Kennametal Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Apr 12, 2011

01-CA-046293 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 12, 2011)

JD–23–11
Lydonville, VT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
KENNAMETAL, INC. Case Nos. 1-CA-46293
1-CA-46294
and
UNITED STEELWORKERS, LOCAL 5518,
affiliated with UNITED STEELWORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO, CLC
Jo Anne Howlett, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Charles P. Roberts, III, Esq., Constangy, Brooks & Smith,
Winston Salem, North Carolina, for the Respondent.
Carl Turner, Staff Representative, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARTHUR J. AMCHAN, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Greenfield,
Massachusetts on February 8-10, 2011. United Steelworkers Local 5518 filed the charges in this
case on July 30, 2010. The General Counsel issued the complaint on December 28, 2010.
On the entire record,1 including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, Kennametal, Inc. is a large international company with 26 facilities in the
United States and 48 facilities world wide, including the facility in this case, which is located in
Lydonville, Vermont.2 One of the products produced at Lydonville is taps. A tap is a tool used

1 Tr. 42, line 17: “players” should be “employers.”
Tr. 525, line 18: “minimum” should be “recognized.”
2 This case initially also concerned alleged unfair labor practices at Respondent’s
Greenfield, Massachusetts facility, but those were resolved.
JD-23-11
2
to cut an internal screw thread At the Lydonville plant, Respondent derives gross revenue in 5
excess of $500,000 and sells and ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside of
Vermont. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union, the United Steelworkers of
America, Local 5518, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
10
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Union has represented all production and maintenance employees at Respondent’s
Lydonville, Vermont facility since 1957. Respondent Kennametal acquired this facility in
approximately 1997. There have a series of collective bargaining agreements between the 15
owners of this facility and the Union. The agreement governing this case between Kennametal
and Local 5518 was in effect from October 1, 2005 through October 2, 2010. Apparently, the
parties currently operate under a subsequent agreement, which is not in this record, or are still
negotiating a successor agreement.
20
The primary issue in this case is whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act in refusing to bargain about the implementation of its corporate-wide “Management
Based Safety Program” (MBS) at the Lydonville facility. Respondent announced
implementation of the program on February 2, 2010. The Union requested that Respondent
bargain over the implementation of MBS the next day. Respondent declined to so, asserting that 25
it was not a mandatory subject of bargaining.
At the commencement of this hearing, the General Counsel moved to amend the remedy
sought for this alleged violation to require rescission of the reprimand and one-day suspension
issued to employee Doug Noyes on September 2, 2010 and the suspension and subsequent 30
termination of employee Kenneth Wilkins on January 11, 2011. I granted this amendment mid-
way through the hearing. The amendment pertains to another major issue in this case, the
relationship, if any, of MBS to Respondent’s Procedure for Corrective Actions for Safety
Violations and Work Instructions for Corrective Actions. The General Counsel and Charging
Party contend that these instructions, used in disciplining Noyes and Wilkins, are part and parcel 35
of MBS, or at least sufficiently related to MBS to require negotiation with the Union about the
implementation of MBS.
Alternatively, the General Counsel contends, as stated in its post-hearing motion to
further amend the complaint, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) in implementing the 40
Procedure for Corrective Action in September 2009. The General Counsel may amend the
complaint at any point in the proceedings, including upon the filing of his post hearing brief.
Regardless of whether the complaint is amended or not, whether or not consideration of the
Procedure for Corrective Action is appropriate depends upon whether it is closely related to
matters contained in the complaint and was fully and fairly litigated, Williams Pipeline, 315 45
NLRB 630 (1994). I find that there is a close relationship between the allegations of the
complaint and whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) in implementing the
Procedure for Correct Action. Moreover, I find that the issue was fully and fairly litigated and
grant the General Counsel’s motion to amend the complaint.
50
JD-23-11
3
Respondent contends there is no relationship between MBS and the Procedure and Work 5
Instructions for Corrective Actions.3 Nevertheless, G.C. Exh. 42, particularly paragraph 7.4 and
in discussing “People Factors” on the second to last page, establishes that counseling or
disciplining employees is one of the ways Kennametal intends to improve its safety record
through MBS, also see Tr. 572-76.
10
Additionally, MBS cut the Union out of the process of accident investigation, contrary to
the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. By changing this process, Respondent
diminished the possibility that factors such as production quotas would be considered in
assessing the cause of an accident. Therefore, MBS in making it more probable that an injured
employee would be found at fault for an industrial accident had a clear relationship to 15
disciplinary measures taken as the result of an accident. Thus, I reject Respondent’s argument
that MBS has nothing to do with Respondent’s discharge and discipline policies.
The case also involves three allegations that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) in
refusing or failing to provide information requested by the Union and one instance in which 20
Respondent allegedly unreasonably delayed providing information.

