IMAGE FIRST

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 2018

366 NLRB No. 182 (N.L.R.B. 2018)

366 NLRB No. 182
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
ImageFIRST and Laundry Distribution and Food
Service Joint Board, Workers United, a/wW
Service Employees International Union. Cases
22–CA–161563 and 22–CA–181197
August 27, 2018
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PEARCE, KAPLAN, AND EMANUEL
On April 18, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Arthur
J. Amchan issued the attached decision. The General
Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
Respondent filed an answering brief. The Respondent
also filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General
Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Respondent
filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.1
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions2 and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,3 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order as modified.4

1 Chairman Ring is recused and took no part in the consideration of
this case.
2 There are no exceptions to the judge’s finding that the Respondent
violated Sec. 8(a)(1) when Supervisor David Rivera initiated a confron-
tation with union representative Marcia Almanzar on August 6, 2015.
There are also no exceptions to the judge’s dismissal of allegations that
the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by stating, through its general
manager James Kennedy, that it knew the Union was visiting employ-
ees’ homes and calling employees on their cell phones, or by stating,
through its owner Jeffrey Berstein, that bringing in the Union could
result in delays in resolving employee grievances.
3 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(1) by maintaining a handbook rule, written in English, stating that
“discussion of payroll information” is a “serious offense” that “can
result in immediate suspension or termination,” we note that the Re-
spondent does not dispute that the rule is unlawful on its face. Instead,
the Respondent contends that the General Counsel did not establish that
any employee at its Clifton, New Jersey facility had read or could read
the rule, citing evidence that some employees’ primary language is
Spanish or Haitian Creole. We reject this contention. The Respondent
cites no case, and we are aware of none, in which the burden has been
placed on the General Counsel to prove not only that an employer
maintains a challenged rule, but also that its employees can read it. We
decline to do so here. Moreover, the Respondent’s contention is lim-
The judge found, and we agree, that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by increasing the fre-
quency and quality of food provided to employees after
the beginning of the organizing drive in order to discour-
age support for the Union. As fully described in the
judge’s decision, the Union started an organizing cam-
paign at the Respondent’s Clifton, New Jersey facility in
mid-July 2015. Shortly after the Respondent became
aware of the Union’s campaign, it revived and trans-
formed its “Lunch with the Boss” program. While this
program existed in the past, the Respondent did not pro-
vide any “Lunch with the Boss” meals in the months
prior to the start of the organizing campaign. In addition,
when it revived the program, it enhanced the benefit.
On July 20, after it learned of the organizing cam-
paign, the Respondent’s general manager, James Kenne-
dy, conducted an employee meeting. At this meeting,
Kennedy communicated the Respondent’s opposition to
the Union, announced the unlawful discharge of two un-
popular supervisors, and unlawfully solicited employee
grievances. Kennedy then announced that the Respond-
ent would bring in Creole and Hispanic food that week,
which he admitted was “probably a little bit different
than what we have done in the past.” The Respondent
also provided Creole and Hispanic food for employees
on a subsequent occasion, although Kennedy could not
recall the specific date. Subsequently, the Respondent
had additional meals delivered to its facility for employ-
ees to eat on the premises, allowing them to choose their

ited to employees at a single facility, and on its face, the Respondent’s
“Associate Handbook” applies to employees at all the Respondent’s
facilities nationwide. Further, there is no evidence that any of its em-
ployees are unable to read English, even if English is not their primary
language.
In finding this handbook rule violation, we do not rely on Lutheran
Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004), cited by the judge,
which was overruled by Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017).
Member Kaplan notes that although this case does not implicate the
issues addressed in Boeing, the Respondent’s rule would be unlawful
under the principles stated therein. Id., slip op. at 4 (unlawful to main-
tain a rule that prohibits employees from discussing wages or benefits
with one another).
In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(1) by discharging Supervisor Joe Ventura and Lead Employee
Miriam Farez, Member Emanuel notes that this finding does not pre-
clude an employer from discharging a supervisor during a union cam-
paign. However, where, as here, the supervisors had not recently en-
gaged in any misconduct and, prior to the start of the union activity, the
Respondent was aware that employees had issues with the supervisors
and failed to act on the complaints, it is clear that the discharges were
intended to discourage union activity in violation of the Act. See Bur-
lington Times, 328 NLRB 750 (1999) (finding that the termination of
an unpopular supervisor in order to grant a benefit to discourage union
activity violates Sec. 8(a)(1)).
4 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order in accordance
with our decision in Guardsmark, LLC, 344 NLRB 809, 812 (2005),
enfd. in relevant part 475 F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
meals from a restaurant’s menu. In addition, the Re-
spondent took employees off-site for lunch on at least
three occasions and allowed them to choose what they
wanted to eat from a menu. Assistant General Manager
Caesar Sanchez estimated that the lunches cost $10–$20
per person. The judge found that the Respondent did not
give employees their choice of meals prior to the appear-
ance of the Union, and the Respondent does not dispute
this point.5 The off-site lunches provided by Sanchez
after the appearance of the Union were at the very least
in stark contrast to the on-site lunches Ventura held with
employees when he became a supervisor in early 2015,
before the Union appeared, even accepting Kennedy’s
testimony that he had also taken employees off-site for
lunch at some unspecified period in the past.
“The lawfulness of an employer’s promise of benefits
during a union organizational campaign depends upon
the employer’s motive. See Network Dynamics Cabling,
351 NLRB 1423, 1424 (2007) (citing NLRB v. Exchange
Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405 (1964)).” Sisters’ Camelot, 363
NLRB No. 13, slip op. at 7 (2015). However, “[a]bsent a
showing of a legitimate business reason for the timing of
a grant of benefits during an organizing campaign, the
Board will infer improper motive and interference with
employee rights under the Act.” Yale New Haven Hos-
pital, 309 NLRB 363, 366 (1992).
In agreement with the judge, we find that the General
Counsel has shown that the Respondent resumed provid-
ing meals to its employees for the purpose of thwarting
the union organizing campaign. As noted above, the
Respondent reinstated, and expanded, its moribund prac-
tice of providing food to its employees only after the start
of the union campaign. The meals started as early as the
week of July 20, less than 2 weeks after the Respondent
learned of the union organizing. One such meal was
announced at a meeting called by Kennedy for the pur-
pose of expressing the Respondent’s opposition to the
Union and during which he announced the unlawful dis-
charges as an intended employee benefit and unlawfully
solicited grievances with a promise to remedy them.
We also find that the Respondent has failed to estab-
lish a legitimate business justification for the employee
meals. The Respondent contends that the meals were
provided as a means for Sanchez, as a newly-hired man-
ager, to get to know employees, but the record shows that
the meals started in July, months before Sanchez arrived.
Moreover, the Respondent’s stated justification fails to
explain why it transformed its prior “Lunch with the
Boss” program into one in which employees were al-

