Horizons Youth Services

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Aug 12, 2009

20-CA-034068 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 12, 2009)

JD(SF)–27–09
Sacramento, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
HORIZONS YOUTH SERVICES, LLC
AND INSIGHTS TRAINING GROUP, LLC
JOINT EMPLOYERS
and Case 20-CA-34068
SACRAMENTO JOB CORPS FEDERATION
OF TEACHERS, AFT LOCAL 4986
Micah Berul, Esq., of San Francisco, CA,
for the General Counsel.
Leslie Freeman, Esq, (Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld)
of Sacramento, CA, for the Charging Party.
David A. LePoriere, Esq. (Law Offices of David A. LePoriere)
of Gold River, CA for Respondent Horizons Youth Services.
N. Paul Shanley, Esq., (Law Offices of N. Paul Shanley)
of Gold River, CA, for Respondent Insights Training Group.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
John J. McCarrick, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Sacramento,
California on May 6, 2009. The charge was filed August 7, 2008 and the complaint was issued
on April 10, 2009.
The complaint alleges that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act
by failing to recognize and bargain with Sacramento Job Corps Federation of Teachers, AFT
Local 4986 (Union) as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of their employees
Respondents filed timely answers to the complaint stating they had committed no
wrongdoing.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the Counsel for the General Counsel1 and the Respondents,
I make the following.

1 On July 2, 2009, Counsel for the General Counsel filed a Motion to Correct Brief to the
Administrative Law Judge. No opposition was filed. The Motion is granted.
JD(SF)–27–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
Respondent Horizons Youth Services (Horizons) admitted it is a Virginia corporation with
an office and place business located in Sacramento, California where it is engaged in the
operation of a Job Corps Center providing vocational and job counseling programs. Annually,
Respondent Horizons in the course of its business operations purchased and received at its
Sacramento facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 which originated from points directly
outside the State of California.
Respondent Insights Training Group (Insights) admitted it is a Virginia corporation with
an office and place business located in Sacramento, California where it is engaged in the
operation of a Job Corps Center providing vocational and job counseling programs. Annually,
Respondent Insights in the course of its business operations purchased and received at its
Sacramento facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 which originated from points directly
outside the State of California.
Based upon the above, Respondents are employers engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. Labor Organization
Respondents admitted and I find that the Sacramento Job Corps Federation of
Teachers, AFT Local 4986 (Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. The Facts
1. The Predecessor Employer
For an unspecified period of time prior to May 22, 2008, the United States Department of
Labor (DOL) has operated a Job Corps Training Center at 3100 Meadowview Blvd.
Sacramento, California, pursuant to contracts with various employers in order to provide young
people job training.
Since at least February 28, 2003, the DOL had awarded the contract2 to operate the
Sacramento Job Corps Center to Career Systems Development Corporation (Career).
Since at least June 22, 2006, Career has recognized the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of all fulltime, regular Resident Advisors I and II and has
embodied that recognition in a collective-bargaining agreement,3 the most recent of which is
effective from June 22, 2006 to June 22, 2009.
Since at least 1998, Career has recognized the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative in a separate unit of all regular full time and regular part time

