DATA MONITOR SYSTEMS, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jan 19, 2016

09-CA-145040 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 19, 2016)

JD(NY)–3-16
Dayton, OH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
DATA MONITOR SYSTEMS, INC.
and Case No. 9–CA–145040
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 957, GENERAL TRUCK
DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, HELPERS, SALES AND
SERVICE AND CASINO EMPLOYEES
Julius Emetu, Esq. and Eric Brinker, Esq., Counsel for the General Counsel.
John Doll, Esq., Doll Jansen & Ford, Counsel for the Charging Party.
Robert Norman, Esq., Cheek & Falcone, PLLC, Counsel for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Joel P. Biblowitz, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard by me on
December 2 and 3, 2015 in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Complaint, which issued on August 26, 2015,
and was based upon an unfair labor practice charge filed on January 23, 2015 by Teamsters
Local Union No. 957, General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen, Helpers, Sales and Service and
Casino Employees, herein called the Union, alleges that Data Monitor Systems, Inc., herein
called the Respondent, was awarded a contract by the Department of the Air Force effective
September 1, 20141 to provide supply and transportation services at Wright Patterson Air Force
Base, herein called the Base, replacing WSI All Star, LLC, herein WSI, which had a contract
with the Union, the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the unit employees. It is
alleged that since that date, the Respondent has continued as the employing entity and is a
successor, and/or a perfectly clear successor to WSI and that on about August 13, the
Respondent failed to utilize seniority when laying off unit employees, and in assigning hours of
work to the unit employees, without prior notice to the Union, resulting in the Respondent laying
off eleven named employees and assigning seven named employees to part-time positions, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1)(5) of the Act. It is further alleged that the Respondent failed to
provide the Union with relevant and necessary information that it requested on about September
15, also in violation of Section 8(a)(1)(5) of the Act.
I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
Respondent admits, and I find, that it has been an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act and that the Union has been a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE FACTS
Pursuant to its contract with the Air Force, WSI provided supply and transportation
services for the Air Force at the Base until about September 1. WSI had four identical collective

1 Unless indicated otherwise, all dates referred to herein relate to the year 2014.
JD(NY)–3-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
bargaining agreements with the Union covering its maintenance employees, its transportation
department employees, its supply department employees and its personal property employees.
These agreements were effective for the period October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.
John Sook, the Senior Vice president of the Respondent, is involved in the bidding
process for new contracts as well as the startup of contracts that the Respondent is successful
in obtaining. The Respondent put in a bid for the contract to perform the work that WSI had
been performing at the Base and was awarded the contract on about July 18 to be effective
August 1; the transition period for the Respondent to become familiar with the Base operation
and to interview and hire employees was August 1 through August 31. The Respondent
contacted the WSI project manager and asked him to distribute employment applications and to
set up an initial schedule for employment interviews with the incumbent employees for the
Respondent. He testified: “That’s a common courtesy that’s done throughout the industry.”
In late July or early August, the employees were told by their project managers that WSI
had lost the contract at the Base, that the Respondent would be taking over the contract
effective September 1, and those interested in working for the Respondent could obtain
employment applications from his secretary. They were also told that the Respondent would be
conducting employment interviews in the area on August 6, 7 or 8, and that they should sign up
for a specific time and to complete their employment applications by that time.
The interviews were conducted individually by Sook, James Gustafson, President and
owner of the Respondent, and Harvey Watson, Vice President of Operations, at a hotel near the
Base on August 7. Roxanne James, who was number two in seniority in her department, was
interviewed by Sook; he asked her about her work and her family and whether she had any
questions for him, and she said that she didn’t. They shook hands and he said that the company
would be sending letters out in a few days. Dorothy Washington was interviewed by Gustafson
on August 7; he asked her about her job qualifications and what she did during her leisure time.
She asked him if the Respondent would be hiring by seniority and she testified that he said that
he didn’t know at that time, but that they would be looking at qualifications. Debra Nichols was
interviewed by Gustafson on August 7; he asked her about her experience and she told him
about the work that she performed. At the conclusion of the interview, he told her that she would
be receiving a letter stating whether they would be hiring her.