5 To the contrary, the Respondent concedes on brief that “[u]nlike
other managers, Sanchez allowed associates to choose the food they
wanted to eat from a menu.” R. Br. at 9.
lowed to choose meals from a menu, and were taken off-
site for lunch at a restaurant by Sanchez but not granted
the same benefit earlier the same year with Ventura.
Thus, the Respondent has failed to establish that its
granting of lunches and revitalization of the “Lunch with
the Boss” program was motivated by legitimate business
reasons and not the union organizing campaign. See,
e.g., Register Guard, 344 NLRB 1142, 1142 (2005).6
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Im-
ageFIRST, Clifton, New Jersey, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a)
“(a) Rescind the rule in its employee handbook that
prohibits the discussion of payroll information, and fur-
nish employees with an insert for the current employee
handbook that (1) advises that the unlawful provision has
been rescinded or (2) provides a lawfully worded provi-
sion on adhesive backing that will cover the unlawful
provision, or publish and distribute to employees revised
employee handbooks that (1) do not contain the unlawful
provision or (2) provide a lawfully worded provision.”
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b).
“(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Clifton, New Jersey, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix A” in English, Spanish, and
Haitian Creole, and within that same time period post at
the rest of its facilities nationwide where its Associates
Handbook is in effect copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix B” in English and whatever other
language(s) the Regional Director deems appropriate, if
any. Copies of the notices, 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 consec-
utive days in conspicuous places including all places

6 Our dissenting colleague contends that employees would view the
lunches as no more than an opportunity to get to know Sanchez, con-
sistent with the Respondent’s past practice of offering meals as a way
for new managers to interact with employees. For the reasons stated
above, we respectfully disagree.
Our colleague also contends that there is no way to determine
whether the quality of the food was significantly improved after the
Union organizing campaign started, inasmuch as the judge did not find
employee testimony to that effect “particularly helpful.” In our view,
the fact that employees were able to choose their meals, and even taken
off-site for lunch, is sufficient to establish that the Respondent granted
a benefit to employees under the circumstances of this case, which
include the fact that the lunch program was moribund until the Union
started organizing.
IMAGEFIRST 3
where notices to employees are customarily posted. In
addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices
shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, post-
ing on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other elec-
tronic means, if the Respondent customarily communi-
cates with its employees by such means. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facilities 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 July 14, 2015.”
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 27, 2018
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MEMBER EMANUEL, dissenting in part.
Contrary to the judge and my colleagues, I would dis-
miss the allegation that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) by changing the “quality and frequency” of food
provided to employees after the organizing campaign
started.
The Respondent operates commercial laundries
throughout the United States. The Union began an or-
ganizing drive at the Respondent’s Clifton, New Jersey
facility in mid-July 2015.1 It is undisputed that the Re-
spondent provided food to employees both before and
after the start of the organizing drive through its “Lunch
with the Boss” program,2 which encouraged managers to
have group lunches with employees in an attempt to get
to know them on a personal level.

1 All dates are in 2015 unless otherwise noted.
2 As evidenced by the existence of a “Lunch with the Boss” section
in a human resources document titled “Site Visit Checklist,” the pro-
gram existed before any organizing activity. While the program was a
pre-existing program, it was used sporadically—usually on special
occasions (employee awards/recognition) or after the arrival of a new
manager.
On September 1, almost 2 months after the start of the
organizing drive, the Respondent hired Cesar Sanchez as
assistant general manager. Shortly after his arrival,
Sanchez took advantage of the “Lunch with the Boss”
program and took some employees offsite for lunch on
three occasions.3 During the lunches, employees were
allowed to choose from a menu. Following employee
requests, Sanchez changed the lunches to “in house” and
provided employees with their preferred meals at the
facility. His practice of letting employees choose their
own meals was apparently unprecedented. The lunches
cost approximately $10–$20 per employee, and Sanchez
never had lunch with any employee more than once.4
The Union was never discussed during any of the lunch-
es.
Relying on Sanchez’ usage of the “Lunch with the
Boss” program, the judge found that the Respondent
changed the “quality and frequency of the food provided
to employees after the organizing campaign started” and
that the changes were “significant enough to constitute
an illegal benefit motivated to discourage employees
from supporting the Union.”5 I disagree.
The granting of benefits to employees while union or-
ganizing is taking place is not per se unlawful. Daily
Grill, 364 NLRB No. 36, slip op. at 18 (2016) (citing
American Sunroof Corp., 248 NLRB 748, 748 (1980)),
modified on other grounds 667 F.2d 20 (6th Cir. 1981);
see also Fresh Organics, Inc., 350 NLRB 309, 310
(2007). Rather, the question is whether the benefits were
granted for the purpose of inducing employees to vote
against the union. Daily Grill, supra (citing NLRB v.
Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409 (1964)). Unlike
most 8(a)(1) allegations, this inquiry is motive-based. Id.
(citing Network Dynamics, 351 NLRB 1423, 1424
(2007)). The General Counsel bears the burden of prov-
ing, by a preponderance of the evidence, “that employees
would reasonably view the grant of benefits as an at-

