CSC Holdings, LLC and Cablevision Systems New York City Corp., a Single Employer

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Apr 19, 2016

29-CA-134419 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 19, 2016)

JD(NY)-9-16
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
And Case Nos.
29-CA-134419
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS 29-CA-135428
OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO 29-CA-135822
29-CA-136512
29-CA-136759
29-CA-137214
29-CA-142425
RyAnn McKay Hooper, Esq.,
Genaira Tyce, Esq., and
Matthew Jackson, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Harlan Silverstein, Esq., Jason C.
Schwartz, Esq., J. Patrick Butler, Esq.,
Erica E. Frank, Esq., Thomas M.
Johnson, Jr., Esq., Alexander K.
Cox, Esq., Andrea R. Lucas, Esq., and
Ryan C. Stewart, Esq., counsel for the
Respondent.
Gabrielle Semel, Esq. and Colleen
Campbell, Esq., counsel for
the Charging Party.
Decision
Statement of the Case
Raymond P. Green, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this case on various dates from
June through October 2015. The charges and amended charges were filed on various dates in
2014. The initial consolidated complaint was issued on November 6, 2014, and this has been
amended on a number of occasions, both before and after the hearing opened. Ultimately, the
substantive allegations were as follows:
1. That on July 29, 2014, the Respondent, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act,
without notifying or offering to bargain with the Union, (a) implemented a new rule that required
employees to input their work start times upon arrival at job locations instead of when leaving for
job locations; (b) implemented a new system for disciplining employees for entries in the
Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) system and; (c) imposed a written warning to Eric Ocasio
because of the changes noted above. Although the complaint initially alleged that the
JD(NY)-9-16
2
Respondent disciplined Ocasio because of his union and/or protected concerted activity, that
allegation was dropped. 1
2. That on various dates in July and August 2014, the Respondent by various agents,
solicited employee complaints and grievances and promised increased benefits and improved 5
terms and conditions of employment if they abandoned their support for and membership in the
Union.
3. That on March 3, July 7, July 31, August 6 and August 7, 2014, the Respondent
issued disciplinary warnings to Jerome Thompson because he assisted the Union and engaged 10
in protected concerted activities.
4. That on August 7, 2014, the Respondent, at its Bethpage facility, threatened to cause
the arrest of Thompson because he was engaging in concerted activity.
15
5. That on or about August 20, 2014, the Respondent discharged Thompson because of
his union and/or protected concerted activities.
6. That on September 9, 2014, the Respondent, by James Dolan, at a meeting (a)
threatened employees with continued loss of a pay increase if they voted in an Employer’s 20
sponsored poll to keep the Union as their bargaining representative; (b) threatened to withhold
new technology and training if they voted for the Union; (c) impliedly threatened employees with
job loss if they supported the Union; (d) promised to increase wages if employees voted against
the Union; and (e) promised to pay the Union if it disclaimed an interest in representing the
employees.25
7. That on September 10, 2014, the Respondent, by the Honest Ballot Association,
engaged in surveillance and created the impression of surveillance by (a) requiring employees
to present identifications to vote; (b) assigning employees a unique personal identification
number in order to vote; and (c) watching employees as they voted. 30
8. That by conducting the aforesaid poll, the Respondent engaged in illegal interrogation
contrary to the criteria set forth in Struksnes, 165 NLRB 1062 (1967).
9. That the Respondent gave material support to anti-union employees by providing t-35
shirts to employees and paid time off to attend a City Council meeting in December 2014.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed, I make the following
40
Findings and Conclusions
I. Jurisdiction
It is admitted and I find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within 45
the meaning of Section 2(1), (6), and (7) of the Act.2 I also find that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

1
At the time of the hearing, Ocasio had left the Respondent’s employ for another job.
2
The Respondent stipulated that Cablevision and CSC Holdings constitute a single employer within the
meaning of the Act.
JD(NY)-9-16
3
II. The alleged unfair labor practices
(a) Background
5
Cablevision is a company that provides television, telephone, and internet services. In
New York City, it does so pursuant to a license agreement with the City of New York. Its
headquarters and principle place of business is located in Bethpage, Long Island, and it has
facilities in Brooklyn and the Bronx.
10
In August 2011, the Union commenced its efforts to organize employees of the
Respondent who were employed at three locations in Brooklyn, New York.3 The Union filed a
representation petition in Case 29-RC-07089 on December 9, 2011. After winning the election,
the Union was certified on February 7, 2012. The certified bargaining unit was as follows:
15
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 coordinators employed by the Employer at its
Brooklyn, New York facilities.20
Excluded: All other employees, including customer and human resource
department employees, professional employees and supervisors as defined in
Section 2(11) of the Act.
25
With respect to the bargaining unit, the employer operates out of three facilities in
Brooklyn and employs approximately 280 unit employees.
Contract negotiations between the parties commenced in March 2012 and
continued for a long time thereafter. A collective-bargaining agreement was ultimately 30
reached on February 15, 2015.
During this period of time, the Union filed a number of unfair labor practice
charges against the Respondent and there was a hearing before Judge Fish in 2014.
Those allegations included assertions that the Respondent engaged in a variety of 35
unlawful conduct before and after the election. Among the allegations, were claims that
(a) the employer discharged 22 employees for engaging in a protected work stoppage,
and (b) claims that the Company bargained in bad faith.
Judge Fish, after a 17-day hearing, issued a decision on December 4, 2014, in 40
JD(NY)-47-14. In that decision, he made a number of findings that have been appealed
by the parties. The Charging Party and the General Counsel seem to assume that I can
conclude that there has been a substantial showing of antiunion animus based on the
findings made in Judge Fish’s Decision. This is incorrect. As the Board has not yet ruled
in that case, any findings and conclusions that the Administrative Law Judge made are 45
not binding and cannot be used by me to conclude that the Respondent evidenced any
antiunion animus. I am also in no position to agree with the assertion that the

3
The Company provides cable television, phone and internet services in Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx,
Long Island, Westchester, and parts of New Jersey.
JD(NY)-9-16
4
Respondent has violated the Act in the past and is therefore a “repeat offender.” Long
Ridge of Stanford, 362 NLRB No. 33 at fn. 3 (2015).
On February 15, 2013, an employee filed a decertification petition in 29-RD-
098466. Pursuant to that petition, an election was sought to determine if the employees 5
still wished to be represented by the Union. But that petition was dismissed on April 30,
2013. A second decertification petition in 29-RD-138839 was filed on October 16, 2014.
This too was dismissed on November 12, 2014, presumably because there existed, at
the time, unresolved unfair labor practice charges.
10
Nevertheless, despite all of this prior litigation, the parties managed to reach an
agreement on February 15, 2015, which took effect before the trial in this case opened.
(b) The Alleged Unilateral Change
Regarding ETAdirect15
The complaint as amended alleges that on or about July 29, 2014, the
Respondent, without notifying or offering to bargain with the Union, implemented a new
rule that required employees to input their work start times upon arrival at job locations
instead of when leaving for job locations. It also alleged that the Respondent 20
implemented a new system for disciplining employees who make incorrect entries in the
Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) system. Because it is alleged that the Respondent failed
to bargain about these alleged unilateral changes, a final warning to employee Eric
Ocasio is alleged to have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. (As previously
noted, the complaint’s allegation that this warning was issued because of Ocasio’s union 25
activity was withdrawn).
The Respondent basically argues that no significant change was made in the
reporting requirements during any relevant time period. It also argues that it has always
maintained a policy that discipline is appropriate when an employee falsifies information 30
that he or she is required to provide to the Company. In this respect, the Respondent
argues and the evidence shows that Ocasio did, in fact, deliberately failed to report his
location and times in relation to the incident that led up to his warning.
Most of the employees involved in this case work out in the field and are 35
assigned each day to a series of appointments. These are mainly to fix problems that
have been called in by customers.
In or about January or February 2011 (and well before the Union began its
organizing campaign), the Company instituted an electronic system (called ETA) 40
whereby its field employees, using portable devises, would enter their start times when
they arrived at each job assignment.4 At the start of each day, the day’s schedule would
appear on each technician’s device. The procedure was that when the technician left
the Company’s depot, he was to click on a screen icon and then click on an icon when
he arrived at his first scheduled appointment. After completing the appointment, the 45
technician has to click on an icon that indicates that he is leaving that job and then click
on an icon when he arrives at the next scheduled job. This process is repeated

4
Initially, the system was installed on a smart phone that was issued to each technician. Later, the
technicians were given I-pads. After 2015, the ETA system was replaced by another system and was only
used as a backup.
JD(NY)-9-16
5
throughout the day and the entries are transmitted so that his supervisor and/or the
dispatchers can determine when and where he is during the course of the day.
Obviously, if a technician fails to click on the icon when he arrives or leaves a jobsite or
clicks on the icon before he arrives, then the people who are given the task of
coordinating the day’s work for the technicians out in the field, will be unable to properly 5
do their work.
Although some employees testified that they understood that they were required
to enter the start time when they left to go to a job, the testimony of managers and other
employees (including employees called by the General Counsel), credibly showed that 10
the policy and practice has always been to enter the start time upon arrival at a jobsite
and not before.5
Indeed, any contention that employees were instructed to enter their start times
before they arrived at a jobsite makes no sense and would nullify the whole purpose of 15
the ETA system.
The ETA system was not meant to replace a time clock or any similar system
used to calculate the amount of hours worked by the employees for purposes of their
compensation. In this regard, the system had and still has no relationship to employees’ 20
pay.
Basically the ETA system is a software system that links the field technicians to
their supervisors and to the dispatchers. A major function of the system is to allow the
supervisors and dispatchers to know where a given technician is at any given time so25
that if there is a need to shift an assignment, this can be accomplished. For example, if a
technician is scheduled to make a certain number of calls during the day, but one or
more of the customers cancels a call, then the dispatcher would be in a position to
reassign the technician to another call in the event that another technician was backed
up on his schedule. This therefore gives the Company some flexibility to deal with 30
events as they develop during the day and helps avoid having customers waiting around
for technicians who arrive late or not at all. In this respect, the ETA system is designed
to enhance customer service and to avoid the wrath of home owners whose TV sets,
internet connections, or phone services are on the blink. So given this function, if a
technician enters incorrect information as to when he has started his jobs, the 35
dispatchers and the respective supervisor, can’t really know where he is physically at
any given time and therefore can’t know whether it is possible to shift his or other
technician’s schedules around to meet circumstances that may arise during the day.
Another function of the ETA system is to gather statistical information regarding 40
how long various services take on average. This is done as an aid in scheduling the
work of the technicians. It is not, however, done for the purpose of establishing any kind
of productivity standards. Once again, if incorrect entries are made by technicians as to
when they start and finish their job assignments, this would mean that the Company
would not be gathering accurate information that is used to avoid potential customer 45
complaints.

5
For example, Yvette Marie Walker, a witness called by the General Counsel, testified that during ETA
training, the employees were told that they were to start the job when they arrived at the job. Also, that
they were told to enter end when they finished the job.
JD(NY)-9-16
6
There was evidence that when ETA was introduced, some of the technicians
expressed concern that it could be used to create production standards and that
employee job performance might be judged based on those standards. The evidence
was that employees were told that the data created by their use of ETA would not be 5
used to judge them against any kind of standard and that they would neither be
punished nor rewarded. Nevertheless, although employees were given assurances that
their use of the ETA system would not be used to discipline them in relation to a
production standard, they were not told that they were free to enter incorrect information
into the ETA system. That is a wholly different matter. 10
The only evidence relied on by the General Counsel in support of the alleged
unilateral change in the ETA procedure is the fact that Eric Ocasio received a final
warning on July 29, 2014. In this regard, it seems that the theory is that because Ocasio
received an actual warning for failing to follow the correct ETA procedure, this was a 15
change in company policy and therefore could not be made without giving the Union an
opportunity to bargain. The warning stated as follows:
You are being issued a Final Warning for falsification of work time in ETA direct
and your work orders. 20
Several times on July 10, your supervisor went to your work site to perform
QCs.6 At least twice, you were not at your work site as you indicated in ETA
Direct and on your work orders submitted. You are expected to be at the job
assigned and your start and end time must be accurately reflected in ETA Direct 25
and on the work orders signed by customer.
To help us maintain customer satisfaction and keep things running smoothly, we
expect all employees to be at their work sites ready, willing and able to work at
the beginning of their regularly scheduled workday. Employees who are late or 30
who otherwise do not adhere to work schedules may have their performance
reviews affected or be subject to corrective action up to and including suspension
or termination of employment.
The evidence convinces me that there never was a change in the way that 35
technicians were supposed to enter their start and finish times and that Ocasio simply
chose to ignore that procedure for reasons unknown to me. Moreover, the evidence
establishes that Ocasio did so deliberately and not by mistake. Thus, the fact that other
employees such as Coleman and Riggs, did not receive warnings for unintentional
mistakes, can hardly be cited to demonstrate that a new policy was initiated on July 29, 40
with the issuance of the Ocasio discipline.
The evidence shows that the Company has always had a policy that prohibits employees
from falsifying records or making false reports. (Does a company have to explicitly state such an
obvious policy? Are we to assume that in the absence of an expressly stated policy, a 45
company’s default policy is to tolerate false reports by its employees?)