2 GC Exh. 7.
3 GC Exh. 2.
JD(SF)–27–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
instructors, counselors and Career Transition specialists including a Recreation specialist who
teach Arts and Crafts at their Sacramento Job Corps Center excluding all other employees and
has embodied that recognition in a collective bargaining agreement,4 the most recent of which is
effective from June 22, 2006 to June 22, 2009.
2. The Successor Employer
On about May 7, 2008, the DOL awarded the contract5 to operate the Sacramento Job
Corps Center to Respondent Horizons commencing on July 1, 2008. The terms of the contracts
issued by the DOL to both Career and Respondent Horizons are virtually identical and call for
the same scope and nature of work to be performed at the Job Center.
On about July 15, 2008 the Respondents entered into a contract in which, Respondent
Horizons subcontracted6 certain work at the Sacramento Job Corps Center to Respondent
Insights, including Career Services, Counseling, Career Preparation, Career Transition
Readiness and post-center Career Transition Services. Employees performing this work for
Career were included in job classifications contained in ithe nstructors’ collective-bargaining
agreement between Career and the Union.7 The contract between Respondent Horizons and
Respondent Insights covered the period July 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008.
The subcontract8 between Respondent’s Horizons and Insights provides in pertinent
part:
Article X (Staffing)
B. The Center Director shall have the right to request removal and replacement
of an employee assigned by INSIGHTS as set forth herein for reason or cause.
INSIGHTS agrees to comply with any such request that seems reasonable and
the employee will be replaced within a reasonable time at no additional cost. . . .
Article XI (Operational Relationships)
A. In Center operational matters, INSIGHTS staff shall be responsible to and take
direction from the Vice president of Job Corps Operations and the Center
Director, who are HORIZONS employees. . . .
Article XII (Holidays)
INSIGHTS shall adhere to the holiday schedule published by HORIZONS. . . .
Respondent Horizons’ Vice President of Human Resources, Deborah Maurer testified
without contradiction that Horizons’ Job Center Director, Tom Zender had authority to make
recommendations to the corporate offices of Horizons and Insights on the hire of Insights
employees that were usually followed. Maurer also admitted that Horizons supervisors directed

4 GC Exh. 3.
5 Jt. Exh. 1.
6 Jt. Exh. 4, Article VIII.
7 GC Exh. 3 at p.1.
8 Jt. Exh. 4, pp. 7 and 8.
JD(SF)–27–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
and supervised Insights’ employees and that Horizons’ human resources manager at the Job
Center, LaShawnda McClellan, was involved in personnel decisions involving Insights’
employees.
In specific instances Horizons was involved in personnel actions of Insights employees.
In the July 14, 2008, termination of Insights employee Alex Murara, the termination letter9 was
from Horizons Center Director Zender on Insights’ stationary. In the appeal of Murara’s
unemployment benefits, McClellan filed an appeal on Horizon’s letterhead on Insights’ behalf10.
McClellan alone appeared at the unemployment hearing. In addition, various e-mails11 between
McClellan and Insights Vice President of Human Resources, Lidon Weatherly, reflect the direct
input Horizons had on Insights personnel decisions.
Since January 1, 2009, Respondent Horizons has been the sole employer of the Career
Services, Counseling, Career Preparation, Career Transition Readiness and post center Career
Transition Services employees.
On July 1, 2009, the date Respondent Horizons took over operation of the Job Center, it
employed 30 Resident Advisors12 of whom 26 had been employed by Horizons’ predecessor
Career13. Of the 26 employees Yvette Burton and Edmund Simental were not listed as
Respondent Horizons’ Resident Advisors14. However, testimony established that Burton
performed Resident Advisor duties for Respondent and Simental’s absence was due to a
clerical error.
As of July 1, 2008, Horizons employed 29 employees as instructors, exclusive of the
counseling, career preparation and career transition employees employed by Insights, 28 of
whom had been employed by Horizons predecessor Career in the same job classifications.15
On July 1, 2008, Respondent Insights employed 18 of 20 instructors for counseling,
career preparation and career transition who had been employed by Respondents’ predecessor
Career in the same job classifications.16
On July 1, 2008, Horizons commenced operations pursuant to the DOL contract without
a break in services to the trainees. Since January 1, 2009, Horizons has been the sole
employer of all employees at the Sacramento Job Corps Center and to date Horizons continues
to operate the Job Center.
3. The Demand for Recognition and Bargaining
On July 9, 2008 the Union, in a letter17 to Horizon’s Center Director Tom Zender, made a
demand for Horizons to recognize and bargain with the Union represented employees. By letter