Michael Hardin was interviewed on August 8 by Gustafson, who asked him about his
work experience as well as some other questions. He also asked Hardin if he had any questions
for him, and at the conclusion of the interview, Gustafson told him, “We’ll be sending out
notification letters to inform you whether or not you’ve got a job.” James Williams was
interviewed by Sook; he explained his qualifications and that he had been employed at the
facility since 2004. Sook told him that he would be receiving a letter from the company in the
mail. James Beaver was interviewed by Sook, who asked about his background and what work
he performed at the Base. Beaver told him of his background and work experience. At the
conclusion of the interview, Sook told him that he would receive notification from the company
by mail. Thomas Franjesevic was interviewed on August 6 by Watson, who asked him to tell him
something about himself and Franjesevic told him about the work that he had performed for WSI
and that he was good at what he did. Watson asked if he had any questions for him and he said
that he didn’t. The interview lasted about ten minutes, they shook hands and he left. Other than
Washington, none of the applicants were told that there would be any change in the terms and
conditions of employment or whether seniority would be used in selecting employees for
employment. On about August 13, each of these applicants received a letter from the
Respondent saying that they would not be offered employment at that time.
JD(NY)–3-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
Sook testified that interviews were scheduled for the evening of August 6 through the
morning of August 8 for the WSI employees who were interested in continuing their employment
at the facility with the Respondent. Based upon their bid, the Respondent knew that they would
require fewer employees than were employed by WSI and, therefore, they would not be hiring
all of the WSI employees. For each of the employees interviewed, he, Gustafson, and Watson
employed general interview questions that was generated by the company and scribbled notes
on the applicant’s response. At the conclusion of each interview:
We told them that we’re taking all the interviews today, nobody is being hired today.
What we’re doing is we’re going to try to make an assessment of the personnel that are
available for inteviews relative to the positions in the organization, that we would be back
in touch with them as soon as possible to know whether or not we were going to be able
to offer them employment . . .
At the conclusion of the interviews, Gustafson told Sook and Watson that one applicant,
Washington, asked him if seniority would be employed in the hiring process and he told her that
seniority was not being used because they were going to be employing fewer people than the
incumbent workforce. Gustafson testified that the company’s HR Department gave them a list of
ten questions to ask the applicants, and he followed that pattern. He specifically remembered
interviewing Washington because she repeatedly asked him if they were going to hire by
seniority, and he responded, “No, we are going to hire based on qualifications, who we felt the
best were because we don’t have to hire by seniority. We don’t have jobs for everybody at that
site.” He told all those that he interviewed that they were going to offer employment to the best
people they can find. While the Respondent interviewed all WSI employees who were interested
in working for the Respondent, it initially offered employment to sixty of approximately ninety
WSI employees.2
On July 23, Donald Minton, business agent for the Union, received notification from the
Air Force that the Respondent had been awarded the contract to service the Base. On July 24,
he called Watson and told him that he had learned that they had obtained the contract and
asked him for dates for negotiations, but Watson replied that he wasn’t willing to set up dates
yet because they had not received anything in writing from the Air Force. Minton then wrote to
Watson requesting that he contact him to set a date prior to the takeover date for them to
negotiate a contract for the employees at the base. Watson did not reply to this letter. Minton
first met Gustafson, Sook and Watson at the Union hall in Dayton on August 8. He told them
that he would like to schedule dates for the parties to meet and bargain about a contract and
Gustafson told him that they service other Air Force bases and that they have contracts with
Teamster unions in New Mexico and Oklahoma. He also told Minton that they were not going to
hire the same number of people that were presently employed by WSI and Minton told him that
WSI had recently rehired twelve “junior people” who were laid off by seniority about six months
earlier. Minton testified that there was no discussion of whether the Respondent was going to
hire employees by seniority or any discussion of the employee interviews that the Respondent
had conducted on the prior days.
Sook testified that at this meeting, they told Minton that they had been interviewing
employees and they recognized the need to bargain with the Union for a new contract. Minton
asked if they had completed interviewing employees and they said that they had. Minton then
asked if seniority was going to be used in determining who would be hired and they said, “that

2 The WSI seniority list contains the names of ninety employees in the four departments
and there were sixty employment offer letters sent out as well as ten non-employment letters.
JD(NY)–3-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
they were going to hire the best qualified candidates, that we were hiring less than the total
incumbent workforce.” When asked again what the response was to Minton’s question, Sook
testified, “His answer was no, we are not using seniority as a basis because we’re hiring less
than the full workforce out there.” Gustafson testified that after they had completed the
interviews, they met with Minton in his office on August 8. After the introductions, Gustafson told
him that some people had called him asking about seniority, and Minton asked whether Dorothy
Washington was one of those people. Minton then asked if the company was going to hire by
seniority and Gustafson said no, that they were going to hire the best applicants that they could
find because they didn’t have jobs for everybody, and that their bid was for fewer people than
had been employed by WSI. They discussed dates to meet to negotiate a new contract, and left.