6
The supervisors of each team of field technicians are required to go out into the field on a
nonpredictable basis, to visit the technicians as they are working on an assigned job.
JD(NY)-9-16
7
Respondent Exhibit 12 is a document issued in 2011 entitled Field Operations Training:
ETA direct Guidelines. It states:
As always, please verify immediately upon receipt that your pay statement
accurately reflects your hours worked for the pay period. If you identify any 5
discrepancy or issue, notify your supervisor or Employee Relations representative
immediately. It is a violation of Company policy for any employee to falsify
Company documents including but not limited to time reports. It also is a serious
violation of Company policy for any employee or manager to instruct another
employee to incorrectly or falsely report hours worked or alter another employee’s 10
time report to under or over report hours worked and such individuals will be
subject to discipline up to and including termination of employment.
The evidence shows that two employees received formal disciplines in very similar
circumstances as Ocasio and that these occurred well before July 29, 2014, which is when the 15
General Counsel claims that the unilateral change occurred. For example, a final warning and a
3-day suspension was issued to James Best on October 8, 2013. This stated:
On September 7th you cancelled an 11-2 pm trouble call. You confirmed another
job that started on 1:37pm. When I arrived at the site you were not there until 20
2:17pm. When asked why you were not there, you told me that you went home to
get a part for the drill. By that time, RCC had contacted the customer and was
told that you had not started the job yet.
The record shows that a warning was also issued to an employee named David 25
Gifford in another similar situation. This warning which was issued before the Ocasio
warning stated:
David Gifford is on a final written warning. The business recommends that
David’s employment should be terminated because he falsified his work orders 30
and time in ETA direct. David’s supervisor (Patrick Golding) observed David
sitting in his truck when ETA shows that he was closing his 2nd job. David
delayed his work time and then called in later to cancel an install job. In addition
David’s last job on the work order shows that he worked from 4-5 p.m. and on
ETA it took 24 minutes from 4:32 – 4:56 pm. It took David an hour to arrive at 35
the depot at 6:00 p.m.
The evidence therefore shows that on occasions prior to Ocasio’s warning and well
before the date of the alleged unilateral change, the Respondent has issued warnings to
employees whom it believed had failed to make the proper ETA entries during the day. Indeed, 40
as indicated by the warning issued to Gifford, his infraction was considered to be a
dischargeable offense. To my mind, this belies any contention that a unilateral change in policy
was made when the Company issued a final warning to Ocasio on July 29. He clearly falsified
his ETA records by not entering the correct times that he began and finished his job
assignments for the day in question. I therefore shall recommend that this allegation of the 45
complaint be dismissed.
(c) Alleged Solicitation of Grievances
As amended, the complaint alleges that on various dates in July and August 2014, the 50
Respondent by various agents, solicited employee complaints and grievances and promised
JD(NY)-9-16
8
increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment if they abandoned their
support for and membership in the Union.
In my opinion, the evidence does not support this allegation. I note here that the
complaint does not allege that the Respondent violated the Act by telling employees that any 5
adverse employment action resulted from their support for the Union.
In order to establish a violation of these allegations, the General Counsel has to
establish not only that the Respondent solicited grievances, but that it made an express or
implied promise to remedy those grievances. Uarco Inc., 216 NLRB 1 (1974); Genzer Tool and 10
Die Corp., 268 NLRB 330 (1983). In Chartwells, 342 NLRB 1155, 1157 fn. 7 (2004), the Board
held that a Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by soliciting grievances and by impliedly
promising to remedy them.
In the summer of 2014, the Company reassigned various managers and supervisors to 15
the Brooklyn offices. A meeting was held on July 18, 2014, at the 96th street Depot in which
about 50 technicians were in attendance. Barry Monopoli started the meeting by introducing
some of the new supervisors and stating that the employees should give them a chance.
Monopoly stated that he wanted to have the meeting in order to obtain feedback from the
Brooklyn technicians. Stating that he had heard that some people had complained that the 20
Company had ceased having their annual barbeques, he indicated that it was thinking about
resuming that practice. (In the past and recommencing in 2014, the Company held and paid for
an after hours barbeque for employees).7 After this announcement, Monopoli solicited questions
from the technicians. The first comment seems to have been made by Union Shop Steward
Reynold Meyers who said that the employees were not interested in barbecues and that they 25
wanted a contract. In response, Monopoli stated that he was not there to talk about the contract
negotiations. It seems that an employee initiated a discussion about how to identify “repeat
calls” so that technicians would not be held responsible for certain types of repeat calls. There
was no evidence that any promises were made or implied.
30
Another set of meetings was held on July 30, 2014, and these were conducted by
Robert Comstock, the Company’s executive vice president of operations. As in the earlier
meeting, Comstock opened the floor for employee comments and questions. There is no
dispute that at this meeting, employees raised a number of issues regarding their pay and terms
of employment. Specifically, a major complaint was that that the employees in Brooklyn had not 35
gotten parity with respect to increases given to employees at unrepresented locations.
Employees also complained that there was a lack of promotional opportunities in Brooklyn and
that certain new technology that had been deployed elsewhere had not been deployed in
Brooklyn. Another complaint was that the Company should fix its work rotation system so that
employees would share the burden of working in undesirable areas. 40
In relation to the meetings held on July 30, Comstock’s testimony was that after stating
that he would take questions, he explicitly told the employees that he could not address
questions that related to subjects that were part of the collective-bargaining process; that these
had to be negotiated at the bargaining table and that he could not talk about them. This was 45

7
In fact, the Company did reinstate the barbeques at its three Brooklyn locations in July 2014. There is no
allegation in the complaint that by doing so, the Respondent violated the Act. There will be more to say
about the barbeques when we get to the allegations involving Jerome Thompson.
JD(NY)-9-16
9
corroborated by other persons who were at these meetings including Lawrence Hendrickson, a
witness called by the General Counsel.8
On August 5, the Company held a meeting at the 96th street depot. This meeting was
conducted by Thomas Lynch, the area operations manager. At this meeting, a video was 5
shown wherein Kristin Dolan talked about how Cablevision could win back customers. After the
video was shown, the floor was opened up for questions and some asked when Tech Mobility
would be deployed in Brooklyn. In this regard, Tech Mobility is basically an upgraded ETA
software package that was deployed to technicians at other locations. It eventually was
employed at the Brooklyn locations and is an advanced version of the ETA system that had 10
been used to facilitate the scheduling and rescheduling of technicians in the field. In any event,
the General Counsel’s witnesses assert that Monopoli told them that Tech Mobility had not been
deployed in Brooklyn because this was something that was the subject of bargaining and that
“you guys voted for a union . . . ” Whether or not the issue of deploying Tech Mobility was
actually discussed during bargaining, the evidence here is that no one from management 15
promised to do anything about that question during the meeting.
A group of meetings was held on August 6, 2014. Speaking for the Company were,
Comstock, Monopoli, Matt Lake, Pergash Kasimura, and Mark Counsar. The purpose of these
meetings was to describe the Company’s efforts to rebrand its services and to stress the 20
importance of branding. It is clear that the purpose was not to solicit or discuss any employee
grievances or terms of employment. Indeed, employees were explicitly told that the Company
could not discuss any issues that were being discussed in the negotiations. In any event, the
General Counsel cites to the fact that Jerome Thompson stated that the Company’s failure to
give the Brooklyn employees parity was a stain on the brand and that he asked what the 25
Company was going to do to fix this situation. Monopoli replied that “you guys made a
conscious decision to [select] the third party to represent you” and “that being said, you have to
really pose that question to them because they’re the ones who now speak for you and
represent you at the bargaining table.”
30
A recording of one of August 6 meetings was introduced into evidence and we will come
back to it when we discuss the allegations regarding Jerome Thompson because its is clear to
me that what happened here precipitated his discharge on August 20. Suffice it to say at this
point, that I see no evidence that the Company solicited grievances or promised to correct them.
35
The General Counsel cites meetings held on August 14 and 18, 2014. These meetings,
as far as I can tell were meant to deal with operational issues and not with employee grievances
or terms of employment; albeit some employees complained about the lack of parity with other
locations regarding the tools and technology that was used in Brooklyn. There is no evidence
that the Company’s agents solicited grievances or promised to correct them. 40
At a meeting held on August 21, a video was shown to the employees. This featured
Sandy Kapell, the Company’s executive vice president of human resources. The video was
thereafter made available on the Company’s intranet to all of the technicians, including those
appointed to be union shop stewards. The testimony of a General Counsel witnesses was that 45
this was basically a propaganda video, to which he paid no mind. There is no evidence that any

8
In response to a question as to what if any response managers made to employee gripes, Hendrickson
testified; “That couldn’t be discussed because that was something that they were bargaining for with the
union.”
JD(NY)-9-16
10
grievances were solicited during this meeting and I am frankly at a loss to understand why this
is cited in support of this allegation.
Finally, the General Counsel calls attention to a set of four meeting that were held on
August 27, 2014. Again when the floor was opened for questions, employees asked about 5
parity, tech mobility, changing the colors of the uniforms, and trucks etc. The response was that
as these items were being dealt with in negotiations, the Company could not talk about them.
Based on all of the above, it is my opinion that the evidence fails to establish that
the Respondent solicited grievances regarding employee pay or terms and conditions of 10
employment. Nor can I conclude that the Respondent, at any time, promised to remedy
any grievances. On the contrary the Respondent’s managers made it clear that the
employees had selected the Union and to the extent that issues were being negotiated
with the Union, they could not discuss them at meetings with employees. I shall
therefore recommend that this allegation be dismissed. 15
(d) The Kapell Video
As noted above, the Respondent on a couple of occasions in August 2014,
showed a propaganda video to unit employees. It seems that to an extent, Kapell 20
discussed the status of the contract negotiations; doing so from the Company’s point of
view. It is the General Counsel’s theory that because the video talked about issues that
were being discussed in bargaining, the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by
refusing to provide a copy of the video to the Union. I disagree.
25
Assuming that in this video a company official described, with company spin, the
issues that were being discussed during negotiations, I do not understand why the Union
would be entitled to it. At most, this is simply a propaganda piece that no doubt was
understood as such by the employees. Clearly, the employer (or the Union), is entitled
to inform bargaining unit employees as to their positions regarding contract bargaining 30
and how they understand the negotiations are going. There is no evidence that this
video contains any information that might legitimately be useful to the Union in relation to
its bargaining position or strategy. Nor is there any indication that the video contains
information that might be relevant to any pending grievances.9
35
Moreover, this video was made available to all of the unit employees via the
Company’s intranet system and was viewed by union appointed shop stewards. Thus,
although the Respondent refused to turn over a copy of the video, its content was not a
secret and was readily available to employees and shop stewards, including employees
who participated in the negotiations as part of the Union’s bargaining committee.40
As I conclude that the there is no reason to believe that the video contained any
information (other than propaganda), that could be relevant to either the negotiations or
to grievance handling, I find that the Respondent’s refusal to turn over this video did not
violate the Act. 45

