International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2321

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Apr 11, 2007

01-CB-010559 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 11, 2007)

JD(NY)–20−07
Lawrence, MA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LOCAL 2321, AFL-CIO
and Case No. 1-CB-10559
GREGORY BURNS, An Individual
Karen Hickey, Esq., Counsel for the General Counsel.
Harold Lichten, Esq. and Maydad Cohen, Esq., Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Roirdan,
P.C., Counsel for the Respondent.
Gregory Burns, Pro Se.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Joel P. Biblowitz, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard by Administrative
Law Judge Lawrence W. Cullen on February 5, 2007 in Boston, Massachusetts. The Amended
Complaint herein, which issued on December 5, 2006, and was based upon an unfair labor
practice charge that was filed on January 6, 2006 by Gregory Burns, an individual, alleges that
from about November 21, 20051 until at least about November 26, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 2321, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent and/or the Union,
engaged in a refusal to perform voluntary overtime work requested by Verizon New England,
herein called the Employer, and that on November 24, 25, and 26 Burns volunteered for, and
worked, overtime for the Employer. The Amended Complaint further alleges that the
Respondent maintains and administers an overtime work list which offers the overtime to the
person with the lowest number of overtime hours for that calendar year, and that on about
November 27, the Respondent charged Burns for these overtime hours worked, i.e., it credited
him for the overtime hours that he worked during that period, while failing to charge employees
who engaged in the concerted refusal to perform voluntary overtime and who refused to work
overtime hours during this period, even though under Respondent’s normal rules, an employee
who refuses to work overtime will be “charged” (credited) with having worked those hours. The
Complaint concludes that the Respondent engaged in this conduct because Burns refused to
participate in the refusal to perform overtime work, and refused to engage in a work stoppage in
violation of the contract between the parties, and therefore the Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Subsequent to the closing of the hearing Judge Cullen developed a serious medical
condition and is not expected to return to work before July 2007. Administrative Law Judge
William Cates, the Associate Chief Judge in the Atlanta office of the Division of Judges, notified
the parties of Judge Cullen’s condition, and they all agreed that a new judge should be assigned
to this matter to prepare and serve upon the parties a decision utilizing the existing record in this
matter. By Order Designating a Replacement Administrative Law Judge dated March 7, 2007,
Judge Cates designated the undersigned to replace Judge Cullen in this matter.

1 Unless indicated otherwise, all dates referred to herein relate to the year 2005.
JD(NY)–20−07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
Respondent admits, and I find, that the Employer has been an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
II. Labor Organization Status
Respondent admits, and I find, that it has been a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. The Facts
The Union, together with other locals of the international union, has been the exclusive
collective bargaining representative for certain of the employees of the Employer for a number
of years. The most recent collective bargaining agreement between the parties is effective for
the period August 3, 2003 through August 2, 2008. The unit employees involved in the instant
matter are splice service technicians (SST) employees employed at the Employer’s facility in
Lawrence, Massachusetts, herein called the Lawrence garage, and/or the facility. Prior to the
opening of the hearing, the parties agreed to the following stipulations:
From at least about November 21, 2005 until at least about November 27, 2005, with the
exception of November 24, 2005, Union members employed in Verizon’s Lawrence,
Massachusetts garage, with the knowledge and support of union president Kelly and
union steward Kierce, engaged in a concerted refusal to perform voluntary overtime
work requested by the Employer.
In or about November 27, 2005, Respondent credited Burns for the overtime hours that
he worked on November 24, 25 and 26, 2005, pursuant to the overtime system that is
maintained and administered by the Union.
About November 27, 2005, the Respondent did not charge employees who engaged in
the concerted refusal to perform voluntary overtime, as described above.
The Employer initially determines if it will need employees to perform work on an
overtime basis; however, the Union maintains the overtime list that the Employer employs in
selecting employees for the work involved. The Employer will first ask employees at the top of
this list and then work its way down the list. This is voluntary overtime. If the Employer cannot
obtain sufficient volunteers, it has the right to invoke mandatory overtime, up to a maximum of
ten to twelve hours per week per employee, depending on the weather. The Employer has the
further right to declare an emergency and suspend the overtime rules entirely and to force
employees to work an unlimited number of overtime hours. The contract between the parties, at
P3.04, states:
The Company will distribute overtime in as fair and equitable a manner as circumstances
and the job requirements will permit. Records of overtime distribution will be maintained
locally. Overtime distribution procedures cannot be designed to encourage or foster
payment of overtime at two (2) times the straight time rate.
