Demza Masonry, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jan 18, 2019

22-CA-208778 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 18, 2019)

JD–04–19
Newark, NJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
DEMZA MASONRY, LLC
Respondent
and Cases 22–CA–208778
and 22--CA--220318

LOCAL 4, BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED
CRAFTWORKERS’ ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT
COUNCIL OF NEW JERSEY
Charging Party
Sharon Chau, Esq.
for the General Counsel.
Michael Scaraggi, Esq.,
for Respondent.
Robert O’Brien, Kevin Jarvis, Esqs.,
and Matthew Madsen, Esq. (on brief)
for Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. GIANNASI, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in
Newark, New Jersey, on November 27 and 28, 2018. The consolidated complaint
alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging
employees Jeff Dunleavy, John Smith, Jose Hernandez, and Marcello Ligero for their
union activities in support of the Charging Party Union (hereafter, the Union).
Respondent denied the essential allegations in the complaint. After the trial, the General
Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs, which I have read and considered.
Based on the briefs and the entire record, including the testimony of the
witnesses and my observation of their demeanor, I make the following
JD–04–19
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
5
Respondent, a limited liability company, with an office and place of business
located in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, is engaged as a contractor in the
commercial construction industry doing brick, block and masonry construction work. I
find, as Respondent admits, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. I also find, as Respondent also admits,10
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts15
Background
Respondent is a non-union employer, owned by Willie Dempsey. Tr. 17. The
Union has made efforts to organize Respondent’s bricklayer and mason employees, 20
first by having out-of-work members become employed by Respondent and attempting
to organize from the inside; and, secondly, by picketing Respondent’s job site from the
outside. It is alleged that participation in the Union’s organizational efforts resulted in
the discriminatory discharge of Union-member and employee Jeff Dunleavy from
Respondent’s Annin Lofts job in Verona, New Jersey, on October 27, 2017; and of 25
Union-members and employees Jose Hernandez, John Smith and Marcello Ligero from
its 235 Grand job in Jersey City, New Jersey, on May 4, 2018. Respondent’s foreman
and supervisor on those jobs at all relevant times was Richard Piez. Tr. 16-17. It is
undenied that the employees mentioned above were in fact discharged on the dates
indicated. The only question to be determined here is whether the reason for the 30
discharges was an unlawful one.1
The Discharge of Dunleavy
Jeff Dunleavy has been a bricklayer and a member of the Union since 1979. He 35
became employed by Respondent and placed on the Verona job on October 16, 2017.
He worked there until he was discharged by Foreman Piez on Friday, October 27, 2017.
There were no complaints about his work or his attendance. Tr. 98-99, 110, 117.

1 Piez, who made or participated in the discharge decisions, testified that he simply laid off the
employees because to discharge them would have denied them unemployment benefits. In the
circumstances of this case the semantic difference is immaterial. The employees were effectively
discharged because it is clear from Piez’s testimony that Respondent made and effectuated a decision to
end its association with the employees and never wanted to call them back—nor did it ever do so.
JD–04–19
3
Dunleavy did not notify Respondent that he was a member of the Union when he
was hired. He did so by presenting a so-called “coming out” letter to Piez during break
time on Wednesday, October 25. Tr. 103. The letter, signed by Dunleavy and
addressed to Respondent, stated that he was a member of the Union and supported the
Union’s “efforts to organize your company and its employees into the Union.” The letter 5
continued by stating, “I will do this in my free time while continuing to work as your
employee.” G.C. Exh. 3. Piez took the letter, read it, and commented, “so you’re a
union bricklayer? Who did you work for?” Dunleavy replied, “several—quite a few
companies.” Tr. 100-101.
10
Dunleavy worked at the Verona job the next day, Thursday, without incident. But
on Friday, October 27, before work at about 6:15 am, Dunleavy passed out union
literature to fellow employees near the jobsite on the public sidewalk along a public
street where the employees parked their cars. Tr. 105-106. The literature mentioned
the benefits of union representation and specifically identified the Union. G.C. Exh. 6. 15
Dunleavy also gave a copy of the literature to Piez, who said he did not need it. Piez
said he had been a member of the Union, and asked, “do you know who you’re working
for?” Piez also stated that he did not want anything “to do with union literature on the
job.” This all took place before work began at 7am and off the job site. Tr. 106-108.