3 Upon Sanchez’ arrival, General Manager and Vice President
James Kennedy merely advised Sanchez about the program and told
him that he should have lunch with employees to get to know them
better. Kennedy did not tell him how to employ the program or that it
had to be done in the same manner as other managers. While my col-
leagues compare Sanchez’ and former Supervisor Joe Ventura’s mana-
gerial styles when it comes to how they employed the “Lunch with the
Boss” program, I do not think that the fact that two managers had lunch
with employees in a different manner within the same year, at no dras-
tic increase in cost, changed a past practice into an attempt to interfere
with employee rights.
4 It is unclear how many employees had lunch with Sanchez.
5 In deciding this issue, the judge relied on the testimony of Vice
President and General Manager James Kennedy and Assistant General
Manager Caesar Sanchez, and reports from Human Resources Director
Caitlin Payne. The judge explicitly noted that employee testimony,
which varied “a great deal,” was not “particularly helpful in determin-
ing the facts regarding this allegation.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
tempt to interfere with or coerce them in their choice on
union representation.” Id. (finding that the General
Counsel, who relied primarily on the timing of the bene-
fit, failed to demonstrate that employees would reasona-
bly view a service award as an attempt to interfere with
or coerce them in their choice on union representation).
If the General Counsel makes such an initial showing,
the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate a legit-
imate business reason for the timing of the benefit. Id.
The employer may meet its burden by showing that the
benefit was “part of an already established Company
policy and the employer did not deviate from the policy
upon the advent of the union.” American Sunroof, supra.
These principles apply regardless of whether a represen-
tation petition has been filed. Daily Grill, supra (citing
Network Dynamics, supra).
Contrary to my colleagues, I find that the General
Counsel failed to meet his initial burden to prove that
employees would reasonably view the increase in fre-
quency of the lunches as an attempt to coerce them in
their choice on union representation. There is no evi-
dence that the employees would view the lunches as any-
thing other than an opportunity to get to know Sanchez,
the newly hired general manager. The lunches, con-
sistent with past practice, and not in response to employ-
ee complaints, occurred shortly after Sanchez’ arrival
(almost 2 months after the start of the organizing activi-
ty) and did not include any mention of the Union. 6
Moreover, even if the General Counsel had met his initial
burden, I find that the Respondent has demonstrated that
the timing of its actions was governed by factors other
than the organizing activity. Specifically, the Respond-
ent established that the lunches were a part of its past
practice, which it employed as a way for new managers
to interact with employees.
As for the alleged increase in quality of the lunches,
since the judge found that employee testimony on this
issue varied “a great deal” and was “not particularly
helpful,” it is unclear what type of food was provided to
employees in the past. While employees were given the
opportunity to choose their meals, there is no evidence
that they chose meals that were previously unavailable or
were better or more expensive than those previously
available. Consequently, there is no way to determine

6 While my colleagues argue that the “meals started in July, months
before Sanchez’ arrival” (emphasis added), what they fail to note is that
the record reveals there was only one meal prior to Sanchez’ arrival and
it was a meal to recognize employees’ successful efforts to stay on
schedule while the facility experienced equipment issues. This sole
lunch was unrelated to the “Lunch with the Boss” program and was
consistent with past practice of recognizing special achievements with
meals.
whether the quality of the food improved, much less that
it had improved significantly.7
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 27, 2018
______________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge unpopular supervisors and
lead persons in order to discourage you from supporting
the Union.
WE WILL NOT solicit grievances and impliedly promise
to remedy those grievances in a manner different than we
did prior to the start of the union campaign.
WE WILL NOT increase the frequency and quality of
food provided to you in order to discourage support for
the Union.
WE WILL NOT initiate confrontations with union repre-
sentatives.

