 2013. Kauff referred to the Union’ s Proposals 54
and 55 and stated that Respondent still needed the Union’s proposals on wage increases over
the three years of the contract.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
219
After the parties discussed several other non-economic issues, Kauff provided
Respondent’s reaction to the Union’s wage proposals. “First, we consider it an economic
proposal, but notwithstanding that, we’ve spent some time considering it and we’re not inclined
to agree with it. I take it you’ll continue to raise it and we can discuss it again when we get to
economics.” He then reiterated what he had said in previous discussions about why it selected
the rate for replacements, and that it was prepared to bargain about the progress rate for the
replacement employees. He concluded by saying, “In summary, we are not inclined to agree
with the proposal, but we think it’s an economic proposal and we expect the Union will continue
to have it on the table and we’ll see how economics go in light of this proposal.”
Gallagher responded:
“I’ve told you numerous times, and I think you’ve seen from the Union that we’ve
consistently given economic proposals, there has never been an agreement not to talk
about economics, there isn’t. There were discussions with AM, who raised that we
should leave econ to the end, and the U had always stood by its stance that we’ll see
how things go, that wasn’t an agreement. Here, we are 10-11 months in, and things
aren’t going quickly. We should be talking econ now, this proposal is a perfect example
to start with, you hired people in one day, in a few hours, and gave them a certain wage.
There are many people on the list from February 11, who made under $17.79 and we
don’t see why you wouldn’t offer that same benefit to these people. What’s wrong with
the people on your payroll -- what are they not doing that they wouldn’t be afforded this
wage...”
He then criticized Respondent’s bargaining over the rate for the replacements and
concluded by stating that “there’s no better time to talk about these people, who aren’t being
offered the same wage.”
Kauff responded by explaining again how Respondent set the wages of the
replacements and noted that the Union had not made a proposal concerning the replacement
wages, although Respondent stated it was ready and willing to bargain about that subject.
Kauff then addressed the alleged understanding about deferring economics and stated
that he was ok with how Gallagher expressed the understanding but added that “the conduct of
the Union over the course of bargaining until that moment was that economic matters would be
left to a time after now economics were adjusted.” He then criticized the Union for not providing
a prompt comprehensive wage proposal as Respondent had requested since Respondent was
trying to anticipate economic discussions. Kauff added that the Union had asked to address the
issue and Respondent addressed it and explained the background. Kauff continued, “If you’re
saying we want to talk about this more because it’s a temporal item, it’s here before us and it’s
important for the Union to address it now, even though, it’s an economic item and, even though,
whatever agreement/understanding/record reflects etc., you want to talk about it—we’ll talk
about it.” We’re prepared to have a discussion. We’ve said we considered it, we understand, we
just don’t think we should entertain it, we’re rejecting it. But that doesn’t mean that we aren’t
talking about it—we are talking about it, and if you want to talk about it further, we’ll talk about it
further.”
The parties then proceeded to discuss the proposal further, and the Union asked several
questions of Respondent, which were answered, including what it generally pays new
employees. The response was $12.98 for a grade 10 in field service. Gallagher jumped on that
admission as further support for his argument that paying $17.79 to the replacements is unfair
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
220
to current employees and that they should be brought up to that level immediately.
Kauff responded that the Union makes an equitable argument that Respondent respects
but again repeated that Respondent was faced with a unique event and made a reasonable
judgment as to what to pay the replacements. He added that Respondent could reconsider the
issues after receiving the Union’s comprehensive wage proposal.
Kauff also stated, “I do think that we’ll be in a better context to talk about it when we get
further along in economics.” Gallagher replied, “Stop saying we disagree, there is no further
along about economics. What did the company think when I gave them proposals in December
and January about economics, that I was just giving them to you to hold on to?” Kauff answered
yes.
Gallagher continued to press the point that there was no agreement to hold on
economics and added that Kauff had admitted the other day that there was no agreement. Kauff
replied that he had said three or four times that there was a “tacit” agreement.
Gallagher stated that’s not an agreement and that the Union doesn’t want to wait until
the end. Kauff again asked the Union for a comprehensive wage proposal.
Finally, the Union said that when it gets the information it requested from Respondent, it
will have something for Respondent.
Thus, at this meeting, I find that the Union clearly demanded (for the first time) that
Respondent bargain about economics and, more specifically, about the Union’s wage proposal.
I do not find that Respondent refused the Union’s request to do so. While Kauff did refer once
again to the parties alleged agreement to defer economics and asserted that Respondent was
waiting for the Union’s comprehensive wage proposal before responding further, in fact, the
evidence that Respondent did, in fact, bargain with the Union about its wage proposal, and
Kauff clearly stated that it will bargain further about if it the Union wishes. As Kauff stated,
Respondent has considered the Union’s proposal and is rejecting it “but doesn’t mean we aren’t
talking about it, and if you want to talk about it further, we’ll talk about it further.”
Indeed, the parties did discuss the proposal further, and Respondent asked again for a
comprehensive wage proposal from the Union, which the Union promised to provide when it
receives information requested from Respondent.
On March 6, 2013, the parties met again. Respondent provided the Union the
information requested and expected a wage proposal from the Union soon. The parties
discussed various issues, and Respondent stated that it agreed to the Union’s severance
proposal. The parties again discussed the Union’s prior wage proposal and whether Union 54
replaced Union 19, Respondent was not satisfied with the Union’s explanation and asserted that
Respondent’s increases that it instituted on May 1, 2012 provided for discretion and judgment
by Respondent with no guaranteed increases.
After a caucus, the Union conceded that its proposal was not a full-fledged proposal, but
they needed to understand the process. Calabrese said that the Union wanted to do something
for employees in the interim period since they received no raises on May 1, 2012.
The parties then discussed Respondent’s process, with Hilber stating that Respondent
does not grant things automatically and that Union 54 seems to call for automatic increases.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
221
After a further discussion of Respondent’s current system, there were comments made
by Kauff about fixed versions of discretionary raises and how, in his view, “When you take
discretion away that’s value to the Union—its lockstep, its costs, so you can’t ask for the same
wages.” Kauff added that Respondent needed to know from the Union what Respondent would
be expected to do on the first day of the contract with respect to wages. Gallagher promised an
answer and proposal by the next meeting.
Later on, at this meeting, Kauff made the following comment, along with Respondent’s
submission of proposals, which have economic implications:
Last time, and I don't want to characterize it in a way that is prejudicial, you seemed to
be pulling away from what we thought was an understanding to put econ off and
concentrate on non-econ items. While we wait for a comprehensive wage proposal,
which we talked about earlier today, and even though wages are related and all
economics are fundamentally related to wages, we nevertheless are going to make
some economic proposals today. We've had some discussions about some of these
items and questions the U has raised, but we've never really made proposals on it or
exchanged proposals, we've just had questions, for example, on shift differential. We'll
make a proposal, which makes a proposal on 6 econ items, and we propose that we
apply, with respect to those items, the co benefits as they existed as of Jan 1, 2012. We
already have LOA on that list, so we want to add to that list of co policies which contain
benefits to the BU. [Co 32A given at 5:56 p.m.] This includes standby, shift differential,
Life & AD&D, retirement product, employee referral and educational assistance. We
would extend all of those proposals to all of the BU as those benefits existed on 1/1/12.
In addition, we had some discussion last time about uniforms and dress policy. We've
amended proposal 31to add a footnote to dress guidelines and uniform policy, it gives
the U what it wanted about boot allowance -- it says that boot allowance, in essence,
notwithstanding that dress and those guidelines are what they are for everyone, for the
monetary allowance for boots, it's frozen and will be covered by the paragraph I just
referred to, policies frozen as of 1/1/12. The co will keep the boot allowance as it is now.
If it changes for others, you stay, if it eliminates it, you keep it, if it cuts back, you have
$175.
On March 14, 2013, another collective bargaining session was held. Kauff began the
meeting by asking about when it would be receiving the Union’s wage proposal. Gallagher
replied that Respondent would have it, and it could be discussed after lunch.
Kauff then stated that Respondent had made some proposals at the last session in
proposal 32 (A) Company benefits, and the Union was going to look into it. It included some
economic issues, and Kauff commented, “Obviously we’ve started to dip in here into economics,
but our feeling is it makes some sense to get some TAs on these (standby shift differential, life
insurance, etc.) We’d like to try to move to closure on those.” The parties then discussed these
issues as well as other issues such as management rights and discharges.
After lunch, as promised, the Union presented a wage proposal to replace all its previous
proposals. The proposal provided for one time contractual bonus of $12,000 for all bargaining
unit employees, who were also unit employees as of February 7, 2012, that Respondent will
cease usage of its career progression plan, and replace it with a wage progression plan,
detailed in the proposal, plus wage increases of 6% for all unit employees on May 5, 2013, and
then additional 6% increases in May of 2014 and May of 2015.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
222
Kauff asked two brief questions and promised a response by the next meeting.
As promised, at the next meeting on April 9, 2013, Respondent submitted a
comprehensive counterproposal to the Union in the form of a complete agreement, which
included proposals on wages, medical, retirement and numerous economic issues, the
remaining non-economic issues as well as all 43 TAs. Kauff explained various portions of the
proposal, emphasizing medical, retirement, 401(k) and, finally, wages.
As noted, bargaining has continued since that meeting on numerous occasions,
including the mediation sessions.
As I have stated above, the evidence, in my view, does not establish that Respondent
unlawfully refused to discuss economic issues as asserted by General Counsel and Charging
Party.
While the evidence does disclose some dispute between the parties concerning their
understanding of the ground rules established at the first meeting, in fact, the evidence is clear
that the Union took Model’s suggestion to defer economics until non-economic issues were
resolved, although it did reserve the right to demand bargaining over economic issues if it
believed it was necessary to do so. I also find that the Union made no such request to bargain
over economics while Model was bargaining.
Even after Kauff replaced Model and Gallagher made it clear that the agreement
between the Union and Respondent to defer economics could be changed at any time by the
Union, the Union, in fact, did not do so until February of 2013 when he sought to discuss its
wage proposal and its attempt to bring up the Brooklyn employees to the pay level of the
replacement employees. By that time, the parties were already bargaining over economic
issues, Respondent had made some economic proposals and, most importantly of all,
Respondent did bargain with the Union but rejected it and specifically offered to discuss or
bargain about it if the Union so desired. Kauff added that the Union could reconsider its position
once it receives the Union’s comprehensive wage proposal, which it had been requesting.
Once Respondent received that proposal, Respondent submitted, as promised, a
comprehensive counterproposal of its own, including proposals on all economic subjects.
Accordingly, I conclude that this complaint allegation must be dismissed, and I shall so
recommend. I also do not find that the evidence concerning Respondent’s discussion of or
alleged lack of discussion of economic issues can be construed as indicative of bad faith
bargaining.
C. The Alleged Insistence on Changing the Scope of the Certified Bargaining Unit
The scope of an established certified collective bargaining unit is a non-mandatory
subject of bargaining on which neither party may insist to impasse. Branch International Service,
310 NLRB 1092, 1103 (1993), enfd. mem. 12 F.3d 213 (6th Cir. 1993). Similarly, it is evidence of
bad faith bargaining for an employer to continually insist during bargaining on a change in the
established unit. Such bargaining tactics demonstrate “a reluctance to attempt to reach a
collective bargaining agreement.” Id citing Beyerl Chevrolet, 221 NLRB 710 (1975). See also
Preterm Inc., 240 NLRB 654 (1979).
General Counsel and Charging Party contend that Respondent violated the principles
articulated in the above precedent by insisting on changing the scope of the certified unit from
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
223
July 2, 2012 through January 3, 2013, and then continuing to insist on changing the certified unit
by limiting employees to be covered under the agreement in provisions entitled, “Geographic
Scope and Covered Work.”
I do not agree.
I note, initially, that it is not unlawful for a party to propose a change in the scope of the
bargaining unit and that the parties may agree to such changes. Syncor International Corp., 282
NLRB 408, 409 (1986); Tarlas Meat Co., 234 NLRB 1396, 1397 (1979).
I find that the evidence does not establish that the Respondent insisted on any of the
proposals that it made with respect to the scope of the unit or geographic scope and covered
work and that it eventually agreed on a recognition change that mirrored the Board’s
certification.
I further conclude that Respondent’s proposals on geographic scope are mandatory
subjects of bargaining and are not changes in the scope of the bargaining unit.
The certification of February 7, 2012 defined the unit as employees in various
classifications “employed by the Employer at its Brooklyn, New York facilities.” The Union at the
parties’ first session presented its proposals, which included a proposal entitled, “Recognition.”
The provision encompassed three parts. Section 1 defined the unit as including employees
“employed by the Company in the borough of Brooklyn.”
Section 2 of the Union’s proposal required Respondent to recognize the Union in the
event that it establishes a new facility in the same geographic area, and Section 3 provides that
in the event that Respondent develops certain products, the parties agree that on-site servicing
of such products within the geographic area shall be considered bargaining unit work.
Thus, with these proposals, it was the Union that was seeking to expand and change the
scope of the unit. Tarlas Meat, supra at 1397.
As a result of this proposal, which Respondent viewed as expanding the unit, it made a
counterproposal on July 2, 2012, which it viewed as merely a “clarification” of the certified unit
by identifying with addresses the three current Brooklyn facilities that Respondent had at the
time in the recognition clause. Model testified that he viewed Respondent’s proposal as the
“same” as the certification since it included Respondent’s three current facilities. The Union
made no objection to or comment about Respondent’s proposal at that meeting.
On July 31, 2012, the Union submitted a revised proposal to mirror the certification
language in Part 1, changing from employees “employed by the Company in the borough of
Brooklyn” to employees “employed by the Company at its Brooklyn, New York facilities.”
However, the Union’s recognition clause still contained Paragraph 2 and 3, which referred to
recognition at future facilities and defining future work as unit work.
Respondent on October 26, 2012 made two proposals entitled, “Covered Work” and
“Geographic Work,” wherein it allowed Respondent to assign unit work to anyone, including
managers and supervisors, and that covered work performed under the contract included work
performed at the three facilities with the addresses included.
The parties continued to bargain and exchange proposals on these subjects thereafter.
Respondent agreed on January 3, 2013 to remove the addresses from its recognition clause
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
224
proposal, and the parties TA’ed the recognition proposal that mirrored the Board’s certification.
However, the addresses of the three facilities continued to appear in Respondent’s
covered work and geographic scope provisions, and the parties continued bargaining over these
subjects.
On February 28, 2013, Respondent removed the addresses from its covered work
proposal but left them in the geographic scope proposals.
On February 28, 2013, Kauff stated that the contract would be limited to the three
current facilities, but if Respondent opened another facility in Brooklyn, using non-unit
employees to perform unit work, the Union would be recognized by Respondent, but the
contract would not apply, the parties would negotiate a new contract covering these employees.
On March 14, 2013, Gallagher asked Respondent to take its geographic scope clause
off the table since it was covered by the recognition clause already agreed upon. Kauff refused
and explained his view (as explained before) of the difference between recognition and
jurisdiction. Kauff argued that recognition covers titles and areas, in which the Union is entitled
to bargain and defines who is in the unit. Geographic scope and covered work are jurisdictional
provisions, defining what the agreement covers, what the jurisdiction of the agreement is.
Bargaining continued on these issues over these subjects with each side making
counterproposals in these areas.
On November 14, 2013, the parties exchanged drafts on the geographic scope and
covered work proposals and agreed on all of the terms of the last version of Respondent’s
proposal. However, it was not TA’ed since the Union packaged it with an hours and overtime
proposal of its own that Respondent had not agreed to. Thus, there is no TA on covered work
and geographic scope as of the close of the trial, herein.
I conclude, as related above, that no violation of the Act nor indicia of bad faith
bargaining has been established. I note again that the Union was the first party to seek changes
in the recognition clause in several respects and that after it changed its proposal to mirror the
Board’s certification, Respondent eventually removed the addresses of the facilities from its
proposals, and the parties TA’ed the proposal, tracking the certification language.
Thus, I find no unlawful conduct by Respondent has been established.48
Further, I reject the contention of General Counsel and Charging Party that
Respondent’s continued inclusion of the addresses in Respondent’s covered work and
geographic scope provision represents a continued attempt by Respondent to change the scope

48 I note that it is not even certain in my view as to whether the inclusion of the three current
addresses in the recognition clause represents a change in the unit. While the certification does
not mention the addresses at the time of the certification, these were the three addresses of
Respondent’s Brooklyn facilities, where the employees were employed. Indeed, frequently
(although not here), Board certifications or stipulation agreements do specify the addresses of
facilities covered. Model’s contention that the addresses’ inclusion is merely a clarification and is
the “same” as the certification has some appeal. I need not so find, however, since, as I detailed
above, Respondent was entitled to propose it, even if it was a change in the unit, it did not insist,
and eventually withdrew it, and agreed to the Board’s certification language.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
225
of the unit. I agree with Respondent that the geographic scope and covered work provisions are
mandatory subjects of bargaining and not unit scope provisions. They do not define who is in
the unit or who the Union represents, but rather, define the work performed. Antelope Valley
Press, 311 NLRB 459 (1993); Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat, 313 NLRB 542, 544
(1993) (assign of unit work to supervisors is a mandatory subject of bargaining). Accord, Tesoro
Petroleum Corp., 192 NLRB 354, 355-359 (1971); Storer Communications, 295 NLRB 72, 78-80
(1989) (proposals made no change in the scope of unit (who is represented) but rather changes
in work assignments and jurisdiction (what employees do).
I, therefore, conclude that these proposals were mandatory subjects of bargaining, and
although they did include addresses of the facilities, it did not transform the scope of unit
proposals. Moreover, the parties bargained extensively over these proposals and reached
tentative agreements on the substance of the proposals although not TA’ed due to the Union’s
packaging of the agreements with other proposals.
Furthermore, the evidence does not establish any rigid adherence or insistence by any
of its proposals and certainly no evidence of any impasse.
Accordingly, I conclude that this allegation of the complaint should also be dismissed,
and I do not construe any of Respondent’s bargaining over these subjects as indications of bad
faith bargaining.
D. The Alleged Rigid Adherence to “Predictably Unacceptable Proposals”
The complaint alleges that Respondent engaged in surface bargaining by “rigidly
adhering to proposals that are predictably unacceptable to the Union.” General Counsel and
Charging Party support these assertions and contend that Respondent’s proposals and
bargaining over contracting performance of bargaining unit work, management rights and
discipline, discharge and arbitration.
The “predictably unacceptable” language is derived from a number of Board cases,
sometimes enforced by Courts, but sometimes not, where it has evaluated proposals made and
insisted upon by employers and concluded that “rigid adherence to proposals that are
predictably unacceptable to the union may indicate a predetermination not to reach agreement
or a desire to reach a stalemate” in order to frustrate bargaining and undermine the statutory
representative.” Tomco Communications Inc., 220 NLRB 636 (1975), enfd. denied 567 F.2d
871, 882-884 (9th Cir. 1978). Stuart Radiator, 173 NLRB 125 (1968); K&S Circuits, 255 NLRB
1270, 1298 (1981); A-1 King Size Sandwiches Inc., 265 NLRB 850, 859-861 (1982), enfd. 732
F.2d 872, 877 (11th Cir. 1984) (Court observed that “the Board correctly inferred bad faith
bargaining from the Company’s insistence on proposals that are so harsh and unreasonable
that they are predictably unacceptable,” citing NLRB v. Wright Motors, 603 F.2d 604, 610 (7th
Cir. 1979). Cf. Gulf States Mfg. v. NLRB, 579 F.2d 1298 (5th Cir. 1978) and NLRB v. Tomco,
567 F.2d 87 (9th Cir. 1978), where both Circuit decisions rejected the Board’s “predictably
unacceptable analysis violative of the Supreme Court’s admonition in American National
Insurance, 343 US 395 (1952) that “the Board may not either directly or indirectly compel
concessions or sit in judgment upon the substantial terms of collective bargaining agreement,”
343 US at 401.
In Reichhold Chemicals, 288 NLRB 69 (1988), the Board seemed to back off from
utilizing the “predictably unacceptable” analysis, while commenting that the Board will read the
language of contract proposals and examine “insistence on extreme proposals in certain
situations.”
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
226
The Board then went on to say “that we will read proposals does not mean, however,
that we will decide that particular proposals are either “acceptable or unacceptable” to a party.
Instead relying on the Board’s cumulative institutional experience we shall continue to examine
proposals when appropriate and consider whether, on the basis of objective factors, a demand
is clearly designed to frustrate agreement on collective bargaining contact.” Id at 69.
Notably, the Board then goes on to reaffirm its adherence to Atlanta Hilton & Tower, 271
NLRB 1600 (1984), where the Board had listed seven traditional indicia of surface bargaining,
including “unreasonable bargaining demands.” The Board then cited the Ninth Circuit opinion in
NLRB v. Morlen Cabinets, 59 F.2d 998, 999 (1981), the Court held that although caution must
be exercised in inferring motivation from the content of bargaining proposals, “nevertheless,
proposals content supports an inference of intent to frustrate agreement where, as here, the
entire spectrum of proposals put forward by a party is so consistently and predictably
unacceptable to the other party that the proposer should know agreement is impossible.”
The Board then concluded its analysis by reaffirming its intention to adhere to the
general proposition that the content of bargaining proposals will, in certain circumstances, be
evidence of an intent to frustrate the collective bargaining process.” 288 NLRB at 70.
I am uncertain, based on the above, whether the Board intended to eliminate the
“predictably unacceptable” analysis. The Board, in Logemann Bros. Inc., 298 NLRB 1018, 1020
(1990), appeared to conclude that it did so by reversing a judge’s reliance on the language and
quoting the portion of Reichhold, quoted above, where it said that its examine of proposals “will
not involve decisions that particular decisions are either acceptable or unacceptable to a party.”
Id at 1020.
Nonetheless, the predictably unacceptable language has appeared in other subsequent
cases in judges’ opinions, affirmed by the Board without comment. Universal Fuel Inc., 358
NLRB # 150 ALJD slip op at 19 (2012); Quality House of Graphics, 336 NLRB 497, 515
(2001).49
Finally, in Santa Barbara News-Press, 358 NLRB #141 ALJD slip op at 83 (2012), the
judge observed that the Board has long held that an “employer’s rigid adherence to collective
bargaining proposals that are predictably unacceptable to the union may indicate a
predetermination not to reach agreement in order to frustrate bargaining and undermine the
statutory representative.” Id at 83.
The judge quoted the Board’s opinion in PSO, supra, 334 NLRB at 487, where the Board
observed, “Although the Board does not evaluate whether particular proposals are acceptable
or unacceptable, the Board will examine whether on the basis of objective factors, bargaining
demands constitute evidence of bad faith bargaining,” citing Reichhold.
He then went on to cite and apply other portions of PSO, supra, where the Board