20
After he completed passing out the union literature, Dunleavy returned to his
parked car, put the undistributed literature in the car, got his tools and walked onto the
job site. Tr. 107. When Dunleavy arrived on the job site ready for work, Piez took him
aside and told him he could not work there and had to leave, stating that Dunleavy
could not pass out union literature on the job. Dunleavy protested that he had not done 25
so on the job, to no avail, so he left. Tr. 109-110, 117-118.
The above is based on the credited testimony of Dunleavy, who was an
extremely reliable witness and testified in great detail about the above encounters. He
was unshaken on cross-examination and demonstrated a truthful demeanor. He was 30
also corroborated in significant respects. Dunleavy’s testimony about presenting the
letter to Piez and the short conversation between the two thereafter was supported by a
video and voice recording that was received in evidence as G.C. Exh. 5. Tr. 101-105.
Fellow employee and Union member Maurice Bell, who did not pass out union literature,
confirmed Dunleavy’s testimony about the latter’s passing out union literature and the 35
fact that Piez took Dunleavy aside at the beginning of the work day on the day Dunleavy
was discharged. Tr. 121-130.
Respondent’s timesheet records (G.C. Exh. 7), which were filled out by Piez
(Tr. 163-165), show that Dunleavy was the only bricklayer on the Verona job who 40
worked on Thursday, October 26, but did not work on Friday, October 27. The records
also show that 4 bricklayers worked on that job on the next day, Saturday, October 28,
apparently on overtime. On the following Monday, the records show that 8 bricklayers
worked on the job, one more than the number who worked on the previous Thursday.
This shows conclusively that there was plenty of bricklayer work on the day Dunleavy 45
was fired.
JD–04–19
4
Foreman Piez testified about the Dunleavy matter. Piez initially testified he could
not recollect receiving Dunleavy’s “coming out” letter, even after being shown the letter.
Tr. 27, 30-31. But when later called as a witness by Respondent, and after Dunleavy
testified about the letter and the supporting video and voice recording, Piez had nothing 5
to say about the incident. Dunleavy’s testimony on that incident thus stands unrebutted.
The rest of Piez’s testimony about the Dunleavy part of the case was unreliable.
It was cursory, evasive and contradictory. Piez testified that Dunleavy’s “workmanship
was terrible and he was slow.” Tr. 146. But he did not testify that that was why he 10
terminated Dunleavy. Nor did he provide any examples, corroboration or other
supporting testimony or documents about Dunleavy’s work, including any complaints
about Dunleavy’s work or attendance. Significantly, after an evasive answer to my
question about what he told Dunleavy when he terminated him, Piez testified that he
discharged Dunleavy, not because he was a poor employee, but for lack of work. Tr. 15
150. That is refuted by the documentary evidence discussed above. Those records
also belie Piez’s assertion (Tr. 150-152) that records would support his testimony that
other bricklayers were laid off the same day as Dunleavy was. As the records show,
Dunleavy was the only employee terminated on that day.
20
Piez also denied that he terminated Dunleavy for passing out union literature. Tr.
148. But I find that testimony not credible. Piez did not contradict Dunleavy’s testimony
that he attempted to pass out a copy of the union literature to Piez, Dunleavy’s
testimony about Piez’s reply to Dunleavy at that time, or even Dunleavy’s testimony
about their conversation when Dunleavy was terminated, all of which support the notion 25
that Piez was concerned about Dunleavy passing out union literature. Indeed, based on
his demeanor and the other factors mentioned above, I found Piez to be a completely
unreliable witness. His testimony about Dunleavy’s work was unspecific and basically
the same negative way he generally described the work of the other employees he
discharged in this case. There was a complete lack of the kind of candor and detail that 30
would be expected of a person who was making a legitimate decision to terminate an
employee for cause.