JD(NY)–20−07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
The overtime rules are established and voted on by the employees in each of the
Employer’s facilities. The Lawrence Garage Overtime List Rules and Guidelines states, inter
alia:
2. Distribution of overtime: Overtime will be distributed in a fair and equitable manner
as outlined in the contract. The person with the lower hours will be given the first
opportunity to work. Job continuity and specialized skills will be considered where
applicable by management when making this determination.
3. Tracking overtime. Overtime hours will be kept on a daily basis Monday through
Friday. Charged hours will be recorded by a designated person acceptable by the Union.
4. Availability. The overtime availability will run from Monday through Sunday. All hours
will be calculated daily Monday through Thursday, with Friday morning’s list representing
the order of technicians to work the weekend depending on their availability.
Employees will make themselves available at the start of their normal tour of duty for that
day’s overtime. Weekend availability will be taken Friday morning and will stand for the
weekend and Holiday if applicable. (If you later choose to make yourself available, you
must notify the Duty Foreman, Maintenance Center, and the person handling the
overtime list by 2 p.m. that Overtime day, or you will be placed at the bottom of the list.)
It will be the employee’s responsibility to give their manager or Duty Foreman their
availability. [Emphasis supplied]
5. Vacation. No charge Friday and Saturday before the vacation week and the Sunday
after the vacation week, except when vacation is taken on a “day at a time” basis. No
charge for any vacation day. Full E.W.D. or any ½ E.W.D. in the second half of the
workday. No charge for Saturday or Sunday if combined with 5 vacation days (or 4 vac.
Days + HOL), ie (vac Thur.-Fri. and Mon.-Wed., or Wed.-Fri.+ Mon.-Tue. Etc.)
6. All hours of overtime worked will be charged.
7. Incidental Overtime. Only those who work will be charged, providing there is no
overtime scheduled for that evening.
8. Charging. During the week if you are asked to work overtime and refuse, you will be
charged the minimum 2 hour bogey when the maximum forced hours are 10 per week,
and 3 hours when the maximum forced hours are 12 per week. If you work 1 hour of
O.T. and are asked to work and refuse, you will be charged the additional hours…On
weekends and Holidays, you will be charged a flat rate of 8 hours…
Lawrence Lumia Jr., a Union member and an SST employee at the facility, has
administered and maintained the overtime list at the facility for in excess of five years. This
Overtime List Rules and Guidelines is posted in the employees’ break room at the facility. The
employees at the facility meet in December every year to propose and vote on changes to these
overtime rules, although these changes have not been put in writing. Although the rules and
application are somewhat complicated, the purpose of the rules and list is simple: the employee
with the least amount of accumulated overtime should be the first one chosen to work overtime.
The most important category on the overtime list is the year-to-date total for all overtime hours
worked and charged. The employee with the lowest number of hours year-to-date is at the top
of the list and as you go down the list the number of hours increases to the last name on the list,
the employee with the highest number of overtime hours worked or charged, and this is the
employee who would be called last for overtime.
JD(NY)–20−07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
Robert Antonelli, a first line supervisor for the Employer at the facility, testified that each
morning the managers at the facility ask the SSTs working under their supervision if they would
be available for overtime that day should their services be needed. This information is recorded,
and given, together with a listing of the employees who worked overtime the prior day and the
number of hours worked, to Lumia, or another Union representative. Lumia then updates this
list, charging, or crediting, employees who worked overtime, and charging employees who
refused overtime work, although he testified that there are some exceptions where employees
are not charged for refusing overtime work, such as if they are in training, on vacation, a sick
day, union business or a blood donor. On those occasions they would not be charged for
refusing overtime. After assembling this information, Lumia then informs Antonelli of the
priorities, or gives him the updated list, and the Employer then calls employees for overtime
pursuant to the priorities, and qualifications, on the list. The dispute herein is not about the
exceptions set forth above, but to another exception alleged by the Union; that when the
employees at the facility collectively vote to pull their overtime for a certain period, they are not
charged for refusing overtime during that period. Lumia testified that the rule is that when all the
employees at the garage collectively pull their overtime, “no one will be charged if someone is
forced to work overtime.” Burns testified that he is not aware that the Union had a practice of not
charging anyone who refuses to work overtime as a result of a vote of the employees to pull
their overtime. He also testified that he is not aware of any situation other than the instant
situation where an employee worked voluntary overtime at a time when the other employees
had pulled their overtime. In the past, when the employees voted to pull their overtime, none of
the employees voluntarily accepted overtime and the Employer was forced to order mandatory
overtime. In that situation, Burns agrees, the other employees would not be charged for refusing
overtime.