49 Interestingly, the judge’s opinion in Quality House of Graphics cited Reichhold, supra and
concluded that the decision reiterated factors to be considered in determining surface
bargaining and included “unreasonable bargaining demands that are consistently and
predictably unpalatable to the other party.” As noted, the Board, while affirming the judge’s
finding of a surface bargaining violation, made no comment about this conclusion of the judge
as to Reichhold’s holding on this issue.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
227
commented, “An inference of bad faith bargaining is appropriate when the employer’s proposals
taken as a whole would leave the Union and the employees it represents with substantially
fewer rights and less protections than provided by law without a contract.” 334 NLRB at 487-
488.
The judge in Santa Barbara News, applying these principles, concluded that the
employer’s insistence on a broad management rights clause coupled with a grievance provision,
without arbitration, reserving final decision on discharge to the employer’s unfettered discretion
and concluded that the employer’s proposals that it insisted upon “if accepted by and entered
into by the union would without doubt have rendered the union and the unit employees worse off
in terms of the statutory bargaining rights the Act provides them if they had not agreed to a
contract at all.” ALJD slip op at 87.
The judge found a violation of overall surface bargaining as well as an independent
violation of insisting on contractual language that grants the employer unilateral control over
many terms and conditions of employment and leaves the union and the bargaining unit
employees worse off than if they simply did not enter into a collective bargaining agreement.
Interestingly, exceptions and cross-exemptions were filed by the parties, and General
Counsel filed cross-exceptions to the judge’s failure to find that the employer’s proposals on
management rights, discipline and discharge, grievances and bulletin boards were unlawful
because they were “predictably unacceptable” to the union. The Board concluded in footnote 1
at 358 NLRB #141, “Because we agree with the judge that the Respondent’s overall bargaining
conduct, including its insistence upon an overly broad management rights clause, violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we find it unnecessary to consider these exceptions.”
The Board adopted the judge’s order in full, including his finding of specific violation of
insisting on retaining unlawful control over conditions of employment, as I detailed above, that
the judge recommended.
There have been a number of cases that applied the principles found in Santa Barbara
News, supra that insistence on proposals that provide for unilateral control over virtually all
significant terms of employment, which would leave the unions and employees with fewer rights
and protections that they would have had without any contract at all, demonstrate bad faith
bargaining. Regency Service Carts, supra, 345 NLRB at 675, 676; PSO, supra; Radisson Plaza,
307 NLRB 94, 95 (1992); Prentice-Hall, 290 NLRB 646 (1988); Sivalls Inc., 307 NLRB 986,
1069 (1992); Hydrotherm, 302 NLRB 990, 993-995 (1991).
Thus, based on the above analysis, I find that the Board’s current position on utilizing a
“predictably unacceptable” analysis is uncertain. However, the complaint alleges and the parties
have briefed the issue, so I shall assess the Respondent’s proposals under that analysis as well
as under the principles expounded in PSO, Santa Barbara News and Regency Service Carts as
to whether Respondent’s insistence on proposals that provide it with unilateral control over all
significant terms and conditions of employment, rending the Union and employees better off
without a contract, are demonstrative of bad faith bargaining.
I note that both General Counsel and Charging Party assert that Respondent’s conduct
violates the Act based on this contention as well as the “predictably unacceptable” argument.
Indeed, in my view, there is an overlap between these two arguments and positions.
I have carefully examined the bargaining proposals and conduct of the parties. I
conclude that the evidence failed to establish that Respondent rigidly adhered to or insisted on
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
228
any proposal or demand. Rather the record discloses that the parties have bargained long and
hard over numerous issues, including the items that the complaint alleges were “predictably
unacceptable.” The parties, including Respondent, made proposals and counterproposals,
concessions on each item, often in response to concerns expressed by the other party,
packaged and unpackaged the proposals with other items, and ultimately reached agreement
on two of the proposals and moved closer to agreement on the other two. In these
circumstances, I cannot find bad faith established or violations of the Act by Respondent’s
bargaining conduct over these issues.
I shall turn to a discussion of the four proposals in brief, noting that a fuller description of
the bargaining over these proposals is detailed above in the Facts Section of this decision.
1. The Proposal on Performance or Bargaining Unit Work
Respondent initially introduced a proposal on July 2, 2012, seeking the right to assign
unit work to supervisory and non-unit employees. On July 31, 2012, the Union introduced a
counterproposal prohibiting the assignment of supervisory employees of any unit work.
The parties continued to bargain over this subject and made proposals back and forth
with Respondent arguing that it needed flexibility and the Union stating that it recognized the
need to have supervisors help out with unit work. The Union ultimately made a proposal (as part
of a package) that Respondent’s flexibility in assigned work to others by restricted to training
and emergencies and servicing customers. Respondent accepted this language on March 6,
2013 but also packaged it with other proposals. When the packages were not accepted,
Respondent suggested uncoupling the performance of bargaining unit work from the respective
packages and obtaining a TA on performance of unit work.
I find, as detailed above, no rigid adherence or insistence by Respondent in its
bargaining over the subject. Proposals were made back and forth, concessions were made,
packages were coupled and uncoupled and ultimately agreement was reached on this proposal
(which was based on the Union’s language).
I shall recommend dismissal of this complaint allegation and shall not consider the
bargaining over this subject to be an indicia of bad faith bargaining.
2. Contracting
It is significant to note in evaluating the bargaining over contracting the past practice at
Respondent’s facilities. Thus, Respondent had a longstanding practice, consistent with industry
standards of subcontracting out approximately 50% of its “trouble calls” and almost all (about
95% of its installation work). The Union was fully aware of this practice.
At the outset of bargaining the Union introduced its first proposals on May 30, 2012,
which included a proposal on contracting, which reduced the amount of contracting being done
to 10% of the work currently being performed. This presents a substantial reduction from
Respondent’s current practice, which was, as noted, consistent with industry practice. Thus, in
my view, this proposal by the Union, contrary to the status quo, was, if anything, “predictably
unacceptable” to Respondent.
The Union quickly backed off this proposal, however, and, as detailed above in the Facts
Section, bargained productively over this subject. Both parties made counterproposals and
concessions in response to concerns expressed by the other party.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
229
While no TA or agreement has been reached on this subject, Respondent has made
substantial movement from its original proposal for complete discretion on contracting decisions.
Thus, it agreed to provisions suggested by the Union to no subcontracting, where it resulted in
layoffs on trouble calls (which represent most of the work contracted out by Respondent). The
Union agreed to that concession but was concerned with the other unit employees, who could
be laid off as a result of subcontracting, such as OSP and construction employees. Respondent
proposed bargaining with the Union about layoffs, and the Union countered with a proposal to
require bargaining over contracting, where it results in the layoffs of employees performing other
than trouble calls50 but that absent mutual agreement, “Respondent may not proceed with the
contracting and the layoffs.”
Respondent rejected this last addition since in its view, it would give the Union a veto
power over this decision.
As of the date of this trial, that is where the parties stood in bargaining over this subject.
However, as noted, considerable progress has been made, concessions and counterproposals
have been provided, explanations have been fully explored and the issues thoroughly
discussed. No one has insisted or rigidly adhered to any proposal or position.
Furthermore, Respondent has introduced into the record several agreements executed
by several unions, including by the CWA with other employers, wherein unions have agreed to
provisions allowing subcontracting without any restrictions.
Accordingly, I again conclude that no reasonable argument can be made that
Respondent’s proposals on contracting were “predictably unacceptable,” much less that
Respondent rigidly adhered to or insisted on such proposals.
The parties bargained thoroughly, Respondent moved substantially from its initial
position and the failure of the parties to reach full agreement on this subject cannot be attributed
to bad faith bargaining by Respondent.
I shall, therefore, recommend dismissal of this complaint allegation as well and shall not
consider Respondent’s bargaining over contracting as reflective of bad faith or surface
bargaining.
3. Management Rights
Respondent initially submitted an extremely broad management rights proposal on July
2, 2012, essentially providing for Respondent’s control over most terms and conditions of
employment of its unit employees. However, the proposal also provided that this provision can
be modified by specific provisions in the contract.
The Union rejected this provision and countered with its own version of a management
rights proposal on July 31, 2012, and the parties continued to bargain over this proposal over
several additional sessions.
The Union, on October 12, 2012, largely adopted the Respondent’s proposal with a few

50 Layoffs of employees, who perform trouble calls (field technicians), was already prohibited
in both of the last proposals of the parties.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
230
modifications.
Respondent submitted another modified proposal on February 28, 2013, which included
a section, stating that Respondent had a right to discipline, demote, suspend or discharge
employees for just cause as defined in the Discipline and Discharge Article. The Union
subsequently countered with some minor revisions.
Subsequently, on March 19, 2013, several revisions were exchanged, and the Union
packaged the proposal with its union security and discipline and discharge. Respondent urged
the Union to remove management rights from the Union’s package and TA Respondent’s latest
modification on management rights.
The Union disagreed and argued that it had compromised significantly on management
rights and needed to get something in return. Gallagher stated, with respect to management
rights, “I don’t want one as far as I am concerned.”
Respondent would not agree to the package and again urged TA on management rights.
At the close of the meeting, the Union tendered a new revised proposal on management rights
with some slight changes and packaged it with the Union’s discipline and discharge proposal
only, thus removing union security from the package.
On August 15, 2013, the parties agreed to a package of the management rights and
union security, and the parties TA’ed that package.
I conclude that similar to the other alleged “predictably unacceptable” proposals that I
have discussed above that the parties have bargained about the management rights proposal,
concessions and counterproposals were made, the proposals were packaged and unpackaged
and the packages were revised. Ultimately, the parties agreed on a package of management
rights and union security. Thus, Respondent did not rigidly adhere to or insist on any
management rights proposal. It bargained about it with the Union and ultimately agreed, and the
parties TA’ed the proposal. I, therefore, find no basis to conclude that Respondent insisted on a
“predictably unacceptable” proposal.
General Counsel and Charging Party rely on a number of cases, where the Board found
rigid adherence to broad management rights proposals to be reflective of bad faith and/or
independent violations of the Act inasmuch as these proposals (often in conjunction with other
proposals insisted upon by the employers) demonstrate an insistence on retaining essentially
unfettered control over a broad range of mandatory subjects of bargaining, leaving employees
better off without a contract and demonstrative of the fact that the employer was not sincerely
attempting to reach agreement and not bargaining in good faith. Santa Barbara News, supra
357 NLRB #141, ALJD slip op at 83-85; Whitesell Corp., 357 NLRB # 97 at 1, fn. 4 (2011);
Regency Service Carts, supra, 345 NLRB at 675-676; Altorfer Machinery, 332 NLRB 130, 161
(2000); PSO, supra, 334 NLRB at 488-489 (2001); Radisson Plaza, supra, 307 NLRB at 95.
I note initially that all of the cases emphasize that the employers, therein, insisted on the
management rights proposal that provided them with unilateral control over many of the
conditions of employment of their employees. I further note that in none of these cases did the
union ultimately agree to the management rights proposal offered by respondent after
subsequent modifications by both parties.
It is also significant that the management rights clause proposed by Respondent, and
ultimately agreed to by the parties, contained a reservation clause, which limited the reservation
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
231
of management authority to whatever the parties agreed to elsewhere in the contract. Coastal
Electric Cooperative, 311 NLRB 1126, 1127 (1993). It is particularly notable that in Coastal
Electric, supra, the Board found no bad faith bargaining by the employer, therein, where the
employer had (unlike Respondent, here) insisted on a broad management rights clause and that
the employer, there, (also unlike Respondent, here) had also insisted on an at-will employment
provision and refused to accept a just cause provision proposed by the union.
In the latter regard, both General Counsel and Charging Party argue that Respondent’s
continued refusal to agree to the Union’s discharge and discipline proposals makes
Respondent’s agreement to an arbitration clause with a just clause provision “illusory” and
ineffectual and is akin to an at-will provision, providing Respondent with unilateral control over
discharge and discipline. I cannot agree.
I shall discuss these issues in more detail below, but, in my view, these contentions of
General Counsel and Charging Party are without merit. Respondent agreed to a standard
arbitration clause with a just clause provision after extensive bargaining on this subject. While
the discipline and discharge provisions have not been agreed to and do have an impact on the
arbitration process inasmuch as Respondent’s last proposal on the subject would likely have the
effect of shifting the burden of proof to the Union in an arbitration proceeding to prove that the
employees did not commit the act complained of, this hardly can be construed as an at-will
provision for unilateral control. The proposal provides for third party review and not unilateral
control over discipline, and while it might be more difficult for the Union to succeed in an
arbitration, if accepted, it does not make the arbitration proposal illusory or constitute unilateral
control by Respondent over discipline as contended by General Counsel and Charging Party.
I further emphasize again Coastal Electric, supra, where the Board (reversing and ALJ)
found a instance of board management rights with an insistence on an at-will provision as well
as not evidence of bad faith bargaining. The Board reasoned, as follows: “With respect to the
Respondent’s position on employment at-will, it is clear that the Union remained as firm in its
basic position on just cause as the Respondent did on its proposal.” 311 NLRB at 1127. Here, of
course, as detailed above, Respondent did not insist on any proposal, the Union ultimately
agreed to the management rights proposal, which included a reference to the just cause
provision and also included in the arbitration proposal agreed to by Respondent, which provided
for third party review of Respondent’s disciplinary decisions.
Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent’s bargaining over the management rights
clause, considered by itself or in conjunction with its bargaining over discipline, discharge or
arbitration, did not violate the Act and was not reflective of bad faith bargaining. Coastal Electric,
supra; St. George Warehouse, 341 NLRB 904, 906-907 (2004) (proposal for broad
management rights clause did not, as found by judge, foreclose union from representative role
over discipline; Board concluded that employer, there, was willing to agree to a grievance and
arbitration clause, so long as employer could discharge employees immediately for certain
enumerated offenses); Garden Ridge Management Inc., 347 NLRB 131, 133 (2006)
(respondent proposed broad management rights clause but after bargaining and exchange of
proposals, parties ultimately agreed to proposal); APT Medical Transportation, 333 NLRB 760,
762 (2001) (broad management rights clause, plus no independent arbitrator to decide
disciplinary matters, insufficient to establish bad faith bargaining). See also 88 Transit Lines,
300 NLRB 177, 178 (1990) (refusal by employer to agree to union’s “just cause” proposal on
discipline and discharge, insufficient to prove or indicative of faith bargaining).
I shall, therefore, recommend dismissal of this complaint allegation and do not find
Respondent’s bargaining on management rights reflective of bad faith bargaining.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
232
4. Discipline and Discharge
At the July 2, 2012 session, Respondent made a proposal, entitled, “Discharge.” It
reads:
Section 1. The Company shall have right to immediately discipline or discharge
employees for “proper cause.” This includes the right to investigate and to have
employees cooperate in such investigations. The Company will consider the severity of
the offense and the employee's overall work record when making such decisions. Proper
cause for any decision shall be found to exist unless the Union proves that the Company
did not have a good faith belief that the employee engaged in the conduct at issue.
Respondent then, in Section 2 of the proposal, set forth a large number of offenses that
constitute proper cause for immediate termination.
The record reflects, as it did with respect to other alleged “predictably unacceptable”
proposals discussed above, that Respondent did not insist on or rigidly adhere to this proposal
but that it bargained about it and concessions and counterproposals were made by both parties
from that date until the meeting of September 11, 2013 when both parties presented additional
proposals on this subject. While no agreement was reached, I find that the parties have
bargained about it, made proposals and packages and that Respondent made counterproposals
in an attempt to address the Union’s concerns about its proposal on the subject and the parties
have come closer to agreement on this proposal.
The record reflects that the Union expressed concerns over the “proper cause” definition
in Respondent’s proposal as well as objecting to the “good faith” portion of the proposal.
The parties spent considerable time discussing these issues and the Union’s concerns
about these aspects of Respondent’s proposal. The Union stated that Respondent’s use of
“proper cause” versus the standard “just cause” language, propounded by the Union, was
creating a new definition and that arbitrators were familiar with the meaning of “just cause.”
The Union also continuously objected to “good faith belief” language, which, in the
Union’s view, would permit Respondent to terminate someone, who didn’t commit any
misconduct, even if Respondent was mistaken, where the Union couldn’t prove that Respondent
did not have a good faith belief that the employee committed the offense charged.
Ultimately, Respondent made counterproposals, addressing both of the Union’s
concerns. First, on December 5, 2012, it reversed its good faith belief proposal to require that
Respondent conduct a good faith investigation, which gave the Union the right to show that
Respondent did not conduct a thorough investigation.
This revision did not satisfy the Union, and it was repeated since, in its view, even if the
Respondent conducted a good faith investigation, it would be unlawful to allow Respondent to
terminate an employee, who did not do anything wrong.
On January 30, 2013, Respondent submitted another revised proposal as a package on
discipline and discharge and arbitration. On arbitration, where Respondent had at a previous
meeting inserted proper cause and good faith belief into its arbitration proposal, which the Union
had objected to as “regressive,” Respondent agreed to withdraw the revision from its arbitration
proposal. Kauff added that if that was the only remaining issue, there is hope for a TA on
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
233
arbitration. After a caucus, the Union agreed, and the parties TA’ed the arbitration proposal,
agreed upon by the parties, without any reference to the proper cause language.
Respondent also made some revisions at that meeting by removing some grounds from
its proposal for immediate termination, such as recklessness, carelessness and horseplay.
On February 11, 2013, Respondent revised its proposal again, this time by changing the
“proper cause” language to “just cause” and packaged it with proposals on various other
subjects, such as contracting and union security. It also made another change by adding the
word “clear” to its previous listing of threat of physical violence as an immediate ground for
termination. It also removed walking off the job from that list of offenses, justifying immediate
termination.
The Union needed time to review the package and at the next meeting, rejected
Respondent’s package, stating that the substitution of just cause for proper cause was
insignificant and that the Union’s real concern was the Respondent’s good faith belief and
shifting of the burden of proof (in arbitration) to the Union.
The parties discussed and argued about the significance of the Respondent’s
concessions. While Kauff conceded that the proper cause versus just cause was not the only
issue of concern to the Union, it certainly was one of them and had been expressed
continuously by the Union as one of its objections to Respondent’s proposal. Indeed, Gallagher
conceded, in the course of the discussion of that day, that just cause language is better for the
Union and that proper cause is an advantage to Respondent “on every single case.”
Indeed, as I noted above, the Union had previously expressed the view during
bargaining that arbitrators were more familiar with the “just cause” terminology and that the
Union wanted to retain such language included in the agreement.
On September 11, 2013, Respondent introduced still another revised proposal on
discipline and discharge, which Kauff specifically stated was in response to the Union’s
objections to “good faith” in its previous proposals and the possibility that a person, who did not
commit the act, could be terminated. Respondent consequently removed the “good faith belief”
language and substituted the following: “Just cause for any decision shall be found to exist by
any arbitrator appointed under Article (Arbitration) unless the Union proves and the arbitrator
finds that the bargaining unit employee did not engage in conduct justifying the discipline or
discharge.”
Later on, in this meeting, the Union rejected Respondent’s proposal and made a
counterproposal by substituting the following: “Just cause for any decision shall be found to
exist by any arbitrator appointed under Article (Arbitration) provided the Company proves and
the arbitrator finds that (1) the bargaining unit employee engaged in conduct justifying the
discipline or discharge and (2) the penalty involved was reasonable.”
Respondent rejected the Union’s counterproposal on discipline and discharge.
Thus, I find, as detailed above, that the parties have continued to bargain over the
discharge and discipline issue, that Respondent has made substantial movement in response to
meeting concerns expressed by the Union and, even though no agreement has been reached
on this issue, the parties have made progress on the subject and the record does not establish
that Respondent has demonstrated bad faith bargaining or no intent to reach agreement by its
bargaining on this subject.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
234
It is true that Respondent’s last proposal did shift the burden of prove to the Union in an
arbitration proceeding, which is not easy for a union to accept. But that is insufficient to establish
bad faith bargaining.
Indeed, in this regard, I also note that Respondent introduced into the record several
contracts signed by unions that contained no or limited just cause provisions whatsoever and/or
provide limiting language to the just cause decision, such as including “the employer’s
reasonable judgment that an employee’s skill, ability and performance are unsatisfactory.”
Here, as noted, Respondent did agree to a just cause standard and removed its good
faith belief requirements. Thus, Respondent, while not agreeing with the Union’s last proposal,
which ultimately shifted the burden of proof back to the Respondent, there is no evidence that
Respondent was disposed to resist further modifications of its last proposal. Indeed, it had been
reaching agreement with the Union on matters that reflected movement from the Respondent’s
initial proposals. 88 Transit Lines, supra, 300 NLRB at 178 (fact that employer did not agree to
union’s “just cause” language does not establish bad faith); Coastal Electric, supra, 311 NLRB
at 1129 (employment at-will proposal, insufficient to establish bad faith); APT Medical, supra,
333 NLRB at 762 (proposal for final arbitration on discipline to vest in employer, insufficient to
establish bad faith bargaining).
I, therefore, conclude that Respondent has not insisted on or adhered to its discharge
proposals, that it has bargained with the Union about them and made concessions in response
to the Union’s concerns. It has, therefore, not refused to bargain in good faith with the Union
concerning these subjects. I so find and recommend dismissal of this complaint allegation.
E. The Alleged Refusal to Discuss Union Security and
the Alleged Raising of Philosophical Objections to Such a Clause
The Union introduced a standard union security clause on May 30, 2012, requiring union
membership as a condition of employment after 30 days of employment. The parties discussed
the proposal briefly at that meeting with Model asking some questions about probationary period
versus the time period for union security. Gallagher responded that the Union was proposing a
six-month probationary period.
Model never made a counter on union security during his tenure as negotiator because
Respondent had no agreement on management rights, and, according to Model, bargaining is
give and take and without agreement on management rights, Respondent wasn’t going to
purpose union security.
At the close of the October 12, 2012 meeting, the Union provided a list of items it wished
to be discussed at the next meeting, which included union security.
The parties’ next meeting was on October 16, 2012, but union security was not
discussed nor brought up by either party. The parties discussed other issues.
The parties met four more times between November 11 and December 17. Similarly,
union security wasn’t discussed, and the Union made no request to discuss it at any of these
meetings.
At the December 20, 2012 meeting, the Union furnished to Respondent a list of non-
economic items that it wished to discuss, which included union security.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
235
Kauff responded as follows: “Whether we have an understanding that we characterize
union security as economic, we think it is economic. We may respond on an economic basis,
but we think it’s economic and it has economic implications.”
At the next meeting, January 9, 2013, Respondent made a proposal on union security,
proposing maintenance of membership clause and packaged it with a proposal on payroll
deduction. Kauff also explained why Respondent believed that union security was an economic
proposal, which included Respondent’s reasons for proposing a maintenance clause rather than
agreeing to a standard union security clause. Kauff explained that Respondent feared that some
skilled employee might not want to work for Respondent if they were forced to become
members of the Union, and Respondent could lose some skilled workers, whom it spent time
training and did not want to lose. Kauff explained that maintenance of membership proposal
would not result in this problem since employees make the choice. Thus, if they choose to
become a member, they are bound to remain members.
The Union rejected Respondent’s counterproposal and promised a counter of its own.
On January 16, 2013, as promised, the Union made a counterproposal on union
security, proposing a standard union security clause but adding a clause that employees shall
not be required to become a member if employed in a state, which prohibits or makes it unlawful
to require such membership as a condition of employment.
The parties discussed this proposal, and Kauff observed that the Union’s revision of its
initial proposal was probably meaningless. Gallagher disagreed, reminding Kauff of what
happened in Michigan, where the law was changed.
Kauff replied that Respondent had proposed a form of union security (maintenance of
membership) and urged the Union to accept it.
Gallagher then proposed a package of management rights and union security and
pointed out that the Union had accepted most of Respondent’s language on management
rights.
The parties discussed the package, but Respondent rejected it but urged a TA on
management rights.
At the next session, April 9, 2013, Respondent presented its full economic proposal,
including a proposal for a complete collective bargaining agreement. The document included the
maintenance of membership clause on union security. Kauff stated it was ready and willing to
discuss and negotiate any items in this document and any rejected or new union proposals.
The parties discussed a number of items in that document, but union security was not
one of them. The Union made no attempt to discuss it or make a counterproposal on this
subject at this meeting.
As noted, the parties then met seven times with the federal mediator in May of 2013.
The record does not disclose what discussions, if any, concerning union security occurred
during the mediation sessions.
The parties next met on July 31, 2013. Respondent made some new proposals on union
security.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
236
On August 15, 2012, Respondent made a proposal to package management rights,
wherein the parties had essentially agreed on the language with the Union’s standard union
security clause. The Union agreed, and the parties TA’ed the Respondent’s package of union
security and management rights.
General Counsel and Charging Party contend that the above evidence establishes that
Respondent has refused to discuss union security and has opposed union security based on
“philosophical grounds,” thereby, violating Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act and constituting
evidence of bad faith bargaining. Universal Fuel, supra, 358 NLRB #150 at 1; ALJD slip op at
19, 21, 22; Chester County Hospital, 320 NLRB 604, 622 (1995), enfd. 116 F.3d 469 (3rd Cir.
1997); CJC Holdings, 320 NLRB 1041, 1047 (1996), affd. 110 F.3d 794 (5th Cir. 1997);
Hospitality Motor Inn, 249 NLRB 1036, fn. 1 (1980); A-1 King Size Sandwiches, supra, 732 F.2d
at 877.
Once again, I disagree with both of these contentions. I conclude, contrary to General
Counsel and Charging Party, that the record does not establish that Respondent refused to
discuss union security.
While the record does not reflect that the Union proposed a union security clause in its
initial proposals on May 30, 2012, the Union did not specifically request that Respondent
discuss or bargain about this proposal at any meeting. At the close of the October 12, 2012
meeting, the Union provided a list of items it wished to discuss at the next meeting, which
include union security.
The next meeting took place on October 26, 2012. Union security was not discussed nor
brought up by either party. Thus, while the Union had listed it as a subject it wished to discuss at
this meeting at the prior meeting, it made no effort to bring the subject up at the October 26
meeting and did not request on October 26 that Respondent discuss or negotiate about union
security. Therefore, I cannot and do not conclude that Respondent refused to discuss union
security at that meeting or at any time for that matter.
The Union finally made a specific request to discuss union security at the December 20,
2012 meeting by furnishing a list of “non-economic” items it wished to discuss.
Kauff responded that Respondent believed that union security was an economic item
and explained that it may respond in any event, which it did at the next meeting on January 9,
2013. At that meeting, Kauff explained why Respondent believed union security was an
economic item and proposed a maintenance of membership clause, which would, in
Respondent’s view, ally its alleged “economic” concerns. Thus, Kauff explained that
Respondent feared that skilled employees, whom it had spent time training, might not want to
be forced to become members of the Union and might leave if compelled to do so. This result
would have economic consequences in Respondent’s view and would be cured by a
maintenance of membership clause, which could not have these possible consequences.
I conclude that the above evidence does not establish that Respondent refused to
discuss union security. Rather, it demonstrates that, while it did state that it believed that union
security was an economic item (and the parties, in Respondent’s opinion, had agreed to defer
discussion of economic issues), it would and did, nonetheless, respond.
Respondent proposed an alternative union security clause, a maintenance of
membership clause and explained its reasons for proposing this clause as well as explaining
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
237
why it felt that union security was an economic proposal.
Therefore, I conclude that General Counsel has not established that Respondent
refused to discuss union security.
With respect to the contentions of General Counsel and Charging Party that Respondent
violated the Act and/or demonstrated bad faith bargaining by raising “philosophical objections”
to union security, I find that the record fails to substantiate those assertions.
While the precedent cited above51 does support such findings in certain situations, they
are clearly inapposite, here, and do not support the assertions by General Counsel and
Charging Party with respect to Respondent’s bargaining on union security.
The basis for the Board’s finding in certain circumstances that raising “philosophical
objections” to union security evince bad faith is aptly summarized by the ALJ in Chester County,
supra, affirmed by the Board:
In sum, for the reasons discussed, I find that the Company's asserted positions with
respect to dues checkoff and union security demonstrated that the Company was not
bargaining in good faith. Where, as here, the employer adamantly opposes union
security and checkoff on vague or generalized ''philosophical'' grounds or questionable
assertions of policy, the inference is warranted that the Employer entered negotiations
with a fixed intention not to consider or agree to any form of union security or checkoff,
and thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Hospitality Motor Inn, 249 NLRB
1036, 1040 (1980), enfd. 667 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 459 U.S. 969 (1982);
Sweeney & Co. v. NLRB, 437 F.2d 1127, 1134-1135 (5th Cir. 1971); Rockingham
Machine-Lunex Co., 255 NLRB 89, 107 (1981), enfd. 665 F.2d 303 (8th Cir. 1981);
Carolina Paper Board Corp., 183 NLRB 544, 551 (1970).
Id at 622.
See also Hospitality Motor Inn, supra, 249 NLRB at 1036, fn. 1 (Board agrees with judge that
employer had a fixed intent not to reach agreement on union security).
Thus, these cases demonstrate that a finding on unlawful “philosophical objections” to
union security is based on adamant adherence to refusing to agree to union security, which is
demonstrative of fixed intention not to agree to consider any form of union security.
Clearly Respondent has not violated the proscriptions in the above precedent.
Respondent has not adhered to or insisted on not agreeing to any form of union security but,
rather, had counterproposed a maintenance of membership clause, which is a form of union
security and explained its reasons for not agreeing initially to the Union’s union shop proposal.
It is well-established that the mere rejection of a union security clause does not establish
bad faith bargaining. St. George Warehouse, supra, 341 NLRB at 907, fn. 10; APT Medical,
supra, 333 NLRB at 770 (2001); Goldsmith Motors, 310 NLRB 1279, 1279-1283 (1993);
Challenge-Cook Bros., 288 NLRB 387, 388-389 (1988) (employer’s proposal to eliminate union
security as condition of employment from prior contract, not lawful). See also KFMB Stations,
349 NLRB 373, 374 (2007) (employer asserted a valid reason for its proposal to eliminate union

