International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 14-14B (SKANSKA)

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 20, 2012

02-CB-063648 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 20, 2012)

JD(NY)-05-12
Whitestone, NY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, LOCAL 14-14B (SKANSKA USA)
and Case No. 2-CB-63648
BIAGIO NICCHIA, An Individual
Rhonda Gottlieb and Alejandro Ortiz, Esqs.,
New York, NY, for the General Counsel.
James M. Steinberg, Esq., Tarrytown, NY,
for the Respondent.
Seth Ptasiewicz, Esq., White Plains, NY,
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
STEVEN DAVIS, Administrative Law Judge: Based on a charge filed by Biagio
Nicchia, An Individual, on August 30, 2011, a complaint was issued on November 15, 2011
against the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 14-14B (Respondent or Union).
The complaint alleges essentially that the Respondent attempted to cause and caused
Employer Skanska USA to discharge Nicchia from employment, and that the Respondent did so
because Nicchia was not a member of the Union and for reasons other than the failure to tender
uniformly required initiation fees and periodic dues. The complaint alleges that the Respondent
has violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act by attempting to cause and causing an employer to
discriminate against its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and has also
restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
The Respondent’s answer denied the material allegations of the complaint, and on
January 30, 2012, a hearing was held before me in New York, NY. Upon the evidence
presented in this proceeding, and my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses and after
consideration of the briefs filed by the Acting General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the
following:
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction and Labor Organization Status
The Employer, a New York corporation having an office and place of business at 16-16
Whitestone Expressway, Whitestone, NY, has been engaged in construction, commercial
development, and civil infrastructure, planning, design, and construction. Annually, the
Employer, in conducting its business operations, has provided from its New York office services
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to entities which are located outside New York State. The
Respondent admits, and I find that the Employer has at all material times been an employer
JD(NY)-05-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. The
Respondent also admits that it has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
II. The Facts
The Employer, as a member of the General Contractors Association of New York, and
the Union are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement. The agreement does not contain an
exclusive hiring hall arrangement.
Biagio Nicchia worked for the Employer, on and off, for about 15 years, and was a
member of the Union throughout his employment. He was referred by the Union through its
hiring hall whereby he appeared at the hall in the morning, signed a list and waited for the Union
delegate to refer him to a job. At the job site, he met with a “contact, usually another member of
the Union,” who gave him paperwork to complete. When Nicchia was referred in this manner, he
never met with an Employer representative prior to beginning work.
In 2004, Nicchia entered a plea of guilty to a charge of labor racketeering, specifically to
conspiracy to extort the Union by placing the Union “in fear of economic harm in order to ensure
individuals were given preferential jobs.” Nicchia was incarcerated for about 15 months. After
his release from prison in April, 2005, he continued to be referred to work for the Employer and
other employers through the Union’s hiring hall for jobs covered by its contract.
On July 25, 2008, a Consent Decree was entered into by the U.S. Attorney for the
Eastern District of New York and the Union to “eradicate corruption and any organized crime
influence within the Union while preserving the Local’s strength and autonomy as the bargaining
agent and representative of its membership.” As relevant here, the Decree provides for the
appointment of an Ethical Practices Attorney to investigate corruption and bring disciplinary
proceedings against Union members who have engaged in corruption concerning the Union.
The Decree also provides for the appointment of a Hearing Officer to conduct disciplinary
proceedings against Union members and to remove from Union membership any member who
the Hearing Officer has determined engaged in corruption concerning the Union.
In July, 2010, Nicchia was referred for work to the Employer by Christopher Confrey, the
Union’s Business Representative and Recording/ Correspondence Secretary. At the jobsite,
Nicchia was given paperwork by a member of the Union. He was assigned to work for the
Employer operating locomotive transporting personnel in and out of the tunnel on a project
involved with the construction of the Second Avenue Manhattan subway line. Nicchia stated that
he did not meet with any Employer representative before beginning work for the Employer at
that time.
Confrey testified similarly that when an employee is referred by the Union to work, the
worker is met at the job by a Union member Master Mechanic if one is employed on the job, or if
not, by another member of the Union who provides the paperwork for the employee to complete.
Confrey stated that the referrals he makes are accepted by the Employer.
On April 29, 2011, the Ethical Practices Attorney filed a Disciplinary Proceeding against
Nicchia based on the criminal conduct to which he pled guilty in 2004.
On August 1, 2011, after considering the evidence, the Hearing Officer, based on the
conduct Nicchia pled guilty to in 2004, found that Nicchia engaged in corruption within the
meaning of the Consent Decree. The remedy sought was Nicchia’s permanent expulsion from
JD(NY)-05-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
membership in the Union.1
On the same day, August 1, Union attorney James Steinberg sent an e-mail to the
Union’s Business Manager, Office Manager, and Confrey advising:
Mr. Nichia has been permanently expelled from the union by
decision of the hearing officer.