The events herein occurred during the Thanksgiving week of 2005, from Monday,
November 21 through Sunday, November 27. Because of the nature of the Employer’s
operation, the employees at the facility work a Monday through Saturday workweek, and must
be available for overtime work when needed. Those employees who are scheduled to work on
Saturday do so at a straight time basis and are given one other day off that week, plus Sunday.
The day off is known as “Day Unassigned” or DU, and a DU schedule is posted weekly where
the employees’ assigned DUs are listed. The past practice at the facility has been that there
would be no DU postings for the Thanksgiving or Christmas weeks. However, on November 16,
the Employer announced that there would be a DU schedule for the week of Thanksgiving, and
that employees who were asked to work on their DU day, would do so at straight time rather
than at the overtime rate. So, for example, all employees who were scheduled to have their day
off on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday that week (all the employees at the facility took the
Friday after Thanksgiving as their floating holiday) could be asked to work on Saturday at
straight time. The employees at the facility were unhappy with this decision by the Employer and
at a meeting of the unit employees on November 17, a majority voted to withhold, or “pull” their
availability for overtime for the week, except for Thursday, November 24. Burns participated in
this action with the other employees until Friday, November 25, when he made himself available
for voluntary overtime beginning on that day, and worked 14 hours of overtime on Friday,
November 25, 17 hours of overtime on Saturday, November 26, and 6 hours on Sunday,
November 27. He was charged, or credited, for these overtime hours while none of the other
employees were charged for refusing to work overtime during this period. As a result, his
position on the overtime list went from number 10 of 52 on November 23, to number 46 as of
November 28.
JD(NY)–20−07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
Burns testified that when he arrived for work on Monday, November 28, Union steward
Brian Kierce told him that it was wrong for him to go against the Union and that he was helping
the Employer by working, and that he was going to be charged all the hours that he worked.
Burns answered that was fine, the Union could charge him for all the hours that he worked, “but
he has to charge everybody the hours they refused to work.” On the following day, after he saw
that the overtime list had charged him for the hours that he worked, but had not charged the
other employees who had pulled their availability for that period, he approached Kierce and told
him that “he can’t charge me the hours I worked without charging the people the hours that they
declined, and he says there was a work action so he has every right to do it and he pointed
towards the overtime rules.” Burns said that the overtime rules didn’t say that and what the
Union was doing violated the National Labor Relations Act. Kierce testified that on about
November 17, he was told that some of the employees, including Burns, wanted explanations
for why the employees were pulling their overtime. Since he was very friendly with Burns he
explained the situation to him and told him that it affected all of them. Burns told him that
although he didn’t agree with what they were doing, “for you, I’ll do it.” On November 28, he and
Burns had “a stupid argument.” Kierce told him that he shouldn’t have worked, that it meant a lot
to a lot of people he was friends with, and Burns told him why he made himself available. After
the initial discussion, Burns returned and told Kierce, “You can’t charge me for those hours” and
Kierce said that he wasn’t charging him anything, that he didn’t run the list.
There have been situations in the past where the employees at the facility have pulled
their overtime in protest of the Employer’s actions. Burns testified to two other occasions when
the employees at the facility pulled their availability for overtime work. In 2003, at a time when
negotiations for a new contract appeared to be stalled, the employees at the facility collectively
agreed to not be available for voluntary overtime work. On another occasion, to protest a fellow
employee’s suspension, the employees at the facility again pulled their availability for overtime
work. Burns participated in this action with his fellow employees on both of these occasions and
was not charged for refusing overtime on either of these occasions. He testified that on both
these occasions, after the Employer was unable to obtain employees for voluntary overtime,
they assigned employees (from the top of the list) mandatory overtime. Kierce, who has been
employed by the Employer at the facility for nine years, also testified about these two situations
where the employees voluntarily pulled their overtime availability, and those employees who did
not work overtime during those periods were not charged for the time.