On August 12 and August 13, Minton sent emails to Gustafson asking for copies of the
employment or non-employment letters that were sent to the applicants; he testified that he
“eventually” received this information. Beginning shortly after August 13, when the
Respondent’s letters of employment and non-employment are dated, Minton received telephone
calls from some of the applicants saying that they had received a letter from the Respondent
saying that they were not being hired. As some of these applicants were high on the WSI
seniority list, he called Gustafson and told him that he can’t violate seniority in hiring, and
Gustafson told him that he could hire whomever he chooses.
On August 19, Minton sent Gustafson an email stating: “Please sign extension
agreement, date and return to me by email:”
Dear James:
1. The parties will adhere to all the terms and conditions of the current Collective
Bargaining Agreement and agree to an extension period of six (6) months ending March
31, 2015: and
2. The Employer will retro any wages and benefits back to the expiration date of the
current Collective Bargaining Agreement; and
3. The Company will continue to negotiate in good faith during this period of an
extension.
Minton signed the agreement and there was a line for Gustafson to sign as well. On August 21,
Gustafson emailed Minton telling him that his attorney was reviewing the extension agreement.
Later that day, Minton emailed Gustafson saying, “I thought you told me if I took out number 2
on first extension you would be ok to sign it and send back to me. Please advise.” Gustafson
responded two hours later: “I sent it over to the attorney as he wanted to see it. I’m still waiting
on his response.” The Extension Agreement, as signed by Minton and Gustafson on August 29,
states:
1. Effective as of the date of the last signature below, the parties will adhere to all the
terms and conditions of the current Wright Patterson Air Force Base Collective
Bargaining Agreements between WSI All Star LLC and Teamsters Local Union No. 957,
and agree to an extension period of six (6) months ending March 31, 2015;
2. Nothing in this letter shall be construed to retroactively bind Data Monitor System, Inc.
to the terms and conditions of the current Collective Bargaining Agreements; and
3. The parties shall continue to negotiate in good faith during this period of an extension.
JD(NY)–3-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
Gustafson testified about why he did not sign the extension agreement that Minton sent him on
August 19:
Because I know that once I sign that, that I have to follow the terms and conditions of
that contract, and I know that before that happens, I have the right to choose who I’m
going to hire because I’m not going to hire all the employees. I don’t have to follow
seniority, so I wait until I get that all settled and done before I sign that.
He testified that he does not recall whether he and Minton had any discussions about the terms
of the extension agreement. Prior to signing the extension agreement on August 29, all of the
interviews had taken place and the employment letters had gone out. The parties entered into
collective bargaining agreements effective from December 22, 2014 through August 31, 2018
covering the unit employees.
There is a disagreement among the parties regarding Executive Order 13495 and
Department of Labor regulations as to the obligations of a successor employer in selecting
employees. Whether or not the Respondent violated this Executive Order, or the DOL
regulations, is not for me or the Board to decide. If the Union feels that the Order or the
regulations have been violated, it should refer the matter to the DOL.
The Complaint also alleges that the Respondent refused to provide the Union with the
information that it requested on about September 15, which was necessary for, and relevant to,
the Union as the collective bargaining representative of the Respondent’s employees, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1)(5) of the Act. Minton testified that after he was informed by
employees who were high on the seniority lists that they had not been offered employment by
the Respondent and that others with less seniority had been offered employment, he called the
Respondent and spoke to Frank Anderson, Respondent’s project manager at the Base and told
him that the Respondent should have laid off the least senior employees and Anderson replied
that the Respondent had the right to hire anybody that it wanted. Minton had all those who had
not been offered employment out of seniority (Franjesevic, Williams, Hardin, Beaver, Beryl
McNabb, Nichols, James, Washington, Wendy Ligas, and Alex Yones) file grievances alleging
that this refusal to offer them employment violated the contract because it was not done
pursuant to their seniority. In its response to these grievances, the Respondent stated that at
the time that it made its hiring decisions, it was not bound by the seniority provisions of the WSI
contract with the Union, and that as the grievants are not employed by the Respondent, they
have no legal standing or contractual right to bring the grievances against the Respondent. By
letter to Anderson dated September 15, Minton wrote:
In order to evaluate the merits of these grievances Local 957 requests the following be
produced by the Company:
1. A copy of the Scope of Work document used by the Company to submit its bid;
2. A copy of the Company’s proposal to the Government to perform the work covered by
the Scope of Work document;
3. A copy of all information, if any, provided to the Company by the prior employer that
relates in any way to the job performance of the bargaining unit employees of the prior
employer, personnel files of the bargaining unit employees of the prior employer and any
other information or documents, including electronic documents, received by the
Company from the prior employer that relates in any way to the bargaining unit
employees of the prior employer.