7 In finding a violation, the judge cited a single case, Caterpillar
Logistics, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 49 (2015), enfd. 835 F.3d 536 (6th Cir.
2016). I find Caterpillar Logistics distinguishable from the instant
case. There, the Board found that the employer violated Sec. 8(a)(1)
when it announced and granted a $400 safety bonus to each employee
during the critical period. Here, the “benefit” at issue was significantly
less expensive—approximately $10–$20 per employee, was not con-
ferred during the critical period (no election petition had been filed),
and was part of the Respondent’s past practice.
IMAGEFIRST 5
WE WILL NOT maintain an illegal rule in our employee
handbook that provides for discipline for discussing pay-
roll information.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL rescind the rule in our employee handbook
that prohibits the discussion of payroll information, and
WE WILL either furnish you with an insert for the current
employee handbook that (1) advises that the unlawful
provision has been rescinded or (2) provides a lawfully
worded provision on adhesive backing that will cover the
unlawful provision, or publish and distribute to our em-
ployees revised employee handbooks that (1) do not con-
tain the unlawful provision or (2) provide a lawfully
worded provision.
IMAGEFIRST
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-161563 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.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT maintain an illegal rule in our employee
handbook that provides for discipline for discussing pay-
roll information.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL rescind the rule in our employee handbook
that prohibits the discussion of payroll information, and
WE WILL either furnish you with an insert for the current
employee handbook that (1) advises that the unlawful
provision has been rescinded or (2) provides a lawfully
worded provision on adhesive backing that will cover the
unlawful provision, or publish and distribute to our em-
ployees revised employee handbooks that (1) do not con-
tain the unlawful provision or (2) provide a lawfully
worded provision.
IMAGEFIRST
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-161563 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.
Eric B. Sposito, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Christopher J. Murphy and Michael K. Taylor, Esqs. (Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP), of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for
the Respondent.
Cristina Gallo, Esq. (Kennedy, Jennix & Murray, P.C.) of New
York, New York, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARTHUR J. AMCHAN, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Newark, New Jersey, on October 18–21 and No-
vember 29–30, 2016. The Laundry Distribution and Food Ser-
vice Joint Board, Workers United, filed the initial charges in
Case 22–CA–161563 on October 5, 2015. Four amended
charges were also filed. Case 22–CA–181197 has been with-
drawn. The General Counsel issued the complaint on May 31,
2016, and then an Order consolidating cases and amended
complaint on September 21, 2016.
Subsequent to September 21, the General Counsel withdrew
the allegations in paragraphs 6, 13, 23, 31, and 32 of the
amended complaint and references to those paragraphs con-
dr:
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
tained in paragraph 33 of the complaint.
This case involves an organizing drive by the Charging Party
Union at Respondent’s Clifton, New Jersey facility. Many of
the allegations in the complaint concern statements made or
allegedly made by Respondent’s regional vice-president and
general manager, James Kennedy, and Respondent’s president
and owner, Jeffrey Berstein,1 at meetings conducted for em-
ployees during the early part of the organizing drive.2
The General Counsel also alleges that Respondent violated
the Act in discharging a supervisor and a lead person at the start
of the organizing campaign in order to discourage employees
from supporting the Union. The General Counsel further alleg-
es that Respondent solicited grievances and impliedly promised
to remedy those grievances and increased the frequency and
quality of food provided to employees after the beginning of
the organizing drive to discourage support for the Union. Fi-
nally, the General Counsel alleges Respondent, by supervisor
David Rivera, violated the Act by engaging in a confrontation
with a union representative outside the gate to Respondent’s
facility and by maintaining an illegal rule in its employee hand-
book.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a corporation, operates commercial laundries at
a number of locations throughout the United States. Its head-
quarters is located in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. At the
facility at issue in this case in Clifton, New Jersey, it annually
purchases and receives goods valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from points outside of New Jersey. Respondent admits,
and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Union began an organizing drive at Respondent’s Clif-
ton, New Jersey facility in mid-July 2015. Respondent became
aware of this on Sunday, July 12, when union representatives
visited the company’s service supervisor, Andre Cherry, at his
home. Cherry called company Vice President/General Manag-
er James Kennedy that day to inform him of the visit. Kenne-
dy is the highest ranking official of Respondent who is present
at Clifton on a daily basis.
Allegedly illegal rule (complaint paragraphs 14 and 15)
Respondent maintains a rule in its employee handbook that
makes the discussion of payroll information a disciplinary mat-
ter (Tr. 478). The Board has held that an employer violates

1 Mr. Berstein’s name appears in the transcript incorrectly as Bern-
stein.
2 Complaint par. 28 alleges that Respondent’s Chief Financial Of-
ficer, Joseph Geraghty violated the Act in August 2015 by creating the
impression that employees’ union activities were under surveillance.
The General Counsel appears to have abandoned this allegation.
Section 8(a)(1) when it maintains a work rule that reasonably
tends to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights, Lafayette Park Hotel, 326 NLRB 824, 825 (1998). As
stated above, a rule is unlawful if it explicitly restricts activities
protected by Section 7. If this is not true a violation is estab-
lished by a showing that (1) employees would reasonably con-
strue the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; and/or (2) that
the rule was promulgated in response to protected activity
and/or (3) that the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise
of Section 7 rights, Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343
NLRB 646, 647 (2004).
In undertaking this analysis, I consider the fact that in Lu-
theran Heritage the Board retreated somewhat from its prior
decisions in light of the decision of United States Court of Ap-
peals for District of Columbia in University Medical Center v.
NLRB, 335 F. 3d 1079 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In that case the Court
declined to enforce the Board’s decision at 335 NLRB 1318
(2001), regarding a rule prohibiting “disrespectful conduct.” In
Lutheran Heritage, the Board stated that it would not conclude
that a reasonable employee would read a rule to apply to Sec-
tion 7 activity simply because the rule could be so interpreted.
Respondent’s maintenance of its rule against the discussion
of payroll information violates Section 8(a)(1) regardless of
why it was promulgated or whether it was ever enforced or
disseminated. On its face it prohibits the discussion of wages,
hours and benefits. There is no other “payroll information” to
which a rank and file employee would be privy. A reasonable
employee would interpret it to warn against discussing wages,
hours and benefits, which they clearly have a right to do under
Section 7 of the Act, with other employees and with others
from whom they wish to enlist support in improving their
working conditions.
James Kennedy’s alleged conversation with Miriam Farez on
July 13, 2015 (complaint paragraph 16)
Former lead person Miriam Farez testified that General
Manager/VP James Kennedy called her into his office of July
13 and told her she was his eyes and ears at the plant. She testi-
fied that Kennedy asked her to report back to her which em-
ployees were in favor and which were opposed to the Union.
Kennedy denies that any such meeting or conversation took
place. Given the fact there are no witnesses to this alleged
conversation and that Respondent fired Farez 2 days later, I
find no reason to credit Farez over Kennedy. This citation
allegation is dismissed.
James Kennedy’s July 13, 2015 meeting (complaint
paragraph 18)3
The next day, Kennedy held a meeting for all production
employees4 at the end of the first/beginning of the second shift.
There is a great deal of conflicting testimony as to what Kenne-
dy said at this meeting. His remarks were translated into Span-