9
The Union and the Company, after the certification and during the negotiation process, established a
grievance type of procedure whereby the Company agreed to notify the Union about disciplines. The
parties agreed to have discussions about such disciplinary actions; albeit there was no arbitration
procedure put into place.
JD(NY)-9-16
11
(e) The allegations involving Jerome Thompson
Thompson began his employment in October 2004. Thereafter, he was promoted
to the position of a CLI Tech. He worked in that job until his termination in August 2014.
5
Thompson was an active and open union supporter. He was on the original
union/employee organizing committee. He attended various union rallies at which he
spoke in public about his support for the Union. Thompson was one of 22 employees
who were the subject of the prior unfair labor practice case wherein it was alleged that
he and others who engaged in a work stoppage, were denied reinstatement when they 10
offered to return to work.10 In addition and probably more pertinent to the present case,
Thompson authored and played songs in various forums that were supportive of the
union. These songs were like modern hip hop versions of the Pete Seeger and Woody
Guthrie songs popularized in the 1930s and 1940s. E.g. “The union maid.”11 Finally,
although he was not on the Union’s negotiating committee, Thompson was one of 16 15
shop stewards.
The Respondent does not dispute that Thompson was an active union supporter.
It concedes that it was aware of this fact.
20
The amended complaint’s allegations regarding Thompson are as follows:
1. That on or about March 3, July 7, July 31, August 6 and 7, 2014, the Respondent
issued disciplinary warnings to Thompson because he assisted the Union and/or engaged in
protected concerted activities.25
2. That on August 7, 2014, the Respondent, at its Bethpage facility, threatened to cause
the arrest of Thompson because he engaged in concerted protected activity.
3. That on August 20, 2014, the Respondent discharged Thompson because of his 30
union and/or protected concerted activities.
In support of these contentions, the General Counsel and the Charging Party assert that
evidence of antiunion animus has been demonstrated by various findings made by Judge Fish
in the prior case. As that case is still pending before the Board based on exceptions filed by all 35
of the unhappy parties, Judge Fish’s findings and conclusions cannot be used as “proof” of
antiunion animus in the present case.
The Respondent contends that all of the disciplinary actions, including the
discharge, were justified by Thompson’s misconduct. Indeed, implicit in the 40
Respondent’s presentation, was the idea that if anything, it leaned over backwards
because it was aware of Thompson’s union activity.

10
In that case, the Respondent contended that it had permanently replaced these 22 strikers and
therefore, under prevailing law, had no obligation to recall them upon an unconditional offer to return to
work unless the individuals who replaced them had left the Company’s employ. The decision by Judge
Fish was that these employees were not permanently replaced. He therefore concluded that the employer
had an obligation to reinstate the strikers. That decision, as noted, is on appeal before the Board.
11
According to Wickipedia, “Union maid” is a union song with lyrics written by Woody Guthrie in 1940.
The melody is based on a song called Red Wing written by Kerry Mills.
JD(NY)-9-16
12
Insofar as the allegations concerning the various disciplinary actions prior to
Thompson’s discharge, there is virtually no evidence of any antiunion animus by
company’s supervisors or managers specifically directed towards him. Perhaps this is
because after the Board certification, the employer was represented by labor counsel
and almost all company actions were vetted by counsel. This of course, does not mean 5
that managers or supervisors did not engage in acts motivated by union considerations;
but it does mean that the Company took care whenever it did act.
Nevertheless, the transactions that directly led to Thompson’s discharge
unambiguously involved his union activity. These were the playing of his union songs at 10
three company sponsored barbeques on July 31, 2014; his prounion statements at a
company meeting held on August 6, 2014; and the playing of his music on August 7 at
the parking lot of the company’s headquarters in Bethpage, New York. As will be shown
later, it is my opinion that the transaction that actually triggered Thompson’s discharge
involved his statements made at a meeting on August 6 when he spoke up and criticized 15
the Company for not agreeing to a union contract. To my mind, this was the key event in
the decision to terminate Thompson and that everything else cited by the Company was
simply thrown in to gild the lily.12
In any event, it is my opinion that the actions by Thompson on each of these 20
particular days constituted union activity. So, if the Respondent discharged Thompson in
response to this activity, then it did so because of his union activity. Therefore, the only
possible defense resides in its contention that while engaging in this union activity,
Thompson so far exceeded the bounds of propriety that it rendered his conduct
unprotected. In this regard, the appropriate test is the one enunciated in Atlantic Steel 25
Co., 245 NLRB 814 (1979). Thus, in Goya Foods, 356 NLRB 476 (2011), the Board
reiterated this test as:
Under Atlantic Steel, the Board considers four factors to determine whether an
employee’s conduct is so egregious as to lose the Act’s protection: (1) the place 30
of the discussion; (2) the subject matter of the discussion; (3) the nature of the
employee’s conduct; and (4) whether the conduct was provoked by the
employer’s unfair labor practices.
Over the course of his employment, Thompson received a number of warnings. 35
He received two warnings in 2004 and one warning in 2012. These warnings, in my
opinion, were too far removed in time to tell us anything about Thompson’s work
performance. However, during 2014 and before the incidents that led to his discharge,
Thompson was involved in a string of incidents, some of which resulted in official
warnings. Others did not result in warnings although the transactions were noted in his 40
personal file.
On January 15, 2014, while exiting the mechanic’s garage, Thompson managed
to hit the top of his vehicle on the garage roll-up door because it had not yet completely
opened. This resulted in the ladders being dislodged from the roof of his vehicle and 45
some minor damage to the garage door. Thompson then left the garage without
contacting his supervisor about the accident.

12
Inasmuch as the August 6 meeting was recorded, there is no dispute as to what was said. A transcript
of this meeting was agreed to by the parties.
JD(NY)-9-16
13
On January 21, 2014, Thompson received a warning in relation to the above
incident. Subsequently, Union Representative Gallagher spoke to company
representative Hilber in an effort to reduce the harshness of the warning. Ultimately
Hilber agreed to soften it to some extent.
5
The complaint does not allege that this warning was a violation of the Act. And
the evidence is rather clear that Thompson was at fault in this situation and that the
warning was deserved.
During February 2014, Thompson’s supervisor was Andrew Daley. On February 10
6, Daley sent a memo to his superior, Strachan, complaining that Thompson had
disrespected him after Daley spoke to Thompson about not being in his work clothes
during a morning meeting. Thompson stated inter alia; “I am not feeling safe working
with Mr. Thompson.” This incident did not result in a disciplinary action.
15
On February 20, 2014, Daley was out and Thompson changed the sign-in log
book without receiving permission to do so.
On February 21, 2014, Thompson had a couple of early morning confrontations
with Daley. The credible evidence shows that when Daley told Thompson that he had no 20
right to alter the log book, Thompson called him a liar and said that Daley should start no
shit that morning. Daley also told Thompson that he was not properly dressed for work.
Before leaving for the field, Daley distributed blue-tooth head sets to the technicians.
According to Daley, when he handed one to Thompson, the head set was thrown at him
and Thompson said that they could take their dispute out back. In this regard, Thompson 25
testified that he didn’t throw the head set; that he merely tossed it on the table. He also
denies that he said anything about taking the dispute out back.
In an email chain from Daley to Strachan (copy to Angela King), Daley described
this incident and stated; “I am beginning to feel very unsafe and uncomfortable working 30
with Mr. Thompson. His unprofessional behavior is becoming too frequent and I need it
to stop. I cannot work in an environment where I don’t feel safe coming to work. . . . ”
In relation to the events of February 21, Union Agent Roger Brian Young spoke
to Thompson in preparation for his discussion with company representative King about 35
the warning issued to Thompson. Young testified that Thompson told him that he did
say to Daley; “don’t start no shit with me today,” and that he also said, “if we’re going to
do this, let’s just go to the back and discuss it.” Young testified that he asked
Thompson; “What were you doing to do? Go out in the back and put up your dukes? Is
that how you guys settle things around here?” According to Young, Thompson laughed 40
and said; “no, no, HR is in the back.”
Returning to the events on February 21, things went from bad to worse. After
leaving the depot, Thompson hit another vehicle at around 10:30 a.m. Although
Thompson asserted that the fault lay with the other driver, the police officer at the scene 45
informed Daley that from what he could observe, the accident was Thompson’s fault.
The police report states in substance that the vehicle damages were consistent with the
description of the accident given by the driver of the vehicle not driven by Thompson. In
any event, Daley testified that he came to the conclusion that Thompson was involved in
an avoidable accident for which he was responsible. Given the circumstances, that 50
conclusion was reasonable.
JD(NY)-9-16
14
On March 3, 2014, the Company issued a final warning to Thompson. The
infractions listed were: (a) Failing to arrive at work in proper attire; (b) On February 20,
changing his start time for Wednesday February 19 in the sign in logbook without
permission; (c) On February 21, speaking to supervisor (Daley) in a threatening tone,5
calling him a liar and stating, “you better not start no shit with me this morning”; (d)
February 21, refusing to take headset and throwing it back on the desk; (e) February 21,
avoidable accident in the field. Also referenced in this final warning was the accident in
the garage.
10
In my opinion, the credible evidence shows that the March 3, 2014 final warning
was warranted in light of Thompson’s behavior. Under Wright Line, I don’t think that the
General Counsel has made out a prima facie showing that this warning was motivated
by anti-union considerations. Moreover, even if there was some evidence to suggest
that such a motivation existed, I would conclude that based on Thompson’s conduct, the 15
Respondent would have taken the same action despite the fact that it was aware that he
was a union activist.
In June 2014, the Respondent discovered that Thompson used his company
issued cell phone to make numerous personnel phone calls. Although the company 20
permits employees to use the phones to make personnel calls, it asserts that Thompson
abused this privilege by making calls far in excess of anyone else. Some of the calls
were made while he was on vacation in Las Vegas.
Thompson’s use of the cell phone resulted in discussions between Paul Hilber, 25
the Company’s vice president of human resources and union representatives Tony
Spina and William Gallagher. The result of these discussions was that a memorandum
was issued to the technicians indicating the limits of reasonable personal use of cell
phones. No warning was issued to Thompson in relation to this incident. Nevertheless,
Hilber testified that he told the union representatives that “this is it” and that Thompson 30
“doesn’t have any more chances.” There is no contention in the complaint that the
Respondent, by this nonwarning about cell phone usage, violated the Act.
On July 31, 2014, the Company held barbeques for employees at its three
Brooklyn locations. (92nd street, 96th street and street). These were held in the 35
respective parking lots where the Company’s vehicles are kept. The barbeques were
held after work hours when the technicians returned from the field.
Thompson drove his car to each site while playing his union songs. Upon arrival,
he opened his doors and played his music on his car audio system at a very loud level. 40
He asserts that he played the music at 80 percent of capacity. At each location, he
started loudly playing the music and shortly thereafter was either asked by management
to turn it down or to not play one of the songs. In each case, Thompson, soon after being
approached by managers, left each location and drove off. At one location, he may have
lingered outside the fence for a short time before leaving. 45
It does not seem to me that the Company, as of the end July 31 and not until
after August 6, actually intended to impose any discipline on Thompson based on his
musical visits to the barbeques. Based on the testimony of Robert Comstock, it was he
who actually initiated the process for Thompson’s discharge and that he did so because 50
Thompson interrupted a presentation about branding that was made to employees on
JD(NY)-9-16
15
August 6, 2014. In my opinion, had the events of August 6 not happened, Thompson
would not have been discharged or even disciplined for his actions at the barbeques. It
seems to me that once a decision was made to discharge him, the Company added as a
reason, the musical interlude.
5
Nevertheless, because the Respondent in its discharge decision cited the music
incidents, I shall make the following observations.
The Respondent contends that Thompson, by interrupting the barbeques and
loudly playing his union songs, placed his actions outside the protection of the Act. In 10
this regard, the lyrics of his songs are in the nature of prounion propaganda and are not,
in my opinion, of a nature to disqualify them from the Act’s protection.13 The issue then
becomes how loud did Thompson play his music and to what extent did it interfere with
the people who were at the barbeques. As various witnesses had differing opinions
regarding the loudness of the songs, the Respondent subpoenaed Thompson’s car for 15
the purpose of having a demonstration. I agreed to this and both the Union and the
Company secured the services of experts who would be called upon to measure sound
levels from the car to various points within one of the barbeque sites.
The demonstration took place on October 19, 2015. Both the Union’s and the 20
Company’s experts measured the decibel levels of the music at various distances from
Thompson’s car. This was done in my presence with the music played at 80 percent
and at 100 percent of the car audio’s maximum volume. From my observation and
basically consistent with the testimony of the Company’s expert, Dr. Salter, the results of
the test showed the following: 25
The sound generated from Thompson’s car at either 80 percent or 100 percent of
its maximum volume would clearly have been disruptive if people were trying to have a
conversation next to or within 10 feet of his car. (The equivalent of trying to have a
conversation at a very noisy club or bar). However, the level of sound became 30
decreasingly loud as one moved further from the source. At 40 feet, the music would
have been noticeable but would not have interfered with two people talking to each other
at a normal level and standing 1½ to 2 feet, or even a meter apart. At about 90 feet,
which is where the burgers and frankfurters were being grilled, the music would have
been noticeable but even softer. In my opinion, at that distance the music could not 35
have been disruptive to any group of normal people having a normal conversation.14
Further, the evidence showed that the parking lot where the test was conducted
was well over 180 feet long and 80 feet wide and if there was a person who happened to
be unusually sensitive to loud sounds, he or she would have had plenty of room to move 40
away from Thompson’s car while staying within the lot. Indeed, as the lot contained