9 GC Exh. 15.
10 GC Exh. 16.
11 Jt. Exh. 5.
12 GC Exhs. 11 and 12.
13 GC Exhs. 9 and 10.
14 GC Exh. 11.
15 GC Exhs. 9-12.
16 Jt. Exh. 4 and GC Exhs. 9 and 10.
17 GC Exh. 4.
JD(SF)–27–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
dated July 18, 200818, Respondent Horizons, as “the sole agent for our valued staff” refused to
recognize or bargain with the Union.19 By letter dated April 24, 2009,20 the Union renewed its
demand that Respondent Horizons recognize and bargain with the Union. Since April 24, 2009,
Respondent Horizons has not responded to Union’s demand for recognition and bargaining.
4. The Issues
The issues for resolution are whether Respondents are successor employers, whether
Respondents are joint employers and whether Respondents are obligated to bargain with the
Union in any unit.
B. The Law
1. Successor Employer
In Marine Spill Response Corp., 348 NLRB 1282, 1285 (2006) the Board affirmed
the administrative law judge in this case who found:
The Supreme Court in NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272, 281
(1972), established that a successor is bound to bargain with the union
representative of its predecessor's employees if, “the bargaining unit remains
unchanged and a majority of employees hired by the new employer were
represented by a recently certified bargaining agent.” In Howard Johnson Co., v.
UNITE HERE, Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, 417 U.S. 249, 263 (1974), the
Court stated that one test of successorship was the “substantial continuity of
identity of the business enterprise.” In Valley Nitrogen Producers, 207 NLRB 208
(1973), the Board held that the criteria for determining substantial continuity in
the employing industry includes whether an employer, “uses substantially the
same facilities and work force to produce the same basic products for essentially
the same customers in the same geographic area.” Later in Fall River Dyeing &
Finishing Corp., v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27, 41 (1987), the Supreme Court clarified
Burns and said if a, “new employer makes a conscious decision to maintain
generally the same business and to hire a majority of its employees from the
predecessor, then the bargaining obligation of Section 8(a)(5) is activated.”
In applying these principles, an employer will be found a successor if
there is continuity in the work force, i.e., has it hired a majority of the
predecessor's employees, if there is continuity of the appropriate bargaining unit,
i.e., does the bargaining unit remain appropriate and if there is substantial
continuity of the business enterprise. It is the employees' perspective and their
expectations of continued representation that is paramount when assessing
these factors in determining successorship. Pennsylvania Transformer
Technology, Inc., v. NLRB, 254 F.3d 217 (DC Cir. 2001), enf. 331 NLRB 1147
(2000).