3 The complaint does not specifically mention Kennedy’s July 13
meeting with production employees but I conclude that whether or not
he violated the Act at that meeting was tried by consent.
4 Production employees are distinguished from customer advocates,
who drive trucks delivering clean laundry to customers and pick up
dirty laundry.
IMAGEFIRST 7
ish and into Creole for the employees of Haitian background. It
is undisputed that Kennedy told employees that he was aware
that the Union was visiting employees at home.5
The General Counsel alleges that Kennedy created the im-
pression that the employees’ union activities were under sur-
veillance. According to the General Counsel this is because
Kennedy did not tell employees how knew of the union’s home
visits. Kennedy testified that he told employees that employ-
ees had notified management about the home visits.
I decline to credit the employee witnesses’ testimony on this
point and others regarding the meetings conducted by Kennedy
and Owner Berstein—unless otherwise specifically credited.6
As Respondent points out in its brief, there is no common
theme to this employee testimony and much that is inconsistent
and/or clearly erroneous. Carmen DeJesus, Nora Palasio, Ma-
ria Alacote, Carmen Gonzalez, and Claudia Ulloa testified
through a Spanish interpreter. The recollection of the various
meetings with Kennedy and Berstein was also the product of
listening to someone translate Kennedy and Berstein’s remarks
from English into Spanish.
DeJesus testified that James Kennedy told employees they
would be fired if they signed a union authorization card. No
other witness corroborated DeJesus’ testimony on this matter.
Several witnesses, Palasio, Alacote, and Claudia Ulloa, testi-
fied that Luis Betancourt translated for Kennedy at the July 13
meeting. This is clearly incorrect.
Alacote testified that Kennedy did not speak about home vis-
its at the July 13 meeting. She also testified that Kennedy told
employees to bring management their signed union authoriza-
tion cards; no other witness so testified.
Exana Estellus and Marie Dorceliin testified through a Cre-
ole translator. Estellus testified that Jeff Berstein told employ-
ees they would lose their one month vacation if they selected
union representation. No other witness so testified and I infer
that Berstein’s remarks at all the meetings he conducted on a
particular day were virtually identical in content.
For these reasons I dismiss all complaint items alleging that
James Kennedy created the impression that employees’ union
activities were under surveillance.
Jeffrey Berstein’s July 14 meetings and the terminations of
Miriam Farez and Joe Ventura (complaint paragraphs,
17, 21, 22, 25)
Respondent’s president and owner, Jeffrey Berstein, who is
based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, conducted 5 or 6 meet-
ings with different groups of Clifton employees on July 14,
2015. When Spanish or Creole speaking employees were pre-
sent, Berstein’s remarks were translated. Berstein mentioned
that some employees were being visited by the Union. He testi-
fied that he told employees that Kennedy had told him that
Andre Cherry had informed Kennedy about the Union’s visit to

