KAG West, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Dec 30, 2011

21-CA-039488 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 30, 2011)

JD(SF)–50–11
Los Angeles, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
KAG-WEST LLC
and Cases 21-CA-39488
21-CA-39665
MISCELLANEOUS WAREHOUSEMEN
DRIVERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL 986,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS
Alice J. Garfield, Esq., for the Acting General Counsel.
Lawrence C. DiNardo and Michael S. Farrell
(Jones Day), of Chicago, Illinois, for the Respondent.
Debra S. Goldberg, Esq., Labor Counsel,
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
WILLIAM G. KOCOL, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Los Angeles,
California, on October 24 – 25, 2011. The Miscellaneous Warehousemen Drivers and Helpers,
Local 986, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the Union) filed the charge in Case 21-CA-
39488 on September 20, 2010,1 and the Acting General Counsel issued the complaint on
July 27, 2011. The complaint as amended at the hearing alleges that KAG WEST – LLC (KAG)
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by creating an impression
among employees that their union activities were under surveillance and violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) by withholding a wage increase from employees who selected the Union as the
their collective-bargaining representative while at the same time granting the wage increase to
unrepresented employees.
KAG filed a timely answer that admitted the allegations in the complaint concerning the
filing and service of the charges, interstate commerce and jurisdiction, labor organization status,
and the supervisory and agency status of certain individuals; KAG denied committing any unfair
labor practices. KAG alleged affirmatively that the allegations in the complaint were outside the
scope of the charges and that the allegations were barred by Section 10(b).
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the Acting General Counsel and KAG, I make the following

1 All dates are in 2010, unless otherwise indicated.
JD(SF)–50–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
KAG, a California limited liability corporation, is engaged in the transportation of bulk
petroleum products, including automotive fuels and petroleum lubricants that it accomplishes
with and through various facilities and operating locations in California and other States. KAG is
a subsidiary of Kenan Advantage Group, Inc. and its principal office is located in West
Sacramento, California. KAG annually purchases and receives at its California facilities goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of California. KAG 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
A. Background
The Kenan Advantage Group, Inc., of which KAG is a subsidiary, operates nationwide; it
holds itself out as the Nation’s largest transporter of bulk commodities. It employs about 7200
persons. Douglas Allen is executive vice president for the Kenan Advantage Group, Inc.; Ryan
Walls is its director of employee relations and benefits. Again, KAG is a subsidiary of Kenan
Advantage Group, Inc. KAG operates in California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona.
Calvin Kniffin is director of operations for KAG.
On July 2, the Union filed a petition to represent drivers, mechanics, and polishers at
KAG’s terminals in southern California. KAG and the Union agreed to a stipulated election that
was approved by the Regional Director on July 14. Both the Union and KAG conducted
campaigns designed to persuade employees to vote yes and no, respectively, in the election.
The election was held on August 13 and 16, the ballots were counted on August 17, and the
Union won. No objections were filed, so the Union was certified on August 25. The parties
have been bargaining but no contract has been reached.
After the election, KAG described itself, in part, as follows:
KAG has historically been a union-free environment because we believe a direct working
relationship with our employees provides the best opportunity for success for all of us.
We continue to firmly stand by this belief.
We do not believe the union would be good for our employees, their families or our
business. We will only be successful by working together without any outsiders coming
between us.
KAG also prepared the following talking points for its terminal managers.
 As we feared because of Union influence, there have been instances of
bickering, name calling, and disrespect between our drivers.
 We’ve also had individuals purposefully leave equipment and trucks in disarray to
harass fellow co-workers.
 The bickering must stop. Each driver must treat their co-worker with dignity and
respect and as a teammate for KAG West to provide the best service to our
customers.
JD(SF)–50–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
 We don’t need to become a topic of conversation in the local industry which
could affect our reputation with our customers.
 Another concern has to do with organizing rumors being spread to our
customers. Who is spreading these rumors? Our competitors trying (sic) to get
the available Chevron business, and soon-to-be unemployed union drivers
making sure they don’t lose their seniority at their next job. We need your help to
dispel these rumors that could take away this new business.
 Newly unemployed union drivers don’t want to lose their seniority when they find
a job with a new company. And guess what … KAG, a non-union company, is
their best opportunity for a job in this marketplace.