JD(NY)–3-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
4. All correspondence, including electronic correspondence between any representative
and/or employee of the Company and any representative, employee and/or former
employee of the prior employer that relates in any way to the bargaining unit employees
of the prior employer.
5. All correspondence between and /or among representatives and/or employees of the
Company that in any way relate to the bargaining unit employees of the prior employer
and/or relate to the employment decision made by the Company of bargaining unit
employees of the prior employer.
Minton testified that this information was relevant to the Union in processing these grievances
on behalf of these employees. Gustafson responded to this request by letter dated October 15,
stating, inter alia:
DMS made and implemented a decision not to hire these applicants prior to the time
DMS agreed to be bound by the terms of the CBA. The request for information therefore
relates to persons who are not and never have been bargaining unit employees of DMS.
Such a request for information is not presumptively relevant.
Additionally, Gustafson alleged that Items 1 and 2 were confidential matters concerning its bid
to the Federal Government.
III. ANALYSIS
It is initially alleged that the Respondent failed to utilize seniority when laying off unit
employees and when assigning hours of work to unit employees, in violation of Section
8(a)(1)(5) of the Act. Actually, the alleged violation is the failure to utilize seniority in choosing
which of the WSI employees it would hire. The Union contract with WSI provides that layoffs
and the assignment of “available work” will be determined on the basis of classification seniority.
The Respondent did not select employees for employment based upon seniority. The issue is
whether it was obligated to do so.
As the Respondent, in its Answer, admits that it is a successor to WSI, the real issue is
whether it is a “perfectly clear” successor to WSI as is also alleged in the Complaint. In NLRB v.
Burns Intl. Security Services, 406 U.S. 272, 294–295 (1972), the Court stated:
Although a successor employer is ordinarily free to set initial terms on which it will hire
the employees of a predecessor, there will be instances in which it is perfectly clear that
the new employer plans to retain all of the employees in the unit and in which it will be
appropriate to have him initially consult with the employees’ bargaining representative
before he fixes terms.
In Spruce Up Corp3., 209 NLRB 194, 195 (1974), the Board stated that this “perfectly clear”
caveat established by Burns should
[B]e restricted to circumstances in which the new employer has either actively or, by tacit
interference, misled employees into believing they would all be retained without change

3 Counsel for the General Counsel, in his Brief, requests that I overturn the ruling in Spruce
Up, supra. That issue is for the Board, not me, to determine.
JD(NY)–3-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
in their wages, hours, or conditions of employment, or at least to circumstances where
the new employer . . . has failed to clearly announce its intent to establish a new set of
conditions prior to inviting former employees to accept employment.
See also Banknote Corp. of America, 315 NLRB 1041 (1994); Planned Building Services,
Inc.,318 NLRB 1049 (1995); and Hilton’s Environmental, Inc., 320 NLRB 437 (1995).
After it was awarded the contract, the Respondent requested WSI to distribute
employment applications to, and arrange a time for interviews for, all employees who were
interested in continuing their employment with the Respondent at the Base and on August 6, 7
and 8 the Respondent interviewed all of these incumbent applicants. At the conclusion of these
interviews, Sook, Gustafson and Watson told the applicants that they would be hearing from the
Respondent shortly as to whether they would be offered employment. Some of those
interviewed were at the top of the seniority lists and a rejection of their applicant would violate
the WSI contract’s seniority provision. Washington, at her interview, asked if they would be
hiring by seniority; she testified that he responded that they didn’t know at the time, but that they
would be looking at qualifications. Gustafson testified that he told her that seniority would not be
used because they were hiring fewer people than had been employed by WSI. Although I do not
believe that it makes much difference in the outcome of this matter, I would credit Gustafson;
the emails between he and Minton regarding Minton’s insistence on him signing the interim
agreement establishes that he was knowledgeable about the law and it would be reasonable
and prudent for him to tell applicants, who asked, that they would not be hiring by seniority. For
the same reason, I would credit Gustafson’s testimony that, when asked, he told Minton that
they would not be hiring by seniority. Clearly, he would not try to hide this fact from Minton; he
would have no reason to do so. The two requirements of “perfectly clear” are missing: the
Respondent told Minton that they would not be hiring all the employees and told the applicants
that they would hear shortly from the Respondent as to whether they would be hired. It was
therefore not “perfectly clear” that the Respondent intended to hire all of the WSI unit employees
as required by Burns; in fact, they sent employment offer letters to two-thirds of the WSI
employees. In addition, Gustafson told Minton and Washington that seniority would not be used
in deciding whom to employ, and told the applicants that they would hear from the company
shortly as to whether they would be offered employment, which, at the least, is an inference to
the applicants that, at least at that time, it was not going to adopt the terms and conditions of the
WSI contract. I therefore find that the Respondent is not a perfectly clear successor and that the
Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1)(5) of the Act by its refusal to use seniority in
determining whom to employ in August. Paragon Systems, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 166 (2015).