5 I discredit Kennedy’s testimony at Tr. 536 that he did not know
that Cherry’s visitors were union representatives. Cherry’s emails to
Kennedy on July 12 and the morning of July 13 make it quite clear that
he knew that Cherry’s visitors represented a union, R. Exh. 7.
6 After July 13, many of the meetings were conducted in smaller
groups and separated by the language into which Kennedy and Ber-
stein’s remarks were being translated.
Cherry’s home. Berstein also testified that he told employees
that management had heard rumors that the Union had visited
other employees (Tr. 678).
Berstein also asked employees if their bosses were treating
them with respect. Some employees then complained to Ber-
stein about production supervisor Joe Ventura and lead person
Miriam Farez (Tr. 680–681). After the meeting Berstein in-
structed James Kennedy to terminate the employment of Ventu-
ra and Farez. Kennedy terminated Farez the next day and Ven-
tura on July 20. The company did not apply its progressive
discipline policy in making these termination decisions.
Employee complaints about Farez and Ventura were not
new. Prior to his July 14 meeting with employees, Berstein
was aware of written reports authored by human resource rep-
resentative Caitlin Payne which discussed employees’ com-
plaints about both individuals (GC Exhs. 9 and 10, Tr. 676–
677). General Manager James Kennedy was aware of com-
plaints about Farez prior to April 1, 2015 (Tr. 623–624).
Payne made three visits to the Clifton facility prior to Ber-
stein’s July 14 meeting, April 13, May 27–29, and July 9, 2015.
In her report of her May 2015 visit (GC Exh. 9), Payne record-
ed that employees complained that Ventura had an aggressive
approach to supervision and yelled at them. Five employees in
the garment department complained that lead person Miriam
Farez was rude to them to the point that some did not want to
come to work. They told Payne they had complained about
Farez to supervisor Luis Betancourt but Farez’ attitude had only
gotten worse. Payne shared the complaints about Farez with
General Manager James Kennedy (Tr. 623–624). Despite Ken-
nedy’s denial (Tr. 630), I find that Payne also shared the com-
plaints about Ventura with Kennedy. It is highly unlikely that
Payne reviewed the complaints about Farez with Kennedy, but
not those about Ventura, whose behavior was as much a focus
in Payne’s May report as was the behavior of Farez.
In a report of her July 9 visit (GC Exh. 10), Payne noted that
there was a big focus on Ventura’s supervisory approach at all
the meetings she had with employees. Employees character-
ized Ventura as very reactive and snappy. Employees com-
plained that Ventura never thanked them. Payne was aware
that higher level management had talked to Ventura about his
supervisory style previously. No employees specifically com-
plained to Payne about Farez during her July visit.
Legal Analysis with regard to the terminations of Ventura
and Farez
In NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409 (1964),
the Supreme Court held that “the conferral of employee bene-
fits while a representation election is pending, for the purpose
of inducing employees to vote against the union” interferes
with employees’ protected right to organize. The rule set out in
Exchange Parts is also applicable to promises or conferral of
benefits during an organizational campaign but before a repre-
sentation petition has been filed, Curwood Inc., 339 NLRB
1137, 1147–1148 (2003), enfd. in pertinent part 397 F. 3d 548,
553-54 (7th Cir. 2005); Network Dynamics Cabling, 351 NLRB
1423, 1424 (2007). The termination of an unpopular supervisor
in order to grant a benefit to discourage union activity violates
Section 8(a)(1), Burlington Times, 328 NLRB 750 (1999).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
Respondent contends that all reported cases in which the
Board has found the termination of an unpopular supervisor to
violate the Act are cases in which the termination occurred in
the critical period between the filing of a representation petition
and the representation election. Thus, Respondent argues that
since the Charging Party Union had not filed a representation
petition before Farez and Ventura were terminated it did not
violate Section 8(a)(1).
Regardless, the Board has made it clear that termination of
an unpopular supervisor to discourage union activity is a
8(a)(1) violation. It has never stated that the termination must
occur in the “critical period” in order to constitute a violation.
In fact the Burlington Times case establishes that is not the
case. The Administrative Law Judge rejected the contention of
the General Counsel and Charging Party that the discharge of
the Burlington’s supervisor could not be relitigated in an unfair
practice proceeding because it had been litigated in a prior
hearing on objections, 328 NLRB 750, 754 fn. 15. The Board
affirmed the Judge’s rulings, findings and conclusions. It also
found that the supervisor’s termination violated Section 8(a)(1)
without mentioning that he was terminated after a representa-
tion petition had been filed. Thus, as discussed below, the law
as applied to the facts of this case establishes that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) by terminating Farez and Ventura.
At page 21 of its brief, Respondent suggests that since the
Union in this case has not filed a representation petition, a find-
ing that it violated the Act in terminating Ventura and Farez
would prevent it from terminating any unpopular supervisor
during an organizing campaign. That would not be the case if
an employer terminated a supervisor for conduct during the
organizing campaign that was not motivated by its desire to
discourage its employees from organizing. In this case, the
terminations of Farez and Ventura were not based on any con-
duct occurring after Respondent became aware of the organiz-
ing campaign. Employee grievances against Farez and Ventu-
ra predated the organizing campaign and Respondent was
aware of those grievances before the campaign started. It is
noteworthy in this regard that while Caitlin Payne’s May report
discussed complaints against Farez, Payne’s July report did not
mention Farez at all. There is no evidence that Farez did any-
thing between July 12 and 14 to warrant her termination.
Although motive is usually irrelevant in analyzing 8(a)(1) al-
legations, analysis under Exchange Parts is motive based. I
conclude that this record establishes that the terminations of
Ventura and Farez were motivated by the unlawful purpose to
restrain, coerce and/or interfere with union activity and thus
violate Section 8(a)(1).
James Kennedy’s meeting on July 15 (complaint paragraph 18)
James Kennedy met with employees again on July 15. He
discussed the Union’s visits to employees’ homes. He testified
that employees voluntarily shared information. The General
Counsel’s testimony is too unreliable to support a finding that
Respondent, by Kennedy, violated the Act in any respect at this
meeting. The testimony of Marie Dorceliin, one of the General
Counsel’s witnesses at transcript 348–349 tends to support
Respondent’s denials. It is very unlikely that Kennedy told
some employees they were free to sign an authorization card
and told others not to sign the cards or that they would be fired
for doing so. Thus, I dismiss complaint paragraph 18.
James Kennedy’s meetings with employees on July 20
James Kennedy met with Creole speaking employees on the
first shift at 10:45; Spanish speaking first shift employees at
noon; Creole speaking second shift employees at 3:45 and
Spanish speaking second shift employees at 5. Kennedy testi-
fied that he read from a prepared text (R. Exh. 12), and that his
remarks were translated for non-English speakers. Employee
attendance at these meetings was mandatory.
Kennedy announced that Miram Farez and Joe Ventura had
been terminated. He then told the employees that some em-
ployees had voluntarily shared with management the fact that
the Union had visited their homes and called them on their
cellphones.
His knowledge about the cellphone calls emanated from Luis
Betancourt. Since Betancourt did not testify, the record is si-
lent as to how he acquired this information, such as did
Betancourt solicit this information from employees. However,
the General Counsel did not present any evidence of interroga-
tion or surveillance by Betancourt. Thus, I find no basis for
concluding that Kennedy gave employees the impression that
their union activities were under surveillance at the July 20
meeting.
Kennedy read verbatim from a document he prepared prior
to the meeting (Tr. 549–555, Exh. R-12). This document
shows that Kennedy solicited employee grievances and prom-
ised to remedy them. In addition to suggesting, (even with its
significant redactions), that Ventura and Farez were fired due to
the complaints solicited by Berstein on July 14, Kennedy’s
memo states as follows:
As always your feedback is much appreciated. After further
review of the feedback some significant changes have been
made. I take full responsibility and share with each of you
that I should have made those changes sooner…
Please feel free to continue to voluntarily share any question
that you may have and as promised we will continue to pro-
vide answers.
Kennedy conducted similar meetings on July 22 and after-
wards at which the Union was discussed.
Jeffrey Berstein meets with customer advocates on July 21.
Owner Berstein met with 13 customer advocates (i.e., driv-
ers) on July 21. Among the subjects discussed were some
managers who were disliked and rumors that production asso-