The Discharges of Hernandez, Smith and Ligero
35
Employees and long-time members of the Union Jose Hernandez, John Smith
and Marcello Ligero were discharged on May 4, 2018, the day after they picketed the
Jersey City job on behalf of the Union. They had been working for Respondent on that
job since early March 2018. Tr. 41, 61, 80. The job involved the brick and block
construction on a building of some 48 floors. When the three employees were 40
discharged the construction had not quite reached the midpoint of the building and there
was much work remaining to be done, particularly on the block work that they were
doing. Tr. 48-49, 55-56, 68-69, 89-90. None of the three employees had received
complaints about their work. Tr. 47-50, 59, 69-70, 90.2

2 Ligero candidly testified in his direct testimony that he was told, on one occasion, by Willie
JD–04–19
5
On May 2, the Union set up a picket line at the work site with signs identifying the
Union and its concerns about the Respondent and its pay and working conditions. The
picketing lasted the entire day, from 7 am to 3:30 pm. Tr. 43, 65, 85-86. Neither
Hernandez, Smith nor Ligero participated in the picketing that day, but they testified 5
that, as instructed by Union representatives, they presented envelopes containing
letters from the Union to Foreman Piez similar to the one presented to Piez by Dunleavy
at the Annin Lofts job. Tr. 43, 62-64, 82-84. The uncontradicted testimony of Ligero is
that, when presented with the letter, Piez asked Ligero why he was not working for a
union contractor and he replied that there was not union work at the time. Tr. 64. All 10
three employees had, however, worn clothing or other items that clearly carried the
Union name or other identifiers throughout their employment without any objection from
Piez or any other supervisor of Respondent. Tr. 54-55, 71-72, 93-94.
The next day, May 3, the three employees joined the picket line. It is 15
uncontradicted that Piez and Willie Dempsey observed them on the picket line. Tr. 46-
47, 65-67, 70-71, 85-88. When they reported for work the next day, May 4, they were
not permitted to work and were effectively terminated. It is unclear whether two of the
three employees were given a reason for their terminations. Ligero, however, testified
he was told that there were no more blocks for them to work on. But he also testified 20
that there were sufficient blocks at the job site and a number of other bricklayers were
permitted to work that day, testimony that was supported by other witnesses. Tr. 48-49,
68-69, 72-73, 77, 89-90. Apparently, only one member of the Union, Miguel, remained
on the job after the terminations of May 4, but he did not participate in the picketing the
day before. Tr. 48, 57, 65, 68, 73, 77, 86.325
The above is based on the composite credible testimony of Hernandez, Smith
and Ligero, much of which was uncontradicted. Their testimony did not mesh
completely on all details, which is to be expected from candid witnesses testifying about
similar events. But on significant issues their testimony was mutually corroborative and 30
reliable. In assessing their demeanor, I felt that they were testifying candidly and
truthfully. The substance of their testimony is also bolstered by consideration of the
documentary evidence discussed below.
Respondent’s timesheet records for the Jersey City job (G.C. Exh. 8) confirm that 35
Smith, Hernandez and Ligero did not work on May 3. The records also show that 10
bricklayers did work that day and that 10 bricklayers worked the next day. Fifteen
bricklayers worked on the day before, May 2; Eleven bricklayers worked on the job the
following Monday, May 7; and 17 bricklayers worked on the job on Tuesday, May 8.
The diminution in work on May 2 and 3 was likely because of the Union picketing and I 40
conclude that there was no work-related reason for the downturn in the bricklayer

Dempsey to correct a wall that was out of level. The wall had been done by another employee, but Ligero
and the other employee redid the wall. Tr. 69-70.
3 It appears that 2 other employees, apparently from New York, were also terminated at this time, but
there is no evidence on this record of who they were or why they were terminated. Tr. 58-59.
JD–04–19
6
workforce for those two days. The timesheet records also show that there was plenty of
work for bricklayers at the time of the discharges of Hernandez, Smith and Ligero.
Indeed, the records also show that additional new employees worked on the job
thereafter who did not work before the discharges of Hernandez, Smith and Ligero. In
fact, by the week ending May 20, the bricklayers on the job totaled 22, twice as many as 5
were on the job on May 4, the date of the discharges.