IV. Analysis
The gravamen of this case is that the Union failed to charge its members for their refusal
to work voluntary overtime on November 25, 26 and 27, while charging, or crediting, Burns the
overtime hours that he worked on those days. This case has already been before the Board on
a motion for summary judgment, which was filed by Counsel for the General Counsel on June
22, 2006 and is reported at 348 NLRB No. 50. This Decision, which denied the motion, states
that the Complaint essentially alleges that the Union charged Burns for the overtime worked in
retaliation for his failure to participate in a concerted refusal to perform voluntary overtime work:
“Assuming that the charges referred to in the complaint were internal union fines, we note that
such fines, within certain limitations, are permissible,” citing Scofield v. NLRB, 394 U.S. 423,
430 (1969). The Board stated further, “Thus, for a union to fine one of its members for refusing
to participate in such protected concerted activity would not impair [any] policy Congress has
imbedded in the labor laws. Absent some other limiting circumstances under Scofield, a labor
organization does not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) by imposing a reasonable fine on its members
for declining to participate in a concerted refusal of voluntary overtime.”
JD(NY)–20−07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
I should initially note that I found some of the evidence herein irrelevant to the ultimate
determination in this matter. For example, all the Union’s rules determining how many hours
employees would be charged for refusing voluntary overtime has little, if any relevance to this
matter, nor is there any relevance to the discussions between Burns and Kierce on November
28 and 29. Additionally, I should also note that my careful reading of the transcript convinces me
that Burns, who appeared to be unwilling to make any admissions that might appear to be
favorable to the Union, was the least credible of the witnesses herein, although that also has no
bearing on the ultimate determination herein.
Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 251, AFL-CIO (Sandia
Corporation), 331 NLRB 1417 (2000), involved a dispute between officers of the union, dueling
impeachment charges, and the removal of the vice president from her position, as well as her
expulsion from the union, although, the Board noted, that her employment was not affected by
this action. In dismissing the Complaint, the Board stated, inter alia:
What is of critical significance in our judgment is that the only sanctions visited on the
Charging Parties by the victorious intraunion faction were internal union sanctions, such
as removal from union office and suspension or expulsion from union membership. The
relationship between the Charging Parties and their Employer, Sandia, was wholly
unaffected by the discipline. Nor are any policies specific to the National Labor Relations
Act implicated by the union discipline at issue…we find that Section 8(b)(1)(A)’s proper
scope, in union discipline cases, is to proscribe union conduct against union members
that impacts on the employment relationship, impairs access to the Board’s processes,
pertains to unacceptable methods of union coercion, such as physical violence in
organizational or strike contexts, or otherwise impairs policies imbedded in the Act.
The Board further stated that Section 8(b)(1)(A) “…was not enacted to regulate the relationship
between unions and their members unless there was some nexus with the employer-employee
relationship and a violation of the rights and obligations of employees under the Act. In
Healthcare Employees Union, Local 399 (City of Hope Medical Center), 333 NLRB 1399, 1401
(2001), the union threatened employees who were circulating decertification petitions that it
could agree to outsourcing of their department’s work. The Board found that the employees’
decertification activities were protected under Section 7 of the Act and that the union’s threat
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act: “While Respondent may discipline employees for
circulating or supporting a decertification petition, it may not threaten to take any action to affect
their employment except in cases of valid enforcement of a union-security provision.”
It is clear that under Scofield, Sandia, City of Hope, and Electrical Workers Local 15
(Commonwealth Edison), 341 NLRB 336, 343-344 (2004) the Union could have fined Burns for
volunteering for, and performing, overtime work on November 25, 26 and 27; however, rather
than fining him, the Union charged Burns for the voluntary overtime hours that he worked on
these days, while not charging the other union members who collectively pulled their hours for
those days. The issue is whether this constituted internal union fines or sanctions permitted by
Scofield, Commonwealth Edison and Sandia, or did it impact on Burns’ employment relationship
which, the Board stated in Sandia, is proscribed by Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. As Counsel for
the General Counsel states in her brief, both sides herein were engaged in protected concerted
activities protected by Section 7 of the Act; the Union members in collectively agreeing to pull
their overtime availability for the days in question in protest of the Employer’s posting of the DU
list, and Burns in deciding that he would not participate in the refusal to work voluntary overtime,
and neither could have their employment relationship adversely affected by their actions. Yet, as
a result of Burns’ refusal to participate in the Union’s concerted actions, and the Union’s failure
to charge it members for the overtime hours that they refused to work, his opportunity to obtain
JD(NY)–20−07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
future overtime work was greatly reduced. It is undisputed that the Union operates and controls
the overtime list. Under Sandia, the critical issue is whether the Union’s action “impacted” (at p.