13
In a sense, playing these songs at or near the Company’s premises is analogous to placing a message
on a large picket sign or banner.
14
Dr. Salter created a chart showing the effect that playing the songs at 100 percent would have on
people talking while standing one meter apart and standing at various distances from the sound source.
This showed that at a close distance people would have to shout in order to have a conversation.
Nevertheless, as the distance became further from the source, the individuals might have to speak very
loudly and then at a raised voice and finally in normal voice. This assumed that there were no other
vehicles or substantial objects between the sound source and the persons who were having a
conversation. This chart is, in my opinion, basically consistent with my observations at the demonstration.
See Table 2 of Dr. Salter’s Acoustical report.
JD(NY)-9-16
16
vehicles at the time that Thompson played his music, that music would be even less
audible if two people moved themselves at a distance from the car and placed
themselves so that some vehicles separated them from Thompson’s car.
Thompson’s car, at the time of the demonstration, was placed at the same 5
location that it occupied on the day of the barbeques. As noted above, that location was
about 90 feet away from where the grills were set up and more than 180 feet from the
houses that abutted the Company’s parking lot. Also, his car was at least 50 feet away
from the lot’s street entrance and at least 70 to 80 feet away from the fence of the school
that is located across the street. In my opinion, the sound level from Thompson’s car, 10
played at maximum volume, could not have been sufficient to cause any disturbance to
either the children playing in the school yard; the homeowners who lived at the end of
the parking lot; the few pedestrians or motorists who might have passed by the parking
lot’s entrance; or to the employees who, unless they decided to stand within 10 to 30
feet of Thompson’s car, were hopefully enjoying a couple of franks and beers. Finally, as 15
noted above, Thompson when approached by management and told to lower his music
or play another tune, chose to leave and did so within a short time. Thus, any remote
disturbance made by his music was short lived and ultimately did not disrupt the
barbeques.15
20
By the same token, it is clear to me that when on August 7, Thompson played his
music in the parking lot of the Company’s headquarters at around 5:15 p.m., the sound
level of his music could not have been disruptive to the people who were leaving work in
their cars. Indeed, the Company’s witnesses testified that they could not hear
Thompson’s music from inside the building. 25
So this brings us to the events that occurred on August 6, 2014. And to my mind,
this presents a much closer question as to whether Thompson’s prounion statements
made at a company meeting went beyond the boundaries for protection as set forth in
Atlantic Steel. 30
On August 6, 2014, the Company held a series of meetings with the Brooklyn
technicians for the purpose of describing its marketing and branding efforts. The main
idea was that the Company was now using a brand called “Optimum” and using multi-
colored vehicles. The goal, in the Company’s view, was to link the customers’ good 35
experience when receiving service with the company brand. The purpose of the meeting
was not to discuss the status of the collective bargaining or to talk about employee
wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment. The main speaker for the
Company was Matt Lake, the senior VP of marketing. Among the other officials present
for the Company, were Comstock and Monopoli. 40
At the meeting that was attended by Thompson, Lake in an effort to illustrate the
power of branding, made an analogy to two ships. He talked about two vintage sailing
ships at sea and then described the likely reaction of the passengers of one when they
discovered that the other was flying the skull and bones flag. (The power of a brand). 45
After Lake spoke, Thompson started to comment that there was a third ship out there
which was a slave ship. He then went on to describe how the government made money
off of chattel slavery and analogized slavery to the way that Cablevision did business.

15
One wonders whether a continuous loop of these songs would have bolstered prounion sentiment or
had the opposite effect.
JD(NY)-9-16
17
When Monopoli told him that the purpose of the meeting was to talk about branding,
Thompson persisted and kept on comparing Cablevision to a slave holder and intimating
that the way Cablevision treated its employees was similar to lynching. When Thompson
brought up the issue of parity, Comstock told him that they were not there to talk about
issues that were the subject of bargaining. Finally, when Thompson continued to talk, 5
Comstock cut him off by saying; “You made your point loud and clear. Does anyone
have some other questions?”
Attached as Appendix A is a transcript of that portion of this meeting that covers
the interchange involving Thompson. 10
A day or two after this meeting, Comstock described Thompson’s conduct to
Sandy Kapell and Paul Hilber from human resources. From his testimony, the reason he
did so was in order to initiate the process of discharging Thompson. That decision was
ultimately made and the Union was notified of that decision on or about 15
August 18.
On August 19, Thompson received a phone call from union representatives Tony
Spina and Billy Gallagher and was told; “You’re going to be fired because of the slavery
comment you made in the meeting on the 6th.” The discharge was effectuated on 20
August 20, 2014.
General Counsel Exhibit 2 is the notification sent by the Company to the Union
on August 18 regarding Thompson’s pending discharge. This stated inter alia:
25
As a follow up to our discussion today. Attached is a summary that
provides the over all picture of Jerome’s employment with Cablevision. At
this point we are going to be separating his employment as he continues to
violate our policies after being warned and told repeatedly as to his need to
comply. As you know, Billy, you and I have had on-going conversations 30
regarding Jerome’s behavior and that he needs to follow procedures and
policies. We in fact have had a number of conversations regarding ways to
manage his behavior, to which you offered suggestions which I
implemented. You are both well aware that we have provided Jerome with
a number of opportunities to become an employee in good standing which 35
he has failed to do.
Jerome has a history of unprofessional disruptive and/or insubordinate
behavior in the workplace during work hours. Despite multiple disciplinary
steps including a Final Written Warning in March 2014, he has continued to 40
engage in such behavior.
This document then goes on to describe, from the Company’s point of view,
Thompson’s history. In summary form, this sets for the following incidents.
45
May 25, 2004. Warning for attendance.
August 12, 2004. Warning for not attending a mandatory meeting.
May 10, 2012. Warning and suspension for taking two hours to get to a 50
job that was 3.2 miles away from depot.
JD(NY)-9-16
18
January 21 2014. Warning for not reporting an accident in the garage.
March 3, 2014. Final warning re: (a) showing up for work improperly
dressed [February 6]; (b) modifying start time in log without permission 5
[February 20]; (c) speaking to supervisor in unprofessional manner [February
6 and 21]; (d) refusing to accept a headset and throwing it on the supervisor’s
desk [February 21]; and (e) an avoidable accident on February 21.
In May 2014, the excessive use of the company issued cell phone.10
July 31, 2014. Excessively loud playing of his car stereo at BBQs held
at three sites in Brooklyn. He ignored first request by Barry Monopoly to turn off
music and when Monopoly asked him to turn down music, he left but parked off
site but still close to BBQ while keeping the music on. 15
August 6, 2014. During a meeting, Thompson interrupted the
presentation and among other things, compared employees to slaves on a
slave ship. He also refused to stop talking about contract demands after Barry
Comstock told him that these matters should be discussed at the bargaining 20
table and not at the meeting.
August 7. Playing his music at Bethpage headquarters with his car
stereo.
25
As previously stated, I think that the event that triggered the decision to
discharge Thompson was his remarks made at the August 6 meeting. I believe that this
is what precipitated the process that led to his discharge and that but for this transaction,
I do not believe that Thompson would have been fired. Insofar as the incidents on July
31 and August 7 when he played his union songs, I think that this was thrown into the 30
mix in order to buttress the Company’s anticipated case. But if it was in fact relied on as
a basis for his discharge, I think that the Company’s reasoning was misguided. In that
regard, it is my opinion that playing these songs constituted union activity and I have
concluded that Thompson’s music was not so loud as to be disruptive of the activities of
other persons. 35
Turning to the events of August 6, 2014. Because Thompson’s comments at the
August 6 meeting were supportive of the Union and critical of the Company’s policies
regarding wages, they constituted union and collective activity that is normally protected
by Section 7 of the Act. The question is whether Thompson went too far. 40
In Stanford Hotel, 344 NLFB 344, 358 (2005), the Board stated; “When an
employee is discharged for conduct that is part of the res gestae of protected concerted
activity, the pertinent question is whether the conduct is sufficiently egregious to remove
it from the protection of the Act.” It is well established that an employee’s right to 45
engage in Section 7 activity “may permit some leeway for impulsive behavior, which
must be balanced against the employer’s right to maintain order and respect.” Kiewit
Power Constructors Co. v. NLRB, 652 F. 3d 22 at page 26. In Atlantic Steel, supra, the
Board listed these factors to be considered. (1) the place of the discussion; (2) the
subject matter of the discussion; (3) the nature of the employee’s conduct; and (4) 50
whether the conduct was provoked by the employer’s unfair labor practices.
JD(NY)-9-16
19
In this case, Thompson’s conduct was not provoked by any employer unfair labor
practice. It took place in a work area where other employees were present and in the
context of a business meeting whose purpose was to discuss branding and not to
discuss terms of employment or the status of bargaining. As to content, Thompson’s 5
comments did not contain any profanities or threats; albeit they clearly were provocative.
His statements comparing the Company’s employment practices to slavery and lynching
were made in front of a predominately African American audience.
There are a number of Board cases generally dealing with this type of situation, 10
but I have found none that are directly on point. For example in Beverly Health &
Rehabilitation Services, 346 NLRB 1319, 1322 (2006), the Board concluded that an
employee did not lose the Act’s protection when in connection with the processing of a
grievance, he told another employee to “mind her fucking business.” In Fresnius USA
Mfg., 358 NLRB 1261, 1264-1268 (2012), the Board held that comments made in a 15
newsletter that were vulgar and demeaning to women did not lose the protection of the
Act when they were part of the employee’s concerted activity. In Kiewit Power, Corp.,
355 NLRB 356 fn1 (2000), the Board held that the conduct was still protected even
though the employee told a supervisor that the situation could get ugly and that he
“better bring his boxing gloves.” 1620
On the other hand, there are cases in which it has been found that misconduct
accompanying union or concerted activity will lose the protection of the Act. In Starbucks
Corp., 354 NLRB 876, 877-878 and fn. 8 (2009), an employee lost the Act’s protection
when, at a public rally, he threatened a company manager in view of other employees. In 25
Daimer Chrysler Corp., 344 NLRB 1324, 1328-1329 (2005), the Board held that an
employee lost the Act’s protection when he made a profane outburst to a supervisor in
an open cubicle that was overheard by other employees. In Trus Joist Macmilan, 341
NLRB 369, 370-371 (2004), the Board held that an employee’s conduct, in a private
office was unprotected because the employee had requested the attendance of other 30
managers to further a prearranged plan to embarrass a supervisor.
The Respondent cites Avondale Industries, 333 NLRB 622, 637 (2001); Carrier
Corp., 331 NLRB 126 fn. 1 (2000); and Eagle-Picher Industries, 331 NLRB 169 (2000),
in support of its position that Thompson’s conduct, even if concerted, was unprotected. 35
In Avondale, a decision adopted by the Board, the Administrative Law Judge
concluded that the discharge of a union activist employee did not violate the Act. In part,
he concluded that this employee had called her supervisor a member of the Klan thereby
raising an issue “of racial prejudice that could potentially embroil other African American 40
employees in her ongoing personnel dispute.” That case, however, is inapposite
inasmuch as the racial comments made by the employee were not made in the context
of any union or concerted activity on her part. Rather, they were made in the context of
her personal dispute with this particular supervisor.
45