51 Universal Fuel, supra; Chester County, supra; Hospitality Motor Inn, supra.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
238
security because it did not want to be forced to remove on-the-air talent for non-payment of
dues).
The Board found that the explanations by the employer for its proposal to eliminate a
union security clause from a previous contract not be unreasonable. I find similarly, here, that
Respondent expressed concerns that it believed that some employees might leave their
employment if forced to pay dues to keep their jobs was not unreasonable and did not constitute
“philosophical objections.”
Further, as detailed above, Respondent did not demonstrate an objection to any form of
union security since it offered a maintenance of membership clause and under no evaluation of
the evidence can it be concluded that Respondent evinces a fixed determination not to reach
agreement on union security or on a contract as a whole.
Indeed, as related above, Respondent ultimately agreed to the Union’s proposal for a
union shop clause, requiring union membership as a condition of employment.
Accordingly, I shall again recommend dismissal of these complaint allegations and do
not find that Respondent’s bargaining over union security evinces bad faith bargaining on its
part.
F. The Alleged Regressive Proposals
The Board has stated that regressive bargaining is not unlawful in itself, rather it is
unlawful if it is for the purpose of frustrating the possibility of agreement. Irving Ready-Mix Inc.,
357 NLRB #105, ALJD slip op at 13 (2011); U.S. Ecology Corp., 331 NLRB 223, 225 (2000).
Here, General Counsel and Charging Party contend that Respondent’s proposals on
four areas represent unlawful regressive bargaining and indicia of bad faith bargaining. The
proposals are performance of bargaining unit work, complete agreement, applicable company
benefits and arbitration.
In agreement with the position of Respondent, I conclude, rather that no regressive
bargaining has been established, that the changes made by Respondent in its proposals were
explained primarily as clarifications of prior proposals and that when the Union objected and
characterized some of them as “regressive,” Respondent backed off and agreed to its initial
proposals on these subjects. In fact, the parties have agreed to all of the proposals referred to.
In such circumstances, no finding is appropriate that Respondent’s bargaining on these subjects
was designed to frustrate bargaining.
Thus, Respondent made a performance of bargaining unit work proposal on July 2, 2012
that provided that Respondent may use managers, supervisors or non-unit employees to
perform work covered by the agreement.
When Kauff took over negotiations on October 17, Respondent made a new proposal on
this subject, adding the words “in its sole discretion” to this proposal.
The Union stated at negotiations that it considered the new proposal to be regressive,
and Kauff responded that, in his view, the two proposals had the same meaning but that he and
Model had a different writing style, but the meaning was the same. Ultimately, the parties
reached agreement on performance of bargaining unit work on March 14, 2013, consistent with
the language in the Union’s last proposal. In my view, the proposal made by Respondent was
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
239
not regressive but merely a different way of phrasing Respondent’s position and was not
evidence of any desire of Respondent to frustrate agreement. Moreover, as noted, the parties
have reached agreement on this issue.
Similarly, Respondent’s original proposal on complete agreement by Model on July 2,
2012, which is a variation of a traditional zipper clause, stating that the terms of the contract
govern the relationship between the parties and that any past practices, employee benefits and
other terms of employment not specifically included in the agreement are “hereby waived.”
When Kauff took over in October of 2012, he presented a modified proposal, wherein he
added the words, “the parties hereby waive all further negotiations and neither party shall be
required to bargain regarding any terms of employment for the duration of the agreement.”
On November 2, 2012, the Union argued that this proposal was regressive in that Kauff
added the latter two sentences that were not in Model’s original proposal. Similar concerns were
again expressed by the Union at the November 27, 2012 meeting. Kauff explained that, in his
view, the meaning and intent of the proposals was the same, that his change was merely
clarification of the parties’ rights and explained the interplay between zipper clause and a
management rights clause. Kauff also stated that Respondent had no quarrel with agreeing to
the proposal made by Model but that Respondent wanted to make sure that the parties
understand what it means.
On January 13, 2012, Kauff again commented that the latest proposal made by
Respondent meant the same thing as Model’s proposal made in July, but Kauff repeated that
Model’s proposal was put across the table. Therefore, Respondent proposed the original
provision made by Model with one minor change in the first sentence. The Union agreed to this
revised proposal without the language objected to by the Union as regressive.
In these circumstances, I again conclude that no bad faith bargaining has been
established by Respondent’s bargaining concerning complete agreement. I find Kauff’s position
that his new proposal was merely a clarification with the same meaning as the Model proposal,
to be reasonable and not necessarily regressive to the extent that the new proposal could be
construed as regressive. Respondent ultimately capitulated to the Union’s concerns that the
proposal was regressive and agreed to Model’s original proposal with one minor change, which
the Union agreed upon.
Therefore, Respondent’s conduct cannot be construed as designed to obstruct
bargaining, was not unlawful and not indicative of bad faith bargaining. I so find.
On November 27, 2012, Respondent made a proposal entitled, “Applicable Company
Benefits,” reflecting that certain company benefits would be continued as they existed and
added, “The Company’s discretion and judgment as to the interpretation of and eligibility for the
policy shall prevail.” The benefits mentioned were jury duty and bereavement. On December 20,
2012, Respondent made another proposal with the same title, containing similar language but
adding leaves of absence to the previously mentioned jury duty and bereavement leave policies.
However, the December 20 proposal added an additional sentence, reading, “The Company in
its discretion and judgment may apply or not apply past practice as it determines.”
Kauff explained that Respondent merely added leaves of absence to the list previously
agreed to and that the new proposal would be a template for “as we move to add future
policies.”
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
240
The Union objected to the new proposal, specifically the reference to applying or not
applying past practice.
Kauff explained that he recognized that the parties had TA’ed the old proposal with the
old language and told the Union that if it prefers, Respondent would take out the new language
with respect to jury duty and bereavement and include it in a separate proposal on leaves of
absence.
Kauff also explained that he viewed the new proposal as, again, not a change but merely
a clarification since the meaning was the same inasmuch as past practice is part of
interpretation and eligibility and Respondent’s discretion prevails in either proposal.
The Union replied that it would look at it and get back to Respondent.
On January 3, 2013, Kauff made a separate proposal with the additional changes, only
referencing leaves of absence.
The Union, after a caucus, agreed to this proposal and TA’ed it, even though it included
the language that the Union had objected to in the jury duty and bereavement pay proposal.
On March 6, 2013, Respondent proposed six new policies to be added to the list of
applicable benefits, utilizing the same language agreed to by the Union previously with regard to
leaves of absence. After a dispute about whether some provisions should be included (shift
differential and standby), the parties finally agreed on the language after two revisions by
Respondent and agreed to TA the proposal, which included four additional benefits to the
Respondent’s proposal on applicable company benefits.
Once again, I find that the above evidence falls short of establishing that Respondent’s
bargaining over applicable company benefits was unlawful or designed to frustrate bargaining.
Finally, Respondent proffered an arbitration proposal on July 2, 2012. The Union had
made its arbitration proposal on May 30, 2012.
On December 5, 2012, Respondent made a new arbitration proposal, which was similar
to its July 2, 2012 proposal, except that it added sentences consistent with Respondent’s
discharge and discipline proposals that define discipline as “proper cause,” which will be found
to exist unless the Union proves that the company did not have a good faith belief the employee
engaged in the conduct at issue.
Kauff explained that the change in Respondent’s previous arbitration proposal was
meant to conform it to the language in the discipline and discharge proposal so that “the
arbitrator doesn’t have to go to two places and the standard in discharge clause is put in the
arbitration clause.” Kauff further explained that he wanted the arbitrator to understand that the
burden of proof is on the Union.
The Union made no comment about Respondent’s arbitration proposal at that meeting.
On December 17, 2012, the Union submitted a counterproposal on arbitration, adopting
most of Respondent’s original proposal submitted on July 2, but omitting the additional
sentences proposed in Respondent’s December revisions.
The parties discussed these proposals over the next several sessions. The Union
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
241
characterized Respondent’s proposal at the January 17, 2013 session as “regressive” since the
portions about proper cause and good faith belief were not included in Respondent’s July
proposal. Kauff argued that it was not regressive but merely a clarification and it made sense to
remind the arbitrator that “it is in there.” Gallagher responded, “But you didn’t think you needed
to do that when you originally started bargaining.”
Gallagher suggested that the parties should TA the arbitration clause without the
additional language and resolve the dispute issues in the discipline and discharge discussions.
At the next meeting, January 30, 2013, Respondent acceded to the Union’s request and
agreed to delete the additional language objected to from its arbitration proposal. Kauff
explained that, while Respondent still did not believe that its proposal was regressive but if
anything was redundant since the Union had pressed Respondent to remove the additional
language, it would agree to remove these sentences and resolve the issues in discipline and
discharge discussions. Consequently, Respondent proposed a package of a revised discipline
and discharge proposal along with the arbitration proposal previously submitted in July.
After the parties discussed Respondent’s discipline and discharge modifications without
reaching agreement, Respondent uncoupled the package and urged the parties to TA the last
arbitration proposal, which, as noted, was consistent with its July proposal. The Union agreed,
and the parties TA’ed the proposal.
Once again, I conclude, contrary to the arguments of General Counsel and Charging
Party, that no bad faith has been established by Respondent’s bargaining over arbitration.
I do not believe that the Respondent engaged in “regressive” bargaining, and I agree
with Kauff’s view that the new proposal was more properly characterized as a clarification or, at
most, redundant but not regressive. Thus, the new proposal does not constitute a reduction or a
retreat on this proposal but is merely a proposal to be consistent with the discipline and
discharge clause, which, indeed, even the Union concedes that the arbitrator would be bound to
follow in any event, even if it did not appear in the arbitration clause.
Further, as detailed above, once the Union objected to the new proposal as “regressive,”
Respondent, in order to move forward and attempt to reach agreements, acceded to the Union’s
concerns and promptly agreed to remove the offending, allegedly “regressive” portions from its
proposals, resulting in a TA on this clause.
This is not the conduct of an employer seeking to “frustrate agreement.”
I, therefore, conclude, as I have with respect to other proposals, that General Counsel
asserts that Respondent unlawfully bargained by making “regressive” proposals that such
contention has not been established.
I shall, therefore, recommend dismissal of these complaint allegations and shall not
construe Respondent’s bargaining over these proposals as any indication of bad faith
bargaining or a desire on the part of Respondent to frustrate agreement.
G. The Alleged Withdrawal from a Tentative Agreement
The Union’s initial demands on May 30, 2012 contained a standard proposal for payroll
deduction of union dues. On July 2, 2012, when the parties went over the Union’s proposal,
Model stated that there was an “agreement in concept” on that proposal and that Respondent
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
242
would come back with a counter.
On October 12, 2012, Gallagher mentioned that the payroll deduction proposal was one
of the many items that the parties had not spoken about in a while.
On January 6, 2013, Respondent presented a proposal on payroll deduction. The
proposal provided that Respondent would make deductions from employees for union dues,
essentially similar to the Union’s language but also added some additional sections. These
provisions included that the authorizations for deductions shall be voluntary and revocable at
any time, upon two weeks’ notice by the employee to the employer and that the article shall not
survive after the expiration of the contract.
The proposal provided that the Union defend and indemnity Respondent and save
Respondent harmless for any claims, suits or liability that arise out of any action by Respondent
in complying with the terms of the article.
Kauff explained the purposes of Respondent’s proposal. He stated that, while it believed
that payroll deduction was an economic proposal since it cost Respondent money to administer
it, Respondent was willing to provide this service to the Union. Kauff explained further that
Board law had recently changed to state that the checkoff obligation continues, even though the
contract expires. Thus, Respondent wanted this contract to be consistent with the law (prior to
the recent NLRB decision) and that Respondent wanted employees to be able to revoke their
authorization, if the employees so desire.
Significantly, at no time did the Union accuse Respondent of withdrawing from a
tentative agreement reached or regressive bargaining over this subject. In fact, it is clear that
there was never a tentative agreement on this subject. The parties had not TA’ed any proposal
on this subject and Model’s statement that there was an “agreement in concept” on checkoff
was not retracted or withdrawn from in Respondent’s January 9, 2013 proposal. Respondent
was still agreeing to the “concept” of payroll deduction of dues but simply adding some
conditions to its agreement. Thus, there has been no showing or demonstration that
Respondent withdrew from a tentative agreement on payroll deduction of union dues.
Further, the record reflects that, on January 17, 2013, the Union agreed to Respondent’s
proposal on union dues but not as part of a package as Respondent had proposed.
On March 14, 2013, Respondent agreed, as the Union has suggested in January, to
uncouple Respondent’s proposal on payroll deduction of union dues, and the parties agreed to
TA that proposal.
Based on the foregoing, I shall recommend dismissal of the complaint allegation and
shall not construe Respondent’s bargaining over payroll deductions as an indication of bad faith
bargaining.
H. The Alleged Refusal to Discuss Mandatory Subjects of Bargaining
1. Seniority
On July 2, 2012, the Union submitted a seniority proposal.
On October 12, 2012, Gallagher presented Respondent a list of union issues that the
parties had not spoken about for a while, and the list included seniority.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
243
On November 27, 2012, the Union asked Respondent for a response to items that it
previously requested to discuss, including seniority. Kauff responded that Respondent believes
that seniority is a flawed concept, fundamentally so and “inconsistent with rewarding merit.” He
continued to explain why he felt that seniority should not be applicable in various situations and
not appear in the contract. Kauff added that the Union should withdraw its proposal.
Calabrese asked how many contracts did Kauff negotiate without seniority, and Kauff
replied many. Calabrese argued that he hadn’t seen many, and the parties discussed the issue
further with no agreement reached.
On March 19, 2013, the Union submitted a proposal entitled, “Force Adjustment,” which
dealt with layoff, and in which the Union proposed that employees be given preference for recall
based on seniority as well as some preferences in the layoff decisions. The proposal states that
employees should be given preference in accordance “with seniority subject to their skills and
experience.”
The parties discussed this proposal, during which Kauff reiterated the comments that he
had made previously that Respondent rejects the principle that mandates that seniority be the
determinative factor in layoff and recall decisions. Kauff added that while Respondent does
consider “seniority or length of service” in these decisions but that skills and performance are
most important. Thus, Respondent does not want to be mandated to rely solely on seniority.
After further discussion, Kauff stated, “We rejected and continue to reject the notion that
seniority would play a role in any preferential position—I shouldn’t say seniority. I should say
time in service—because the company doesn’t do that. It might consider time in service, but it
doesn’t say that time in service trumps.”
Gallagher responded that the Union’s proposal refers to “subject to their skills and
experience,” which in Gallagher’s view is “the same thing.”
Kauff asked, “So, you’re saying if skills are equal, then seniority governs.” Gallagher
responded, “Yes.” Kauff answered, “We reject that.”
It is clear based on the above facts that General Counsel has fallen short of establishing
that Respondent has refused to discuss seniority (an obvious mandatory subject of bargaining).
In fact, the evidence disclosed that Respondent never refused to discuss the issue, and
while it repeatedly stated that Respondent rejected the concept and asked the Union to
withdraw its proposal, Respondent did not refuse to discuss it. To the contrary, Kauff explained
Respondent’s reasons for rejecting seniority and its reasons for rejecting the Union’s more
specific proposal for preferences in layoff and recall based on seniority.
Thus, Respondent not only did not refuse to discuss it but did discuss it, provided
reasons to the Union for rejecting the concept as well as for rejecting its specific proposals.
General Counsel and Charging Party seem to be confusing conduct of rejecting a proposal with
refusing to discuss it. While it can be, and it often is, a violation to refuse to discuss a mandatory
subject of bargaining, it is not a violation to reject a proposal made on a party involving a
mandatory subject of bargaining. It is not unlawful to reject a seniority proposal, and
Respondent is not required to agree to one. Its failure to do so cannot be construed as evidence
of an intent to frustrate agreement as argued by Charging Party.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
244
2. Safety
The Union made a proposal, entitled, “Safety.” It provided for the establishment of an
advisory committee to be known as the Safety and Health Committee to meet twice a year to
develop facts and make recommendations on safety matters and issues. It also asked for paid
time off for employees to attend these meetings.
On October 12, 2012, Gallagher listed safety as one of the union proposals that were
still open.
On December 20, 2012, Kauff addressed the Union’s proposal. The first paragraph
could be agreed to with some minor changes, but as for the rest of the proposal, Respondent
felt it was redundant since the company listens to and discusses these issues already with
employees and brought up the regular toolbox meetings as examples.
There was a discussion back and forth about the toolbox meeting being an adequate
substitute for the Union’s proposal. Kauff did say that he felt that proposal for the establishment
of a committee was “a waste of time” when the company spends a lot of time on safety.
The Union objected that characterization and asserted that discussion of safety is never
a waste of time.
Kauff finally told the Union that Respondent would “take it under advisement.” He also
said that Respondent would “consider the feedback from the discussion and respond to it.”
On January 9, 2013, Respondent did respond as promised. While Kauff introduced a
proposal, entitled, “Employee Relations Consultations,” he stated that that was in response to
the Union’s proposal and added that Respondent originally thought and still believes that a
safety committee was not necessary.
However, Respondent does believe that there is value to having semi-annual meetings
to discuss matters of mutual concern, including safety. Respondent’s proposal called for the
Respondent and the Union to meet on a semi-annual basis to discuss matters of mutual
concern, including matters of safety.
At the parties’ next meeting, on January 16, 2013, Gallagher stated that the Union would
agree to the Respondent’s counterproposal. Kauff and Gallagher agreed that Respondent’s
proposal, to which the parties agreed, takes care of the Union’s prior proposal, entitled, “Safety.”
It is undisputed that safety is a mandatory subject of bargaining and that an employer is
required to discuss and bargain about it with the union that represents its employees. However,
I find once again, contrary to General Counsel and Charging Party’s positions, that the record
does not establish that Respondent refused to discuss this subject with the Union. To the
contrary, the record does disclose that Respondent discussed the Union’s safety proposal and
initially the position that it did not see the need for a safety committee since Respondent already
discusses the issue with employees. However, after further discussion with the Union, Kauff
stated that Respondent would take the Union’s concerns under advisement and respond.
Respondent, as promised, did respond promptly at the next meeting and made its own
counterproposal, which the Union agreed to on January 16, 2013. Therefore, I find that the
contention that Respondent refused to discuss safety has no merit and mandates dismissal of
this complaint allegation, which I shall recommend.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
245
General Counsel obviously recognizing the lack of merit to its contention that
Respondent refused to discuss a mandatory subject of bargaining made an alternative
contention as follows. That is that the Respondent’s conduct of failing to submit a
counterproposal to the Union’s July 2, 2012 proposal until January 16, 2013 “represents a
refusal to discuss a mandatory subject for more than 5 months without a valid reason” and is an
indicia of bad faith and a violation of 8(a)(5) of the Act.
I find this contention equally without merit. There was never a refusal to discuss a
mandatory subject as detailed above. The fact that Respondent did not introduce a
counterproposal for five or six months is not the same as a refusal to discuss. Further, as
detailed above, Respondent discussed the Union’s proposal in December and rejected it but
promised a response, which it made in January, which the proposal was agreed upon by the
Union.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, I recommend dismissal of the complaint allegation
that Respondent refused to discuss mandatory subjects of bargaining and shall not consider
Respondent’s bargaining over seniority or safety as indications that it refused to bargain in good
faith or that it did not intend to reach agreement.
I. The Alleged Delay in Providing Wage Information to the Union
On August 23, 2012, the Union submitted the following information request to
Respondent:
Dear Mr. Model:
In connection with the current contract negotiations between Cablevision
Systems New York City Corporation and Communications Workers of America, Local
1109, the Union requests the following information:
Documents reflecting any changes made during the period of April 1, 2012 to the
present with respect to the following:
1. The wages and benefits of all non-Brooklyn Cablevision employees employed in the
same or similar job classifications as members of the CWA bargaining unit who are
employed in Brooklyn, New York.
2. The Career Progression Plan for all non-Brooklyn Cablevision employees employed in
the same or similar job classifications as members of the CWA bargaining unit who are
employed in Brooklyn, New York.
3. The Salary Matrix for all non-Brooklyn Cablevision employees employed in the same
or similar job classifications as members of the CWA bargaining unit who are employed
in Brooklyn, New York.
On September 5, 2012, Respondent replied to the Union’s request by letter from Denise
Barton Ward of Littler Mendelson, who was filling in for Model, who was on his honeymoon. It
reads:
Dear Mr. Gallagher:
This letter responds to the Union's information requests dated August 23, 2012. Your
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
246
requests ask for wages and benefits, career progression plan, and salary matrix "for all
non-Brooklyn Cablevision employees employed in the same or similar job classifications
as members of the CWA bargaining unit who are employed in Brooklyn, New York."
The request, as written, is unclear. If you are requesting information for "non-Brooklyn
Cablevision employees" "employed in Brooklyn," there are no such employees. If you
are requesting information for non-Brooklyn employees in the same or similar job
classifications as the Brooklyn employees, the information you request is not
presumptively relevant as it relates to non-represented employees. Therefore, please
explain the relevancy and we will reconsider the request and respond.
If you feel your request requires further clarification, please do so and we will review and
respond to the clarified request. Otherwise we believed we have fully responded to this
information request.
Gallagher replied by letter, dated September 11, 2012, but not received by Respondent
until September 17, 2012, explaining the relevance of the Union’s requests. Thus, he noted the
pay raises and other benefits granted by Respondent at other facilities was discussed, and the
Union needed the information requested in order to formulate proposals on wages benefits and
promotions.
On October 12, 2012, as noted, Kauff replaced Model as chief negotiator for
Respondent. Kauff commented that the Union had a pending information request with respect to
non-unit employees. He added that putting aside the issue of whether the Union is entitled to it,
“in the spirit of cooperation,” Respondent will comply with the request either before or at the next
meeting.
On October 26, 2012, the next session, Respondent, as promised, provided its
information to the Union in response to the August 23 request.
Respondent produced documents consisting of 12 pages, including a PowerPoint
document, showing titles and grades for each department but missing their salary and wage
range. It does include a one-page document comparing wages for only two classifications,
techs-inside plant and Rep. SR-RCC.
Kauff conceded that these were the only two job titles that Respondent compared and
added that the information required would encompass over 10,000 employees, so it provided a
comparison of two titles in Brooklyn and the Bronx. Hilber also commented as to why
Respondent did not make more comparisons. He stated, “We can’t really do other comparisons
because we have a list of movement. No longer have (Grade) 13s here.”
Hendrickson then commented that the Union wanted “13s compared to 12s,” and
Calabrese added that “we will provide a list of what we wanted compared.” Hilber replied,
“When you come back with more, we can do a comparison and come back with a career
progression.”
Notably, no one from the Union accused Respondent of delaying its information
response or that it was inadequate or incomplete, other than by the above comments by
Hendrickson and Calabrese that the Union would be seeking more comparisons and
Calabrese’s statement that he would provide a list of what the Union wanted compared. Hilber,
as noted, promised to comply with any additional requests by the Union.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
247
The Union did not make any additional requests for information or ask for more
comparisons until Gallagher’s December 31, 2012 letter when it asked for “wage comparisons
given to us on October 26, 2012 for all titles in the bargaining unit.”
On January 9, 2013, the next meeting, Respondent provided the Union with the
information requested on December 31, 2012. It consisted of lists of all Brooklyn and Bronx
employees, including job titles, grades and salaries for each employee. The parties discussed
the information submitted and questions were asked and answered. The Union asked about
what happened on May 1, 2012 outside of Brooklyn and observed that the Union was confused
about what happened on May 1. Hilber replied, “It was a confusing process. The analysis was
months and months of activity.”
Questions were asked about the current merit increase process, and Respondent replied
that this process is continuing everywhere throughout the footprint, including Brooklyn.
Gallagher requested an updated salary structure, which Respondent promptly provided
later in that meeting.
Once more, no one from the Union indicated at this meeting that responses were
delayed, inadequate or incomplete or that anything was missing.
At the February 5, 2013 meeting, Kauff said to the Union, “Will you review your notes
and let us know if there is any additional information that has been requested and not provided?
We think we’re up to date, but we want to make sure we are.” The Union did not identify any
unaddressed requests nor ask for any other information at that time.
It was not until February 28, 2013, seven bargaining sessions after Respondent had
furnished to the Union information requested on December 31, 2012 that the Union by
Gallagher requested additional wage information as follows:
BG: On that note, you had given us a document on January 9, showing the salary detail
of the Bronx employees. What we need with this -- this is the current salary of the Bronx
employees as of January 2, 2013. What we would like, and I don't believe we received
this, is a document of what they made before they got their increases. As we went
through this and on other times with the career progression plan, there were comments
from the company that we could never figure this out because it's so hard, that we can't
figure out what you did. For the wages, we don't need names, but we want to know what
each person made before the wages changed.
Gallagher informed Kauff that the Union needed this information in order to make a
comprehensive wage proposal that Respondent had been pressing the Union to make.
Kauff stated that Respondent “put it on priority” (the responses) and will let the Union
know by the end of the meeting when it would provide the information requested by the Union.
At the end of the session, Respondent informed the Union that it would have the
information by “next week.”
As promised, Respondent provided the Union with the information it requested at the
start of the parties’ next meeting on March 6, 2013.
Kauff gave the Union the information, which consisted of seven pages and listed each
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
248
Bronx employee (without name), the employee’s grade, annual salary, job title and a column,
entitled “Yrs. Srv. in Grade.” Kauff commented that the Union would want to look the document
over and might have questions, if so, Respondent would try to respond.
The Union asked no questions about the document, and the Union did not indicate that
anything was missing. In fact, there was no discussion of the information at all during the
meeting.
In March of 2013, as noted above, the Union presented a comprehensive wage
proposal, which was discussed by the parties, and there have been back and forth proposals by
the parties with respect to wages.
During the mediation sessions between the parties in May of 2013, the Union’s attorney
asked for promotion information concerning the starting and maximum wage rates of non-unit
employees. This information had not been specifically requested before. Respondent provided
the information requested during the mediation sessions. The career progression plan submitted
by Respondent during mediation included salary ranges, which had not been included in
Respondent’s prior submission to the Union.
On August 15, 2013, Respondent provided to the Union a single, corrected sheet of
information after it realized that there was an error on one sheet concerning job classifications
given to the Union at mediation.
At the August 15, 2013 bargaining session, the parties discussed the correction and the
information provided by Respondent.
Gallagher, in his testimony in this proceeding, disputed the assertion by Kauff and
Respondent that the information requested by the Union during mediation and submitted by
Responded was not a “new request” and asserted that it was covered by the Union’s initial
request of August 23, 2012. Notably, however, neither Gallagher nor anyone else from the
Union ever made such an assertion during any bargaining session, including the one on August
15, 2013, when the Respondent’s submission was discussed.
The Union did make an assertion in a charge in Case No. 29-CA-100175, filed on March
12, 2013, that the Respondent had delayed in supplying requested information.
After the March 14, 2013, Kauff asked the Union about these charges and the allegation
that Respondent failed and delayed providing information. Gallagher and Calabrese looked at
each other and said, “We need to research that one too.”52
It is clear that an employer is obligated to furnish relevant information to the Union upon
request. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 US 432, 435-436 (1967).
When a union requests information that relates to non-unit employees, the union must
demonstrate (if requested) the relevance of the information requested. Chrysler LLC, 354 NLRB
1032, 1032-1033 (2010); Dexter Fastener Technologies, 321 NLRB 612, 613 fn. 2 (1996);
Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp., 315 NLRB 257, 259 (1994).