ciates were unhappy about having to work on Sundays.
Jeffrey Berstein meets with employees on July 28,
August 4 and 11.
Berstein met with employees in 5-6 meetings on July 28; he
addressed them using a Power Point Presentation (R. Exh. 18),
which was translated into Spanish or Creole depending on the
composition of the attendees. Berstein discussed the Union’s
home visits and their authorization cards. He told employees
that the Union might, based on complaints made to the NLRB,
pressure, lie, or even threaten them to sign authorization cards.
IMAGEFIRST 9
Berstein held similar meetings with employees on August 4
and 11 at which he again spoke from a Power Point (R. Exh. 19
and 20). Berstein told employees on August 11 that since the
Union would not have a representative in the plant it would be
unable to deal with employees’ concerns in a timely fashion.
He told employees that they would have to file a grievance and
then wait weeks or months in the hope that the grievance would
be resolved in the employee’s favor. This statement regarding
a long delay in resolving grievances appears not to violate the
Act, Pyramid Management Group, 318 NLRB 607 fn. 3 (1995).
Owner Berstein has continued to meet with employees about
the Union since August 2015.
Supervisor David Rivera’s confrontation with organizer Marcia
Almanzar outside Respondent’s gate on August 6, 2015
(complaint paragraph 29)
Respondent stipulated that David Rivera had a physical con-
frontation with a union representative on August 6. It also
stipulated that by this conduct Respondent coerced or restrained
employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights (Tr. 7). In its
post-hearing brief, Respondent states that it does not contest the
allegations contained in complaint paragraph 29.
The General Counsel introduced a video showing Rivera op-
erating leaf blower inside Respondent’s gate and then ap-
proaching union representative Marcia Almanzar who was
standing just outside the gate with other union representatives.
Almanzar testified about the incident; Rivera did not. Thus
Almanzar’s account is uncontradicted and credited. Rivera
initiated the confrontation by calling Almanzar a whore and
blowing debris on her. Almanzar began filming Rivera with
her cellphone. Rivera disparaged the Union. Almanzar called
Rivera a “boot licker.” Rivera then tried to pry Almanzar’s
cellphone away from her. Rivera or another company official
called the local police, who arrived on the scene after Rivera
went back inside the plant.
Almanzar filed a criminal complaint against Rivera, who
pled guilty. I do not credit the testimony of the General Coun-
sel’s witnesses as to the presence of employees when this as-
sault took place. However, Rivera’s assault of Almanzar vio-
lates the Act regardless of whether or not employees witnessed
it, McBride H.R. Construction Co., 122 NLRB 1634, 1635
(1959).
Respondent provides food to employees; General Counsel al-
leges that it increased the frequency and quality of the food
(complaint paragraphs 25–27)
It is clear from the record that both before and after July 12,
Respondent provided food to employees at the Clifton facility.
The question now is whether the quality of the food and the
frequency with which food was provided was significantly
augmented after the appearance of the Union. The employees’
testimony is not particularly helpful in determining the facts
regarding these allegations. That testimony varies a great deal.
However, Caitlin Payne’s reports of her visits to the Clifton
facility make clear that Respondent’s “Lunch with the Boss”
program was moribund during the months just prior to the start
of the organizing campaign. From the testimony of James Ken-
nedy and Caesar Sanchez, I conclude that the program was
revived after July 12 (Tr. 511-512, 528–529).
The record also establishes that shortly after he was hired as
an assistant general manager, Caesar Sanchez took employees
off site for lunch on 3 occasions (different employees each
time). Employees were asked to choose what they wanted to
eat from a menu. On later occasions, Sanchez had employees
choose what they wanted to eat and had it delivered to the
plant. Respondent had not given employees such choices prior
to the appearance of the Union.
I find that the change in quality and frequency of the food
provided to employees after the organizing campaign started as
compared to the months before the campaign were significant
enough to constitute an illegal benefit motivated by a desire to
discourage employees from supporting the Union. Thus, I find
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) as alleged in para-
graphs 25–27, Caterpillar Logistics, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 49
(2005), slip op. 1, fn. 4, enfd. 835 F. 3d 536 (6th Cir. 2016).
Solicitation of employee complaints/offer of better working
conditions by James Kennedy and Jeffrey Berstein
Section 8(a)(1) prohibits employers from soliciting employee
grievances in a manner that interferes with, restrains or coerces
employees in the exercise of Section 7 activities. Solicitation
of grievances is not unlawful but raises an inference that the
employer is promising to remedy the grievances. Additionally,
an employer who has a past policy of soliciting employees’
grievances may continue such a practice during an organizing
campaign. However, an employer cannot rely on past practice
to justify solicitation of grievances where the employer signifi-
cantly alters its past manner and methods of solicitation, Amer-
ican Red Cross Missouri-Illinois Blood Services Region, 347
NLRB 347, 351 (2006); Carbonneau Industries, 228 NLRB
597, 598 (1977), Montgomery Ward & Co., 225 NLRB 112,
117–118 (1976).
First of all, on July 14, Jeffrey Berstein solicited employee’s
grievances by asking employees if they were being treated with
respect. He already knew from Caitlin Payne’s reports that he
was likely to get complaints about Joseph Ventura and Miram
Farez. Berstein not only impliedly promised to remedy the
employees’ grievances about Ventura and Farez, he did so by
firing them both.
R. Exh. 12, discussed at page 7, establishes that James Ken-
nedy solicited grievances and expressly promised to remedy
them at his meeting with employees on July 20.
As set forth below, I find that Respondent repeatedly and
materially altered its practice of soliciting grievances, impliedly
remedying them and remedying grievances after the union or-
ganizing campaign began in other respects.
The General Counsel in paragraph 20 of the complaint alleg-
es that Respondent by James Kennedy offered employees better
working conditions in order to discourage employee support for
the Union. Kennedy testified that he conducted about 10 “re-
markable” meetings with employees in September and October
2015 (Tr. 578). At these meetings he routinely asked employ-
ees, “If you could wave a magic wand and could change any-
thing about your job or work environment, what would it be?”
(Tr. 578, R. Exh. 14). Respondent’s solutions to concerns
raised in these meetings were shared with employees at later
meetings in September and October. Thus, I find that Re-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
spondent not only regularly solicited employee grievances dur-
ing the campaign and impliedly promised to remedy these
grievances, it did so.
In response to a leading question from his counsel, Kennedy
testified that this has been his business practice throughout his
tenure with ImageFirst. There is no evidence to support this
contention other than the self-serving testimony of Kennedy
and Berstein. Respondent did not call any rank and file wit-
nesses to establish that this solicitation was an established past
practice. In this regard, Andre Cherry testified about several
rank and file employees who were suspicious enough about the
Union that they voluntarily told him about the home visits.
Cherry shared this information with James Kennedy. However,
Respondent did not call any of these employees, or any other
rank and file employees to corroborate the testimony of Kenne-
dy and Burstein that their practice with regard to solicitation
and remedying grievances did not significantly change after the
start of the union campaign. This omission leads me not to
credit the testimony of Kennedy and Berstein on this point, E-Z
Mills, Inc., 101 NLRB 979, 987 (1952).
Counsel for Respondent inquired of witness Claudia Ulloa as
to the company’s practice of meeting with employees before
the union campaign. Ulloa, who had worked for Respondent
since 2012, testified that Respondent conducted meetings with
employees in the morning, but they were not like the meetings
conducted since the arrival of the Union. This is consistent
with other evidence that Respondent’s supervisors conducted
daily “huddles” with employees (GC Exhs. 9 and 10, R. Exh.
11). Ulloa confirmed that managers asked how things were
going and what employees needed to do their jobs. Some-
times, according to Ulloa, employees received what they asked
for and sometimes they did not (Tr. 250–251). Unlike much
other employee testimony, there is no employee testimony in-
consistent with Ulloa’s account of Respondent’s pre-campaign
meetings. Therefore, I credit her testimony.7
There is no credible evidence that indicates that employees
were solicited by Kennedy and/or Berstein prior to the union
campaign in the manner that they were afterwards.
On the other hand, the record establishes that after the begin-
ning of the union campaign, Respondent markedly increased
the frequency of its meetings with employees and its “lunches
with the boss.” Caitlin Payne noted in her reports of April 13