1418) or “had some nexus with the employer-employee relationship” (at p. 1424). I find that it
did. On November 23 Burns was number 10 on the overtime list. By Monday, November 28, he
was number 46. The Union action in not charging its members who participated in the collective
refusal to work voluntary overtime during this period, whether voted on by the Union
membership or not, clearly impacted Burns’ ability to later obtain overtime work from the
Employer, and would therefore appear to violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Counsel for the Respondent, in his brief, argues that even if the Union’s overtime rules
restrained Burns’ Section 7 rights to work voluntary overtime in contravention of the Union’s
request, that right is outweighed by the Union’s legitimate interest in maintaining solidarity and
loyalty among its members for the common good of all the members, citing Service Employees
Local 254 (Brandeis University), 332 NLRB 1118 (2000) and Steelworkers Local 9292 (Allied
Signal Technical Services Corp.), 336 NLRB 52 (2001) . In this situation that means that the
Union should be given leeway to enforce solidarity among its members to heed the Union’s
request to refuse to work voluntary overtime. Although it is true the Union has a legitimate
interest in maintaining the loyalty and solidarity of its members, such interest does not outweigh
the interest of its members, and the Employer’s employees, to engage in their Section 7 rights
to work voluntary overtime in contravention of the Union’s request. Brandeis and Allied Signal
involved situations that were, basically, intra-union matters, the removal of an employee from a
union position (Brandeis) and the suspension from union membership (Allied Signal), but the
Board for the sake of argument, assumed the nexus to the employer-employee relationship
under Sandia. There is nothing “tenuous,” (Allied Signal at p. 54) about the employer-employee
nexus in the instant matter. Because of the Union’s action herein, Burns’ ability to obtain
overtime work was drastically reduced. While the Union would argue that it was caused by his
greed which resulted in him obtaining thirty seven hours overtime during the weekend in
question to the detriment of his fellow Union members, it could also be referred to as his Section
7 right to refuse to participate in the Union’s protected concerted activities. On the basis of the
above, I find that the Union’s right to the solidarity and the loyalty of its members does not
outweigh Burns’ rights herein, and that by not charging its members for refusing voluntary
overtime on November 25, 26 and 27, while charging Burns for the hours that he worked on
those days, the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Employer has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By charging Burns for the overtime hours that he worked on November 25, 26, and
27, 2005, while not charging other Union members for the overtime hours that they refused to
work during those days, the Union has been restraining and coercing employees in the exercise
of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
The Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in these activities, and that it
be ordered to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In that
JD(NY)–20−07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
regard, it is recommended that the Respondent rescind the overtime rule it relied upon in the
instant matter that employees of the Employer at the facility who collectively pull their overtime
availability, will not be charged for refusing voluntary overtime work during that period. I also
recommend that the Respondent be ordered to reimburse Burns for the loss that he suffered as
a result of the its action in not charging the Employer’s employees for their refusal to work
voluntary overtime for the period November 25 through 27, 2005, plus interest as computed in
New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2321, AFL-CIO,
its officers, agents and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Enforcing an overtime rule at the Verizon Lawrence garage that provides that
employees who collectively pull their overtime availability are not charged for refusing to work
overtime, while employees who do work overtime during these periods, are charged for the
overtime hours worked.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Gregory Burns for the overtime hours that he lost due to the
Respondent’s failure to charge employees of the Employer for the overtime hours that they
refused to work on November 25, 26, and 27, 2005.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its union office and at an
appropriate place at the Lawrence garage, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”3
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.

2 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.
3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the
notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
JD(NY)–20−07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
(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 11, 2007
__________________________________
Joel P. Biblowitz
Administrative Law Judge
JD(NY)–20-07

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
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 on your behalf with your employer
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT enforce an overtime rule at the Verizon Lawrence garage that provides that employees
who collectively pull their overtime availability are not charged for refusing to work overtime, while
employees who do work overtime during these periods, are charged for the overtime hours worked.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole Gregory Burns for the overtime hours that he lost due to the our failure to charge
employees of Verizon at the Lawrence garage for the overtime hours that they refused to work on
November 25, 26, and 27, 2005.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 2321, AFL-CIO
(Union-Respondent)
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.
10 Causeway Street, Boston Federal Building, 6th Floor, Room 601
Boston, Massachusetts 02222–1072
Hours of Operation: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
617-565-6700.
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, 617-565-6701.