18 GC Exh. 5.
19 Until January 2009, after Insights ceased to employ any employees at the Job Center, the
Union was unaware that Insight employed any employees at the Job Center.
20 GC Exh. 6.
JD(SF)–27–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
2. Joint Employers
The terms “joint employer” and “single employer” have often been used interchangeably.
In Bultman Enterprises Inc., 332 NLRB 336 (2000) the Board set forth its joint employer
standard that in order to establish that two or more employers are joint employers, the entities
must share or codetermine matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment.
NLRB v. Browning-Ferris Industries, 691 F. 2d 1117, 1123 (3d Cir. 1982); Riverdale Nursing
Home, 317 NLRB 881, 882 (1995). The employers must meaningfully affect matters relating to
the employment relationship such as hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, and direction.
Riverdale, supra at 882, citing TLI, Inc., 271 NLRB 798 (1984).
C. The Analysis - Obligation to Bargain as of July 1, 2008
1. Horizons Resident Advisor Unit
In applying the Burns/Fall River Dyeing test for a successor employer’s obligation to
recognize and bargain with the union that represented the predecessor employer’s employees
to this case, I find that Horizons meets all of the elements necessary to find it a successor
employer to Career in the Resident Advisors bargaining unit. There has been continuity in the
workforce as Horizons hired a substantial majority of the predecessor Career’s Resident Advisor
employees. The bargaining unit of Residential Advisors is one of the two historical bargaining
units represented by the Union which the predecessor has recognized since 1998. There was a
recent collective bargaining agreement between the Union and Career embodying the Union’s
status as collective bargaining representative of Career’s Resident Advisors. Contrary to
Respondent Horizons assertion, where there is an established bargaining unit, it is not the
General Counsel’s burden to show the unit continues to be appropriate. There is a presumption
that an historical unit remains appropriate and that the burden is on Respondent to show the
historical unit is no longer appropriate. In re Canal Carting, Inc., 339 NLRB 969, 970 (2003).
In Canal Carting the Board held:
It is well settled that the existence of significant bargaining history weighs heavily
in favor of a finding that a historical unit is appropriate, and that the party
challenging the historical unit bears the burden of showing that the unit is no
longer appropriate. See Children’s Hospital of San Francisco, 312 NLRB 920,
929 (1993) (“Both the Board and the courts have long recognized not only that
the traditional factors, which tend to support the finding of a larger or single unit
as being appropriate, are of lesser cogency where a history of meaningful
bargaining has developed, but also that this fact alone suggests the
appropriateness of a separate bargaining unit and that compelling circumstances
are required to overcome the significance of bargaining history.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted), enfd. sub nom. California Pacific Medical Center v.
NLRB, 87 F.3d 304 (9th Cir. 1996). See also Fisher Broadcasting, Inc., 324 NLRB
256,262-263 (1997); Buffalo Broadcasting Co., 242 NLRB 1105 (1979) (“The
Board is reluctant to disturb units established by collective bargaining as long as
those units are not repugnant to Board policy or so constituted as to hamper
employees in fully exercising rights guaranteed by the Act.”); Columbia
Broadcasting System, Inc., 214 NLRB 637, 643 (1974); Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co., 153 NLRB 1549, 1550 (1965) (“[T] he Board has long held that it will not
disturb an established bargaining relationship unless required to do so by the
dictates of the Act or other compelling circumstances.”).
JD(SF)–27–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
Respondent failed to show that the Resident Advisors or Instructors Units are
inappropriate. Moreover, a finding that Respondent hired a majority of its predecessor’s
employees is not dependent upon evidence of employees’ job descriptions. The nature of the
work performed by both Horizons/Insights and Career remained identical. The record reflects
that as of July 1, 2008, Respondents hired a majority of the predecessor’s employees with the
same job titles to perform the same work in both Instructors and Resident Advisors Units.21
That the General Counsel has pled alternative bargaining units in the complaint, is likewise not
fatal as long as General Counsel has pled appropriate units. Thus, a finding that Respondent’s
hired a majority of the predecessor’s employees is appropriate. Finally, there is substantial,
indeed complete, continuity of the business enterprise since Horizons has continued to operate
the Sacramento Job Corps Center in the same manner as its predecessor Career without
hiatus. I find that Horizons is a successor employer in the Resident Advisors unit and is
obligated to bargain with the Union. Having refused to recognize and bargain with the Union as
the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the employees in the resident Advisors
Unit, Horizons has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
2. Horizons Instructors Unit
From July 1, 2008 to January 1, 2009, Horizons essentially split the historic Instructors
bargaining unit into two groups and put instructors for career services, counseling, career
preparation, career transition readiness and post center career transition services under
Insights/Horizons management and supervision.
On July 1, 2008, Horizons employed 28 of 29 instructors previously employed by Career
and Insight employed 18 of 20 instructors previously employed by Career. As I noted above,
Horizons met the Burns/ Fall River Dyeing test for a successor employer with respect to
continuity of the business enterprise. Counsel for the General Counsel contends that since
Horizons employed a majority of the employees in the established Instructors unit, the Horizons
only unit remains appropriate under Canal Carting, Inc., supra.
As discussed more fully below, I need not make a finding concerning the
appropriateness of a separate Horizons Instructors Unit or a separate joint Horizons/Insights
Instructor’s unit.
3. Horizons/Insight Instructors Unit
Insights nominally employed 18 out of 20 of predecessor Career’s instructor employees.
However, it is clear that the 20 employees employed by Insight were joint employees of Horizon.
Respondent Horizon’s argument that there can be no joint employer finding absent agreement
by the parties that they may act on the other’s behalf regarding labor relations is not supported
in the law. The record establishes that both Horizons and Insight co-determined matters
governing essential terms and conditions of employment of the 20 instructors. Thus, Horizons
both under the terms of its contract with Insight and in practice had authority to finally determine
who Insight hired, fired, disciplined, supervised and directed. NLRB v. Browning-Ferris
Industries, 691 F. 2d 1117, 1123 (3d Cir. 1982); Riverdale Nursing Home, 317 NLRB 881, 882
(1995).
Thus on July 1, 2008, Horizons and Horizons/Insight were joint employers of 20 of the
instructors from the historic Instructors bargaining unit. Together Horizons and Horizons/Insight