16
See also Battle’s Transportation Inc., 362 NLRB No. 17 (2015) (employee told supervisor to “shut up,”
and got partly out of his chair, slammed his hand on the table and called the supervisor stupid and a liar);
Fairfax Hosp. v. NLRB, 14 F.3d 594, (4th Cir. 1993) (employee allegedly warned supervisor to expect
retaliation).
JD(NY)-9-16
20
In Carrier, the complaint was dismissed because the disciplined employee
interrupted a meeting conducted by his manager with other employees present, insisted
on immediately discussing a subject that was unrelated to the meeting and refused to
acquiesce in the manager’s repeated directions that his concerns could be discussed
later in the day at a more appropriate time. 5
In Eagle-Picher Industries, the employer, at a meeting to dissuade employees
from voting for a union, told the employees that he was going to make a speech and that
they should hold their questions until after he was finished. The employee in question
interrupted the speech and when told to sit down and be quiet, he muttered “garbage” 10
loud enough for all to hear. The Board concluded that the employee’s garbage comment
was insubordinate and unprotected.
The Union cited Winston-Salem Journal, 341 NLRB 124, 126 (2004), in support
of its position that Thompson’s conduct remained protected notwithstanding his 15
comments about slave ships et al. In that case, the employee, at a crew meeting, raised
employee concerns about favoritism in response to the supervisor’s criticism of the
crew’s job performance. He also accused the supervisor of being a racist. The employee
was the union vice president and was speaking up in his role as the employees’
representative. A Board majority, analyzing the facts under Atlantic Steel, concluded that 20
the employee’s conduct was concerted and did not lose the protection of the Act. It
noted that the first factor weighed in favor of the employee because the meeting was
meant to deal with employee performance and therefore his remarks about favoritism
was an appropriate part of the discussion. The Board concluded that as there had been
previous discussions about favoritism between the union and the company, the 25
employee’s statements at the meeting were a continuation of previous discussion. As to
the racist comments, the Board noted that although the employee interrupted the
supervisor and called him a racist, this was “not so inflammatory as to lose the protection
of the Act.”
30
In my opinion, the instant case, falls somewhere between the facts of the cases
cited above. I therefore think that the outcome is decidedly uncertain and ultimately
could go either way.
On balance, it is my opinion that Thompson’s conduct at the April 6 meeting was 35
unprotected. This was a business meeting whose purpose was to discuss “branding”
and not to discuss wages, employment conditions or the state of the collective
bargaining. What Thompson did was, in effect, to try to capture a business meeting and
convert it into a forum for the presentation of his views about the Company’s wage and
employment practices. Additionally, he likened the Company and its employment 40
practices to slavery and to lynching and did so in front of an audience of coworkers,
many of whom were African Americans. Finally, he persisted in raising these points
after being told that this was not the time nor place to raise these issues.
Context can be controlling. I have little doubt that Thompson’s statements, if 45
made in a pamphlet, or on Facebook, or even shouted out loud using a bullhorn at a rally
outside the Company’s premises, would have been protected prounion speech. 17 I

17
For example see Pier Sixty, LLC, 362 NLRB No. 59 (2015), where a Board majority, while not
condoning the use of obscene and vulgar language toward a manager in a Facebook post, concluded
that the Respondent had tolerated similar profanity in the workplace and found that the conduct was not
JD(NY)-9-16
21
would therefore conclude that a discharge based on these same statements made in
those circumstances would be a violation of the Act. But in the circumstances of this
case, I think that the balance falls on the other side of the line and in favor of the
Company’s position. I therefore shall recommend that the discharge allegation of the
complaint be dismissed. 185
The final issue regarding Thompson relates to the fact that he drove to the
Company’s Bethpage headquarters on July 7 and while in the parking lot, loudly played
his music. This occurred at around 5:15 p.m. when other employees were leaving work
and driving their cars from the parking lot. The evidence showed that the music could 10
not be heard from inside the building and to the extent that any employees heard the
songs, this was transitory as they were exiting the premises. Also, the evidence does not
establish that Thompson, as he was leaving the facility, blocked the exit and prevented
vehicles from leaving. The bottom line is that Thompson was approached by company
security persons who asked him to leave. And when he stated that he had a right to be 15
there, he was told that the police would be called and he would be arrested.
In this situation, Thompson was an off-duty employee who entered the
Company’s parking and lot and played his union songs.
20
In Roger D. Hughes Drywall, 344 NLRB 413, 415 (2005), the Board concluded
that a Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by among other things, threatening to call the
police and cause the arrest of a picketer. The Board held that because the Union was
engaged in lawful area standards picketing on public property, the Respondent
interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights by threatening to cause an arrest. 25
In Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 82 the Board concluded that the
employer violated Section 8(a)(1) when, despite an access provision in the contract,
prohibited union representatives and employees from talking on the store floor, called
police and caused the arrest of three representatives.30
In ITT Industries Inc. v. NLRB, 413 F3d 64 (D.C. Cir. 2005), the employer
violated the Act when it refused to permit off-site employees from entering its parking lot
to distribute prounion handbills. The Court concluded that the interests of employees
outweighed the security or property rights concerns of the employer. Accordingly, the 35
court agreed with the Board’s finding that while off-site employees may not have the
same protections as employees within a facility, they still have interest that an employer
must recognize. See also International Business Machines Corp., 333 NLRB 215 (2001),
where the Board held that the employer violated the Act by maintaining a rule prohibiting
off duty employees from placing large prounion signs in its parking lot. 40

so egregious as to lose protection of Act. Member Johnson, on the other hand, opined that the Facebook
comments were qualitatively different from other obscenity tolerated by the Respondent and reflected a
level of degree of animus and aggression that went beyond-the-pale.
18
The General Counsel cites a situation where another employee named Tiffany Oliver was not
discharged for making inappropriate racial statements about other employees. But although this
employee was not discharged, she did receive a final warning. Also, her statements were not made at a
meeting where company officials were trying to conduct company business.
JD(NY)-9-16
22
I therefore conclude that Thompson, as an off duty employee, had a right to play
his prounion songs at the parking lot of the Company’s headquarters. Accordingly, I
conclude that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening to cause his arrest.
(f) Dolan’s Speech on September 9, 20145
The amended complaint alleges that on September 9, 2014, the Respondent by
James Dolan (a) threatened employees with continued loss of a pay increase if they
voted in an Employer’s sponsored poll to keep the Union as their bargaining
representative; (b) threatened to withhold new technology and training if they voted for 10
the Union; (c) impliedly threatened employees with job loss if they supported the Union;
(d) promised to increase wages if employees voted against the Union; and (e) promised
to pay the Union if it disclaimed an interest in representing the employees.
By way of background, in June 2014, the Union sent a petition signed by a 15
majority of the employees in the bargaining unit. This stated:
We, the undersigned do not understand why Cablevision has not yet agreed
to parity in wages for the Brooklyn workers. We are sticking together with
CWA to demand justice.20
At this time, the Company and the Union had been in negotiations for a
considerable time and the Company’s position was that wages were a subject of
bargaining and that it was not required, while negotiations were ongoing, to extend
wages and benefits increases to the certified unit employees that had been given to non-25
unit employees.
On September 9, 2014, Dolan visited the Brooklyn employees and gave a
speech. Previously, a second decertification petition had been filed but its processing
had been blocked because of the various unfair labor practices that had been filed and 30
remained unresolved.
While, the General Counsel places significance on the fact that Dolan hadn’t
spoken to these employees for many years, this is completely irrelevant. It is what he
said or didn’t say that is at issue. And luckily enough, there can be no dispute because 35
the speech and the questions and answers were recorded and a transcript was placed
into evidence. Relevant portions of that transcript are attached hereto as Appendix B.
During the speech portion of this event, Dolan basically told the employees that
he could not say much about their relationship to the Company because they had 40
selected a union to represent them and he was constrained by law as to what he could
talk about. He told them that there had been a decertification petition that was blocked
by the NLRB and that recently some employees had signed the petition described
above. Dolan stated that he wanted to find out what the true feelings of the employees
were regarding union representation and to that end he had arranged for a poll to be 45
conducted on the following day by an independent third party. He stated that In the
event that the employees voted for the Union, the Company would make every effort to
reach a contract but that this would not alter the positions that the Company had taken
during negotiations. He said that if the employees voted against the Union, he would try
to either convince the Union to hold the official decertification election or would seek to 50
induce it, perhaps by offering to pay for all of its expenses, to withdraw.
JD(NY)-9-16
23
After his initial remarks, Dolan solicited questions from the audience and
received a good number of them. Some were made by prounion employees and some
seem to have been made by antiunion employees. Some were short questions and
some were rather long statements posing as questions. 5
From reviewing the transcript, the most frequently asked question concerned the
subject of “parity.” In this respect, the Company had given wage increases to its
nonunion technicians at other locations and did not extend them to the Brooklyn
employees after the union was certified and bargaining commenced. In several answers 10
Dolan said that since the parties were in the middle of negotiations and the Union was
asking for a variety of benefits that were not available to other employees, this had to be
weighed in the scale when negotiating about wages. For example, at one point he made
the following rather lengthy explanation:
15
I mean as far as parity goes … look I am trying to think of a good analogy for
you… If your union was coming in and asking for the same environment, right
and the same work rules… that everybody else lived under… then you would
have probably, … close or equal wage. But that is not what’s going on here…
They are asking for a lot more of those things and they say, oh and by the way, 20
we also would like to get paid the same…. Well, the things that they are asking
for cost money and they are essentially asking for a better deal than what
everybody else at the company has. And then that’s our position and … you
can argue with it, but the fact is, that you are not asking for the same thing. You
can sit there and say, well, the things that we are asking for don’t mean 25
anything. Well if they don’t mean anything then don’t ask for them. They do
mean something and they do cost money. And they do change the expense to
the company that … change the entire relationship… And by the way they are
the kinds of things that make it even harder for the company to operate. You
know, things like scope of work… What you can and can’t work on… Those 30
kinds of things… That doesn’t exist anywhere else. You know employees at
other parts of the company… regularly change what they are dong. They can’t
do that here. It’s just what they are asking for is more expensive than what it
takes in other places and that has to come from somewhere. And if you want
parity, you have to take everything into account. You can’t just say, I want parity35
here and parity here, but I want to be better here and better there, but those
don’t count…
According to the General Counsel, Dolan “plainly conveyed to Brooklyn union
employees that it would withhold pay increases, new technology and training from 40
employees if they continued to support the Union.” The General Counsel claims that by
taking this position, the “Respondent continued to adhere to a firmly-held bargaining
position that it would not agree to any collective-bargaining agreement that provided
Brooklyn union employees with a “better” compensation and benefits package than that
received by Respondent’s non-union employees.” 45
The evidence simply does not support this allegation. Dolan’s comments were to
the effect that wages, or the introduction of new technology and training, were subjects
that he had to talk to the Union about and that if he unilaterally made changes, he
expected that the Union would file new unfair labor practice charges. And as to his 50
remarks about the Company’s negotiation posture, there is simply nothing illegal about a
JD(NY)-9-16
24
company driving a hard bargain and telling employees that this is the Company’s
position. In my opinion, Dolan’s remarks did not link either the possible granting or loss
of benefits to the outcome of the poll or to whether employees supported or rejected the
Union.19
5
The General Counsel also claims that during a question and answer about job
security, Dolan threatened employees with a loss of employment if they supported the
Union. In my opinion, Dolan’s remarks on this score cannot be interpreted as meaning
that employees could or might lose their jobs if they voted for the Union. Some of his
remarks were as follows: 10
Dolan: And as you said, it’s about job security… and not necessarily about the
money first. Well, what your union is asking for is more job security than
everybody else has. So fine. But then there has got to be a give-back on the
other side…. You can’t just say… I want a better deal than the other folks who 15
work in the other places here at Cablevision. That’s not fair. It’s not – and I
don’t agree with you, by the way, … that the other places aren’t – I mean, they
work hard too… They work the same kinds of shifts, the same kinds of things
that you do… You don’t help yourself by thinking… I am different than
everybody else… and I deserve more. 20
Q. I never said I wanted more.
Dolan: Well except that you do want more. I mean, it’s a disguised way of
asking for more, but you sit there and you say, I want all the good things… 25
that the other employees have, plus I want these other things that they don’t
have… And that’s asking for more… If you are at the bargaining table… and
you sit there and you say the most important thing to us is job security… I
want more job security than anybody else; you could have more job security
than anybody else but the expense of that .. you bear so that you are equal 30
with the other employees. You can’t… sit there and say, I want more than
them in this, this, this and this,… and then when it comes to this…I want to be
the same….
Dolan: Let me just address because we talked a lot about job security… And I 35
am going to try and do this in a way that the guy in the suit over here doesn’t
jump and tell me … that I am going to court… So let me try from a generic