52 Kauff had also asked about the allegations in the charge about creating the impression of
surveillance and threatening that bargaining is futile. Gallagher and Calabrese said, “We don’t
know what this is about.”
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
249
Further, the obligation to supply information also includes the obligation to supply
information in a timely and complete fashion and the failure to do so without an adequate
explanation is violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Pan American Grain, 343 NLRB
318 (2004) (3-month delay); Bundy Corp., 292 NLRB 671 (1989) (2.5-month delay); Woodland
Clinic, 331 NLRB 735, 736 (2000) (7-week delay). See also Regency Service Carts, supra, 345
NLRB at 676.
In applying these principles to the instant facts, both General Counsel and Charging
Party contend that Respondent has unreasonably delayed the furnishing of relevant information
to the Union in that it took Respondent nearly one year to finally supply the Union with the
complete information it requested and needed (August 23, 2012 to August 15, 2013).
General Counsel also argues that Respondent unreasonably delayed the supplying of
any information to the Union with respect to this request by initially delaying from August 23 to
October 26, 2012 to make its initial submission. I cannot agree with this contention.
Here, while the Union made its request for information on August 23, 2012, Respondent
promptly requested an explanation of the relevance of the non-unit information as it was
permitted to do. The Union did reply to the request and adequately explained the relevance of
the information requested by letter, dated September 11, 2012, but not received by Respondent
until September 17, 2012. Thus, the measurement of time for assessing timely responses
begins on that date. U.S. Post Office, 360 NLRB #94 ALJD slip op at 5 (2014). Renal Care of
Buffalo Inc., 347 NLRB 1284, 1286 (2006).
Therefore, I conclude that Respondent’s response from September 17 to October 26
was not unreasonably delayed, particularly in view of the nature of the request, which required
review of substantial numbers of documents.
That leaves the more troublesome question of whether Respondent’s failure to
completely respond to the Union’s request was unreasonably delayed or insufficient inasmuch
as it did not fully comply until August 15, 2013, almost a year after the initial request was made.
In this regard, both General Counsel and Charging Party argue, as Gallagher stated in
testimony, that the original request of August 23, 2012, encompassed all of the material that
Respondent eventually submitted and that it took several requests from the Union to obtain
what Respondent should have submitted in response to the Union’s first request.
While these arguments have some surface appeal, a careful examination of the facts, as
detailed above, mandates a contrary conclusion.
While on its face, the request could arguably be construed as covering most, if not all, of
the material submitted, it is not at all clear.
I also find it troubling, as pointed out by General Counsel and Charging Party, that
Respondent submitted, initially, comparisons from only two job classifications, representing an
extremely small percentage of its employees in the unit. However, I find that Respondent did
provide an explanation for its failure to do so by Kauff informing the Union that the information
would encompass over 10,000 employees, so it chose to submit a comparison of two titles in
Brooklyn and the Bronx. Further, Hilber raised another reason, such as Respondent had a lot of
movement among its employees and that Respondent no longer has Grade 13s in Brooklyn.
While I do not find these explanations particularly persuasive, they are not frivolous or specious
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
250
and, in my view, they, at least, required the Union to object and come forward with a complaint
about the adequacy of the explanations or a request for additional information.
Here, the Union made no complaint about the timeliness of the submission or the
adequacy of Respondent’s explanations for not submitting more information but merely
indicated that it would be seeking more comparisons. Indeed, Calabrese specifically stated on
October 26, 2012 that he would provide a list of what the Union wanted compared. Respondent
promised to comply with any additional requests by the Union.
Inexplicably, the Union waited until December 31, 2012, over two months from the
meeting of October 26, to make its request for more comparisons as indicated by Calabrese
that he would supply. I, therefore, find that any delay in receiving the additional requested
information can be attributed to the Union’s lack of diligence in making a more timely request for
more comparisons.
Notably, if it was so obvious, as Gallagher, the Union and Charging Party contend, that
the Union’s initial request already covered all or more comparisons, why didn’t anyone say so at
the October 26 meeting or, indeed, at any subsequent meeting. Further, the Union’s request,
finally made on December 31, 2012, simply asked for comparisons for “all” employees. Such a
request could and should simply have been made by the Union at the October 26, 2012
meeting.
More importantly, Respondent, as promised, promptly complied by submitting all the
information requested by the Union on January 9, 2013, the parties’ next meeting.
The parties discussed the information at that meeting, and the Union requested an
updated salary structure, which Respondent promptly supplied at that meeting.
Once again, no one from the Union asserted at this meeting that Respondent’s
submission was inadequate or insufficient or that its initial or subsequent request encompasses
items not supplied.
Significantly, at the February 3, 2013 meeting, Kauff specifically asked the Union if there
is any additional information that has been requested and not provided. No one from the Union
identified any undisclosed requests nor asked for any other information at that time. It is
reasonable to conclude, which I do, that as far as the Union was concerned, Respondent had
fully and timely complied with all its information requests, including the requests regarding
wages.
It was not until February 28, 2013, seven bargaining sessions after Respondent
complied with the last information request, when Gallagher asked for additional information. He
asked Respondent for information concerning what salaries the Bronx employees were making
before they received their May 1, 2012 increases. Notably, Gallagher did not say that this
information had been included in or encompassed by either of the Union’s prior requests but
simply that the Union needed this information because the Union was having trouble in figuring
out what Respondent did with the Career Progression Plan. I conclude that this was a new
request by the Union and that the Union viewed it as a new request and not that it was covered
by any of its initial requests.
Respondent put the information “on priority” as stated by Kauff and once again promptly
provided it to the Union at the parties’ next meeting on March 6, 2013. Subsequently, the Union
presented its comprehensive wage proposal, and the parties have continued to bargain over
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
251
wages ever since, including during mediation sessions in May of 2013. In that latter regard,
during these mediation meetings, the Union’s attorney asked for promotion information
concerning the starting and maximum wage rates for non-unit employees. This was new
information that had not been requested before and was again promptly supplied by
Respondent during the mediation proceedings. While as General Counsel and Charging Party
point out, the information submitted during mediation contained “salary ranges,” which had not
been included in Respondent’s prior submissions, the record does not disclose that “salary
ranges” had ever been requested previously.
In this regard, I find that Gallagher’s testimony that the request during mediation was not
a new request but encompassed by the Union’s initial request of August 23, 2012 to be self-
serving, unpersuasive and contrary to the Union’s own conduct during the negotiations. Thus,
as detailed above, Respondent specifically asked the Union at the February 9 meeting, whether
any additional information was outstanding or due. No one from the Union said anything.
Further there is no evidence that when the Union’s attorney made his request for this
information in May 2013 that either he or Gallagher or anyone from the Union asserted that this
information should have been provided earlier or that it was encompassed by any of the Union’s
previous requests.
Therefore, I conclude that the evidence discloses that Respondent has promptly
complied with all of the Union’s requests for wage information. While the submissions may not
have been sufficiently complete initially, when the Union requested information that it believed
was missing or necessary, Respondent again promptly supplied what the Union requested.
It is true that it was not until August of 2013 when Respondent finally, fully complied with
the request by supplying one minor correction to its submission in May of 2013, but this was
simply an inadvertent error, discovered by and corrected by Respondent. I find no bad faith
exhibited by Respondent in these circumstances. The fact that it made one minor, clearly
inadvertent error, one that it corrected on its own, cannot be construed as unlawful or an indicia
of bad faith. I so find.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing analysis and authorities, I recommend dismissal of
the complaint allegations that Respondent unreasonably delayed providing wage information to
the Union, and I shall not find that its conduct relating to the providing of such information is
indicative of bad faith.
J. The Alleged Surface Bargaining
The Board in St. George Warehouse, supra, 341 NLRB 904 at 906 sets forth an apt
summary of the legal standard in assessing surface bargaining allegations, quoting liberally
from PSO, supra, 334 NLRB at 487. The Board observed:
Legal Standard
Section 8(d) of the Act defines the duty to bargain collectively as "the
performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the
employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment ... but such obligation does not
compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession."
"Good-faith bargaining 'presupposes a desire to reach ultimate agreement, to enter into
a collective bargaining contract.'" Public Service Co. of Oklahoma, 334 NLRB 487
(2001), enfd. 318 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting NLRB v. Insurance Agents' Union,
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
252
361 U.S. 477, 485 (1960)). However, "[a] party is entitled to stand firm on a position if he
reasonably believes that it is fair and proper or that he has sufficient bargaining strength
to force the other party to agree." Atlanta Hilton & Tower, 271 NLRB 1600, 1603 (1984)
(citing NLRB v. Advanced Business Forms Corp., 474 F.2d 457, 467 (2nd Cir. 1973)).
"In determining whether a party has violated its statutory duty to bargain in good
faith, the Board examines the totality of the party's conduct, both at and away from the
bargaining table." Public Service Co., supra at 487 (internal citations omitted). From the
context of a party's total conduct, the Board determines whether the party is "engaging in
hard but lawful bargaining to achieve a contract that it considers desirable or is
unlawfully endeavoring to frustrate the possibility of agreement." Id.
In applying these principles, here, and examining Respondent’s conduct both at and
away from the bargaining table, I conclude that the evidence fails to establish that Respondent
engaged in surface bargaining.
I have examined Respondent’s conduct at the bargaining table and have, as detailed
above, rejected all the specific alleged violations of the Act and/or indicia of surface bargaining
alleged in the complaint and asserted by General Counsel and Charging Party. I reaffirm these
conclusions and do not find that those assertions and allegations, either singly or collectively,
establish an intent by Respondent to frustrate agreement or an intent not to reach agreement.
Rather, I conclude that the evidence indicates that Respondent engaged in hard but
lawful bargaining to achieve a contract that it considers desirable. St. George Warehouse, supra
at 906, 907; Litton Microwave Cooking Products, 300 NLRB 324, 336 (1990).
As I have detailed above in discussing the numerous allegedly unlawful conduct
engaged in by Respondent concerning the proposals that it made, I have concluded that
Respondent did not insist on any of its proposals, that it bargained with the Union over all of
them, gave explanations of its positions, made concessions and movement on these issues in
response to the Union’s concerns and, in fact, ultimately reached agreement with the Union on
a number of important issues, such as arbitration, union security and performance of bargaining
unit work, and moved closer to agreement on other contentious issues, such as contracting53
and discipline and discharge.
Such conduct of Respondent, where it has moved towards the Union’s position in a
number of areas and agreed on a number of issues,54 including some significant issues, as
detailed above, does not reflect that it intended to frustrate agreement or that it engaged in