It is further alleged that by failing and refusing to provide the Union with the information
that it requested on about September 15, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)(5) of the Act.
The requested information relates to the Respondent’s bid submitted to the government, and
other information that may have been used by the Respondent in determining which employees
it would hire. Shortly before requesting this information, the Union had filed grievances on behalf
of the employees alleging that the Respondent violated the contract by selecting employees for
hire in violation of the contract’s seniority provisions. Respondent’s principal reason for not
providing the Union with this information, as testified to by Gustafson, is: “I did not consider
them part of the bargaining unit because they were never hired or employed . . . by Data
Monitor.”
Section 8(a)(1)(5) of the Act requires an employer to furnish the union representing its
employees with information that is relevant to the union in the performance of its collective
bargaining responsibilities, either in the administration of the existing contract, or in formulating
proposals for a new contract. Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979).
JD(NY)–3-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
Information about terms and conditions of employment of employees in the bargaining unit is
presumptively relevant and necessary and must be produced. However, when the union’s
request concerns information about non-unit employees or operations, there is no such
presumption of relevancy to the union’s representation status, and the union has the burden of
establishing the relevance of the requested information. Ohio Power Co., 216 NLRB 987 (1975),
enfd. 531 F.2d 1381 (6th Cir. 1976); Duquesne Light Co., 306 NLRB 1042, 1043 (1992). A
union satisfies this burden by demonstrating a reasonable belief supported by objective
evidence for requesting the information, Knappton Maritime Corp., 292 NLRB 236, 238–239
(1988), and potential or probable relevance is sufficient to give rise to the employer’s obligation
to furnish the information. Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp., 315 NLRB 257, 258 (1994).
I find that the requested information is clearly relevant to the Union in processing the
grievances and that the Respondent’s defense that they are not obligated to provide the
information because they never employed the individuals involved has no merit. This defense
“begs the question” as the issue alleges that the failure to employ them violates the seniority
provisions of the contract. It would be similar to a union arbitrating the discharge of an employee
and the employer defending that there is no requirement to provide the information because
he/she is no longer employed by the company. I therefore find that by refusing to provide the
Union with the information requested on about September 15, the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1)(5) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)(5) of the Act by refusing to furnish the Union
with the information that it requested on about September 15, 2014, which was information
relevant to the Union as the collective bargaining representative of certain of its employees.
4. It is recommended that the remaining allegations of the Complaint be dismissed.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent violated the Act by refusing to provide the Union with
the information that it requested on about September 15, 2014, it is recommended that the
Respondent be ordered to provide this information to the Union and to post a notice to this
effect.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law and the entire record, I hereby
issue the following recommended4
ORDER

4 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)–3-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
Data Monitor Systems, Inc., its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall
(1) Cease and desist from refusing to provide the Union with the information that it
requested on about September 15, 2014, or in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain
or coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
(2) Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) In a timely manner, provide the Union with the information that it requested on
September 15, 2014.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities at the Wright
Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”5
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by
the Respondent at any time since August 1, 2014.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that portions of the Complaint are dismissed insofar as it
alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein.
Dated, Washington, D.C. January 19, 2016
______________________________
Joel P. Biblowitz
Administrative Law Judge

5 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in
the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
JD(NY)–3-16
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT refuse to provide Teamsters Local Union No. 97, General Truck Drivers,
Warehousemen, Helpers, Sales and Service and Casino Employees (“the Union”) with
information that is relevant and necessary to it in its role as your bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information that it requested on September 15, 2014.
DATA MONITOR SYSTEMS, INC.
(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.
550 Main Street, Federal Office Building, Room 3003
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202–3271
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
513–684–3686.
JD(NY)–3-16
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/09-CA-145040 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, 513-684–3750.