 These drivers soliciting you are not your friends. They are trying to protect
themselves, not you.
 The customers don’t need to be concerned about our internal issues and the
potential negative impact on their business.
 We see this behavior in many Union organization drives. KAG West and its
drivers cannot allow these issues to affect our customer base or reputation.
 This hurts all of us during these challenging market conditions and must stop
now. It definitely threatens our business and our jobs which is not in the best
interest of our families, customers or fellow employees.
 Help us keep our customers and protect our jobs by working respectfully together
while being safe – productive - and competitive.
B. Wage Increase
The complaint alleges that in early August KAG decided to grant a systemwide wage
increase to its employees but to withhold that wage increase from unit employees if they voted
in favor of union representation. The complaint also alleges that on August 21 KAG granted a
wage increase to employees but unlawfully withheld the wage increase from unit employees.
KAG does not grant regular, periodic, across-the-board wage increases to its
employees.2 In 2005, KAG gave employees a substantial wage increase amounting to about
$3 per hour. At that time, it was facing difficulty retaining drivers at a time when the economy
was booming. In December 2009, KAG reduced wages when faced with the economic
downturn of that time period; wages were reduced about $1.90 per hour for most employees.
Allen held meetings with KAG employees to explain the situation to them. During this process,
Allen also announced, “No wage increases will be given in 2010.”
In the aftermath of the wage reduction, employees began to seek union representation.
In February 2010, KAG became aware that the Union was mounting an organizing drive among
its drivers. In March, Bruce Blaise, then an executive vice president, received permission to
travel to southern California and meet with the drivers. One point Blaise made to the drivers
was that KAG’s:
[F]ull intention is to keep moving forward and if by late summer we feel confident we
have weathered the storm and are on more solid footing, we plan to make positive
adjustments in pay, etc.

2 Other than for probationary employees who receive wage increases upon completion of
the probationary periods.
JD(SF)–50–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
This is despite the announcement, made only a few months earlier, that there would not be any
wage increases in 2010.3 KAG then began the process for making the adjustments in pricing
with customers needed to cover the anticipated wage increases.
In about early August, about 10 months after reducing wages, Blaise decided to grant
wage increases to employees; he then obtained final approval to do so. Of course, this decision
was made in the midst of the Union’s organizing effort among the drivers in southern California.
As explained in KAG’s Statement of Position submitted during the investigation:
With respect to KAG West, it was decided to implement the wage increases for non-
bargaining unit employees, including dispatchers and administrative staff in Southern
California, and to defer any decision on changes in wages for bargaining unit employees
until after the election and, if the Union wins, to the collective-bargaining process, where
wages will be negotiated as part of a comprehensive agreement, as required by law.
At the time, the NLRB supervised representation election to determine whether a
majority of employees supported the Union as their exclusive bargaining representative
was approaching on August 13 and 16, 2010. It was determined that any
announcement pertaining to changes in wages be delayed until after August 16 so as
not to risk interfering with the election and the filing of related unfair labor practice
charges.
On about August 24, KAG disseminated the following memorandum to its employees in
California, Arizona, and Nevada, including those employees in sSouthern California who had
recently selected the Union to represent them.
TO: Northern CA - All Employees
Southern CA – Dispatchers/Administrative Staff
AZ and NV – All Employees
Date: August 24, 2010
RE: Wage Increase
As you know, over the last several months we have been actively soliciting our
customers for rate increases to help fulfill our commitment to maintain and recruit the
best drivers and employees in the industry. We are pleased to report we have been
successful with process as our customers continue to value the exceptional
service we provide. This increase comes after basically a two-year hiatus in rate
increases due to the country’s slow economy.

3 Although there is not allegation in the complaint that the decision to grant the wage
increase was designed to chill union activity, KAG presented evidence to show what motivated
that decision. Blaise testified that this sudden turnaround was due to an improving economic
situation. While there indeed may have been some improvement in the Nation’s economy
during the spring of 2010, I do not credit any testimony that this was the reason that motivated
the decision to consider granting the wage increase. Rather, I conclude that it was the union
activity of the drivers in southern California that motivated KAG to begin the process of granting
wage increases to employees. Said differently, had the employees in southern California not
engaged in union activities KAG would not have begun to consider granting the wage increases
at that time.