53 I emphasize that, with respect to contracting, the status quo involved a situation, where
Respondent already contracted out 50% of bargaining unit work, consistent with industry
practice. Yet, Respondent moved from its initial proposal of unlimited discretion to contract out
to addressing the Union’s concerns and agreeing to limitations on this right and agreeing to
restricting contracting that would cause layoffs for trouble calls, which represents the bulk of the
work contracted out by Respondent. While the parties haven’t yet agreed on the details of this
proposal (i.e. whether a small group of non-technicians would be covered by the non-layoff
language), the evidence reflects substantial movement by Respondent, which is contrary to the
status quo in direct response to the Union’s concerns.
54 The record reflects that the parties reached 45 tentative agreement over the course of 29
bargaining sessions between May 30, 2012 and December 12, 2013, plus seven days of
mediation in May of 2013.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
253
surface bargaining. St. George Warehouse, supra (employer made concessions and reached
agreement with the union on a number of issues); Litton Microwave, supra (employer
demonstrated flexibility, made concessions, reached agreements and provided explanations of
its bargaining positions); 88 Transit Lines, supra, 300 NLRB at 179 (parties reached agreements
and movement made by both parties); Commercial Candy Vending Division, 294 NLRB 908,
909-910 (1989) (employer modified, redrafted and withdrew proposals in major areas in
response to concerns expressed by the union); Tritac Corp., 286 NLRB 522, 523 (1987) (parties
reached agreement on numerous subjects, substantial progress was made on some issues not
agreed upon and parties discussed at length issues on which they have not reached full
agreement).
I am cognizant of the contentions made by General Counsel and Charging Party that
many of the agreement reached as well as some of Respondent’s flexibility that occurred with
respect to some issues did not occur until after the instant charges were filed and/or the
complaint was issued. I find that contention misplaced and also conclude that it is inappropriate
to measure Respondent’s bargaining only through March of 2013 as the complaint alleged.
Indeed, General Counsel and Charging Party are not consistent in their contentions since they
continue to rely on events past March of 2013 in arguing that Respondent engaged in surface
bargaining. Indeed, notwithstanding the complaint’s restriction of bad faith bargaining through
March of 2013, it is clear that General Counsel and Charging Party are contending that
Respondent’s entire bargaining through December of 2013 was unlawful and the trial was
litigated in that fashion with testimony about and bargaining notes introduced from all of the
parties’ sessions.
Thus, I find it inappropriate to parcel out and evaluate Respondent’s bargaining
proposals differently, pre- or post-charges or complaint. In my view, bargaining must be
considered based on the totality of the bargaining from start to finish. Indeed, it has been held
that “the key question in surface bargaining cases is not what respondent initially offers, but
what its bottom line position is throughout or at the end of negotiations.” Peelle Co., 289 NLRB
113, 120 (1988) (employer, during the course of negotiations, made substantial concessions,
eliminated some of its objectionable proposals and made significant offers on substantive
issues). See also 88 Transit Lines, supra, 300 NLRB at 178 (“Indeed, a major function of the
bargaining process is reaching common ground that represents modifications of language
contained in parties’ initial proposals”).
I, therefore, reject any analysis based on whether or when Respondent modified its
positions or reached agreements with the Union on various proposals, as detailed above.
Rather, I have evaluated Respondent’s bargaining in its entirety and conclude, as
related above, that it does not reflect an intent to frustrate agreement or constitute surface
bargaining.
I have also considered, as argued by General Counsel, Respondent’s conduct outside of
the bargaining table. Indeed, in certain circumstances, the Board places significant reliance on
away from table conduct in finding surface bargaining allegations. U.S. Ecology Corp., supra,
331 NLRB 223, 224 (2000); PSO, supra, 334 NLRB at 489-490 (2001).
However, the Board has observed that it generally will not find surface bargaining to
exist based solely on outside the table conduct. St. George Warehouse, supra, 341 NLRB at
907-908 (2009); Litton Microwave, supra, 300 NLRB at 330; Wallace Metal Products, 244 NLRB
41, 49-50 (1979).
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
254
Here, I have found above that Respondent violated 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by
unilaterally instituting training for unit employees and also by cancelling the training without
notifying and bargaining with the Union. I also found that Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by statements made by Dolan, amounting to unlawful solicitation of grievances
and promises of benefit, by Levesque’s threat of futility of bargaining and by unlawfully directing
employees not to engage in union activities. Further, I am also finding below that Respondent
unlawfully discharged 22 employees.
However, none of these violations are sufficient to change my conclusions that
Respondent has not engaged in surface bargaining. None of these violations had any direct
effect on the bargaining in my view nor are they sufficient, singly or collectively, to establish an
intent to frustrate bargaining in the absence of any unlawful conduct at the table, as I have
found above.
I recognize that my findings below that Respondent unlawfully discharged 22 employees
constitutes a serious violation of the Act, but I cannot find it sufficient itself to establish bad faith
bargaining, even with the other unfair labor practices found. See St. George Warehouse, where
the Board refused to find a surface bargaining violation, even though the employer, therein,
unilaterally transferred work in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act and eroded almost
the entire unit (reducing the unit from 42 to 8). The Board concluded, in absence of direct
evidence that these violations impacted negotiations, it would not find surface bargaining. Litton
Microwave, supra (unlawful changes and unlawful failure to grant wage increases, insufficient to
establish bad faith bargaining); Flying Foods, 345 NLRB 101, 104, 108 (2005) (unilateral
changes and unlawful threats and interrogations, insufficient indicia of surface bargaining);
Hostar Mareine Transport, 298 NLRB 188, 197 (1990) (suspension and discharge of employees
for engaging in protected activity, found to constitute animus against the union but insufficient
of bad faith bargaining to warrant a surface bargaining violation); Wallace Metal, supra, 244
NLRB at 50 (unilateral refusal to pay vacation to employees, plus refusal to furnish relevant
information to the union, insufficient to establish surface bargaining).
Accordingly, based on the above analysis, I conclude that General Counsel has failed to
establish that Respondent engaged in surface bargaining, and I shall recommend dismissal of
this allegation in the complaint.
K. The Alleged Discharge of 22 Employees
On January 24, 2013, the Union conducted a membership meeting, during which
Calabrese discussed that it had been almost a year since the Union became the bargaining
representative of the employees, and they were still no closer to an agreement.
Calabrese and the employees discussed possible actions that could be done to move
the process along. Some employees suggested a “sick out,” but Calabrese stated that that was
too aggressive and scheduled another meeting for January 29, 2013.
On January 24, 2012, the Union filed charges in Case No. 29-CA-097013, alleging
surface bargaining by Respondent, which was amended on January 28 to allege other unlawful
conduct by Respondent.
Meanwhile, Martin Luther King Day was on January 21, 2013. Respondent had received
information that some employees at Respondent’s 45th Street location were talking about a
possible walkout on Martin Luther King Day to show support for the Union. Upon receipt of that
information, there was a conference call conducted with senior management, including counsel,
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
255
in which options were discusses to deal with a possible walkout. As a result of these
discussions, Respondent decided to use contractors to fill in if employees walked out on that
day. Respondent telephoned various contractors that it uses and asked them if they could have
people available to fill in. The intention was to simply use contractor employees to fill in but not
to permanently replace employees or to hire contractor employees as permanent replacements.
Martin Luther King Day came and went, and there was no walkout. However, on January
22, Respondent received information, reflected in an email from McCollum to Levesque, that an
employee at 45th Street was called by a union member and was requested to be at 96th Street
on Thursday (January 24) for a walkout. The email from McCollum to Levesque reflected that he
(McCollum) was going to get people on standby again (presumably referring to the previous
decision to use contractors to fill in if there was a walkout on January 21, 2013).
Respondent received a copy of a union flyer announcing a rally on January 24, 2013 to
celebrate the one-year anniversary (of the certification) and “to remind Cablevision that we
deserve a fair contract.” This rally was scheduled to start at 5:00 PM at 96th Street.
As a result of this information, Respondent feared another possible walkout on January
24, 2013, and another conference call was held. After that call, Respondent decided that if the
employees walked out on January 24, 2013, then Respondent would exercise its right to hire
permanent replacements.
As a result of that decision, Respondent contacted contractors and asked them if they
had any employees, who would agree to work in-house for Respondent in case Respondent
needed to use that option. TSI notified Respondent that it could provide 25 individuals, who
would be willing to work for Respondent. In that regard, Respondent prepared conditions of
employment documents to be signed by potential replacement employees, if necessary.
January 24, 2013 came and went, and there was no work stoppage or walkout.
On January 29, 2013, the Union conducted another membership meeting. About sixty
employees were present. Again, Calabrese discussed the lack of progress at negotiations, and
he and the employees discussed various options to pursue to protest the lack of progress.
Some options that were discussed and rejected were a sickout, talking lunch at the same time
and a strike.
Finally, it was suggested and agreed upon that employees use Respondent’s open door
policy to speak to Levesque and protest the lack of progress in bargaining and let management
know that they were “united and strong.” It was mentioned that if Levesque was not available,
the employees would ask to speak with any available manager. After the meeting, Calabrese
asked Tim Dubnau, who was not present at the meeting, to notify employees by text to meet at
the cafeteria at 96th Street at 8:00 AM on January 30, 2013.
Dubnau’s text sent at 8:00 PM on January 29, 2013 reads, “CWA Alert: All techs, please
meet tomorrow (Wed) at 8 am sharp at 96th St. Garage, Cafeteria. Ready to demand a fair
wage? Questions, please call a steward.” Dubnau follow-up with a text message on January 30,
2013 at 7:05 AM reading, “All techs please report at 8 am this morning to the 96th cafeteria. This
is important. See you soon.”
Levesque received a copy of the CWA alert sent out by Dubnau on January 29, 2013 to
employees as a result of an email from Greg Guillaume at 9:43 PM on January 29, 2013.
Levesque sent a copy of the email to McCollum and asked McCollum to contact TSI to see if
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
256
TSI can be ready to supply employees to be hired in the event of a walkout. McCollum replied at
6:22 AM that “I asked him last time and he said he will be ready whenever we need. I’ll try to
reach them now.”
Subsequent to 7:00 AM on January 30, 2013, McCollum telephoned Levesque and
informed Levesque that he had spoken to TSI and that TSI could supply the employees and
was calling the TSI employees to come in to TSI’s facility.
At 7:15 AM, Levesque informed Bartels that there may be an issue on that day and that
he may have to go to TSI to sign up employees and that Bartels should await further
instructions.
On January 30, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Levesque sent the following email to its Brooklyn
bargaining unit employees as well as to its supervisors at the facility, as follows:
From: Rick Levesque
To: BK-Supervisor's & AOM Team; Bargaining Unit Group
Date: 1/30/2013 7:54 AM
Subject: Information
Some Union representatives are expressing the opinion that there won't be a
decertification vote. Also, the Union just filed a baseless Labor Board charge that we
think was filed in order to block a decertification election.
You should know that the decertification election process is governed by law. While
Cablevision cannot and will not encourage or discourage you from supporting, signing or
filing a decertification petition, we can tell you that under the law a decertification petition
is timely one year after the union has been certified; the CWA was certified in Brooklyn
on February 7, 2012.
If you want to know more about a decertification election petition, you may call the
National Labor Relations Board at 718/330-7713 or 7714 and ask for the Information
Officer.
As I have detailed above in the Facts Section, approximately 60 employees of
Respondent from all three of its locations converged at the cafeteria at 96th Street by 8:00 AM. A
number of these employees had start times as early as 7:00 AM. All were in uniform and ready
to go to work as soon as they finished their anticipated conversation with Levesque. Between
8:00 AM and 9:30 AM, Levesque made several visits to the cafeteria and spoke to employees,
some individually and some in groups. The conversations were similar on each occasion with
some variations. Levesque asked employees their start times, the employees responded and he
asked them if they were going to work. The employees responded that they intended to go to
work, but they wanted to speak with him first and needed only five minutes or a few minutes of
his time and that they would then go right back to work. Levesque told the employees that he
was not able or going to speak with them and that no one else from management was available
to speak with them after some employees made that request.
During this same time period, at about 8:10 AM, John Bartels approached QC
technicians Bellato and Graham in the cafeteria. Bartels informed them that the QC employees
had a toolbox meeting at 8:00 AM, that the meeting was starting and that Bartels needed them
to come into the meeting with everyone else. Both Bellato and Graham refused Bartels’s
instructions to attend the meeting and return to work. Bartels asked Bellato if he was refusing to
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
257
go to work. Bellato replied, “I am staying here with my boys.” Graham responded similarly to
Bartels’s question, stating, “Yes, I am refusing to go to work.” Bartels reported this conversation
to Levesque.
A third QC employee, Johnson, was also not at the toolbox meting because she was late
to work. However, she finally arrived and entered the cafeteria but after Bartels spoke to
Graham and Bellato. She did not attend the toolbox meeting.
Supervisor Curtis Sheppard entered the cafeteria, sometime between 8:15 AM and 8:30
AM. He approached employee Steve Ashurst and asked what time his shift started and if he
was going to work. Ashurst replied that his shift started at 7:30 AM, that he intends to go to work
and the employees needed to speak with Levesque for five minutes. Ashurst added that the
employees could speak with Sheppard if that was ok. Ray Meyers then tries to interject a
comment, and Sheppard told Meyers that he wasn’t speaking to him. After further discussions
involving several other employees, including Adams, Sheppard told the employees that if all
they want is a five-minute conversation with Levesque, he would go and speak with Levesque
about talking to the employees for five minutes. I have found that Sheppard did as promised and
transmit the request of the employees to Levesque for a five-minute meeting.
Sheppard also spoke to employee Brent Ramdeene, an employee under Sheppard’s
supervision at 45th Street. Sheppard instructed Ramdeene to return to work, and Ramdeene
refused and told Sheppard that he was staying until someone talked to the employees.
Ramdeene’s start time was also 7:30 AM. Sheppard reported his conversation with Ramdeene
to Levesque.
During the 8:00 AM to 8:30 AM period, Strachan, the supervisor of Respondent’s OSP
Department made two visits to the cafeteria and spoke to the employees from his department,
who were present, and directed them to report to work. Thompson and Adams approached
Strachan and asked if he could speak to “all of us.” Strachan replied that he was just “talking to
my guys only.” All of the OSP employees, spoken to by Strachan, left the cafeterias and
returned to work.
At about 8:25 AM, Corey Williams, one of the employees whom Levesque previously
spoke to, left the cafeteria to return to work. He informed Thompson that if the employees get a
chance to talk with Levesque to let him know.
After Corey Williams left, Levesque returned to the cafeteria. He approached a number
of employees, including Thompson, Ashurst, Ray Williams and Meyers, and told them that he
wanted to speak with them in his office after their meeting was completed.55
Levesque also instructed supervisor Furlong to inform Bellato, Graham and Johnson that
he wanted to see them in his office as well, and Furlong did so.
Sometime between 9:00 AM and 9:30 AM, the employees decided to return to work
since it appeared that Levesque was not going to speak with them. However, Adams, who had
been informed by the group of employees that they had been informed that they need to see

55 While Levesque testified that he believed that he had also spoken to Corey Williams at
this time, he was mistaken. Levesque realized this error after hearing Corey Williams’s
testimony in this proceeding and reviewing tapes Respondent had made of the events in the
cafeteria.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
258
Levesque, told them that he would accompany them as shop steward to meet with Levesque.
Thus, some employees in the cafeteria left to return to work and some other employees
had left the cafeteria to return to work earlier.
As Adams and a group of employees were walking to meet with Levesque, Levesque
stopped Adams and informed him that he had time to meet with employees and instructed them
to go into the conference room. There were about 24-25 employees in the conference room
when Levesque entered at about 9:15 AM. Levesque began by commenting that there were
only supposed to be 10 employees there and asked what the rest of the employees were doing
there. The employees replied that they wanted to meet with Levesque.
Levesque asked all the employees present to raise their hands when he mentioned their
start times, which ranged from 7:00 AM through 8:30 AM. The employees complied. Levesque
asked if the employees were going to go to work. Employees replied that they wanted to go to
work, but they wanted to speak with him for five minutes. Levesque responded, “I’m not here to
answer your questions” and again asked if they were “going to work today.” Gayle replied that
the employees just need a few minutes of Levesque’s time or any supervisor or representative
to discuss one issue.
Levesque commented, “So, you guys don’t want to cooperate.” Levesque then left the
conference room and then returned to his office and had another conference call with higher
management.
After about 10 minutes, the employees decided that Levesque was not going to speak to
them and decided to leave to return to work. Two or three workers, including Boris Reid, left and
returned to work. As the group was leaving the conference room to go to Levesque’s office to
tell him that they were returning to work, Levesque came out of his office and told them that he
was ready to meet with them and to return to the conference room.
Meanwhile, as noted above, Corey Williams had left the cafeteria earlier and returned to
work. He arrived at his first stop on Nostrand Avenue in Brooklyn. He received a call while there
from Richie Lai, his supervisor. Lai asked Corey Williams if he attended the meeting in the
cafeteria that morning. Williams responded yes. Lai instructed Williams to stop what he was
doing and return to the shop. Williams complied and returned to 96th Street. After seeing no one
in the cafeteria, he saw Levesque standing outside the conference room with a number of
employees inside. Williams approached Levesque and asked, “You wanted to speak with me?”
Levesque replied, “Are you in or are you out?” Williams replied that Levesque had called him
back from the field because Levesque wanted to speak with him. Levesque said, “Alright, go
inside the room.”
At about 9:30 AM, Leveque returned to the conference room, accompanied by King and
Garcia. There were 23 employees in the room at the time.
Levesque apologized to the employees but added, “Unfortunately, you’ve all been
permanently replaced.” Levesque directed the employees to hand in their identification badges
and phones. Johnson asked what does “permanently replaced” mean. No one from
management responded to her inquiry. Johnson asked, “We’re fired?” Levesque corrected and
said that they were “permanently replaced.”
Adams asked King what the group did to be permanently replaced. King responded that
they had an “unauthorized meeting” and that they “refused to go to work.” Adams asked which
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
259
employees refused to go to work. King did not answer. Gayle pointed out that employees never
had to schedule a meeting with management previously under the open door policy.
Steve Ashurst said, “We only wanted to talk to you for a couple of minutes, and you
didn’t even hear what we have to say. You didn’t even ask us what was going on or anything,
you tell us we are being permanently replaced.”
Raymond Raid stated that his supervisor knew where he was and he was going back to
work.
Adams commented that he did not understand why the employees were being
permanently replaced and added that the employees were going to work until Levesque
stopped them.
Adams asked Levesque if employees were being permanently replaced because they
were “insubordinate.” Levesque replied that the employees had not been insubordinate. Adams
or Thompson stated they would not leave until they see their union representative and were
exercising their “Weingarten rights.” Ashurst called Calabrese on his phone and told him what
happened. Calabrese immediately came to the shop but was not allowed into the facility.
Finally, Levesque called the police and informed them that employees had been
permanently replaced and were refusing to leave. He asked for their help.
At close to 10:00 AM, two police officers arrived. One officer came into the conference
room and asked if the employees were on strike. The group responded no. The police officer
replied, “Well your manager is asking that you guys leave the building and that you are being
fired.” Levesque then corrected the police officer and said, “No, they’re being permanently
replaced.”
Finally, the employees agreed to turn in their badges and phones and left the facility.
As noted above, Boris Reid was not in the conference room at the time since he had left
to go to work. At about 10:55 AM, Boris Reid received a communication from his supervisor,
Patrick Golden, to wait at the job he was completing and that the supervisor was coming there
to meet him. A few minutes later, Golden arrived along with supervisor Malcolm Fox. They told
Reid to put his tools in his truck and hand the keys to Fox. Reid was driven back to 96th Street
by Golden and told to see Garcia.
Garcia told Reid that he was “permanently replaced.” Reid asked what does
“permanently replaced” mean? Garcia responded, “Basically fired.” Reid asked why this was
happening. Garcia responded that it “may” have to do with the activities in the cafeteria that
morning but indicated that Reid would have to speak to Hilber to find out the exact reason.
Garcia also spoke to Myles Watson and Trevor Mitchell, who had also gone to work
before the last meeting in the conference room, and were called back from their routes. She
informed them that they were “permanently replaced,” and they had no further conversation
other than Garcia asking them for their IDs and phones, which the employees gave to her.
Twenty-two employees were “permanently replaced” on January 30, 2013. They were
Clarence Adams, David Gifford, Lakeisha Johnson, Courtney Graham, Myles Watson, Andre
Bellato, Jerome Thompson, Trevor Mitchell, Ray Meyers, Marlon Gayle, Richard Wilcher, Eric
Ocasia, Malik Coleman, Andre Riggs, Raymond Reid, Boris Reid, Steve Ashurst, Shaun
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
260
Morgan, Stanley Galloway, Brent Ramdeene, Corey Williams and Ray Williams.
Another employee, who was present in the conference room when the employees were
notified of their being permanently replaced, was Oliver Davidson. As Davidson was walking
out, and employees were handing in their badges and phones, Davidson asked Levesque, “Do I
put mine in there?” Davidson added, “I took a sick day, am I replaced?” Levesque answered if
he took a sick day, and he came in on his own time, he was not replaced and he didn’t have to
turn in his badge, and “you stay with the company.”
Levesque testified that at about 8:16 AM, he decided to permanently replace 10
employees based on his conversations with the employees in the cafeteria and their refusal to
return to work and the fact that their start times had expired. These employee and their start
times were: Ashurst (7:30 AM), Bellato (7:00 AM), Graham (8:00 AM), Johnson (8:00 AM),
Meyers (7:30 AM), Ramdeene (7:30 AM), Ray Reid (7:30 AM), Thompson (7:00 AM), Corey
Williams (7:00 AM) and Ray Williams (7:00 AM). Levesque asserts that he or McCollum phoned
Bartels, who by that time was on his way to TSI to hire 10 replacements and to notify
Respondent when he had obtained the signed forms.
Levesque further asserts that McCollum informed Levesque at 8:40 AM that Bartels had
obtained signed forms from 10 TSI employees.
Thus, according to Levesque, he then went back to the cafeteria to inform six of the
employees56 that he wanted to see them after the meeting and asked Furlong to notify Bellato,
Johnson and Graham to see him as well.
Further, Levesque contends that he decided to permanently replace the other 12
employees after meeting with the employees in the conference room at about 9:15 AM and
seeing additional employees present, who were also past their start times and also refusing to
go back to work. These additional 12 employees, all of whom had start times of 8:30 AM, were
Clarence Adams, Malik Coleman, Stanley Galloway, Marlon Gayle, David Gifford, Trevor
Mitchell, Shaun Morgan, Eric Ocasia, Boris Reid, Andre Riggs, Myles Watson and Richard
Wilcher.
According to Levesque, McCollum telephoned him at about 9:19 AM and told Levesque
that Bartels had informed McCollum that Bartels had signed up the other 12 replacements and
that Respondent had 22 signatures on conditions of employment forms.
After another conference call with management officials, Levesque entered the
conference room and informed the employees that they were being permanently replaced, as I
have detailed above.
However, the evidence adduced does not substantiate Levesque’s assertion that
Respondent obtained the 22 signed conditions of employment forms by 9:19 AM.
Bartels did substantiate Levesque’s testimony that Respondent did obtain 22 signed
forms on that day and that he had spoken to some of the replacements himself. He also
corroborated that the replacements signed the conditions of employment forms that Bartels had
been given to hire them by Respondent, which read in relevant part, as follows:

56 Meyers, Ray Reid, Ashurst, Thompson, Corey Williams and Ray Williams.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
261
This will confirm your employment as a permanent replacement for a striker at
Cablevision Systems New York City Corporation, Brooklyn, New York. You understand
that your employment is intended to continue after the end of the current strike by Local
1109 of the Communication Workers of America ("CWA").
Your rate of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment during
the period of the strike will be those determined by the Company. You will be required to
submit an authorization for a background check, schedule a Physical Capabilities test,
and complete a drug test within the next few days. Your continued employment is
contingent on your successful completion of the background check, Physical Capabilities
test and drug test. Note that your terms and conditions of employment could change
following the conclusion of the current strike depending on negotiations with the CWA.
In the event that there is an order or settlement of any charge or complaint of unfair labor
practices before the National Labor Relations Board or any court, or an agreement with
the CWA or Local 1109, providing for reinstatement of strikers, then your employment
may be terminated by the Company in order to comply with the settlement, order or
agreement, and the Company shall have no further liability for your employment.
Being a permanent replacement does not constitute a contract of employment with the
Company for any specific duration. You also retain the same rights as any other
employee-at-will to resign or quit, without notice.
Please confirm in writing below or by immediate email to aking3@cablevision.com and
then report immediately for your assignment.
Sincerely, Angela King
Director of Human Resources
Brooklyn Field Operations
While Bartels did corroborate that he was involved in obtaining signed forms from some
replacements and that TSI had obtained signed forms from others, he did not substantiate
Levesque as to the numbers and amounts obtained at the various times that Levesque testified
to (i.e. 10 by 8:15 AM and 22 by 9:19 AM). Moreover, McCollum did not testify, so he provided
no corroboration of Levesque’s testimony that Respondent had obtained 22 replacements by
9:19 AM or prior to Levesque informing employees that they were being permanently replaced
at about 9:30 AM.
Bartels, in fact, conceded that the list kept changing throughout the day due to some
replacements changing their minds. Indeed, as reflected in the Facts Section, a number of the
replacements did not sign their forms until well after 9:30 AM and that the “final” list of
replacements sent by TSI to Respondent was not until 2:57 PM. Additionally, the evidence
disclosed that Livingston Bandie was not informed about his employment at Respondent until
after 8:00 PM that night on January 30, 2013, when Jackson told him to report to Respondent
the next day, January 31, 2013. Bandie signed a conditions of employment letter, dated January
30, 2013, but wasn’t sure whether he signed it or not on January 30, 2013, but he believed that
he was given it to sign by Jackson at about also 8:00 PM that evening.
Replacement employee Nicholson Pierre worked as an employee of TSI on January 30,
2013, and when he returned to TSI at 7:00 PM, Jackson asked him about working for
Respondent, and Pierre replied that he would. About 7:30 PM, Jackson instructed Pierre to
report to Respondent’s 96th Street facility on January 31, 2013, the next morning, although she
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
262
didn’t specifically tell Pierre that he was going to be an employee of Respondent nor that he
would be a permanent replacement. Pierre reported to Respondent as instructed, went through
training on January 31, 2013, took a drug test and physical examination and filled out a request
for a background check over the next few days. He was informed of his salary and grade by HR
on January 31, 2013. He went out on a route for Respondent on Sunday, February 3, 2013 but
did not sign his conditions of employment form until Monday, February 4, 2013 when he was
given a document to sign in his supervisor’s office.
Pierre was paid by Respondent for January 30, 2013 although, as noted, he also
performed no work for them on that day and was not even at Respondent’s facility. Pierre was
paid by TSI for work on January 30, 2013. Similarly, replacement Bandie was paid by
Respondent for January 30, 2013 for that day, but he was not sure when he signed his
conditions of employment letter, but he believed that it was given to him to sign by Jackson on
the evening of January 30, 2013.
The record also reflects that replacement employee Dwayne Jason was also paid by
both TSI and by Respondent for a full day’s work on January 30, 2013.57
On February 1, 2013, Calabrese appeared at the 45th Street facility with all 22
permanently replaced employees in uniform. Calabrese informed Levesque that the 22 replaced
strikers were “here, they’re dressed, they’re ready to come back to work, and the company
should take them back.” Levesque responded that “there were no positions available, and the
positions were filled.”
Subsequently, Respondent reviewed tapes of the events of January 30, 2013 and
noticed that four employees, who were in the conference room but who did not turn in their IDs
and phones, had left the conference room to return to work. These four employees were
Watson, Mitchell, Wilcher and Boris Reid. Levesque testified that upon discovery of these facts,
Respondent concluded, again after a discussion with management officials, that Respondent
was wrong in replacing these employees, that they had not refused to return to work and
Respondent should not have replaced them. Thus, Respondent decided to rectify this error and
offered these four employees their jobs back with backpay. Consequently, Respondent
terminated four replacement employees.58
Over the next two months, Respondent recalled all of the other remaining replaced
employees as a result of openings that developed at Respondent.59
Corey Williams was also recalled and reinstated as were the other replaced employees.
However, during the instant trial, as a result of listening to Corey Williams’s testimony, Levesque
checked the videotapes and discovered that Williams was accurate in his testimony and that he
had left the cafeteria at around 8:25 AM and returned to work. Thus, Respondent again
concluded that it had mistakenly replaced Corey Williams. He had already been recalled but had

57 The record does not reflect whether or not Jason actually performed any work for
Respondent on January 30, 2013 or whether he even reported for work at Respondent on
January 30, 2013. The record reflects that Jason’s signed conditions of employment form was
submitted to Respondent at 10:17 AM on January 30, 2013.
58 These actions occurred approximately one week after January 30, 2013.
59 One of the openings came as a result of one replacement failing a drug test. The rest
came from promotions or resignations by Respondent’s employees.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
263
not received backpay.60 Thus, Respondent provided Williams with backpay for the period from
his replacement to his recall.
The complaint alleges that the employees were engaged in a strike on January 30, 2013
in protest of Respondent’s unfair labor practices of engaging in surface bargaining with the
Union. In view of my findings above that General Counsel has failed to establish the surface
bargaining allegations in the complaint, it follows that the allegation that employees were
engaged in an unfair labor practice strike must also be dismissed. Hyatt Hotels Corp., 296
NLRB 289, 316 (1989). I so recommend.
The complaint also alleges, alternatively, that the employees were unlawfully discharged
on January 30, 2013, while Respondent contends that the employees were permanently
replaced. In that connection, General Counsel and Charging Party make several arguments and
contentions in support of their positions that Respondent discharged the employees. These
include that the employees were not on strike at all, but rather, were engaged in protected
concerted activity of enforcing Respondent’s open door policy. Therefore, the employees cannot
be disciplined for engaging in this conduct unless their conduct rises to the level of misconduct
that causes loss of the Act’s protection. Burnup & Sims, 379 US 21 (1964); Marshall Engineered
Products, 351 NLRB 767 (2007); Atlantic Scaffolding, 356 NLRB #113 (2011) (employer
violated Act by discharging 100 employees, who stopped work and demanded to speak with
management regarding employer’s plan to change a promised wage increase to an unsecured
bonus).
General Counsel also makes other alternative arguments that assuming that
Respondent did replace the employees, Respondent had failed to meet its burden of proof that
the employees were permanent replacements, Gibson Greetings, or that it had hired the
permanent replacements prior to informing the employees that they were permanently replaced,
Consolidated Delivery & Logistics, 337 NLRB 524, 525 (2002) (advising economic strikers that
they have been permanently replaced when they have not been permanently replaced
constituted a discharge in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act).
Additionally, Charging Party raises the argument, based on Avery Heights, 350 NLRB
214, 215 (2007), that Respondent’s failure to reinstate the strikers was “motivated by an illegal
purpose,” an exception to the normal right of employers to permanently replace strikers. Hot
Shoppes, 146 NLRB 802, 805 (1964).
Since I find merit to one of General Counsel’s arguments and conclude that based on
the analysis above that Respondent discharged the 22 employees unlawfully on January 30,
2013, therefore, I find it unnecessary to decide or rule upon the other alternative arguments
made by General Counsel and Charging Party. I shall, therefore, assume without deciding that
as Respondent contends that the employees were on strike or, at least, engaging in a work
stoppage, unless and until they were able to speak to management, that Respondent did
sufficiently establish that the replacements were permanent, as opposed to temporary, and that
its conditions of employment letters, signed by the replacements, were not ambiguous as
contended by General Counsel. Finally, I shall not decide whether Avery Heights or Hot
Shoppes is applicable herein as argued by Charging Party.61

60 None of the other recalled replacements received backpay, other than Watson, Mitchell,
Wilcher and Boris Reid.
61 I do note, however, that Avery Heights, cited by Charging Party does not represent Board
law since it was decided only as the law of the case, pursuant to a Court of Appeals’s remand,
Continued
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
264
I find it unnecessary to reach or decide these issues since I find merit to General
Counsel’s contentions based on Consolidated Delivery, supra and its progeny that
Respondent’s notification to the employees that they have been permanently replaced when
they have not been replaced constitutes a discharge in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act because the remedy would be no different, even if the other contentions raised by General
Counsel and Charging Party were decided in their favor.
Turning to the issue of whether Respondent had hired permanent replacements for the
strikers when it notified them that they were being permanently replaced, I note that the burden
is on the employer to demonstrate that it hired the replacements on a permanent basis, and it
must show that it “was a mutual understanding between the employer and the replacements
that the nature of their employment was permanent.” Consolidated Delivery, supra; Jones
Plastic & Engineering, 351 NLRB 61, 62 (2007). In particular, a permanent replacement
“constituted a replacement who will not be displaced by returning strikers when the strike is
over.” Jones Plastic, supra; Capehorn Industry, 336 NLRB 364, 365 (2001).
Therefore, Respondent has the burden of establishing that it hired permanent
replacements for all 22 strikers before it notified them that they were permanently replaced at
approximately 9:30 AM on January 30, 2013. I conclude that Respondent has failed to meet that
burden. While Respondent points out that the record contains 22 signed conditions of
employment letters, dated January 30, 2013, Respondent has not established when on January
30, 2013 they were signed. While the emails from Bartels and Jackson provide some indication
of when they were signed, that evidence is not conclusive since Respondent did not call any of
the replacements as witnesses, and Bartels did not testify about any specific replacement
employee, whom he spoke to or obtained a signed form from, or precisely when or how many
employees he received forms from or from Jackson.
While Levesque testified that before he notified the employees that they were being
replaced at 9:30 AM (based on the tapes), McCollum had called him to inform Levesque at 9:19
AM that Bartels had signed up the other 12, and Respondent had 22 signatures, neither
McCollum nor Bartels corroborated Levesque in this regard.62
Bartels testified that the list kept changing throughout the day due to some employees
changing their minds. That testimony is confirmed by the emails, which reveal a constantly
changing list that was not completed until almost 3:00 PM. Other evidence from the replacement
employees, such as replacement employee Livingston Bandie, revealed that he did not sign his
conditions of employment letter until after 8:00 PM. Further replacement Nicholson Pierre did
not sign his conditions of employment letter until February 4, 2013, the day after he started
performing tech services for Respondent, and which was after the Union had made an
admittedly unconditional reinstatement on behalf of the employees on February 1, 2013.
Notably, although Pierre had reported to work for Respondent on January 31, 2013, attended
training, took a drug test, was told his salary by HR and eventually received a hiring letter from
_________________________
which had rejected the Board’s previous decisions in Avery Heights, 343 NLRB 1301, 1305-
1306 (2004), where the Board rejected the positions of the ALJ (ultimately sustained by the
Court) that an inference of illegal motive is warranted if an employer hires permanent
replacements in secret.
62 As noted, McCollum did not testify, and Bartels testified although he did call Respondent
at some point, confirming 22 technicians willing to serve, he did not recall when it was but
believed that it was around noon. This is well after 9:30 AM when the strikers were notified.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
265
Respondent, there is no evidence that anything was said to him about his status (i.e. permanent
versus temporary) or that his employment was intended to last, even when the strike ends.
Indeed, as noted above, when he finally signed his conditions of employment letter, reflecting
these descriptions of his status, the employees had made a request for reinstatement and yet
none of the permanent replacement employees were hired at that time.
I also note that the email in the record from Jackson to Bartels, Levesque and McCollum
was sent at 9:45 AM (15 minutes after Levesque notified the employees of their being replaced)
and even this email states that Respondent had only 18 signed sheets with three more coming
in and that she “was still working on one more.”
At 9:51 AM, Jackson provided another list of names in response to Levesque’s request
for an updated list, again, after the request by Levesque for an updated list.
The list went up and down thereafter until the final list, which, as reflected above, was
not until after 8:00 PM on January 30, 2013.63
The final list of replacements contained eight employees, who had not signed any forms
prior to the notification of replacement.64
Further, Respondent adduced no evidence that it had decided which of the replacement
employees, who had signed forms prior to 9:30 AM (even assuming that the emails provide
sufficient evidence of the time of signing),65 were elected to replace any specific striker.
Based on the foregoing, Respondent had fallen far short of meeting its burden of proof
that it hired permanent replacements for the permanently replaced strikers by 9:30 AM when it
notified the employees of this fact. When an employer, as here, uses a shifting list of permanent
replacements, it cannot be said to have hired permanent replacements. W.C. McQuaide Inc.,
237 NLRB 177 (1978), enfd. 617 F.2d 349 (3rd Cir. 1980).
I, therefore, conclude that Respondent by advising the strikers that they had been
permanently replaced when they had not been replaced has discharged them in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Consolidated Delivery, supra, 337 NLRB at 524; American
Linen Supply Co., 297 NLRB 137 (1989), enfd. 945 F.2d 1428, 1432-1433 (8th Cir. 1991)
(memorandum to employees informing them that they would be replaced at 7:00 AM when no
replacements had been obtained by that time, affected an unlawful discharge).
As the Board in American Linen, observed, “Although an employer has the right under
NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., fn. 1 304 US 333 (1938) to permanently replace
economic strikers, this right does not intend to withhold from them the right to return to their
unoccupied jobs simply because they have gone out on strike. A false statement that permanent
replacements have been obtained accomplishes this end.” See also Mars Sales and Equipment
Co., 242 NLRB 1097, 1101 (1979) (falsely advising strikers they had been replaced, violative of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, enfd. 626 F.2d 567, 573 (7th Cir. 1980), where the Court

63 Pierre, who, as noted above, did not sign his conditions of employment form, did not
appear on any email but was clearly a replacement.
64 The replacement employees were Dexter Marshall, Livingston Bandie, Levi Francis,
Charles Aaron, Tremaine Gaitling, Dwayne Jason, Tyrone Powell and Nicholson Pierre.
65 The record reflects that of the employees, who, based on the emails, signed their forms
prior to 9:45 AM, eight of them ultimately did not serve as replacements.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
266
observed that “an economic striker whose job has not been permanently promised to a
replacement at the time the striking employee is discharged is entitled to reinstatement.” Court
agrees with Board that employer had not established that it had hired permanent replacements
when it notified employees that it had hired permanent replacements for them. Thus the
employees were unlawfully discharged.
Respondent notes that no unconditional request to return to work was made until
February 1, 2013 when Calabrese made such as request on behalf of the employees. Even
assuming that to be so,66 it is of no consequence since the discharge occurred at the time of the
false notification of permanent replacements, and employees need not make a request to return
to work thereafter. Mars Sales, supra at 1097; NLRB v. American Linen Supply, supra, 945 F.2d
at 1433 (reinstatement and discharge of employees, although employees did not request
reinstatements or offers to return to work, citing NLRB v. Tamara Foods, 692 F.2d 1171, 1183
(8th Cir. 1982)).
I further note that Respondent, in my view, implicitly conceded that it violated the Act by
permanently replacing Wilcher, Mitchell, Watson and Boris Reid and Corey Williams inasmuch
as they went back to work although Respondent did not realize it at the time. They reinstated
Wilcher, Mitchell, Watson and Boris Reid with backpay and gave Corey Williams backpay when
it realized that he had gone back to work as well after he had already been recalled. I do not find
that Respondent did anything wrong in taking that action, but it does not moot the violation as to
these five employees. Passavant Memorial Hospital, supra, 237 NLRB 138, 139 (1978). I do
conclude that this action was likely due to a desire to cut off backpay liability, a reasonable
decision, and I also find it to be an implicit admission by Respondent that it violated the Act with
respect to these five employees.
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing analysis and precedent, I conclude that
Respondent discharged the 22 employees, whom it had purportedly replaced on January 30,
2013 but had not done so, and has, thereby, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Respondent is an Employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all times material, herein, the Union has been the certified exclusive collective
bargaining representative for the Respondent’s employees in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time field service technicians, outside plant technicians,
audit technicians, inside plant technicians, construction technicians, network fiber
technicians, logistics associates, regional control center (RCC) representatives and
coordinators employed by the Employer at its Brooklyn, New York facilities; excluding all
other employees, including customer service employees, human resource department
employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in Section
2(11) of the Act.

66 I note that General Counsel contends that the employees did make an unconditional
request to return on January 30, 2013, before and after being told that they were being
replaced. In view of any conclusions, as reflected above, I need not decide that issue.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
267
4. Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by:
(a) Promising its employees improvements in wages and benefits in order to discourage
support for the Union.
(b) Soliciting its employees’ grievances and promising to remedy them in order to
discourage support for the Union.
(c) Threatening employees that it will reduce their benefits or adversely change their
terms and conditions of employment, including training opportunities, if the employees choose
to be represented by or support the Union.
(d) Threatening its employees that bargaining with the Union would be futile.
(e) Granting wage increases and increases in medical benefits to its employees in order
to discourage them from engaging or supporting the Union.
5. Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) by:
(a) Instituting smart meters training for its employees without notifying and bargaining
with the Union.
(b) Cancelling smart meters training for its employees without notifying and bargaining
with the Union about that decision.
6. Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act by:
Discharging 22 employees for engaging in protected concerted activity and for
supporting the Union.
7. The unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the
Act.
8. The Respondent has not, otherwise, violated the Act.
Remedy
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find that it
must be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the purposes of the Act.
While I have found Respondent discriminatorily discharged 22 employees on January
30, 2013, since all of them have been reinstated, it is unnecessary and inappropriate to order
reinstatement of these employees. However, the employees must be made whole for any loss
of pay or other benefits caused by the discrimination against the employees.67

67 This recommendation applies to all 22 employees discriminatorily discharged, including
the five employees, who Respondent has already provided backpay for the time that they were
Continued
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
268
Backpay shall be computed in accordance with F.W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8
(2010).
I shall order the Respondent to compensate the above-named employees for the
adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards and to
file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay to the appropriate
calendar quarters for each employee. Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB
No. 10 (2014).
Both the General Counsel and Charging Party request that the Order require the notice
to be read to employees during working time by a high-level official of Respondent at its facilities
in Bronx, NY, Brooklyn, NY, Shelton, CT, White Plains, NY, Newark, NJ and in Nassau and
Suffolk Counties. General Counsel argues that since many of the 8(a)(1) violations were
committed by CEO Dolan and his unlawful conduct was heard and intended to be heard by
employees across the footprint that this remedy is necessary to dispel the coercive atmosphere
caused by Respondent’s unlawful conduct. Homer Bronson Co., 349 NLRB 512 (2007), enfd.
273 Fed.Appx 32 (2nd Cir. 2008) mem.
However, I do not agree that the General Counsel has established that this measure is
needed to remedy the effects of Respondent’s unfair labor practices, here, and were not “so
numerous pervasive and outrageous” that such a remedy is required. Amglo Kemlite
Laboratories, 360 NLRB # 51 slip op p. 9 (2014) (threats to discharge strikers and unlawful
transfer or work); Fallbrook Hospital, 360 NLRB #73, fn. 3 at 1, ALJD slip op at 15 (2014) (no
reading of notice, even though surface bargaining allegations were among violations found);
Mardi Gras Casino, 359 NLRB #100, fn. 3 at 1 (2013) (numerous 8(a)(1) violations, plus
discharges of eight employees); Chinese Daily News, 346 NLRB 906, 909 (2006) (employer
engaged in 13 unfair labor practices, including threats of job loss); Gibbs Contracting, 361
NLRB #68, fn. 3 at 3 (2014) (unilateral changes, unlawful refusal to recognize union); Ishikawa
Gasket of America, 337 NLRB 175, 176 (2001) (numerous 8(a)(1) violations, unlawful
decreasing bonus for all employees and unlawful discharge of one employee).
However, I do agree with General Counsel and Charging Party that it is appropriate to
require the posting be made at all of the above described locations requested by General
Counsel. In view of the fact that some of the 8(a)(1) violations were communicated to
employees at all of these locations by Dolan’s speeches, which made reference to the wage
increases, found to be unlawful in the Bronx, but which were also granted to employees at these
other facilities. I also note the evidence in the record that the Union was organizing in a number
of Respondent’s facilities throughout the footprint. I recognize that I have not found that the
wage and benefit increases granted at the other facilities to be unlawful nor that any of the
8(a)(1) violations found involved these facilities. Nonetheless, I do deem it appropriate in the
circumstances here to consider the possible effect on the employees of Respondent’s unfair
labor practices in the Bronx and Brooklyn, of which they were aware since Dolan’s speeches
were transmitted to them and they also received the increases in wages and benefits found to
be unlawfully granted in the Bronx. Thus, it is appropriate, in my view, that the employees at
_________________________
out of work. However, the record does not establish whether the amounts paid to these
employees were complete or sufficient under Board standards. I leave that to compliance to
decide if any additional amounts are due to these five employees.
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
269
these other facilities (all located in proximity to the Bronx and Brooklyn) be notified of their rights
by the posting required, herein. See Real Foods Co., 350 NLRB 309, 315 (2007) (posting
ordered posted at all locations in California and at corporate facilities in Utah). See also Big Y
Foods, 315 NLRB 1083, fn. 3 (1999) (granting posting remedy for all of employer’s stores, not
just the six stores, where the violations were found).
General Counsel and Charging Party also request a one-year extension of the Union’s
certification, pursuant to Mar-Jac Poultry, 136 NLRB 785, 787 fn. 6 (1962). However, in view of
the fact that I have dismissed the surface bargaining allegations, such a remedy is inapplicable.
Flying Foods Group, 345 NLRB 101, 109 fn. 22 (2005).
In some circumstances an extension can be warranted, even absent a surface
bargaining finding, where the unfair labor practices found impacted on the bargaining process.
Coventa Energy Corp., 356 NLRB #98 ALJD slip op at 24-26 (2011); Wells Fargo Armored
Services Corp., 322 NLRB 616, 617 (1996). However, I do not find sufficient evidence that any
of the unfair labor practices that I have found had any substantial impact on the bargaining and I
conclude that an extension of the certification year is not warranted. Cf. Coventa Energy, supra
(the Board concluded that the unfair labor practices found of eliminating bonus and increases
for employees is a violation of 8(a)(3) and (5) of the Act did impact the bargaining process
sufficiently to warrant a six-month extension of the certification year) or Wells Fargo, supra,
(Board found unlawful refusal to furnish information over the course of negotiations sufficient to
warrant a six-month extension of the certification year).
Here, I do not find that the violations found, the unilateral changes relating to the
training, the unlawful discharge of the strikers nor the 8(a)(1) conduct had any significant impact
on bargaining.68
Accordingly, I shall not grant an extension of the certification year as requested by
General Counsel.
Charging Party also requests additional remedies that it be reimbursed for all bargaining
and litigation incurred in the instant case. Teamsters, Local 122, 334 NLRB 1190 (2001).
I deny these requests as inappropriate, particularly, in light of my dismissal of the
surface bargaining charges alleged by the Union, which, if found meritorious at time, warrant
such remedies. Regency Service Carts, supra, 345 NLRB at 676-677; Teamsters, Local 122,
supra at 1194.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and based on the entire record, I issue
the following recommended.69