21 GC Exhs. 9-12.
JD(SF)–27–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
employed a substantial majority of Career’s Instructor employees. As noted above, there was
no change in the nature of the employing enterprise from Career to Horizons. However,
because Horizons and Insights were the joint employers of part of the Instructors unit, a
question arises about whether the jointly-employed Instructors’ unit remains an appropriate unit
under Oakwood Care Center, 343 NLRB 659 (2004).
Counsel for the General Counsel contends that Oakwood, supra, does not impact a
successorship finding, citing Snell Island SNF, LLC d/b/a Shore Acres Rehabilitation and
Nursing Center LLC, 352 NLRB No. 106 (2008) (not reported in Board volumes). In Shore
Acres, supra, the Board found a unit employed solely by the joint employers appropriate. I find
Shore Acres inapposite as it involved a unit of only jointly employed employees rather that a unit
composed of solely and jointly employed employees as in Oakwood and in this case.
In Oakwood, supra, the Board reversed the holding in M.B. Sturgis, Inc., 331 NLRB 1298
(2000), permitting mixed units of solely and jointly employed employees and found that the
petitioned-for unit which included both employees who were solely employed by Oakwood and
employees who were jointly employed by Oakwood and a personnel staffing agency, N&W, a
multiemployer unit and statutorily permissible only with the parties' consent.
Unlike the facts in Oakwood, an initial petition for representation, here there is an 11-
year history of collective bargaining that resulted in a collective bargaining agreement in the
Instructors unit. Moreover under the terms of the subcontract between Horizons and Insights,
Horizons maintains operational control22 of the Job Corps Center which gives Horizons
substantial control over terms and conditions of employment of the jointly employed instructors.
This mitigates the Board’s concern in Oakwood at 663 that:
The bargaining regime posited in Sturgis also fails to adequately protect
employee rights. It combines jointly employed and solely employed employees in
a single unit, with a single union negotiating with two different employers, each of
which controls only a portion of the terms and conditions of employment for the
unit. Such a structure subjects employees to fragmented bargaining and
inherently conflicting interests, a result that is inconsistent with the Act's
animating principles.
Moreover, as the Board in Canal Carting, supra, noted, the existence of significant
bargaining history weighs heavily in favor of a finding that a historical unit is appropriate.
Respondents should not be able to use the artifice of creating a jointly-employed bargaining unit
to defeat the employees’ clearly expressed desire to be represented in one bargaining unit.
Thus, I find that Oakwood is distinguishable from the instant case in view of Horizons’
substantial control of all employees in the Instructors Unit, Respondents’ unclean hands in trying
to carve out a part of the historic Instructor’s unit and the extensive bargaining history that
existed in the Instructors unit.
Based upon the above, I find that as of July 1, 2008 the Instructors unit, consisting of
instructor employees jointly employed by Horizons and Insights and solely employed by
Horizons, remained an appropriate unit for bargaining and, by employing a majority of the
predecessor’s instructor employees where the business enterprise remained unchanged, both
Horizons and Insights are successor employers obligated to bargain with the Union.