3 Respondent contends that consideration of its disciplinary policy regarding safety
violations is barred by Section 10(b) of the Act. I reject this contention. The 6-month limitations
period prescribed by Section 10(b) begins to run only when a party has clear and unequivocal
notice of a violation of the Act. See, e.g., Leach Corp., 312 NLRB 990, 991 (1993), enfd. 54
F.3d 802 (D.C. Cir. 1995). The requisite notice may be actual or constructive. In determining
whether a party was on constructive notice, the inquiry is whether that party should have
become aware of a violation in the exercise of reasonable diligence. See, e.g., Moeller Bros.
Body Shop, 306 NLRB 191, 192–193 (1992). Constructive notice will not be found where a
“delay in filing is a consequence of conflicting signals or otherwise ambiguous conduct.” A & L
Underground, 302 NLRB 467, 469 (1991). Respondent did not provide the Union clear and
unequivocal notice of this policy until January 2011.
Moreover, there is no credible evidence that Respondent implemented the disciplinary
policy reflected in its Work Instructions for Corrective Action until July 2010 at the earliest when
Eric Huttenlocker assumed day-to-day responsibility for labor relations at the Lydonville facility.
Respondent at trial relied largely on Amy Morissette, its Environmental, Health and Safety lead
to establish that this disciplinary policy was in force in 2009. However, this record establishes
that Morissette was “out of the loop” with regard to discipline policy, human resource matters
and labor relations at all times material to this case. She testified that she understood that a
new disciplinary policy was effective immediately after participating in a March 2009 conference
call, but offered no explanation as to why nothing relevant to this policy surfaced at the
Lydonville plant until June. Nor did Morissette offer any explanation as to why Respondent’s
then human resource manager, Ginger Noyes, did not post anything about the disciplinary
scheme inherent in the new policy until September. As stated herein, I discredit Morissette’s
testimony regarding the September posting.
JD-23-11
4
Respondent’s Procedure for Corrective Actions for Safety Violations and Work Instructions for 5
Corrective Actions.
Lack of Sufficient Notice to the Union
In February 2009, Respondent’s global headquarters generated documents entitled 10
“Procedure for Corrective Action for Safety Violations,” and “Work Instructions for Corrective
Actions” All or part of these documents appear in three different exhibits, G.C. Exh. 16, G.C.
Exh. 32 and Respondent’s Exhibit 21. There are differences in these exhibits, which may go to
the heart of this case. This is so because Respondent asserts that the Union had notice of the
contents of at least part of these documents by virtue of their being posted on a bulletin board in 15
2009.
Sean Jewell, Respondent’s day shift supervisor, testified that in the late summer of 2009
he saw part of G.C. Exh. 32 posted on a bulletin board by the human resources office, Tr. 609-
10. He testified that only part of the document was posted. He stated, “I don’t believe this 20
Appendix A was posted with the first three pages.” However, G.C. Exhibit 32, without
Appendix A is not a three page document; it is five pages. It is on the 4th and 5th pages of the
document that Respondent states that any serious safety violation may be grounds for a three-day
suspension and that a second serious violation may be grounds for termination. Respondent’s
exhibit 21 is likewise a 6-page document on which the paragraphs also appear on pages 4 and 5.25
These statements regarding the imposition of discipline appear on the first page of G.C.
Exh. 16. Based on the testimony of Jewell, Union President Leon Garfield and Grievance
Committee Chairman John Eastman, I find that Respondent did not post those portions of the
Work Instructions pertaining to suspension and termination for safety violations and that the 30
Union did not receive any notice of this change in disciplinary policy until January 2011.4 I
would note that not a single witness, including Amy Morissette (Tr. 416-17), testified to seeing a
document posted that stated that a serious safety violation would lead to three-day suspension
and that a second such violation would result in an employee’s termination.5