Business Agents, if Mr. Nicchia is working in your jurisdiction…
you are to contact him immediately and advise him that: (1) you
have been advised by the hearing officer that he has been
permanently expelled effective immediately from Local 14-14B
and (2) accordingly you will be replacing him on the job starting
tomorrow.
Union official Confrey stated that when he received the e-mail from Steinberg, he called
Nicchia and told him that he had been expelled from the Union and that he would have to
replace him on the work project. Confrey and Nicchia had a good relationship at that time, and
Confrey conveyed to Nicchia that he regretted informing Nicchia of his replacement. According
to Confrey, Nicchia replied that he “understood” and did not object to being replaced. Nicchia
testified that he told Confrey that he would pursue whatever options were available. At that time,
Nicchia had been a dues-paying member of the Union.
Confrey replaced Nicchia by calling Master Mechanic John Hassler, and advising him
that, at a proceeding before a hearing officer, Nicchia had been found guilty of corruption and
had been expelled from the Union, and that “due to his expulsion I was advised by counsel to
replace him immediately.”
Later that day, Confrey reviewed the Union’s referral list and told Hassler that Nicchia’s
replacement would be Matt Palladino. Confrey signed the referral slip listing Palladino as the
new hire as of August 2, and Palladino began work that day.
Confrey testified that he never told anyone at the Employer that Nicchia had been
expelled from the Union, and never instructed anyone from the Employer to terminate Nicchia
because of his expulsion. Nor did he inform the Employer that Nicchia was being replaced on
the project. Confrey also stated that no one from the Employer asked him why Nicchia was
replaced, and he did not expect to hear from the Employer regarding the replacement because
the “day to day operations are left to the internal working of the local and the Union, and as long
as the apparatus and machinery are up and running they don’t inquire as to who was doing
what.”
Analysis and Discussion
I. The Alleged Violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act
Section 8(b)(2) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for a union to:

1 In June, 2011, Nicchia attempted to resign from the Union. In his decision, the Hearing
Officer rejected Nicchia’s attempted resignation on the ground that it did not encompass the full
relief sought by the Ethical Practices Attorney – Nicchia’s permanent expulsion from the Union.
JD(NY)-05-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an
employee in violation of Section (a)(3) of the Act or to discriminate
against an employee with respect to whom membership in such
organization has been denied or terminated on some ground other
than his failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees
uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining
membership.
Nicchia’s membership in the Union was terminated by the Hearing Officer who found
that Nicchia had engaged in corruption concerning the Union in violation of the Consent Decree.
Thereafter, immediately upon receiving the Hearing Officer’s decision expelling Nicchia from the
Union, Union attorney Steinberg instructed Union official Confrey that inasmuch as Nicchia had
been expelled from the Union they should advise him that he would be replaced on his job.
Confrey relayed that reason for Nicchia’s replacement to Nicchia and to Master Mechanic
Hassler.
I reject the Respondent’s argument that the Hearing Officer’s decision was the
intervening event which necessarily caused Nicchia’s replacement at work. The Hearing
Officer’s decision did not refer to Nicchia’s employment, and mandated only that he be expelled
from the Union. Rather, the Respondent clearly communicated to its officials that Nicchia must
be replaced on his job because his Union membership was terminated. Accordingly, the “actual
motivation” for Nicchia’s loss of his job was that he was expelled from Union membership.
Graphic Communications Local 1-M (Bang Printing), 337 NLRB 662, 674 (2002).
The Supreme Court held in Radio Officers’ Union v. N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17, 40 (1954),
that “the policy of the Act is to insulate employees’ jobs from their organizational rights….
8(b)(2) [was] designed to allow employees to freely exercise their right to join unions, be good,
bad, or indifferent members, or abstain from joining any union without imperiling their livelihood.”
The Board has stated that “whenever a labor organization ‘causes the discharge of an
employee, there is a rebuttable presumption that [the labor organization] acted unlawfully
because by such conduct [it] demonstrates its power to affect the employees’ livelihood in so
dramatic a way as to encourage union membership among the employees.’” Acklin Stamping
Co., 351 NLRB 1263, 1263 (2007), citing Graphic Communications Workers Local 1-M (Bang
Printing), 337 NRB 662, 673 (2002).
However, as the Board further explained in Graphic Communications, at 673, a union
may lawfully cause an employee’s discharge “in instances where the facts show that the union
action was necessary to the effective performance of its function of representing its
constituency.”
Accordingly, the Union may rebut the presumption of illegality in the discharge of Nicchia
by showing that its action was “necessary to the effective performance of its function of
representing its constituency.” See also Local 18, Operating Engineers, 204 NLRB 681, 681
(1973).