7 Some of Ulloa’s testimony is not accurate. For example, she re-
membered that Luis Betancourt translated at the July 13 meeting.
However, that is not a reason to discredit her testimony regarding Re-
spondent’s meetings with employees prior to July 13. I would note that
Respondent’s counsel spent some time examining Ulloa as to whether
she knew who was the owner of ImageFirst, but did not ask her whether
the owner (Berstein) or Kennedy made the same kind of grievance
solicitations and implied promises before the Union showed up that it
did afterwards. The testimony of Exana Estellus, although unreliable
on many subjects, is probative as to the lack of credibility of Kennedy
and Berstein’s assertions that their solicitation of grievances after the
union campaign was no different than it was before the campaign.
Respondent also asked Marie Dorceliin about Berstein’s visits to the
Clifton facility prior the union campaign, but did not ask her whether
Berstein solicited employee grievances before the campaign, Tr. 355–
356.
and May 27, their neither was taking place in the months prior
to July 12 (GC Exhs. 9 & 10, R. Exh. 11).
Kennedy testified that Respondent conducted “remarkable”
meetings in the third quarter of every year. Assuming this is
so, there is no evidence as to what was discussed at these meet-
ings prior to 2015. For example, there is no evidence that Re-
spondent solicited grievances in the manner that it did in 2015.
James Kennedy authored an email (R. Exh. 13), which estab-
lishes the Respondent’s supervisor Luis Betancourt solicited
grievances Nadia DeJesus and promised to remedy them. From
the lack of any disapproval in Kennedy’s email, I infer that
Betancourt was acting in accordance with Respondent’s stand-
ard practice during the organizing campaign.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent, ImageFirst, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
in the following respects
1. Discharging a supervisor and a lead person at the start of
the organizing campaign in order to discourage employees from
supporting the Union.
2. Soliciting grievances and impliedly promising to remedy
those grievances in a manner different than it did prior to the
start of the union campaign.
3. Increasing the frequency and quality of food provided to
employees after the beginning of the organizing drive to dis-
courage support for the Union.
4. By Supervisor David Rivera initiating confrontation with
a union representative outside the gate to Respondent’s facility
5. Maintaining an illegal rule in its employee handbook.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended8
ORDER
The Respondent, ImageFirst, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging unpopular supervisors and lead persons in
order to discourage employees from supporting the Union.
(b) Soliciting grievances and impliedly promising to remedy
those grievances in a manner different than it did prior to the
start of the union campaign.
(c) Increasing the frequency and quality of food provided to
discourage support for the Union.
(d) Initiating confrontations with union representatives.
(e) Maintaining an illegal rule in its employee handbook
which provides for discipline for discussing payroll infor-
mation.

8 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
IMAGEFIRST 11
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind its handbook rule which provides for discipline
for employees discussing payroll information.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
Clifton, New Jersey facility copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”9 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 con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such as
by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other
electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates
with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, 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 July 14, 2015.
(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.
Dated, Washington, D.C., April 18, 2017
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

9 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT discharge unpopular supervisors and lead per-
sons in order to discourage employees from supporting the
Union.
WE WILL NOT solicit grievances and impliedly promise to
remedy those grievances in a manner different than we did
prior to the start of the union campaign.
WE WILL NOT increasing the frequency and quality of food
provided to you in order discourage support for the Union.
WE WILL NOT initiate confrontations with union representa-
tives.
WE WILL NOT maintain an illegal rule in our employee hand-
book which provides for discipline for discussing payroll in-
formation.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
IMAGEFIRST
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-161563 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.