22 Jt. Exh. 4, pp. 7-8.
JD(SF)–27–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
The Union gave notice to Horizons on July 9, 2008, that it was demanding recognition
and bargaining for all Union represented employees. On July 18, 2008 Respondent Horizons,
as “the sole agent for our valued staff,” including employees it jointly employed with Insights,
refused to recognize or bargain with the Union on behalf of its solely and jointly employees.
I find that by refusing to bargain with the Union, Respondents Horizons and Insights violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
Moreover, as of January 1, 2009, Horizons now employed all instructors in the historic
Instructors unit and there was no impediment to bargaining in the predecessors Instructors Unit.
Thus, no later than January 1, 2009, Respondent Horizons was a Burns successor in the
Instructors Unit and was obligated to bargain with the Union. By refusing to do so Respondent
has continued to violate section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
Conclusions of Law
1. By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union the Respondents have engaged
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Counsel for the General Counsel contends that as part of the remedy Respondent
should be required to e-mail the “Notice to Employees” to its employees citing Nordstrom, Inc.,
347 NLRB 294, fn. 5 (2006). In Nordstrom the Board declined to require electronic posting in
the absence of a record demonstrating that the Respondent customarily communicates with its
employees electronically. However, the Board noted it was open to modifying standard notice
posting language where the General Counsel provides evidence at an unfair labor practice
hearing that a Respondent customarily communicates with its employees electronically and
proposes such modification to the administrative law judge in the unfair labor practice
proceeding.
Here General Counsel offered evidence concerning Respondent’s electronic
communication with its employees and proposed modifying the standard notice posting
language in the instant proceeding to include electronic notice posting. The evidence reflects
that Respondent sends work-related e-mail to its employees. Given Respondent’s customary
communication with its employees via e-mail, it seems appropriate in this case to recommend
modifying standard Board notice posting language to include sending a copy of the “Notice to
Employees” to employees via e-mail.
JD(SF)–27–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended.23
ORDER
The Respondents, Horizons Youth Training Services, LLC and Insights Training Group,
LLC, their officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain in good faith with Sacramento Job
Corps Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 4986, Union, as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative in the following appropriate units:
All full-time resident advisors employed at the Job corps Center, excluding all
other employees, managerial employees, confidential employees, guards and
supervisors, as defined in the Act.
All full-time and regular part-time instructors, including academic education
and career technical training employees, counselors, career preparation
specialists and career transition specialists employed at the Job corps Center,
excluding all other employees, managerial employees, confidential
employees, guards and supervisors, as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Recognize and bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative of the employees in the above appropriate units for a reasonable
period of time which shall be no less than six months and on request, meet and bargain in good
faith with the Union as the collective bargaining representative of its employees in the described
appropriate units concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if agreements are
reached, embody the agreements in a signed collective bargaining agreement.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities in Sacramento,
California, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.” 24 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being signed by the Companies’
authorized representatives, shall be posted by the Companies immediately on receipt, including
sending a copy of the “Notice to Employees” to employees via e-mail, and maintained for 60

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.
24 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in
the notice reading “Posted Pursuant to an 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(SF)–27–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Companies to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendancy of these proceedings, the Companies have gone out of business, closed a facility
involved in these proceedings, or has laid off employees, Respondents shall duplicate and mail,
at their own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees
employed by the Company at any time since July 1, 2008.
(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 Respondents have taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., August 12, 2009.
____________________
John J. McCarrick
Administrative Law Judge
JD(SF)–27–09
Sacramento, CA
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 recognize or bargain collectively with Sacramento Job Corps
Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 4986, Union, as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of its employees in the appropriate units:
All full-time resident advisors employed at the Job corps Center, excluding all
other employees, managerial employees, confidential employees, guards and
supervisors, as defined in the Act.
All full-time and regular part-time instructors, including academic education and
career technical training employees, counselors, career preparation specialists
and career transition specialists employed at the Job corps Center, excluding all
other employees, managerial employees, confidential employees, guards and
supervisors, as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in 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 recognize and bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees in the appropriate unit:
All full-time resident advisors employed at the Job corps Center, excluding all
other employees, managerial employees, confidential employees, guards and
supervisors, as defined in the Act.
All full-time and regular part-time instructors, including academic education and
career technical training employees, counselors, career preparation specialists
and career transition specialists employed at the Job corps Center, excluding all
other employees, managerial employees, confidential employees, guards and
supervisors, as defined in the Act.
JD(SF)–27–09
Sacramento, CA
WE WILL bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the above appropriate unit for a reasonable period of time
which shall be no less than six months and on request, meet and bargain in good faith with the
Union concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if agreements are reached, embody
the agreements in a signed collective bargaining agreement.
HORIZONS YOUTH SERVICES, LLC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
INSIGHTS TRAINING GROUP, 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.
901 Market Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, California 94103-1735
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
415-356-5130.
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, 415-356-5139.
THIS NOTICE AND THE DECISION IN THIS MATTER ARE PUBLIC RECORDS
Any interested individual who wishes to request a copy of this Notice or a complete copy of the
Decision of which this Notice is a part may do so by contacting the Board’s Offices at the
address and telephone number appearing immediately above.