Piez was Respondent’s only witness concerning the discharges of May 4. His
testimony on this part of the case, as in the Dunleavy part of the case, was general and
cursory. It was similarly unreliable. Piez did not controvert much of the credible 10
testimony of Hernandez, Smith and Ligero discussed above. He did not, for example,
refute Ligero’s testimony about the exchange between the two during Ligero’s
presentation of the union identification letter to Piez. And he did not deny that the
employees had presented envelopes to him containing what the employees testified
were letters given them by officials of the Union to present to Respondent, although he 15
did testify that he did not open the envelopes. Piez did testify that the work of those
three employees was not satisfactory, suggesting, without explicitly stating, that that
was the reason that they were terminated on May 4. Tr. 142-145. Importantly,
however, he did not specifically testify about any occasion where he criticized the work
of Hernandez, Smith and Ligero or that he disciplined or warned them about their work, 20
thus failing to counter their testimony that they were not criticized for their work, at least
by him. Moreover, it defies belief that Respondent would have tolerated their alleged
“terrible” work performance, as asserted by Piez (Tr. 146), for several months and not
terminated them for that reason until the day after they participated in picketing
sponsored by the Union.25
Piez’s testimony was not only lacking in meaningful detail, but blatantly self-
serving, as, for example, when he testified, in an expansive and conclusory manner,
that none of the bricklayers who testified at the hearing did satisfactory work. Tr. 145.
Piez also testified that there was a lack of materials for continued work for the three 30
Union employees terminated. But there was no corroborating evidence for that
testimony such as employer records or other testimony that could reliably support Piez
on that score. Thus, here again, Piez’s testimony fails to impugn the credible testimony
that there were blocks available and more work to be done on the day of the discharge.
Indeed, the timesheet records mentioned above effectively refute Piez’s testimony. 35
Those records show there was plenty of work for bricklayers at the time, and, by
implication, that there was plenty of material to support the work of more bricklayers on
May 4. In fact more bricklayers, including new ones, were on the job in the days and
weeks following the discharges. In all the circumstances, I cannot credit any of the
testimony of Piez on this part of the case, as I could not on the Dunleavy part of the 40
case.
B. Discussion and Analysis
In determining whether an employer’s adverse employment actions are unlawful, 45
the Board applies the mixed motive analysis set forth in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083
JD–04–19
7
(1980), enf’d on other grounds 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989
(1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983).
Under Wright Line, the General Counsel must satisfy an initial burden of showing by a
preponderance of the evidence that the employee’s protected or union activity was a
motivating factor in a respondent’s adverse action. If the General Counsel meets that 5
initial burden, the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it would have taken the
same action even absent the employee’s protected activity. The respondent does not
meet its burden merely by showing that it had a legitimate reason for its action; it must
persuasively demonstrate that it would have taken the same action in the absence of
the protected conduct. And if the respondent’s proffered reasons are pretextual—either 10
false or not actually relied on—the respondent fails by definition to meet its burden of
showing it would have taken the action for those reasons absent the protected activity.
See Pro-Spec Painting, Inc., 339 NLRB 946, 949 (2003); and BHC Northwest
Psychiatric Hospital, 365 NLRB No. 79, slip op. 6 (2017).
15
A showing of pretext also supports the initial showing of animus and
discrimination. See Wright Line, supra, 251 NLRB at 1088 n.12, citing Shattuck Denn
Mining Corp. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 1966) (where a respondent’s
reasons are false, it can be inferred “that the [real] motive is one that the [respondent]
desires to conceal—an unlawful motive—at least where . . . the surrounding facts tend 20
to reinforce that inference.”). Moreover, a trier of fact may not only reject a witness’s
testimony about his or her reasons for an adverse action, but also find that the truth is
the opposite of that testimony. Pratt (Corrugated Logistics), LLC, 360 NLRB 304, 314
(2014), citing NLRB v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404, 408 (1962).
25
Applying the above principles to the credited testimony and facts of this case, I
find that Respondent discharged employees Dunleavy, Hernandez, Smith, and Ligero
because of their affiliation with and activities on behalf of the Union. I also find that
Respondent’s reasons for the discharges, based entirely on the discredited testimony of
Piez, are pretexts that strengthen the inference of discrimination. 30
Dunleavy was discharged immediately after he passed out Union literature,
which was done off the job and on his own time. The timing and circumstances of the
discharge are more than enough to support the finding of discrimination. But the
credited testimony also shows that this was the very reason given for the discharge by 35
Piez, although he suggested, erroneously, that Dunleavy was passing out the literature
on the job. No one else passed out Union literature or was discharged on the same day
as Dunleavy and Piez’s testimony about the matter was not credible. The violation here
is clear.
40
Viewed in the context of the union-based discrimination against Dunleavy, the
discharges of Hernandez, Smith and Ligero on May 4 were clearly for the same reason.