68 While the Union was understandably upset about the discharges, and it, at times,
attempted to bring up the issue at negotiations, Respondent would not spend time discussing
the issue. It essentially told the Union that the matter was before the Board, and there was a
disagreement between the Union and Respondent about what happened on January 30, 2013,
and the parties proceeded to discuss bargaining issues. To the extent that bargaining was
delayed due to a discussion of the Respondent’s assertions about the treatment of the strikers,
it was due to the Union’s continued insistence on discussing its view that the employees had not
refused to work and were discharged by Respondent.
69 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.
Continued
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
270
ORDER
The Respondent, CSC Holdings, LLC and Cablevision Systems New York City
Corporation, a single Employer, Bronx, NY and Brooklyn, NY, its officers, agents, successors
and assigns shall
1. Cease and desist
(a) Promising its employees improvements in wages and benefits in order to discourage
support for the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (the Union).
(b) Soliciting its employees’ grievances and promising to remedy them in order to
discourage support for the Union.
(c) Threatening employees that it will reduce their benefits or adversely change their
terms and conditions of employment, including training opportunities, if the employees choose
to be represented by or support the Union.
(d) Threatening its employees that bargaining with the Union would be futile.
(e) Granting increases in wages, medical benefits or other improvements to its
employees in their terms and conditions of employment in order to discourage them from
engaging or supporting the Union.
(f) Unilaterally and without notifying and bargaining with the Union, instituting smart
meters training or any other change in their terms and conditions of employment for its
employees without notifying and bargaining with the Union.
(g) Unilaterally and without notifying and bargaining with the Union, cancelling smart
meters training or any other change in their terms and conditions of employment for its
employees.
(h). In any like to 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.
(a) Make whole the following employees for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the remedy
section of this decision:
_________________________
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes
Raymond Reid
Jerome Thompson
Corey Williams
Ray Williams
Steve Ashurst
Ray Meyers
Courtney Graham
Andre Bellato
Lakeisha Johnson
Brent Ramdeene
Richard Wilcher
Clarence Adams
Malik Coleman
Stanley Galloway
Marlon Gayle
David Gifford
JD(NY)–47–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
271
Trevor Mitchell
Shaun Morgan
Eric Ocasia
Boris Reid
Andre Riggs
Myles Watson
(b) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s order remove from its files any reference
to the unlawful discharges of the above named employees and within 3 days thereafter notify
these employees in writing that this has been done and that the discharges will not be used
against them in any way.
(c) Compensate the above named employees for the adverse tax consequences, if any,
of receiving lump sum backpay awards and file a report with the Social Security Administration
allocating the backpay awards to the appropriate calendar quarter for each employee.
(d) Restore the training on smart meters for the Brooklyn unit employees.
(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 due under the terms of this
Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities in Brooklyn, NY, Bronx
NY, White Plains, NY, Sheldon, CT, Newark, NJ and in Nassau and Suffolk Counties copies of
the attached notice marked “Appendix B.”70 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for 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, 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 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. If the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved
in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of
the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any
time since April 12, 2012.
(g) 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.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 4, 2014
____________________
Steven Fish,
Administrative Law Judge