JD(SF)–50–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
In light of these developments and our commitment to our employees to always
share in the company’s success, effective for the pay period beginning August 21,
2010, we will be implementing wage increases in your area. Your immediate supervisor
will be discussing the details of those increases with you directly.
It has been a very difficult couple of years battling the worse (sic) recession in history
resulting in unprecedented unemployment. We are proud to say that with your help and
hard work, we were able to survive in this economy while protecting our jobs. Many
companies, including those in the transportation industry, were not so fortunate and had
to either close their doors or implement massive layoffs.
We have tremendous opportunities on the horizon, a solid financial structure and a
strong investment group willing to back our success. Most importantly, we have a skilled
and talented team of employees that are truly the backbone of our accomplishments.
Thanks you for your patience, your support and your dedication to the Kenan Advantage
Group and KAG West. We look forward to working side-by-side with all of you as we
continue to make KAG a great place to work.
As promised, KAG implemented the wage increases for certain unrepresented employees but it
did not give any wage increases to the employees represented by the Union. Depending on
location and driver classification, the wage increases were from $1 to $2.07 per hour. As Blaise
admitted if the employees had voted against the Union they would have received the wage
increase.
Analysis
The question is whether, because employees selected the Union to represent them,
KAG unlawfully withheld a wage increase from them that it granted to other employees because
those employees selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. In assessing
this issue I apply Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert.
denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982). The employees engaged in union activity, KAG was aware of that
activity and KAG was hostile to that activity. The timing of the decision to withhold the wage
increase occurred near the end of the Union’s successful campaign to become the employees’
collective-bargaining representative; only those employees voting for the Union did not receive
the wage increase. Indeed, KAG admits that it withheld the wage increase because the
employees chose to be represented by the Union. Remember, this was in the context of KAG
suddenly deciding to reconsider the earlier wage reduction after employees began seeking
union representation. I conclude that the Acting General Counsel has easily met his burden
under Wright Line. KAG argues that the decision to withhold the wage increase was not
unlawfully motivated. In doing so, it relies on “uncontroverted” testimony that KAG made the
decision to withhold the wage increase based on advice of counsel. I do not have to credit
testimony even if “uncontroverted” and I do not do so in this case. I conclude that testimony
was entirely self-serving and unconvincing. Blaise, for example, seemed more eager to repeat
KAG’s legal
JD(SF)–50–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
position than simply relate the facts as best he could. Moreover, that testimony is undermined
by the facts described above that establish the unlawful motivation.4
I turn to assess whether KAG has met its burden of showing that it would not have
granted the wage increase to unit employees even if they had rejected the Union. The short
answer is that KAG admits that it would have granted these employees the wage increase if
they had rejected the Union. KAG, however, argues that as a matter of law under Section
8(a)(5) it was required to withhold the wage increase because it was required to bargain first
with the Union concerning the matter. In this regard, KAG relies on Shell Oil Co., 77 NLRB
1306 (1948), and similar cases. In Arc Bridges, Inc., 355 NLRB No.199 (2010), enf. denied 192
LRRM 2263, ___ F.3d. ___ (D.C. Cir. 2011), the Board noted:
The Shell Oil cases … stand for the general proposition that the Act does not
require employers to afford represented and unrepresented employees the same wages
and benefits. For example, an employer may, as part of a bargaining strategy, withhold
from represented employees a wage increase granted to unrepresented employees,
provided the withholding is not discriminatorily motivated.
Id., slip op. at 2. The critical wording, so far as this case is concerned, is “provided the
withholding is not discriminatorily motivated.”
In Aluminum Casting & Engineering Co., 328 NLRB 8, 16 (1999), the Board upheld the
finding that the respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by withholding a regular wage increase from
employees. The judge noted:
Respondent also argues that it was caught between a rock and a hard place in
deciding whether to grant the wage increase. It argues that it decided not to grant the
increase in order to avoid being charged by the Board with attempting to unlawfully
influence the election. An exception to the requirement that an employer must follow its
normal practice in granting wage increases during an organizing campaign has been
allowed by the Board where the employer advises employees that an expected raise is
to be deferred pending the outcome of the election to avoid the appearance of election
interference. Parma Industries, supra; Centre Engineering, Inc., 253 NLRB 419 (1980).