The latter employees were discharged at the beginning of the work day following the
one on which they were seen by Respondent’s officials picketing the job site on behalf
of the Union. Here again the timing strongly supports the finding of discrimination. No 45
non-picketing employees were discharged. Piez’s discredited testimony about the
JD–04–19
8
discharges does not rescue Respondent. As shown above, his suggestion that he
discharged the employees because their work was “terrible” or because there was lack
of work was a pretext and thus bolsters the finding of a violation.
Conclusions of Law5
1. By discriminatorily discharging employees Jeff Dunleavy, John Smith,
Jose Hernandez, and Marcello Ligero, for their affiliation with and activities on behalf
of the Union, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
10
2. The above violations constitute unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the Act.
Remedy
15
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged the individuals
named above, Respondent will be ordered to post the usual notice. It must also offer
each of them reinstatement and make each of them whole for any loss of earnings and
benefits they suffered as a result of the discrimination against them from the dates of
their discharge until the date of their proper reinstatement, in accordance with F.W.20
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest, as prescribed in New Horizons,
283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical
Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010). Search for work and interim employment expenses
shall be paid in accordance with King Soopers, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 93 (2016), enfd. in
pertinent part 859 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Compensation for the adverse 25
consequences of receiving a lump sum backpay award and proper allocation of the
backpay award shall be in accordance with LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB
101 (2014) and AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143, slip op. at 1 (2016).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the entire record, I issue 30
the following recommended4
ORDER
Respondent, Demza Masonry, LLC, its officers, agents, successors and35
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discriminatorily discharging or otherwise disciplining employees for 40
their union affiliation or union activities.

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 waived for all purposes.
JD–04–19
9
(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:5
(a) Offer reinstatement to Jeff Dunleavy, John Smith, Jose Hernandez,
and Marcello Ligero Robert Weeks and Michael O’Leary to their former positions, or, if
these positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or any other rights and privileges to which they would10
have been entitled had they not been discriminated against.
(b) Make Jeff Dunleavy, John Smith, Jose Hernandez, and Marcello
Ligero whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section
of this order.15
(c) Compensate Jeff Dunleavy, John Smith, Jose Hernandez, and
Marcello Ligero for the adverse consequences, if any, of receiving a lump backpay
award, and file with the Regional Director of Region 22, within 21 days of the date the
amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the
backpay award to the appropriate calendar years for each employee.20
(d) Compensate Jeff Dunleavy, John Smith, Jose Hernandez, and
Marcello Ligero for their search-for-work and interim employment expenses regardless
of whether those expenses exceed interim earnings.
(e) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from its files any
reference to the unlawful discharge of Jeff Dunleavy, John Smith, Jose Hernandez, and 25
Marcello Ligero, and, within 3 days thereafter, notify the above individuals in writing that
this has been done and the discharges will not be used against them in any way.
(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time
as the Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable
place designated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security30
payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records,
including an electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of back pay due under the terms of this Order.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post, at its Whitehouse
Station, New Jersey facility, as well as all of its construction job sites, copies of the35
attached notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 22, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places at the above locations, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting 40
of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such as email,

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–04–19
10
posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the
Respondent communicates with employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility5
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 October 27, 2017.
(h) 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 the10
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated at Washington, D.C., January 18, 2019.
15
Robert A. Giannasi
Administrative Law Judge20
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 or 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 discriminatorily discharge or otherwise discipline employees because of
their affiliation with or activities on behalf of Local 4, Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers’
Administrative District Council of New Jersey or any other union.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL offer reinstatement to Jeff Dunleavy, John Smith, Jose Hernandez, and
Marcello Ligero to their former positions, or if these positions no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other
rights and privileges to which they would have been entitled had they not been
discriminated against.
WE WILL make Jeff Dunleavy, John Smith, Jose Hernandez, and Marcello Ligero
whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings and other benefits they suffered as a result
of our discrimination against them.
Demza Masonry, LLC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in
1935 to enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections
to determine whether employees want union representation and it investigates and
remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your
rights under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak
confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You
may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov
20 Washington Place, 5th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-3110
(973) 645-2100, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-208778 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 NOTIE OF
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE
REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (862) 229-7055.