19
It should be noted that there is no allegation in this case that the Respondent has engaged in surface
bargaining. (Indeed an agreement was reached). Nor is there any allegation that the Respondent
violated the Act by failing to extend wage increases or new technologies to the Brooklyn employees. In
Apogee Retail, 363 NLRB No. 122 (2015), the Judge, with Board approval, stated that except for
situations where wage increases (or other increased benefits), had been planned before the advent of a
union, or where wage increases have historically been granted on a regular and periodic basis, an
employer need not give increases during contract negotiations and may defer them to any collective-
bargaining agreement subsequently made. Accordingly, any statements to employees to the effect that
wages are frozen pending the outcome of negotiations is simply a statement of what is permissible under
the Act and therefore cannot violate Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act. In this regard, absent threats of reprisal or
promises of benefits, statements apprising employees of a company’s bargaining position are not
violative of the Act. United Technologies Corp., 274 NLRB 1069, 1074 (1985), enfd. as NLRB v. Pratt &
Whitney, 789 F.2 1129 (2d Cir. 1986); Proctor & Gamble Mfg., 160 NLRB 334, 340 (1966).
JD(NY)-9-16
25
point of view, okay, rather than talk specifically about you. In general… job
security… it’s not a function of a guarantee of… being employed as much as
its … of an assurance that you are needed as an employee… Because no
matter what anybody gives you as a guarantee … it might extend your
employment beyond the time that you are needed, right, but if you are not 5
needed, you don’t have job security no matter what any contract or anybody
says to you because contracts come to an end, and … time moves on, and if
you are not needed.. then you don’t have job security. So how do you make
sure… you stay … in a position where you can feed your families… where
you can earn a decent pay…? The best way that you can do that… is to stay 10
needed. And in this case – here is where I will get in trouble … let’s see, I
have to think about it for a second.
In a case where you are in an industry … that’s evolving… the best way to
have job security is to stay on top of what the newest developments are… and 15
being about to help the company and push it forward and be successful… So
that means that … you can’t just sit and say, well, I know how to put this
connector together with this and do this with that and that’s not enough
because it’s not enough. It’s not enough to give you job security no matter
what any contract says. It’s not enough. You have to evolve. And I will tell you 20
that from a philosophical point of view – and I am going to be in trouble, but…
at Cablevision what we want to do with all of employees, … is to train them
and keep them ahead. The real job security will be here as if for some reason
the company… disappears… that you are the best trained technicians in the
Northeast… That you are completely up to speed … with how new IP systems 25
work… and how these companies operate, how we dispatch etcetera; that you
have the newest tools and you can walk into any other company that’s doing
this kind of work and we are not the only company. There [are] tons of
companies… and you can say, I am fluent … in XYZ programing. I know how
to operate like this. I know how to handle a computer in a home. I know how 30
to do this, that and the other thing. That makes you valuable… I would hope
that you would earn more money and that’s the way that you truly have job
security because like I said, contracts come to an end… They could say if you
are not needed … when the contract comes to an end, then you are not
needed and it’s your job, personally your responsibility … to stay needed. 35
That’s the way our economy works. And if you do that you will be very
successful. And you will be very good at your job and you will have the
esteem of your colleagues and … companies will want you. And if you don’t
do that… you are not going to be needed. And that’s the way we want to
operate the company. That’s the way it works. 40
During one point in the meeting, Dolan responded to a question and included in
his answer a comment that if an employee didn’t trust anything that the company did,
why did he continue to work for Cablevision; he could go to Verizon which had a
unionized work force. This could arguably be construed as an implied threat of 45
discharge. Jupiter Medical Center Pavilion, 346 NLRB 650, 651 (2006); Paper Mart, 319
NLRB 9 (1995). However, in the context of this meeting, taken as a whole, I do not
conclude that this singular remark could reasonably be construed as an implied threat of
discharge. It is clear that the entire tenor of this meeting was to talk about the upcoming
poll and that Dolan was careful to explain that he could not talk about issues that were 50
being discussed in negotiations. Much of the meeting was taken up with questions and
JD(NY)-9-16
26
answers about parity and Dolan also explicitly told the employees that there would be no
reprisals.
The complaint also alleges that Dolan promised to pay the Union for its costs if it
disclaimed an interest in representing the employees. This clearly was one of the things 5
that Dolan did say. The question is whether this violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
If Dolan actually followed through on this idea (and there is no indication that he
did), he might very well have violated Section 302 of the Act. That provision prohibits
payments by employers to unions or union representatives, except in specified 10
circumstances such as payments to contractually established and jointly administered
pension and health care funds. A payment made to a union to disclaim its interest in
representing a company’s employees would not fall within any exception of Section 302,
and might indeed, be looked at with askance by the U.S. Attorney’s office.
15
None of the Briefs dealt with this question and no-one cited any cases either to
support or reject the notion that this kind of statement constitutes interference with
employee Section 7 rights. As this was one statement made during the course of a
rather long meeting, most of which consisted of remarks that are protected by Section
8(c) of the Act, I shall recommend that this allegation be dismissed. 20
(g) The Poll on September 10, 2014
The amended complaint alleges that on September 10, 2014, the Respondent,
by the Honest Ballot Association, engaged in surveillance and created the impression of 25
surveillance by (a) requiring employees to present identification to vote; (b) assigning
employees a unique personal identification number in order to vote; and (c) watching
employees as they voted.
According to Hilber, during the summer of 2014, he heard from about a dozen or 30
so employees about their frustration with the Union. He testified that he heard from some
employees and from Monopoly that people were gathering signatures for a new
decertification petition.
On August 26, 2014, and while contract negotiations were still underway, 35
Cablevision entered into an agreement with the Honest Ballot Association to conduct a
poll to be held on September 10 at the three Brooklyn locations; 9502 Avenue D, 1095
East 45th Street, and 827 East 92nd Street. The Honest Ballot Association will be
referred to herein as the HBA.
40
This poll was announced by Dolan at the September 9 meeting. Employees were
told, among other things, that in the event that the Union lost, the Company would not
withdraw recognition and would continue to bargain. Dolan did state, however, that if the
Union lost, he would try to convince the Union to walk away. In a memorandum dated
September 9, the Respondent notified the Union as follows: 45
The company intends to hold a non-binding poll for the Brooklyn unit employees
on Wednesday, September 10 with the following single question: Do you want
to be represented by CWA Local 1109.
50
JD(NY)-9-16
27
The poll will be conducted by … the Honest Ballot Association and will track as
closely as possible the times and locations of the voting for the original NLRB
election in January 2012. As with the 2012 election, the polling will be entirely
voluntary and completely confidential. Neither the Company nor the Union will
learn who participated, let alone how any employee answered the question. 5
Finally, there will be no reprisals or retaliation of any kind against employees
with respect to participation in the poll or any protected activities in which an
employee chooses to engage prior to the poll.
Unlike the 2012 election, however, the poll… will be completely non-binding. 10
Cablevision will not withdraw recognition from the CWA if a majority of the
ballots cast are against union representation; on the contrary, it will continue to
meet it duty to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement in good faith…
Lastly, we have researched the issues exhaustively and believe this poll is fully 15
lawful under the First Amendment given all the facts and circumstances –
including the recent fact that, as we’ve been told, that 112 of our employees
have so far signed a petition opposing the Union despite a union agent’s
attempts at intimidation. Accordingly, we hope the Union would not object to
this non-binding poll and indeed embrace the idea of giving the Brooklyn unit 20
employees their first opportunity in almost three years to express – private,
voluntarily and without fear of reprisal – whether or not they support the Union.
Prior to September 9, the Union was given no notice of the Company’s intention
to hold this poll. 25
The poll was set up with a single Brooklyn wide eligibility list covering all three
locations. This meant that a Cablevision employee who normally worked at one location
could vote at another location. Instead of using paper ballots, the HBA decided to use
computers with touch screens. At each of the balloting locations, a room was set aside 30
where employees were let in, one at a time, and were greeted by an HBA representative
who sat at a table with a list of the eligible voters. That individual asked the Cablevision
employee for identification and after showing a badge or other identification, the HBA
person circled the employee’s name on the list (or in some cases the employee may
have signed next to his name). The Cablevision employee was then given a slip of paper 35
with a previously determined pin number on it and instructed to go over to where a
computer was set up at the other end of the table. In this regard, a cardboard screen
was placed between the person who was voting at the computer and the HBA person
who was registering the voters. This was obviously done to prevent the HBA
representative to see how the employee was voting. When the voter entered his or her 40
pin number in dialogue box, a screen opened which asked; “Do you want to be
represented by CWA?” After making a yes or no selection, the voter was given the
option to go back and change his choice. Upon completion of the voting process, the
computer screen said; “Thank you," whereupon it was returned to the original welcome
screen. The HBA representatives were instructed to make sure that after a person 45
indicated that he voted, either by verbal expression or by standing up, that the computer
registered the thank you screen. In some few cases, this could have happened
prematurely as some employees testified that the HBA person looked over or around the
screen sheltering computer before he or she completed the vote. But the evidence was
that in almost all cases, the voters completed their voting without the HBA person 50
looking at the computer screens.
JD(NY)-9-16
28
As to the requirement that employees show some form of identification, this
seem reasonable inasmuch as there were no company or union designated observers,
who in a Board conducted election, typically know the identity of the voters.20
5
Based on the credited testimony of the HBA representatives, I am confident that
this organization ran this poll in a manner so that neither it nor the Company knew how
the people voted. However, the problem with using this electronic balloting system
(instead of paper), is that by giving each employee a pin number to be entered into a
computer before voting, employees might, even if mistaken, assume that their votes 10
could be traced to their pin number and therefore be disclosable to the Respondent. In
this regard, no instructions were issued to the employees about pin numbers and they
were not assured that each pin number would be destroyed upon its use. And even if
employees were so advised, they would have to take someone’s word for it.
15
For what it’s worth, the HBA certified that there were 115 yes votes and 129 no
votes. Notwithstanding the poll, the Company and the Union continued to bargain and
ultimately a contract was reached and executed in February 2015.
Polling was initially viewed by the Board as a form of unlawful interrogation and 20
viewed as going beyond the mere expression of views or opinions that are protected by
Section 8(c) of the Act or the First Amendment. Nevertheless, faced with criticism by
some Appellate Courts, the Board modified its view in Blue Flash Express Co., 109
NLRB 591 (1954), and held that interrogation would only be unlawful when it was shown
to be coercive in the light of “surrounding circumstances.” 25
Subsequently, In Struksnes Construction Co., 165 NLRB 1062 (1967), the Board revised
the criteria previously described in Blue Flash, as follows:
Absent unusual circumstances, the polling of employees by an employer will 30
be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act unless the following safeguards are
observed: (1) the purpose of the poll is to determine the truth of a union's
claim of majority, (2) this purpose is communicated to the employees, (3)
assurances against reprisal are given, (4) the employees are polled by
secret ballot, and (5) the employer has not engaged in unfair labor practices 35
or otherwise created a coercive atmosphere.
In Struksnes,21 the Board held when a “poll” was taken by the employer while a
petition for a Board election was pending, this did not serve any legitimate employer
interest that would not have been better served by the forthcoming Board election. 40
In Texas Petrochemicals Corp., 296 NLRB 1057, 1063 (1989), and Grenada
Stamping & Assembly, Inc., 351 NLRB 1152, (2007), the Board held that where there is
an incumbent union, advance notice of the poll is a required element.