In the latter situation the employer must take care not to place the blame for the lack of a
pay increase on the union, otherwise the employer will be found to violate the Act by
withholding the pay increase. Atlantic Forest Products, 282 NLRB 855 (1987); Truss-
Span Co., 236 NLRB 50 (1978). In my opinion, that exception does not apply in this
case. . . . The exception described above was not designed to be manipulated by
employers as a legal cover for punishing employees for having voted in favor of a union.
[Emphasis added.]
By withholding a wage increase from employees because they selected the Union to be their
collective-bargaining representative, KAG violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1).

4 KAG argues that the Acting General Counsel conceded that its motive was lawful by
stating to Blaise, “[W]e all understand that you were trying to follow the letter of the law.” But
this was an obviously facetious comment given that Blaise, sounding like a broken record,
repeatedly invoked the advice of counsel defense.
JD(SF)–50–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
I find it unnecessary to resolve the Acting General Counsel’s alternative argument that
KAG’s failure to grant the wage increase violated Section 8(a)(1) because it was inherently
destructive of the Section 7 rights of employees.
C. Impression of Surveillance
The complaint alleges that KAG unlawfully created an impression among employees that
their union activities were under surveillance. Walter Bingham has worked for KAG in San
Diego since January 2007; he drives tankers filled with flammable liquid. Bob Almeida is
Bingham’s terminal manager.
In early July, Almeida announced that there would be a meeting that drivers had to
attend; the purpose of the meeting was for KAG to inform employees why it was urging
employees to reject union representation in the upcoming election. Bingham spoke to Almeida
and informed him of family difficulties he was experiencing and Almeida excused Bingham from
attending that meeting. Later that month, Almeida told Bingham of another meeting that was to
be held to discuss the Union; this time Bingham informed Almeida that he had to attend a wake
and therefore could not attend that meeting. In late July, a third meeting was announced and
again Bingham informed Almeida that he could not attend because he had “a lot on his plate.”
In early August, Almeida announced that there would be yet another mandatory meeting. This
time Bingham told Almeida that he should be able to attend the meeting. Again, however,
Bingham did not attend the meeting.
On August 12, Almeida met with Bingham. Almeida questioned Bingham concerning
why he worked for KAG and then discussed an incident where Bingham was allegedly rude and
disrespectful to a customer. After discussing certain of KAG’s practices, Almeida then raised
Bingham’s failure to attend the last two mandatory meetings. Almeida then gave Bingham
copies of two disciplinary notices covering each of the two matters; the disciplinary notices are
not at issue in this proceeding. After Bingham signed the disciplinary forms he left and went to
the copy machine to make copies. Almeida approached him there and commented that the
meeting with Bingham had cut into his campaigning time because he had to stop campaigning
by noon because the election started the next day. Almeida then said that there were only four
drivers at the San Diego terminal who were voting for the Union. After they talked about
Bingham’s motorcycle, Bingham left.
The facts in the paragraph above are based on Bingham’s credible testimony. I have
considered Almeida’s testimony that Bingham raised the subject of the election. Almeida
explained that he had received instructions from counsel not to threaten, interrogate, promise,
or spy on employees in relation to their union activities, so according to Almeida, after Bingham
announced that he was uncertain about how he would vote, Almeida exclaimed, “Hey, I don’t—
really don’t want to discuss anything with the Union or union issues.” But after making this
alleged disclaimer, Almeida admitted that he did discuss the Union with Bingham by stating that
it was his impression that there was not a whole lot of support for the Union in the San Diego
terminal. Almeida denied that he told Bingham that there were only four drivers in San Diego
supporting the Union; but KAG presented evidence of a flier that the Union distributed to
employees before the election; the flier showed the faces of four supporters of the Union from
KAG’s San Diego terminal: Almeida saw this flier before he spoke with Bingham. Thus,
identification of four union supporters at the terminal was not pulled from thin air. Almeida also
denied that he told Bingham that the meeting was cutting into his campaigning time. Almeida
did admit that he scheduled the meeting with Bingham to start at 4 a.m., 1 hour before
Bingham’s starting time, and that the meeting lasted until 6 a.m. on the day before the election.