70 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in
the notice reading “Posted by Order of the 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)–47–14
APPENDIX A
JOINT EXHIBIT 267: STIPULATED HEARING TRANSCRIPT ERRATA
Names to correct throughout (in order of appearance):
ï‚· Steve Ashehurst or Steve Ashurt is Steve Ashurst
ï‚· Gertrude Viegas is Gertrude Villegas
ï‚· Dion Pendminton is Dion Pemberton
ï‚· Christy Quinn is Christine Quinn
ï‚· Allen or Hallem is Alan Model
ï‚· Zubalaki is Zubalake
ï‚· Ramdine or Ramdeene is Ramdeen
ï‚· Paunch Cardells is Ponch Gordills
ï‚· Pagosh Pulay is Pragash Pillai
ï‚· Sandy Capell is Sandy Kapell
ï‚· John Bartells is John Bartels
ï‚· Lisa Questelle is Lisa Questell
ï‚· Frank Loviti is Frank Livoti
ï‚· Marlin Gayle is Marlon Gayle
ï‚· German Clark is Jermaine Clarke
ï‚· Steven Holmes is Stephen Holmes
ï‚· Dennis Ceyward is Dennis Seaward
ï‚· Jeff Nobarris is Jeff Dalberis
ï‚· Venon is Vernon McDonald
ï‚· David Allan is David Ellen
ï‚· Larry Zallack is Larry Zalak
ï‚· Dominick Garapa is Dominick Garaffa
ï‚· Duane Jason is Dwayne Jason
ï‚· Levi Frances is Levi Francis
ï‚· Kevin Madison is Kevin Mattison
ï‚· Duane Fagan is Dewayne Fagon
ï‚· Lawrence Henderson is Lawrence Hendrickson
ï‚· Gae is Gay
ï‚· Kip Mayo is Kit Mayo
ï‚· Rob Dudian is Rob Doodian
JD(NY)–47–14
Pg.:Line Current Transcript Correction
Day 1
9:1 have a separate desk with Excel
spreadsheets on.
Have a separate disk with Excel
spreadsheets on it.
12:19 Yep. Well 1 through 13 was the
vote. So we
Yep. Well, 1 through 13 was revoked.
So we
21:8 So how could you have an adverse
interest if
So how could you have an adverse
inference if
28:12 had requested permission to
televise a trial. The letters
had requested permission to televise
a trial. The letter
50:12 to the $4. (sic) million that was
spent in tools, trucks and
to the $4.5 million that was spent in
tools, trucks and
53:13 has the effect of, quote, correct me,
“The Bronx employees with
has the effect of, threatening the
Bronx employees with
54:24 June, and who will explain the full
context, in context, of the
June, and who will explain the full
content, in context, of the
66:3 occasions, including on February 5,
2013, after the current
occasion, including on February 5,
2013, after the current
67:6 expand the unit. The agreed upon
recognition clause, the agreed
expand the unit. In the agreed upon
recognition clause, the agreed
67:25 either subjection. Either subject.
74:25 did not photograph employees
attending a public demonstrating
did not photograph employees
attending a public demonstration
76:7 called all of the Brooklyn employees
out on a strike to being
called all of the Brooklyn employees
out on a strike to begin
91:15 Going public means today that we
let the whole world know
Going public means the day that we
let the whole world know
96:5 Sure. Thecablevision99. T-A-G -- Sure. Thecablevision99. T-H-E --
131:15 couldn’t grief it. Couldn’t grieve it.
134:22 Did the employees decide to mobile
again at this point?
Did the employees decide to mobilize
again at this point?
148:19 Did you leave the meeting again? Did you lead the meeting again?
157:4 tense effect of what’s happening. Sense effect of what’s happening.
162:18 They call came up to me and said,
hey, they
They all came up to me and say, hey,
they
171:22 then explained to him that the
workers all told me, two men,
then explained to him that the
workers all told me, to a man,
172:10 agreement, getting politician’s
involved, we will be relentless
agreement, getting politicians
involved, we will be relentless
182:19 discuss is a very serious matter that
deals with exfoliation of
discuss is a very serious matter that
deals with spoliation of
182:20 evidence or potential exfoliation of
evidence. It relates to
evidence or potential spoliation of
evidence. It relates to
184:1 are eight emails from Mr. Calabrese
that are produced by the
are eight emails from Mr. Calabrese
that were produced by the
JD(NY)–47–14
184:22 with his organizing partner at the
Bronx about his campaign and
with his organizing partner at the
Bronx about this campaign and
184:25 the unit. And then, if and finally, he
said that he sent emails
the unit. And then, 5th and finally, he
said that he sent emails
187:1 information that was no preserved,
because many times it is
information that was not preserved,
because many times it is
189:1 so much about this, who testified
five times he’s got emails, or
so much about this, who testified five
times he’s got emails, are
190:14 just said, but we’ll do that. I’ll be
more time consuming.
Just said, but we’ll do that. It’ll be
more time consuming.
191:6 Local 109 or the CWA in connection
with collective bargaining
Local 1109 of the CWA in connection
with collective bargaining
197:11 MR. SCHWARTZ MR. CLIFTON
Day 2
220:24 reason GC Exhibit 4 was being
introduce, with regard to the
reason GC Exhibit 4 was being
introduced, with regard to the
221:22 But she just implied his testimony But he just implied his testimony
222:20 I’m going to objection. I’m going to object.
221:1 Wait. I objection to his stands over
the
Wait. I object to his standing over the
226:25 Since 208 or 2009 have you owned
any other personal
Since 2008 or 2009 have you owned
any other personal
228:10 discussion at the hearing discussing at the hearing
233:24 MR. SILVERSTEIN MR. SCHWARTZ
234:1 MR. SILVERSTEIN MR. SCHWARTZ
234:4 MR. SILVERSTEIN MR. SCHWARTZ
244:19 You have a person e-mail account
with ME.com, correct?
You have a personal e-mail account
with ME.com, correct?
247:5 made and extraordinary effort to
produce because we think a
made an extraordinary effort to
produce because we think a
249:21 Is that a board site? Is that a Board cite?
249:22 I don’t have the site but we’ll
provide it
I don’t have the cite but we’ll provide
it
260:7 Well, 19 I believe is now withdraw. Well, 19 I believe is now withdrawn.
263:11 The bubble bath. The bubble wrap.
266:19 linked, we produced emails are
identified on the log responsive
linked, we produced emails that are
identified on the log as responsive
267-269,
passim
MS. YOST MS. HAMMOND
268:18 any communication regarding the
situation of work on that
any communication regarding the
cessation of work on that
270:9 The possibility there’s anything else
we’ll produce it
On the possibility there’s anything
else, we’ll produce it
JD(NY)–47–14
275:2,
passim
BY MR. BRIBBEN: BY MR. GRIBBEN:
275:23 I help to work on an organizing
driver there where the
I helped to work on an organizing
drive there where the
279:8 And what specifically is the
organizing committee tasks
And what specifically is the
organizing committee tasked
285:6 Yes, we had leaves all over the
footprint, actually.
Yes, we had leads all over the
footprint, actually.
285:9 so in Nassau County and Suffix
County we had leaves and even
so in Nassau County and Suffolk
County we had leads and even
285:11 committee that was like pretty big
and formed, We had leaves
committee that was like pretty big
and formed. We had leads
286:3 leaves, and then the Bronx I think
were given earlier than
leads, and then the Bronx I think
were given earlier than
286:6 won the Brooklyn election we had
leaves all over the footprint.
Won the Brooklyn election we had
leads all over the footprint.
290:20 identifies of people engaged in
union activity.
Identities of people engaged in union
activity.
290:22 talking about going to 10(j) and
asking for impasse, you have
talking about going to 10(j) and
asking for impact, you have
304:21 My affidavit says the outside of the
public campaign
My affidavit says the outset of the
public campaign in
305:22 Yeah, when these employees who
have not been able to
Yeah, and these employees who you
have not been able to
306:6 No, I think probably knew
everyone’s name on the campaign
No, I think I probably knew
everyone’s name on the campaign
330:3 they are down with their routes
tonight.
they are done with their routes
tonight.
Day 3
344:11 And what did she say about Wi-Fi? And what did he say about Wi-Fi?
357:22 Do you recall him talking about
some 16 of 17,000
Do you recall him talking about some
16 or 17,000
361:23 that I’m assigned to, and I – I’m
assigned to negotiation the
that I’m assigned to, and I – I’m
assigned to negotiate the
362:1 sometimes I have to do their
arbitration, sometimes I’m an
sometimes I have to do their
arbitration, sometimes I’m
367:3 time, told them that we accept both
dates and Hallem (ph) said
time, told them that we accept both
dates and Alan said
370:16 MS. HAMMOND: JUDGE FISH:
370:23 dates in October. And very
fundamental, Your Honor.
dates in October. And that’s very
fundamental, Your Honor.
372:12 an opportunity to id adjust the
index, which will be done. But
an opportunity to adjust the index,
which will be done. But
373:6 the first day. Some of those had
economic impact, and Allen
the first day. Some of those had
economic impact, and Alan
JD(NY)–47–14
374:13 Joint Exhibit 36. And also Joint
Exhibi5t 32,
Joint Exhibit 36. And also Joint
Exhibit 32,
375:23 really start wanted to talk about
economics because we were
really start wanting to talk about
economics because we were
377:3 of order department. What is order
department?
of audit department. What is audit
department?
377:6 That we had become aware that
they were changing the order
That we had become aware that they
were changing the audit
377:10 dismantle the order department
and put them in other
dismantle the audit department and
put them in other
377:25 As I said, we became aware they
changed to order
As I said, we became aware they
changed to audit
384:23 verbally said we never had the
agreement. That in understood
verbally said we never had the
agreement. That I understood
384:24 why they wanted to start what way,
but if we didn’t see
why they wanted to start that way,
but if we didn’t see
392:20 calendar had been Brooklyn
franchise area. We just kept saying
certification had been Brooklyn
franchise area. We just kept saying
396:8 period, we both knew what are
issues were and the issues that
period, we both knew what our issues
were and the issues that
398:1 his is the third page, a revised
version of
This is the third page, a revised
version of
398:23 How is it the same proposal if there
was a work added?
How is it the same proposal if there
was a word added?
399:25 didn’t want them to thing that we
were – and we explained this
didn’t want them to think that we
were – and we explained this
400:3 couldn’t go out there and show
them out to do the job, I mean
couldn’t go out there and show them
how to do the job, I mean
400:23 didn’t really know what proper
cause meant. Chirrs Calabrese
didn’t really know what proper cause
meant. Chris Calabrese
404:17 that - - you know, of - - we went
through - - both sided went through
that - - you know, of - - we went
through - - both sides went through
420:12 question whether that causes link to
the management rights
question whether that clause is linked
to the management rights
420:24 discussions that day because it was
to in-depth to really go
discussions that day because it was
too in-depth to really go
425:2 Well, with respect to 30(b), the
edition reflected in the
Well, with respect to 30(b), the
addition reflected in the
438:16 the underlying editions, how I
testified earlier to they added
the underlying additions, how I
testified earlier to they added
451:22 proposal. We were just saying
basically give us parody. We
proposal. We were just saying
basically give us parity. We
456:2 your point, Ry (sic), but the reason
he was called out of order
your point, Ray, but the reason he
was called out of order
Day 4
471:8-12 MS. SEMEL: MS. DAVIS:
JD(NY)–47–14
471:18-21 MS. MCKAY: MS. YOST:
473:13 entity. TWA is the National Union.
I will check. I don’t
entity. CWA is the National Union. I
will check. I don’t
474:5 after the United States befalls on it’s
- -
after the United States defaults on its
- -
477:16 If I was in Brooklyn sometimes if
the other suspension
If I was in Brooklyn sometimes if the
other supervisor
484:11 There was Denver was one, he
worked for plat maintenance.
There was Denver was one, he
worked for plant maintenance.
492:17 He’s in plat maintenance. He’s in plant maintenance.
512:2 Now, you said that he was standing
in front of trucks. We
Now, you said that he was standing in
front of trucks. Was
517:1 He was like, “Well, I thing, you
know, you leave things as they
He was like, “Well, I think, you know,
you leave things as they
521:16 And you deal with infrastructure if
flows into?
And you deal with infrastructure it
flows into?
527:11 Yes, Boise Cascade 279 NLRB 422
(186), it’s
Yes, Boise Cascade 279 NLRB 422
(1986), it’s
530:25 tell you right now I may not relay
on it at all, and may strike
tell you right now I may not rely on it
at all, and may strike
540:18 here to cross-examine. It’s blank
hearsay
here to cross-examine. It’s rank
hearsay
543:3 this video feed. And I directly goes
to their strategy towards
this video feed. And it directly goes to
their strategy towards
549:18 And what month do you think this
meeting occurred it?
And what month do you think this
meeting occurred in?
550:11 going to drop by I think maybe 10 lf
$15 dollars in each
going to drop by I think maybe 10 or
$15 dollars in each
552,
passim
It was core tile, so in other words if
you are a grade
It was quartile, so in other words if
you are a grade
562:18 She said what? I’m sorry. He said what? I’m sorry.
567:14 text. tech.
573:12 A Q
581:24 where the Bronx technicians going
to be able to – you know,
were the Bronx technicians going to
be able to – you know,
583:22 And isn’t it true at all times
pursuant to that police the
And isn’t it true at all times pursuant
to that policy the
588:17 Nicks and I believe the Rangers. He
ended up getting – he
Knicks and I believe the Rangers. He
ended up getting – he
598:5 Now isn’t it true you were
termination from Cablevision
Now isn’t it true you were terminated
from Cablevision
664:18 The Union’s notes from correct 12,
2012.
The Union’s notes from October 12,
2012.
684:4 MS. YOST: MS. DAVIS:
684:6 MS. YOST: MS. DAVIS:
686:23 MS. YOST: MS. HAMMOND:
JD(NY)–47–14
687:9 MS. YOST: MS. HAMMOND:
687:17 MS. YOST: MS. HAMMOND:
687:23 MS. YOST: Well, review it once
again, but we believe we
MS. HAMMOND: We’ll review it
once again, but we believe we
Day 5
699:4 But for field service, we have the
OBFD (ph.) department. We
But for field service, we have the
OV4B department. We
701:25 I support of 10(j), so this is setting
the foundation for that
in support of 10(j), so this is setting
the foundation for that
715:18 having a regulation conversation
with a technician, just
having a regular conversation with a
technician, just
738:25 I’m not certain as to why I don’t get
all the texts. I
I’m not certain as to why I don’t get
all the texts. It
751:16 thinking for yourself and your
familiar. And I expressed to him
thinking for yourself and your family.
And I expressed to him
756:24 Do you know which core tile that
you’re in?
Do you know which quartile that
you’re in?
756:25 I’m really not that familiar with the
core tile, but I
I’m really not that familiar with the
quartile, but I
760:11 Did you interact with regularly? Did you interact with him regularly?
776:22 said he can’t really talk about it.
And he told he wasn’t the
said he can’t really talk about it. And
he told us he wasn’t the
786:25 Q I saw him at least maybe 15
minutes after we had already
A I saw him at least maybe 15
minutes after we had already
789:10 Like you’re past the default. He
said,
Like you’re past the depot. He said,
840:6 127. 27.
841:25 are number of employees that are
with the union, there are a
are a number of employees that are
with the union, there are a
845:6 you’re depot time is over, you would
be expected to route and go
your depot time is over, you would be
expected to get your route and go
879:9/10 A Yes
882:22 September 22, 2033 September 22, 2003
887:17 It’s the place where we usually
meeting on Buccaneer (ph.).
It’s the place where we usually
meeting on Bruckner.
887:22 And when you got there, what was
happening? Had the m;
And when you got there, what was
happening? Had the meeting
909:23 explanation of various of the
redactions that we requested
explanation of various of the
redactions that were requested
911:14 for. You put on the privilege log,
you identify the document,
for. You put it on the privilege log,
you identify the document,
917:6 Because there a multiple emails, it
takes up more than
Because there are multiple emails, it
takes up more than
925:12 MS. YOST: MS. HAMMOND:
JD(NY)–47–14
925:14 MS. YOST: MS. HAMMOND:
Day 6
935:21 the redaction log, let’s call it for
purposes explanation. It’s
the redaction log, let’s call it for
purposes of explanation. It’s
938:4 MS. HAMMOND: MS. DAVIS:
939:23 be one of those for, Your Honor.
But the letter I assume should
be one of those for Your Honor. But
the letter I assume should
940:7 Harland, excuse me, what’s exhibit
9 and 10 - -
Harlan, excuse me, what’s exhibit 9
and 10 - -
940:9 MS. HAMMOND: MS. YOST:
940:12 MS. HAMMOND: MS. YOST:
940:14 MS. HAMMOND: MS. YOST:
944:17 MS. HAMMOND: MS. DAVIS:
952:19,
passim
Ms. Chang Mr. Chang
959:6 all of them. And that those who do
right to him should get a
all of them. And that those who do
write to him should get a
964:14 were sent to the employees and I
can speak for the second one a
were sent to the employees and I can
speak for the second one as
988:23 About (indiscernible) itself, not a
threat to be left
About the technology itself, not a
threat to be left
1007:10 Q That’s pretty much how it ended.
You know, we went in
A That’s pretty much how it ended.
You know, we went in
1034:24 A And isn’t true, Mr. Thompson,
that in your confidential
Q And isn’t it true, Mr. Thompson,
that in your confidential
1036:12 You left in out of your affidavit in
February 27th 2013,
You left it out of your affidavit in
February 27th 2013,
1051:23 a fair and appropriate to be tried in
this case.
fair and appropriate to be tried in this
case.
1137:2 full contact of information. full context of the information.
1138:4 But there of these, they are from
Amy Groveman. She’s an
But three of these, they are from Amy
Groveman. She’s an
Day 7
1192:4 to protect an unfair labor practice
which would be the
to protest an unfair labor practice
which would be the
1282:11 the technicians that signed up
Wednesday night. Wednesday
the technicians that signed up
Wednesday night, Wednesday
Day 8
1332:3 than one. than once.
1335:6 The witness’ CFL? The witness’ payroll?
1367:6 that would be an 8(a)(3) violation
under lay law.
that would be an 8(a)(3) violation
under Laidlaw.
1367:15 theory that it seems the Judge’s
understanding is that under lay
theory that it seems the Judge’s
understanding is that under Laidlaw
1369:2 provide a decision statement
addressing this issue. So it’s not
provide a position statement
addressing this issue. So it’s not
JD(NY)–47–14
1370:13 right hand, pleases? right hand, please?
1393:10 This was a blank time. This was a blank line.
1395:8 I’m talking about GC-47 has not
date on
I’m talking about GC-47 has no date
on
1441:14 Yeah, relevant, Your Honor. I have
no idea
Yeah, relevance, Your Honor. I have
no idea
1468:16 where it comes in. And if have any
questions, I’d be happy to
where it comes in. And if you have
any questions, I’d be happy to
1471:10 MS. McKAY: MS. HAMMOND:
1471:17 MS. McKAY: MS. HAMMOND:
1471:19 MS. McKAY: MS. HAMMOND:
Day 9
1477:10 don’t have the exact number, but
totally about 600 documents.
don’t have the exact number, but
totaling about 600 documents.
1477:11 There was on earlier - - production
earlier in the week and one
There was an earlier - - production
earlier in the week and one
1496:8 Walter - - Walter was saying it the
while time. You know,
Walter - - Walter was saying it the
whole time. You know,
1510:23 And associate was also a
Cablevision contractor; correct?
And ACS was also a Cablevision
contractor; correct?
1517:6 BY MS. McKAY BY MS. SEMEL
1538:24 spoke to somebody at the Board,
other than Ms. Hoover. Sarah
spoke to somebody at the Board,
other than Ms. Hooper. Sarah
1542:2 May or may not. And if we do
request and
May or may not. And if we do request
an
1570:22 THE WITNESS: Now you’re really
- - the only allegation in
JUDGE FISH: Now you’re really - -
the only allegation in
1592:3 again, please? I’ve never even them
before. Could we have a
again, please? I’ve never seen them
before. Could we have a
1597:22 MR. SILVERSTEIN: They’re not
bates stamping it like this.
MR. GRIBBEN: They’re not bates
stamping it like this.
Day 10
1614:3 the announcement of the changes,
as it indicates. There is
the announcement of the changes, as
it indicates. There is a
1615:3 request, Bronx location. On the
same day, Clarke responded TROD
request, Bronx location. On the same
day, Clarke responded. TROD
1630:18 What’s unlawful about somebody
preparation?
What’s unlawful about somebody’s
preparation?
1648:3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: MS. YOST:
1648:14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
Actually, it is in electronic
MS. YOST: Actually, it is in electronic
1653:21 MS. CHAU: MS. MCKAY:
Day 11
1675:17 said I’m not going to waste my time,
I’[m going to leave.
said I’m not going to waste my time,
I’m going to leave.
JD(NY)–47–14
1696:22 Did you receive at texts after that
meeting?
Did you receive a text after that
meeting?
1740:11 MS. YOST: MS. DAVIS:
1776:2 You’re losing me. I mean is here
any dispute
You’re losing me. I mean is there any
dispute
1791:13 We introduced 25 of them into
evidence, so
You introduced 25 of them into
evidence, so
1793:8 We introduced 25 of them from the
latest to - -
You introduced 25 of them from the
latest to - -
Day 12
1814:2 grounds. The question of the
separation replacement workers is
grounds. The question of the
separation of replacement workers is
1814:5 relevant evidence with regarding to
the hiring of the
relevant evidence with regard to the
hiring of the
1830:3 frustrated by the fact that they were
being hailed to do a
frustrated by the fact that they were
being hired to do a
1837:19 respect. They didn’t seem to have,
you know, follow many of
respect. They didn’t seem to have,
you know, followed many of
1842:8 If there were legal implications,
anything
If there were legal implications, to
anything
1858:3 And there were meetings directing
with Jim
And there were meetings directly with
Jim
1870:24 reelect it every hear during open
enrollment
reelect it every year during open
enrollment
1874:23 includes their compensation and
benefit, and training programs.
includes their compensation and
benefits, and training programs.
1875:4 Now to your knowledge, how long
as the company been using
Now to your knowledge, how long has
the company been using
1886:18 Your Honor can take official notice
of the fact that the
Your Honor can take judicial notice of
the fact that the
Day 13
1908:24 everybody should be that was fair
market value
everybody should be at what was fair
market value
1910:11 He wanted to make sure that
employee had one or more, you
know,
He wanted to make sure that
employees had one or more, you
know,
1910:13 testimony equipment, and whatever
they needed to provide the
company equipment, and whatever
they needed to provide the
1915:7 making himself indisposable to the
company
making himself indispensable to the
company
1915:16 THE INTERPRETER: In Long
Island, we ended up becoming
THE WITNESS: In Long Island, we
ended up becoming
1916:17 the record? Do you want to switch
seats with Christina?
the record? Do you want to switch
seats with Kristina?
1937:24 Do you Dolan stating giving this
company a chance, yes or
Do you remember Dolan stating
giving this company a chance, yes or
JD(NY)–47–14
1938:6 You have to say yes or not. You have to say yes or no.
1962:21 started? That’s what I’m trying to
union.
started? That’s what I’m trying to
understand.
1965:24 the meeting. I think up on my
arrival there, actually.
the meeting. I think upon my arrival
there, actually.
1972:13 discussed? Was the career
progression part of that on the
group
discussed? Was the career
progression part of that in the group
1978:14 Mr. Model, in our experience, is
having bargaining
Mr. Model, in your experience, is
having bargaining
1992:11 Yes. We went down each proposal
and gave your position as
Yes. We went down each proposal
and gave our position as
1992:15 Yes. To the extent the proposal was
economics, we said
Yes. To the extent the proposal was
economic, we said
1998:10 Okay. Let me return you know to
the July 31st session.
Okay. Let me return you now to the
July 31st session.
2005:4 Did the parties bargaining
recognition at the sessions you
Did the parties bargain recognition at
the sessions you
2013:6 No. And, in fact, my recollection in
the notes reflect
No. And, in fact, my recollection is
the notes reflect
2017:19 where the Union finally came back
with a proposal as to they
where the Union finally came back
with a proposal as to what they
2020:2 I’ve negotiated it into contracts. I
admit I’ve helped
I’ve negotiated it into contracts. I
admin-- I’ve helped
2025:8 to us. And, typically, bargain is a
give and take. And without
to us. And, typically, bargaining is a
give and take. And without
2030:12 Mr. Model, on your proposal for
proper cause, it’s it
Mr. Model, on your proposal for
proper cause, is it
2031:23 MS. DAVIS: I’ll see if they’re in the
hall.
MS. HAMMOND: I’ll see if they’re in
the hall.
2038:20 And with whom had you that
conversation?
And with whom had you had that
conversation?
2048:25 schedule to work that day? scheduled to work that day?
2061:8 And, by the way, what as Mr.
Levesque’s title at that
And, by the way, what was Mr.
Levesque’s title at that
2061:25 And observe anything unusual? And did you observe anything
unusual?
2079:16 MS. YOST. MS. HAMMOND.
2079:25 MS. YOST. MS. HAMMOND.
2080:5 MS. YOST: MS. HAMMOND:
2080:8 MS. YOST: MS. HAMMOND:
2080:12 MS. YOST: MS. HAMMOND:
2080:23 MS. YOST: MS. HAMMOND:
2080:25 MS. YOST: MS. HAMMOND:
2081:9 MS. YOST: MS. HAMMOND:
2081:12 MS. YOST: MS. HAMMOND:
JD(NY)–47–14
2081:14 MS. YOST: MS. HAMMOND:
2083:4 MS. YOST: MS. HAMMOND:
2083:8 MS. YOST: MS. HAMMOND:
2086:23 Honor. These are
contemporaneous statement by the
Employer as
Honor. These are contemporaneous
statements by the Employer as
Day 14
2113:8 into once the Marriott and once at
the Sheraton.
into once at the Marriott and once at
the Sheraton.
2131:13 Did the Union ask any questions at
that question, if you
Did the Union ask any questions at
that session, if you
2139:23 I want to move onto the bargaining
over economics. Are
I want to move on to the bargaining
over economics. Are
2143:4 there after, did Mr. Gallagher or
Mr. Calabrese say in words or
thereafter, did Mr. Gallagher or Mr.
Calabrese say in words or
2145:6 Now with regard to those lists, did
the Company bargaining
Now with regard to those lists, did the
Company bargain
2145:14 bargaining over wages? bargain over wages?
2145:22 bargaining over retirement
benefits?
bargain over retirement benefits?
2167:19 No. I did. No. I did not.
2179:12 During the session you attended to
March 14, 2013, when
During the sessions you attended
prior to March 14, 2013, when
2184:7 get into accept the proposal, but I
was trying to get them to
get it to accept the proposal, but I was
trying to get them to
2192:3 employer’s skill, ability,
performance, or attendance, or
employer’s skill, ability, performance,
or attendance, are
2198:15 bargaining session you attended? bargaining sessions you attended?
2201:1 Company standards. And you see
the Company’s perfect example of
Company standards. And you see the
Company’s a perfect example of
2203:3 I want to move onto contracting.
Are you aware that the
I want to move on to contracting. Are
you aware that the
2214:3 contract being in the
telecommunications industry?
contracting in the
telecommunications industry?
2214:7 Well, it depended. Various
contracts treat it
Well, it depends. Various contracts
treat it
2214:10 I want to start with a Company that
the CWA actually has
I want to start with a contract that the
CWA actually has
2222:3 proposal you made, we’re finish
with contracting, we’re at
proposal you made, we’re finished
with contracting, we’re at
2223:14 And what did you proposal to
clarify it?
And what did you propose to clarify
it?
2223:21 was his form of the zipper clause,
my form of the zip clause. I
was his form of the zipper clause, my
form of the zipper clause. I
JD(NY)–47–14
2227:14 wanted an arbitration to
understand it. I kind of wanted it in
wanted an arbitrator to understand it.
I kind of wanted it in
2239:1 And Proposal 19 basically asked for
parody for the
And Proposal 19 basically asked for
parity for the
2239:21 had asked for parody for the
Brooklyn workers?
had asked for parity for the Brooklyn
workers?
2245:24 which calls for parody. And once he
discussed, and he raised
which calls for parity. And once he
discussed, and he raised
2245:25 the Union’s Proposal 19 which calls
for parody, it puts into
the Union’s Proposal 19 which calls
for parity, it puts into
2246:17 bargaining allegation with regard to
economics at the point at
bargain allegation with regard to
economics at the point at
2249:16 they wanted parody with the - - they wanted parity with the - -
2270:4 There were on lawyers there. Fine. There were no lawyers there. Fine
2276:8 telling the council person that there
was a passive agreement?
telling the council person that there
was a tacit agreement?
2298:24 Did you ever - - employees either in
the cafeteria or in
Did you ever count employees either
in the cafeteria or in
Day 15
2326:4 No, I did even not go back to the
cafeteria.
No, I did not even go back to the
cafeteria.
2332:1 - - because they were insubordinate. - - because they were insubordinate,
2332:2 They were terminated for
disciplinary reasons, nothing to do
they were terminated for disciplinary
reasons, nothing to do
2336:15 Okay. Now you testified that you
were Respondent for
Okay. Now you testified that you
were responsible for
2344:2 that was working with him at the
time
that was working with them at the
time
2354:14 They replaced Prince Telecom, went
down. And we were the only,
They replaced Prince Telecom, it went
down. And we were the only,
2358:16 We have - - our CC or dispatch
supervisor got it from one
We have - - RCC or dispatch
supervisor got it from one
2362:9 Depot time is the have a half an
hour, so if you start at
Depot time is they have a half an
hour, so if you start at
2362:10 8:00, you have till 8:30 to do what
you need to do, get your
8:00, you have ‘til 8:30 to do what
you need to do, get your
2372:23 looked, and, you know, you see a
little on the ceiling so you
looked, and, you know, you see a little
thing on the ceiling so you
2378:14 Where the “2” is. The record reflect Where the “2” is. The record reflects
2381:11 You can see all the way down the
corridor, down till
You can see all the way down the
corridor, down ‘til
2390:4 are there images on the screen. Are
those images from three
are three images on the screen. Are
those images from three
2391:1 Yeah, it says ATM and Jerry there Yeah, it says ATM interior there
JD(NY)–47–14
2398:3 because I know it looked at it and it
was 9:01.
because I know I looked at it and it
was 9:01.
2405:17 Q. And beside him, to his right,
you can just see the top of
A. And beside him, to his right, you
can just see the top of
2413:24 not going back to work till someone
talks to me. I said, Steve
not going back to work ‘til someone
talks to me. I said, Steve
2414:15 the ATM carrier - - camera? the ATM corridor - - camera?
2416:1 back to work till someone talks to
me. And I said, Ray, I’m not
back to work ‘til someone talks to me.
And I said, Ray, I’m not
2416:4 not going back till someone talks to
us. I said, okay, thank
not going back ‘til someone talks to
us. I said, okay, thank
2416:6 Okay, let’s roll it forward real time.
Is this you’re
Okay, let’s roll it forward real time. Is
this you
2416:13 8:21:009. 8:21:09.
2416:25 none here today that can talk to
you, you know, we’re all busy.
one here today that can talk to you,
you know, we’re all busy.
2423:2 techs. And how did you determine
that you needed to have 10
techs.
Q. And how did you determine that
you needed to have 10
2444:4 Because all three imagines are
running simultaneously.
Because all three images are running
simultaneously.
2446:11 Yeah, went down to her office in the
HR area to get her.
Yeah, I went down to her office in the
HR area to get her.
2448:25 knew there more than 10 people
because I, you know, the 10 came
knew there were more than 10 people
because I, you know, the 10 came
2456:6 bit, I think. This is proceeding. Did
there come appoint after
bit, I think. This is proceeding. Did
there come a point after
2459:7 Come back immediately. And let’s
stop it here. At
You come back immediately. And
let’s stop it here. At
2467:10 closer. But he as actually gesturing
towards Tommy. I
closer. But he was actually gesturing
towards Tommy. I
2468:11 their, if they had their coats, their
house keys, truck keys, I
there, if they had their coats, their
house keys, truck keys, I
2474:5 And I said how you want to handle
this. And he said
And I said how do you want to handle
this. And he said
2498:13 All right, let me return you know,
Mr. Levesque, to the
All right, let me return you now, Mr.
Levesque, to the
Day 16
2511:19 and then it has minimums,
maximums, and core tiles
and then it has minimums,
maximums, and quartiles
2516:3 No, the range were not changed, no.
And we went on
No, the ranges were not changed, no.
And we went on
2518:9 so he was financially drive based on
business operations.
so he was financially driven based on
business operations.
2539:15 you landed in the core tile, and it
could be 3, 5, or 10
you landed in the quartile, and it
could be 3, 5, or 10
JD(NY)–47–14
2545:3 Objection, completing leading. Objection, completely leading.
2545:14 going to wait till we finished
everybody, till the end of the
going to wait ‘til we finished
everybody, ‘til the end of the
2571:5 MS. HAMMOND: MS. YOST:
2571:8 MS. HAMMOND: MS. YOST:
2584:7 Okay. I’m sorry. When I referred
to that $46,000, it’s I
Okay. I’m sorry. When I referred to
that $46,000, it’s in
2587:16 according to his market data made
more than the $46,000 market
according to this market data made
more than the $46,000 market
2605:12 To appropriate grade - - To appropriately grade - -
2609:1 A lot of times at Cablevision, the
work
A lot of times at Cablevision, the word
2610:10 And they got out and they go to the And they go out and they go to the
2616:6 Yes. If you performed - - yeah, were
is
Yes. If you performed - - yeah, where
is
2616:15 If somebody was in the first core tile If somebody was in the first quartile
2616:18 first - - they’re actually toward - -
they’re in the first core
first - - they’re actually toward - -
they’re in the first quartile
2616:19 tile, because the top of the first core
tile is $34,100
quartile, because the top of the first
quartile is $34,100
2617:11 If he’s in the first core tile, yes. If he’s in the first quartile, yes.
2617:12 Yeah, in that core tile. And then if Yeah, in that quartile. And then if
2618:14 core tile is the same, different
numbers
quartile is the same, different
numbers
2646:25 I think it was did not include
employees
I think it was we did not include
employees
2664:15 compensations with employees
about what their exact raise was
conversations with employees about
what their exact raise was
2705:17 Yeah. Were you prepared to have
permanently replacements
Yeah. Were you prepared to have
permanent replacements
2705:19 Yes, we were prepared, not for
permanently replacements
Yes, we were prepared, not for
permanent replacements
2708:7 So when these guys, this 22 techs
went to work
So when these guys, these 22 techs
went to work
2709:2 I’m sorry. I’m still not understand
why
I’m sorry. I’m still not understanding
why
2714:25 work till someone speaks to you.
And I said there is no one
work ‘til someone speaks to you. And
I said there is no one
2719:25 that’s the word I can come up with,
were you changed your mind
that’s the word I can come up with,
where you changed your mind
2729:25 was out in the field, so he went out
and go him.
was out in the field, so he went out
and got him.
2731: 23 well. So I talked what I thought
were all six that I had
well. So I talked to what I thought
were all six that I had
JD(NY)–47–14
2739:8 doing that till we had them all
brought back.
doing that ‘til we had them all
brought back.
2741:9 So we had quite a few SP
promotions, so
So we had quite a few OSP
promotions, so
2745:16 As contractors or as permanently As contractors or as permanent
2746:2 is this decision to use permanently
replacements as opposed to
is this decision to use permanent
replacements as opposed to
2752:18 Not from Corel. So Corbel was just Not from Corbel. So Corbel was just
Day 17
2766:13 How I’ve already asked you about
the three audit employees
Now I’ve already asked you about the
three audit employees
2769:23 employees entering - - continuing
to ender Admin Area 3.
employees entering - - continuing to
enter Admin Area 3.
2773:22 had been permanently replace,
Clarence Adams asked you or you
had been permanently replaced
Clarence Adams asked you or you
2775:21 scope. It’s touching on subject that
I did not touch on
scope. It’s touching on subjects that I
did not touch on
2787:24 MS. HAMMOND: You don’t need
to explain it to me, just
MS. DAVIS: You don’t need to
explain it to me, just
2796:25 This he didn’t - - I don’t think he This he didn’t - - I don’t think, he
2800:20 replace I there was a walkout. replace if there was a walkout.
2807:21 point. There are a lot of privileges
to this production, so all
point. There are a lot of privileged
documents to this production, so all
2807:22 the documents we’re reviewing at
this point, some are privilege,
the documents we’re reviewing at this
point, some are privileged,
2807:23 dome are not, so it’s hard for me to
estimate exactly how many
some are not, so it’s hard for me to
estimate exactly how many
2808:5 with the except of as we’re doing the
privilege log, a few
with the exception of as we’re doing
the privilege log, a few
Day 18
2815:15 parties have not able to agree to parties have not been able to agree to
2818:9 It turns out all it was resulted in
your subpoena and the
It turns out all it has resulted in your
subpoena and the
2821:25 that came up multiple times in the
list of subjective lines that
that came up multiple times in the list
of suggested lines that
2824:12 So if you need, you can refer to that
incident
So if you need, you can refer to that
exhibit
2824:17 General Counsel agrees that certain
one of these pages listed in
General Counsel agrees that certain
ones of these pages listed in
2827:22 We don’t. We have you our two. We don’t. We gave you our two.
2834:11 are. Those go toward the union
activities of certain one of
are. Those go toward the union
activities of certain ones of
2842:23 terminated,” certainly statement
after an event can shed light
terminated,” certainly a statement
after an event can shed light
2846:10 Do it till Monday. Hold it till
Monday.
Do it ‘til Monday. Hold it ‘til
Monday.
JD(NY)–47–14
2852:25 saying. saying it.
2855:11 It’s in the record it’s going to be
used in some way,
It’s in the record, it’s going to be used
in some way,
Day 19
2866:11 document, which is Respondent’s
87, now with respect to the
document, which is Respondent’s 87.
Now with respect to the
2866:25 support that the Union had before
or after the election unfair
support that the Union had before or
after the election or unfair
2867:7 at that time and I don’t see any
bearing on that to any of the
at that time was and I don’t see any
bearing on that to any of the
2870:12 - - exceptions till the conclusion of
this.
- - exceptions ‘til the conclusion of
this.
2871:13 THE WITNESS: Exhibit 3, the
letter to Mr. Dolan that the
JUDGE FISH: Exhibit 3, the letter to
Mr. Dolan that the
2874:22 And I agree with General Counsel
that is testimony with respect
And I agree with General Counsel
that it is testimony with respect
Day 20
2927:10 Respondent then on October 24th,
CWA requested – made a request
Respondent that on October 24th,
CWA requested – made a request
2928:3 Well, I’m telling you know. There is
a reason
Well, I’m telling you now. There is a
reason
2928:4 I didn’t tell you before, but now I’m
telling you know.
I didn’t tell you before, but now I’m
telling you now.
2938:8 to strike that evidence, to obliviate
that concern that there
to strike that evidence, to obviate that
concern that there
2938:11 With doing that, it obliviates also
Respondent’s need
With doing that, it obviates also
Respondent’s need
2947:23 acknowledge. Okay? And the
documents that they are seeking is
knowledge. Okay? And the
documents that they are seeking is
2954:5 It does. Because it refers to
Southview.
It does. Because it refers to
Soundview.
2981:17 It says Cablevision or organizing.
Anyway
It says Cablevision or organizing.
Anything
2984:21 Subpoena, that nobody even know
was what they think it is, then
Subpoena, that nobody even knew
was what they think it is, then
2999:6 earlier, witnesses did testify about
this. You asked witness,
earlier, witnesses did testify about
this. You asked witnesses,
JD(NY)–47–14
RESPONDENT’S EXHIBIT 92: DISPUTED HEARING TRANSCRIPT ERRATA
Page:Line Current Transcript Proposed Correction
Day 3
432:13 the Employer - - that the
Respondent submitted a
request for
the Employer - - that the
Respondent submitted a regressive
Day 4
637:13 as you explained yesterday, you
included in a package of union
as you explained yesterday, yet you
included it in a package of union
Day 10
1637:10 an internal spreadsheet of
employee hours was part of a
an internal spreadsheet of employee
hours if it was part of a
Day 15
2354:8 technician contractor
services for any other
Cablevision company
technician contractor services for any
company
other than Cablevision
Day 16
2645:7 chunks, and try to say we’re going
to do the ones and
twosies,
chunks, and try to say we’re not going
to do the ones
and twosies,
2710:24 permanently replacements as
opposed to calling in
contractors
permanent replacements as opposed to
calling in
contractors
2717:9 Yes, sir. It’s re: to demand a fair Yes, sir. It’s ready to demand a
fair
Day 17
2769:21 He’s on ATM interior camera; you
see the tail end of the
There on ATM interior camera, you see
the tail end of the
2774:3 scope of any redirect, well
beyond the scope. I asked
him a
scope of any redirect, well beyond the
scope. I didn’t
ask him a
2781:10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We
do have a copy that has
less
MS. HAMMOND: You do have a
copy that has less
Day 18
2849:25 which is not an issue in the case,
has not been alleged
too
which is not an issue in the case, has
not been alleged
to be
JD(NY)–47–14
APPENDIX B
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 benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT promise our employees improvements in wages and benefits in order to discourage support
for the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (the Union).
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees’ grievances and promising to remedy them in order to discourage
support for the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we will reduce their benefits or adversely change their terms
and conditions of employment, including training opportunities, if the employees choose to be represented by or
support the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that bargaining with the Union would be futile.
WE WILL NOT grant increases in wages, medical benefits or other improvements to our employees in their
terms and conditions of employment in order to discourage them or supporting the Union.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally and without notifying and bargaining with the Union, institute smart meters
training or any other change in their terms and conditions of employment without notifying and bargaining with the
Union.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally and without notifying and bargaining with the Union, cancel smart meters training
or any other change in their terms and conditions of employment for our employees.
WE WILL NOT discharge our employees for engaging in protected concerted activities or supporting the
Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like to related manner, interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole the following employees for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision:
Raymond Reid
Jerome Thompson
Corey Williams
Ray Williams
Steve Ashurst
Ray Meyers
Courtney Graham
Andre Bellato
Lakeisha Johnson
Brent Ramdeene
Richard Wilcher
Clarence Adams
Malik Coleman
Stanley Galloway
Marlon Gayle
David Gifford
Trevor Mitchell
Shaun Morgan
Eric Ocasia
Boris Reid
Andre Riggs
Myles Watson
JD(NY)–47–14
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Board’s order remove from our files any reference to the
unlawful discharges of the above named employees and within 3 days thereafter notify these employees in writing
that this has been done and that the discharges will not be used against them in any way.
WE WILL compensate the above named employees for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving
lump sum backpay awards and file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating the backpay awards to
the appropriate calendar quarter for each employee.
WE WILL restore the training on smart meters for the Brooklyn unit employees.
CSC Holdings, LLC and Cablevision Systems
New York City Corporation
(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.
Two MetroTech Center, Jay Street and Myrtle Avenue, Suite 5100
Brooklyn, New York 11201-4201
Hours: 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
718-330-7713
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/02-CA-085811 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
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, 973-645-3784.