Therefore, a determination must be made as to whether the Union’s reason for causing
the discharge of Nicchia was sufficient to rebut the presumption that the discharge violated the
Act. In seeking to rebut the presumption, the Union relies heavily on Philadelphia Typographical
Union No. 2 (Triangle Publications), 189 NLRB 829 (1971).
In that case, the union’s sole reason for requesting an employer to discharge employee
Kelley was because of his embezzlement of union funds. The Board, in finding no violation by
the union in requesting the discharge, found that Kelley’s conduct was “sufficiently offensive to
JD(NY)-05-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
foreclose any reasonable inference that respondent in causing his impaired employment status
was guilty of action falling within the class of conduct that inherently encourage membership.”
189 NLRB at 830.
However, Philadelphia Typographical is easily distinguishable from the instant case. In
that case, the Board found that the union’s expulsion of Kelley from membership played no role
in its request that he be discharged. In addition, after finding Kelley guilty of embezzlement of
union funds, the union requested his discharge, and again requested that he be discharged
after he was expelled from union membership.
Here, in contrast, the sole reason for the Union’s replacement of Nicchia was his
expulsion from the Union and not his conviction or the Hearing Officer’s decision expelling him
from membership. Thus, despite the fact that Nicchia pled guilty in 2004 to acts constituting
corruption involving the Union, the Union continued to refer him to jobs, even after he was
incarcerated. Indeed, he was referred to work with the Employer and with other employers on a
regular basis for seven years, from 2004 to August, 2011, following his conviction. During that
period of time, the Union did not take any action to replace him at work. Rather, he was
replaced at work only when he was expelled from the Union.
It is therefore quite clear that Nicchia’s criminal conviction seven years earlier, which the
Union was aware of for all that time, played no part in the Union’s decision to replace him at
work until August, 2011. Rather, the sole reason for Nicchia’s replacement at work was his
expulsion from the Union. Attorney Steinberg’s e-mail to the Union’s officials makes this crystal
clear. He notified them that Nicchia was expelled from the Union by the Hearing Officer and they
should immediately advise him that “accordingly you will be replacing him on the job starting
tomorrow.”
In arguing that the “intervening event” in the replacement of Nicchia grew out of the
Hearing Officer’s decision to permanently expel him from the Union, the Respondent asserts
that, in replacing Nicchia, it adhered to the spirit of the Consent Decree which sought to ensure
that the Union remained free of corruption and that its membership adhered to the highest
standards of integrity. The Respondent argues that it replaced Nicchia because it sought to “rid
itself of corruption and maintain job site integrity for its membership.”
Those may be laudable goals and certainly Philadelphia Typographical supports such a
reason for causing the discharge of a union member. However, that was not the true reason that
Nicchia was replaced. As set forth above, the true motivation for Nicchia’s discharge was that
he had just been expelled from the Union.
The Respondent makes several other arguments. First, it asserts that it did not violate
Section 8(b)(2) of the Act which requires that the Union cause or attempt to cause an employer
to discriminate against an employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, because the Union
did not cause the Employer to replace Nicchia. Here, it is clear that the Respondent delegated
its authority to hire and replace employees to the Union which is a typical arrangement in hiring
hall situations. Grason Electric Co., 296 NLRB 872, 887 (1989); See Miranda Fuel Co., Inc.,140
NLRB 181, 188 (1962). Nicchia never met a representative of the Employer when he reported
for work pursuant to a referral from the Union, and the Union used its own members at the
jobsite to process newly hired workers who it had referred. Further, as testified by Confrey, the
Employer left the hiring and replacement decisions to the Union as long as the jobsite was
operating properly.
Accordingly, the Union stepped into the shoes of the Employer in deciding to replace
Nicchia and it is liable for its action in doing so. The Employer was not involved in that action
JD(NY)-05-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
because the Union chose not to involve it, simply because the decision was made by the Union.
The Union did not have to cause the Employer to replace Nicchia because it took such action
itself.
Indeed, as the Supreme Court stated:
[T]he Act aims at every practice, act, source or institution which in
fact is used to encourage and discourage union membership by
discrimination in regard to hire or tenure, term or condition of
employment. Local 357, Teamsters v. N.L.R.B., 365 U.S. 675, 676
(1961).
The Respondent further argues that, according to Confrey’s testimony, since Nicchia
acquiesced in the Union’s decision to replace him, he waived any right that he may have had to
remain on the job. However, according to Nicchia, he told Confrey that he would pursue
whatever options were available.
It is not necessary to resolve this issue. Even assuming that I credit Confrey’s testimony,
there was little Nicchia could have done at the time to have the Union reverse its decision to
replace him. Confrey told him that he had been expelled from the Union and he was being
replaced. The fact that Nicchia may have said that he “understood” and may have even stated
that he did not object to being replaced, does not mean that he waived any legal right to contest
his being replaced. Nicchia thus could not have expected to request reinstatement from the
Union which had just replaced him on the job and it is clear that any further complaint would
have been fruitless. Miami Valley Carpenters’ District Council, 129 NLRB 517, 523 (1960).