JD(SF)–50–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
Again, these facts lend credibility to Bingham’s testimony. Finally, Bingham’s demeanor was
more impressive than Almeida’s was.
Analysis
An employer violates Section 8(a)(1) when it makes a statement from which employees
would reasonably assume that the employer had engaged in surveillance of their union
activities. Flexsteel Industries, 311 NLRB 257 (1993). The standard is an objective one, based
on the perspective of a reasonable employee. Id. Citing Dallas & Mavis Specialized Carrier,
346 NLRB 253, 254 fn. 6 (2006), the Acting General Counsel points out that “it is not required to
show that the employer gained knowledge of the employee’s union activities through unlawful
surveillance” (emphasis added). But to my knowledge, the Board has never articulated a
rationale for this conclusion. Employers may lawfully observe employees engaged in union
activities under certain circumstances; not all surveillance is unlawful. Logically, it seems to
follow that if a reasonable employee would understand from an employer’s statement that its
knowledge of union activities came about through lawful means then that statement would itself
be lawful. KAG cites Grouse Mountain Lodge, 333 NLRB 1322 (2001). There, the Board
indicated that the test “does not require that an employer’s words on their face reveal that the
employer acquired its knowledge of the employee’s activities by unlawful means” (emphasis
added). Id. at 1322–1323. Perhaps this is a more precise articulation of the Board’s standard.
In any event, the Board examines not only the statement itself but also the context in which the
statement was made to assess whether an employee would reasonably conclude that the
employer had engaged in surveillance of employees’ union activities. Id. at 1323. By examining
the context, the Board appears to determine whether a reasonable employee would understand
that the statement concerning the union activities did not come about as a result of unlawful
surveillance. Grouse Mountain, supra; Sunshine Piping, Inc., 350 NLRB 1186 (2007). Here,
KAG presented evidence of a flier that the Union distributed to employees before the election;
the flier showed the faces of four supporters of the Union from KAG’s San Diego terminal and
Almeida saw this flier before he spoke with Bingham. I have inferred and concluded above that
this was the source of Almeida’s statement to Bingham that there were only four drivers at the
San Diego terminal who were voting for the Union In light of the widespread distribution of that
flier it appears that a reasonable employee would conclude that Almeida’s knowledge that four
employees supported the Union came from the Union itself broadcasting that knowledge in an
open manner and not from KAG’s (dare I say “unlawful”) surveillance. The Acting General
Counsel points out that Bingham credibly testified that he never saw that flier and therefore
would not make an inference that it was the source of Almeida’s information concerning the
number of employees who supported the Union. But the Board has not delved into an
employee’s specific knowledge of otherwise open and notorious union activities. On balance, I
dismiss this allegation of the complaint.
Conclusion of Law
By withholding a wage increase from employees because they selected the Union to be
their collective-bargaining representative, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair 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. The Respondent, having discriminatorily denied employees a
JD(SF)–50–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
wage increase, must make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits. Backpay
shall be computed 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).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended5
ORDER
The Respondent, KAG-WEST LLC, California, Arizona, and Nevada, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Withholding a wage increase from employees because they selected the Union
to be their collective-bargaining representative.
(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) Make the employees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered
as a result of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the remedy section of
the decision.
(b) 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 back pay due under the
terms of this Order.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at all its facilities in California,
Arizona, and Nevada,6 copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”7 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for

5 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.
6 I require this posting because the Respondent advised employees in these States that it
was granting the wage increase to employees except for those who had recently selected the
Union.
7 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(SF)–50–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
60 consecutive days in conspicuous 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 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 24, 2010.
(d) 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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. , December 30, 2011.
____________________
William G. Kocol
Administrative Law Judge
JD(SF)–50–11
Los Angeles, CA
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT withhold wage increases from employees because they selected the
Miscellaneous Warehousemen Drivers and Helpers, Local 986, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, or any other labor organization as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make the employees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, plus interest
compounded daily.
KAG-WEST LLC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
888 South Figueroa Street, 9th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017-5449
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
213-894-5200.
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, 213-894-5229.