20
There was no evidence that company supervisors or managers entered into the rooms in which the
voting took place. They were, in fact, expressly told to stay away. On a couple of occasions, a
supervisor may have been in a hallway leading to the voting room. But to me, this is irrelevant and cannot
be the basis of a surveillance allegation.
21
The Board’s Struksnes standards were ultimately endorsed by the Supreme Court in Allentown Mack
Sales & Services Inc., v. NLRB, 523 U.S. 359.
JD(NY)-9-16
29
The Respondent argues that its poll, even if it did not meet all of the criteria set
forth in Struksnes, did not violate the Act for the following reasons:
In sum, the Company’s poll was not and could not be considered coercive 5
in any manner. Unlike the situation where an employer is itself polling
employees with the intent to withdraw recognition based on the result, a
coercive or unlawful motive to undermine the Union could hardly be
inferred here, where the Company has expressly and unequivocally
informed employees and the Union that it would not withdraw recognition 10
from the Union and would continue to bargain in good faith with the Union
regardless of the result of the poll. Absent the potential for coercion, much
less actual coercion, the rationale underlying the Board’s standard
regarding polling set forth in Struksnes is plainly inapplicable. Moreover, it
is abundantly clear that the polling was not so coercive that it constitutes15
and unfair labor practice and it is, therefore entitled to constitutional and
Section 8(c) protection. See generally Alan Ritchey, 346 NLRB 241 (2006).
I do not agree with the Respondent’s argument. For one thing, the poll that was
taken in this case, clearly did not meet several of the criteria that are set out in 20
Struksnes. To be sure, the balloting was secret, assurances were given against
reprisals, and no contemporaneous unfair labor practices had been committed. But the
poll was not taken to test a claim of the Union’s continuing majority status. 22 Also, the
Union was not given sufficient prior notice of the poll.
25
I take the Respondent’s assertion it was not seeking to withdraw recognition at
face value. The employees were told on September 9, that if the Union lost, the
Company would continue to bargain; albeit Dolan would try to convince the Union to
walk away or agree to a Board conducted decertification election. The fact is that soon
after the poll was conducted, the Company and the Union resumed their negotiations 30
and ultimately reached a contract.
However, I do not believe that the Respondent had a sufficiently legitimate
purpose in conducting this poll. The Respondent could reasonably assume that its
employees (or at least a substantial number of them), would vote. (Indeed, most did 35
vote). And given this assumption, this entire process would permit the employer to
discover, while negotiations were ongoing, how strong or weak the Union was in
pursuing its contract demands. In my opinion, this unfairly put the Respondent in a
uniquely favorable position at the bargaining table because by conducting the poll, the
Company would be able to judge the extent to which the Union enjoyed or lacked the 40
support of the employees. This would be like playing poker with a mirror disclosing the
hands of one’s opponents.
In my opinion, the Respondent’s reliance on Alan Richey does not support its
position. In that case, the employer conducted a poll in order to discover which of two 45
people it should negotiate with in an intra-union dispute. The Board noted that there
were no contemporaneous unfair labor practices and that the employer’s purpose in
conducting the poll was to get negotiations under way; not to impede them. The Board

22
In response to the union petition sent to him, Dolan correctly noted that this petition did not actually
claim that the signatories wanted to be represented by the Union.
JD(NY)-9-16
30
concluded that in those particular (and unusual circumstances), there was a legitimate
reason for having the poll and that its purpose was not to interfere with or undermine the
Union.
Based on the above, I conclude that the Respondent’s poll on September 10, 5
2014, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. And having concluded that the poll itself was
violative of the Act, I also conclude that it is not necessary for me to determine whether
the mechanics of how the poll was conducted also violated the Act.
(h) The City Council Meeting10
The complaint’s allegations concerning this event are that the Respondent gave
material support to anti-union employees by providing T-shirts to employees and paid
time off to attend a City Council meeting held in December 2014. In the Brief, the
General Counsel asserts that the Respondent by handing out these T-shirts and 15
allowing employees to attend the meeting gave more than ministerial aid and “instigated
and promoted a decertification movement.” I don’t agree.
As noted above, a second decertification petition had been filed with the Board
on October 16, 2014. (I shall assume that at least 30 percent of the bargaining unit 20
employees signed something in support of this petition). However, the petition was
dismissed by the Regional Director, presumably based on the Board’s “blocking charge
rule.” That is, the Board generally will not conduct an election when there are
unresolved unfair labor practices. At this point in time, the Union and the Company were
still engaged in bargaining but had not yet reached an agreement. The evidence shows 25
that each party was using a variety of publicity actions in order to persuade the other to
accede to its demands.
The Company operates in New York City pursuant to a license. On November
14, 2014, the New York City Council on Zoning and Franchises notified the public that it 30
would hold a hearing relating to the Cablevision Franchise Agreement. The stated
purpose of this hearing was to consider whether the Company was in breach of its
franchise agreement due to alleged bad-faith bargaining.
Whether or not the City Council had any power or authority to determine if the 35
Company was bargaining in bad faith, both the Union and the Company urged
employees to attend this hearing that was held on December 2, 2014.
After the notice of hearing, the Company became aware that some of its
employees wanted to attend the City Council meeting and wanted to speak in favor of 40
the Company. Soon thereafter, the Company purchased a bunch of T-shirts that were
printed with the slogans; “Let Brooklyn vote” or “let us vote.” A cursory Google search
for T-shirt prices shows that similarly printed and colored T-shirts would cost anywhere
between $3 and $5.
45
On November 30, 2014, the Company notified employees by email that there
was going to be a City Council hearing and that it was going to focus on the Company’s
dealings with the CWA. The email further informed employees that they were free to
attend the hearing and that the Company had purchased some T-shirts which
employees could pick up at the human resources office. 50
JD(NY)-9-16
31
On November 26, company representative Hilbert told the Union that any
employee who wanted to attend the City Council meeting would be given paid time off to
do so. Some employees went to the HR office to get the “let us vote” T-shirts which were
placed in an open box. When employees indicated that they wanted a T-shirt, they were
asked to sign for them. 5
On December 1, 2013, the Company emailed the following message to its
employees:
Since so many Brooklyn Operations employees have said that they would 10
like to attend the hearing, we have decided that any Brooklyn Operations
employer who does not wish to work tomorrow will not lose pay.
The choice of whether or not you attend the hearing, or whether or not you
work tomorrow is entirely your own decision. There will be absolutely no 15
reprisals whether or not you attend the hearing or whether or not you work.
We only ask that if you are not coming to work tomorrow you let us know
prior to the start of your shift.
The hearing was held on December 2, 2014. Some employees wore the T-shirts 20
made available by Company. Others wore prounion T-shirts. Others wore shirts with no
messages. About 100 employees attended this meeting and some were given the
opportunity to speak.
There was no evidence that the Company instigated the filing of the October 25
2014 decertification petition. Nor is there is any evidence to show that the Company, by
its agents, solicited any employee signatures for the petition. Indeed there was no
evidence to show that any company agent ever encouraged any employee to support
the decertification petition or to vote against the Union in the event that the Board
conducted an election. 30
In my opinion, the General Counsel rests its claim on a very slim reed. I simply
do not think that the handing out a bunch T-shirts with slogans, “let Brooklyn vote” and
“let us vote,” can be viewed as evidence that the Company instigated and promoted a
decertification movement. For one thing, the T-shirts were neutral on their face and 35
merely indicated that the wearer was desirous of having a vote. It is certainly plausible
that employees who were unsure of their position vis-a-vis the Union, might have been in
favor of having an election without being ill disposed toward the Union.
With regard to the release of employees to attend the City Council hearing, the 40
Company permitted any employee to attend the hearing without any loss of pay. So in
this respect, this was neither favorable nor unfavorable to one side or the other.
Finally, these transactions are, to my mind, so trivial, that I cannot conclude that
they warrant a finding that the Company violated the Act. By the same token, I do not 45
think that the mere fact that a company representative asked employees to sign for the t-
shirts can reasonably be construed as constituting coercive interrogation. Nor do I
conclude that the Respondent coercively interrogated employees about their union
sympathies, when on December 1, 2014, Angela King asked one employee, McDaniel
Paul, why he needed the T-shirt since he favored the Union. 50
JD(NY)-9-16
32
Conclusions of Law
By threatening to call the police and have an employee arrested because he was
in a company parking lot and engaging in union activity, the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. 5
By conducting a poll as to whether employees wished to be represented by the
Union, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
In all other respects, I conclude that the allegations of the amended complaint 10
lack merit and should be dismissed.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find 15
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended2320
ORDER
The Respondent, CSC Holdings LLC and Cablevision Systems of New York City Corp.,
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 25
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees with arrest when they are engaged in union activity in
company owned parking lots. 30
(b) Conducting polls, absent any legitimate purpose, as to whether employees wish to be
represented by the Communications Workers of America, AFL—CIO.
(c) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in 35
the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Brooklyn, New York facilities, 40
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix C.” Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 29, after being signed by the Employer’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Employer 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 45
by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the
Employer customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps

23 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(NY)-9-16
33
shall be taken by the Employer to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Employer has gone out of business or closed the facilities involved in these proceedings, the
Employer shall duplicate and mail, at their own expense, a copy of the notice to all current
employees and former employees employed by the Employer at any time since August 7, 2014.5
Dated, Washington, D.C. April 19, 2016
10
__________________
Raymond P. Green
Administrative Law Judge
15
JD(NY)-9-16
Appendix A
Excerpts from the meeting on August 6, 2015.
After the initial presentation by management about the importance of branding,
employees asked if there they had any questions. The following ensued.
Jerome Thompson: Yeah. It’s very interesting that you started off your presentation with the
pirate ship and the people coming across to the new world. Coincidentally, there was a third
ship out there; there was a slave ship. That’s one of the biggest things on the US government’s
so-called brand as a home of the free and the brave and stuff like that where they made millions
and billions of dollars off of chattel slavery, off the backs of workers that didn’t’ get paid for it.
This is a fight that we’re fighting in Brooklyn. We got the beautiful trucks. They look great. The
new logo looks great, but there’s a big stain on there because Cablevision doesn’t want to give
us parity with the other Cablevision employee; the other 17,000 Cablevision employees out
there. So what are you guys planning on doing with that as far as the brand is concerned? How
do you plan to fix that, that little stain, that big stain, actually, what customers are looking at?
You got employees out here not making enough money to survive in New York City.
Barry Monopoly: I don’t know if you mind me jumping in real quick. The bottom line, that’s up
to negotiations. No one in this room could speak to that. The other part that sometimes people
tend to forge is that you guys made a conscious decision to [select] the third party to represent
you and speak for you for probably good reason. But that being said, you have to really pose
that question to them, because they’re the ones who now speak for you and represent you at
the bargaining table. No one in this room here right now are in a position to speak to that ….
Thompson. I was talking about what he was talking about, the branding. I mean I understand
what you’re talking about. What you’re saying is partially correct. What I’m talking about is I’m
on board with the new branding with the Cablevision and looking good. I’m just concerned
because I work for Cablevision and we all work for Cablevision. Why do we have – you guys
have put a lot of money into making everything look good, but just like the slave ship, that’s
something America just sweeps underneath the rug. The thousands of black men and women
that were hung on trees, you know what I’m saying, just for financial purposes. You understand.
We don’t want that stain on cablevision. I know you guys are dealing with people in corporate. I
need you to send this message back to corporate. We want parity so we can erase that stain
that’s on these beautiful tricks.
Barry Monopoly: That goes back to what I just said. What you’re asking for is parity. You really
have to go to your representatives.
Thompson: Our representatives already – I’m coming to your guys. You guys represent
Cablevision corporate, correct?
Monopoly: Yes
Thompson: We’re talking about the Cablevision brand.
Comstock: Well, the terms and conditions that are at the bargaining table will be negotiated at
the bargaining table. We’re really not here to talk about that, so I appreciate your position. I
understand what you’re saying. But at the end of the day what we have in common is the
customer. What we have to do is we have to deliver on our promise. We have to follow through
JD(NY)-9-16
on that before we – so that customers are getting good value. They like us as a company. They
don’t want to select somebody else. That we all have in common and that’s where the focus has
got to be. As it relates to negotiating terms that we're talking about that’s --
Thompson: But what about – you’re saying our customers, right. When our customers look at
a Cablevision employee who can’t even afford to have a family; who can’t even afford to put
food on his table; who has to make a choice between paying rent or buying medical supplies for
their kids, how does that look to the customer when they see this company, they have the right
trucks out here. They have the beautiful emblem and everything, but the people that they work
for, -- you brought up a list of other companies and stuff like that. You have another company,
Wal-Mart. They’re going through the same thing. People are not going to Wal-Mart now
because they cheat – they pay their employee terrible. They can’t even afford to live in New
York City…. So my point to you guys is, and you guys are working with the brand, there’s a
terrible stain on the brand right now. I know the truck look pretty. The new logo look nice, but it
all looks terrible when you have this stain when people see how you guys are treating the
employees and you refuse to give them parity in Brooklyn.
Comstock. You make your point loud and clear. Does anyone have some other questions?
[Other questions are asked by other employees]
JD(NY)-9-16
Appendix B
Transcript of relevant portions of
Dolan’s speech on September 9, 2014
Because of the situation here in Brooklyn there isn’t a whole lot that I can talk to
you about. I am just basically not allowed to discuss your relationship with the
company…
My executives have come to talk to you. I know at times about… where the
company is going… but we are really very, very limited in what we are allowed to
discuss between each other because we have a party between us that represents you.
And… the law is really very clear about it; that when this group, they voted back around
3 years ago…that became … the union became your voice. I can tell you we have had
lots of discussions with your union and, but having this discussion … just hasn’t been
allowed, and still is not that allowed.
But the reason I decided to come was because I am confused because… my
folks tell me and I know that there was a decertification petition that was signed by a lot
of you folks and it looked like this group wanted another chance to say who they wanted
to represent them… And then back in July … I got a letter from the union that says they
have 189 signatures that say that this group… still wants to be represented by the union
and that we shouldn’t be deluded to think… that its anything else. Except that it didn’t
actually say… that you wanted a union. It said that you wanted more pay, which actually
to be honest with you, why did only 189 of you want more pay?... So the union says that
this is an indication of what you really want and I think it’s time that I find out what you
really want.
So how do we find out what you really want? … There is no way to have an
actual vote… a binding vote… because the union has blocked that… It’s blocked that for
the last year and a half with what they call unfair labor practices… They are basically
saying that if we had to vote, that you were so intimidated or overly influenced by the
company that it wouldn’t be a fair vote…
So I still want to know and there is a reason I want to know, but the way to find
out is tomorrow we are going to … take a poll. We are essentially going to have a vote…
And it’s going to be confidential. It’s voluntary. It’s going to be conducted by a third party
that is sworn… not to reveal any of the individual information. They are actually not
even going to collect it… I will not know and neither will your union know and neither will
you know how your fellow workers here voted….
So assuming we are going to do that tomorrow and once we do find out, that’s
going to change at least Cablevision’s behavior, either one way or the other. If in fact the
mind of this group is that they want a union… then … we will double our efforts to get a
contract done. We are already … putting in more effort that is legally required of us… In
fact, we have made a complaint to the Labor Board that the union… is stalling on the
contracts…
Now what does that mean? Does that mean that the company is going to change
it’s position. It means we will talk more. We will… come to the table every day… Won’t
necessarily be me, but my people will be there every day, and if we need to, we can lock
JD(NY)-9-16
ourselves in a room until… we agree. But if you … tell me tomorrow that you want a
union, you need a contract, and we will do everything we can to get a contract.
The issues like parity in pay etc., do not expect Cablevision to change its position
on that. Our position is that what we have offered is parity. It’s just that your
representatives have asked for more things than what the other employees are getting
and that has to come from somewhere, and that’s why the actual take-home pay is less.
But when you add it all together, it’s our position that they are equal. And I will not
change the position of the company… to give you a deal better than your fellow
employees in other places like the Bronx and Freeport…
Now if you vote that you don’t want a union…; I can’t make the union go way. But
I will go to the union and will tell them that this… is what your mind is and I will try to
negotiate a way for the union to withdraw; and I am willing to… go pretty far to help them
do that if they recognize that they are not wanted here anymore. I think it would be fair,
if my lawyers let me… to even reimburse them for the costs that they had here … so that
we can proceed the way you want to proceed. .. But if I am unable to persuade them
then to have an actual vote; but either way… you vote, we are going to try and bring this
a head… I think that you are not doing well in this environment and I can tell you that
Cablevision isn’t doing well in this environment and that’s troublesome because in the
end… you need a strong company. You need a company that can compete that can
launch new products…
Okay. So got some questions?
Q. So parity, that’s all we are asking for that’s all.
Dolan … I mean as far as parity goes … look I am trying to think of a good analogy for
you… If your union was coming in and asking for the same environment, right and the
same work rules… that everybody else lived under… then you would have probably, …
close or equal wage. But that is not what’s going on here… They are asking for a lot
more of those things and they say, oh and by the way, we also would like to get paid
the same…. Well, the things that they are asking for cost money and they are
essentially asking for a better deal than what everybody else at the company has. And
then that’s our position and … you can argue with it, but the fact is, that you are not
asking for the same thing. You can sit there and say, well, the things that we are asking
for don’t mean anything. Well if they don’t mean anything then don’t ask for them. They
do mean something and they do cost money. And they do change the expense to the
company that … change the entire relationship… And by the way they are the kinds of
things that make it even harder for the company to operate. You know, things like
scope of work… What you can and can’t work on… Those kinds of things… That
doesn’t exist anywhere else. You know employees at other parts of the company…
regularly change what they are dong. They can’t do that here. It’s just what they are
asking for is more expensive than what it takes in other places and that has to come
from somewhere. And if you want parity, you have to take everything into account.
You can’t just say, I want parity here and parity here, but I want to be better here and
better there, but those don’t count…
* * * *
JD(NY)-9-16
Dolan: And as you said, it’s about job security… and not necessarily about the
money first. Well, what your union is asking for is more job security than everybody
else has. So fine. But then there has got to be a give back on the other side…. You
can’t just say… I want a better deal than the other folks who work in the other places
here at Cablevision. That’s not fair. It’s not – and I don’t agree with you, by the way,
… that the other places aren’t – I mean, they work hard too… They work the same
kinds of shifts, the same kinds of things that you do… You don’t help yourself by
thinking… I am different than everybody else… and I deserve more.
Q. I never said I wanted more.
Dolan: Well except that you do want more. I mean, it’s a disguised way of asking for
more, but you sit there and you say, I want all the good things… that the other
employees have, plus I want these other things that they don’t have… And that’s
asking for more… If you are at the bargaining table… and you sit there and you say
the most important thing to us is job security… I want more job security than anybody
else; you could have more job security than anybody else but the expense of that …
you bear so that you are equal with the other employees. You can’t… sit there and
say, I want more than them in this, this, this and this … and then when it comes to
this…I want to be the same….
* * * *
Q: ….My thing is I want to forget this politics and … try to get this money. I want to find
out what we are going to do about this. All a lot of politics. I want to get this money.
That’s what I want to do.
Dolan: Look, you know what? We are going to do our best to bring … to a head. I don’t
like it any more than you like it…. I haven’t been here for three years because I couldn’t
even talk to you. So how … do I change things for you? I mean, I can’t even have a
discussion with you about it, let alone change anything. I have to go through the union.
That’s the decision you made. Now look, tomorrow… you are going to have the
opportunity to express yourself. I hope that you can go and express yourself, either way,
and without fear of reprisal, without worrying about who is going to know what you did…
I am doing everything I can to put that environment together tomorrow… I understand
you don’t trust the company…and I might ask you, by the way, you who does not trust
anything that the company does, why do you work here? I mean… this isn’t the only job
in the world… There is a company called Verizon that has a union that operates in the
same place we do.
* * * *
Dolan: Let me just address because we talked a lot about job security… And I am
going to try and do this in a way that the guy in the suit over here doesn’t jump and
tell me … that I am going to court… So let me try from a generic point of view, okay,
rather than talk specifically about you. In general… job security… it’s not a function
of a guarantee of… being employed as much as it’s … of an assurance that you are
needed as an employee… Because no matter what anybody gives you as a
guarantee,… it might extend your employment beyond the time that you are need,
right, but I you are not needed, you don’t have job security no matter what any
contract or anybody says to you because contracts come to an end, and … time
JD(NY)-9-16
moves on, and if you are not needed.. then you don’t have job security. So how do
you make sure… you stay … in a position where you can feed your families… where
you can earn a decent pay…? The best way that you can do that… is to stay needed.
And in this case – here is where I will get in trouble … let’s see, I have to think about
it for a second.
In a case where you are in an industry … that’s evolving… the best way to have job
security is to stay on top of what the newest developments are… and being abort to
help the company and push it forward and be successful… So that means that … you
can’t just sit and say, well, I know how to put tis connector together with this and do
this with that and that’s not enough because it’s not enough. It’s not enough to give
you job security no matter what any contract says. It’s not enough. You have to
evolve. And I will tell you that from a philosophical point of view – and I am going to
be in trouble, but… at Cablevision what we want to do with all of employees, … is to
train them and keep them ahead. The real job security will be here as if for some
reason the company… disappears… that you are the best trained technicians in the
Northeast… That you are completely up to speed … with how new IP systems work…
and how these companies operate, how we dispatch etcetera; that you have the
newest tools and you can walk into any other company that’s doing this kind of work
and we are not the only company. There [are] tons of companies… and you can say I
am fluent … in XYZ programing. I know how to operate like this. I know how to handle
a computer in a home. I know how to do this, that and the other thing. That makes
you valuable… I would hope that you would earn more money and that’s the way that
you truly have job security because like I said, contract come to an end… They could
say if you are not needed … when the contract comes to an end, then you are not
needed and it’s your job, personally your responsibility … to say needed. That’s the
way our economy works. And if you do that you will be very successful. And you will
be very good at your job and you will have the esteem of your colleagues and …
companies will want you. And if you don’t do that… you are not going to be needed.
And that’s the way we want to operate the company. That’s the way it works.
* * * *
Q: … You say that you can’t help us with the new equipment that you gave to the other
technicians. I feel that’s a disservice, not just to us, but it’s a disservice to your
customers because if we are still using this old technology and you have new
technology, we can get this job done faster. We can go to do more jobs. And you are
saying that you can’t give that to us is a disservice because now our customers… we
can’t help them….
Dolan: Look tomorrow we are going to have a vote. One way or another… Either we will
work to ask the union to leave or we will work with the union for a contract…. We have to
figure out how to get you those tools…. But it’s got to be part of the whole contract. I
mean… while we are in this position with no contract… and by the law, this is what the
law – my attorneys say, I am supposed to keep everything exactly the same as they
[were when] you voted in a union. That’s the law… Until we have a new contract … and
then whatever is negotiated in the contract is it. That’s the way it works. If I change
anything… then the union can go back and … file a grievance… We either need a
contract… or we need to have a direct relationship. We got to have one or the other.
JD(NY)-9-16
Appendix C
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 the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with arrest when they engage in union activity on
company owned parking lots.
WE WILL NOT interfere with our employees’ right to select a bargaining representative
of their own choosing, by conducting polls, in the absence of any legitimate purpose, as to
whether employees wish to be represented by the Communications Workers of America,
AFL-CIO
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
CSC Holdings LLC and Cablevision
Systems of New York City Corp
(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
Brooklyn, NY 11201-4201
718-330-2862. Hours: 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
JD(NY)-9-16
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/29-CA-134419 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS
PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE
OFFICER, 718-330-2862.