II. The Alleged Violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act
The complaint also alleges that the Respondent, by its actions in causing the Employer
to replace Nicchia violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. That Section states, as relevant herein,
that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a Union to restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 of the Act.
The Board routinely finds a derivative violation of Section 8)(b)(1)(A) where a Section
8(b)(2) violation has been proven. The reason is that the union’s causation of an employee’s
discharge necessarily constitutes restraint and coercion of the worker’s exercise of his Section 7
rights. Town & Country Supermarkets, 340 NLRB 1410, 1411 (2004); Postal Workers, 350
NLRB 219, 222 (2007).
The General Counsel’s brief alleges that the Respondent independently violated its duty
of fair representation toward Nicchia by causing his replacement. I agree. The discharge of
Nicchia because he was not a member of the Union was an independent violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) in that the Respondent has violated its duty of fair representation toward him. Letter
Carriers Branch 3126 (Postal Service), 330 NLRB 587, 587 (2000).
By causing the discharge of Nicchia because of his non-membership in the Union, the
Respondent encouraged membership therein by demonstrating that maintenance of a job is
conditioned on continued membership in the Union.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Respondent, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 14-14B, is a labor
JD(NY)-05-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
organization within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Employer Skanska USA, is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2),(6)
and (7) of the Act.
3. By attempting to cause and causing the Employer to discharge Biagio Nicchia from
his employment because he was not a member of the union and for reasons other than the
failure to tender uniformly required initiation fees and periodic dues, and by causing the
Employer to discriminate against its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act in
violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act, the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(2) and Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. By causing the discharge of an employee because he was not a member of the
Union, the Respondent has violated its duty of fair representation 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 find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Inasmuch as I have found that the Respondent has been delegated by the Employer the
responsibility for the hire and replacement of employees, I find that the Respondent must offer
to reinstate Biagio Nicchia.
The Respondent, having discriminatorily discharged an employee, must offer him
reinstatement and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits. Backpay shall be
computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the
rate prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily
as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010), enf. denied on other
grounds sub. nom., Jackson Hospital Corp. v. NLRB, 647 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
The Respondent, in its brief, argues that Nicchia’s backpay should be limited to three
weeks inasmuch as the locomotive work that Nicchia was performing was discontinued about
three weeks after his replacement. Nevertheless, there was testimony that the Second Avenue
Subway construction job was ongoing and that the Respondent continues to refer workers to
that project for work with the Employer to which Nicchia could possibly be referred. I will leave
this issue to the Compliance part of this proceeding.
The Respondent shall also be required to remove from its files any and all references to
the replacement of Biagio Nicchia and to notify him in writing that this has been done and that
such adverse actions will not be used against him in any way.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended2

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.
JD(NY)-05-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
ORDER
The Respondent, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 14-14B, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Attempting to cause and causing Employer Skanska USA or any other employer to
discharge Biagio Nicchia from his employment because he was not a member of the Union and
for reasons other than the failure to tender uniformly required initiation fees and periodic dues,
and by causing the Employer to discriminate against its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act in violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Biagio Nicchia full
reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Biagio Nicchia whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the
decision.
(c) Within 14 days of this Order, remove from its files, and ask the Employer to remove
from the Employer’s files, any reference to the unlawful replacement of Biagio Nicchia, and
within 3 days thereafter notify Nicchia in writing that this has been done and that his discharge
will not be used against him in any way.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, notify the Employer, Skanska
USA, that it has no objection to the employment of Biagio Nicchia, and furnish Nicchia with
copies of such notification.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the
Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its union office in Whitestone, New
York, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in

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)-05-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees and 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. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent
at any time since August 1, 2011.
(g) 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.m March 20, 2012.
____________________
Steven Davis
Administrative Law Judge
JD(NY)-05-12
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 attempt to cause and cause the Employer Skanska USA or any other employer to discharge Biagio Nicchia
or any other employee from his or her employment because he or she was not a member of the Union and for reasons other
than the failure to tender uniformly required initiation fees and periodic dues, and by causing the Employer to discriminate
against its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act in violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7
of the Act.
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Biagio Nicchia full reinstatement to his former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed.
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, notify the Employer, Skanska USA, that we have no objection
to the employment of Biagio Nicchia, and WE WILL furnish Nicchia with copies of such notification.
WE WILL make Biagio Nicchia whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from our files, and ask the Employer to remove from the
Employer’s files, any reference to the unlawful replacement of Biagio Nicchia and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify
him in writing that we have done so and that we will not use the discharge against him in any way.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL
14-14b
(Union)
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.
26 Federal Plaza, Federal Building, Room 3614
New York, New York 10278-0104
Hours: 8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.
212-264-0300.
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, 212-264-0346.