4 Respondent claims to have applied this policy in September 2009 to employee Robert Gordon when
he cut his finger. I do not credit this testimony. Moreover, even if this were so, Respondent never told
the Union it was applying the decision tree in the work instructions to Gordon. Indeed, it is in part
because Respondent did not inform the Union that it was applying the decision tree to Gordon that I
discredit its testimony in this regard.
Morissette’s testimony is also inconsistent with the Respondent’s issuance of a written warning 2 to
Chad Tibbets on February 12, 2010, G.C. Exh. 39. Tibbets’ failure to follow proper lockout/tagout
procedures is a serious violation pursuant to the Procedure for Corrective Action and should have resulted
in a three day suspension pursuant to the work instructions. The failure to suspend Tibbets strongly
suggests that Respondent was not applying the new safety discipline policy until September 2010 when it
suspended Noyes.
5 Second shift supervisor Tim Morissette’s response to his counsel’s question as to whether he had
seen all of R- Exh. 21, except for the decision tree, was an equivocal, “ I believe I’ve seen most of it,
yes,” Tr. 600. Tim Morrisette’s testified he discussed the policy with unit employees sometime after the
July plant shutdown, Tr. 601. According to his wife, Amy Morissette, the critical parts of the document
were not posted until September, so he could not have discussed the suspension/termination policy with
unit employees. Like Jewell, Morissette did not testify that he saw the suspension/termination policy on
the bulletin board, which is another reason I conclude it was never posted.
JD-23-11
5
5
I discredit the testimony of Amy Morissette, Respondent’s environmental health and
safety coordinator to the contrary. Morissette testified that in July 2009, Ginger Noyes, then
Respondent’s human resources manager, posted the procedure for corrective action but not the
work instructions, which contains the new discipline and discharge policy. Morissette testified
that she noticed in September that the work instructions were not posted and emailed Noyes to 10
post them as well. Morissette then testified that she went back to the bulletin board several days
later and saw that the entire policy minus the decision tree had been posted. There is no
corroboration for the testimony that anything other than three pages were ever posted and since
supervisor Jewell only saw three pages, I find that the Procedure for Corrective Action was the
only document ever posted on the bulletin board.15
I would also note that Respondent’s contention that it provided adequate notice of the
change in disciplinary policy to the Union is inconsistent with the essence of Article 20 of the
collective bargaining agreement. That Article provides that “any notice communication shall be
conclusively deemed for all purposes hereunder to be effective given if sent by certified or 20
registered mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the Union to: United Steelworkers, 100 Medway
Suite, #403 Milford, MA 01757-2923 and in the case of the Employer to: Kennametal Inc., 378
Main Street, Lydonville, VT 05851.6 Moreover, even if unit members were aware of the new
disciplinary policy, their knowledge is not imputable to the Union, see Brimar Corp., 334 NLRB
1035 n. 1 (2001).25
Finally, Morissette’s testified at Tr. 414 that so far as Respondent was concerned, the
new enhanced disciplinary policy was already in effect when she went to look at the bulletin
board in September 2009. If this were so, the corrective action policy was a “fait accompli” by
the time Respondent let the Union know of the new policy, for which there can be no waiver of 30
the Union’s bargaining rights, Pontiac Osteopathic Hospital, 336 NLRB 1021, 1023-23 (2001).7

6 Respondent suggests that it provided adequate notice pursuant to Article 19, which states that “shop
rules” established by the employer will be posted on the bulletin boards forty-eight hours before
becoming effective. While the term “shop rules” is not defined in the collective bargaining agreement, I
conclude it does not include a policy which does not govern employee conduct, but which rather imposes
new draconian consequences for employee conduct. Moreover, Article 19 appears to contemplate posting
of “shop rules” on a number of different bulletin boards. There is no evidence that the Procedure and
Work Instructions regarding safety violations was posted on any bulletin board other than one near the
human resources office. There is at least one other bulletin board, which is provided to the Union
pursuant to Article 18 of the collective bargaining agreement, G.C. Exh. 4 p.29; Tr. 397. Thus,
Respondent cannot rely on Article 19 even if it did post the material portions of the procedure and work
instructions.
7 Respondent’s exhibit 22 contains an email exchange between Morissette and Ginger Noyes, who
was Respondent’s human resource manager until December 31, 2009. In that exchange Morissette
advises that an employee, Robert Gordon, should be disciplined according to the Corrective Action Policy
but must be disciplined under the previous safety discipline policy due to the fact that Respondent had not
posted the entire policy. First of all, from these emails it is clear that the corrective action policy, i.e., the
first three pages of G.C. Exh. 32 had not been posted prior to September 2009. Moreover, Noyes’
response is that she will post the Procedure for Corrective Action for Safety Violations. Her response
does not mention the work instructions which contain the requirements for a three-day suspension for a
first time serious violation and termination for a second serious violation within 24 months. I find the
work instructions were not posted and in force at Lydonville until sometime after July 2010. I discredit
JD-23-11
6
5
Contents of the Procedure for Corrective Action
By way of background, the procedure emphasizes Respondent’s commitment to safety.
As to scope, the document states it applies to all employees working in any Kennametal facility
worldwide, but that “with the approval of the EHS Steering Committee or its designee, the scope 10
of this procedure may vary from facility to facility, based on applicable labor laws.”
As to responsibility, the procedure states that the highest ranking employee at any site is
responsible for environmental, health and safety compliance and that the facility management is
responsible for ensuring all employees are in total compliance with all safety 15
procedures/standards/norms. The burden placed on management at each facility is very similar
to the stated purposed of the MBS, which Respondent implemented at Lydonville in February
2010.
The procedure document goes on to state that facility management and human resource 20
representatives will assist the facility management in ensuring that appropriate and consistent,
progressive corrective action is taken against every employee who violates applicable safety
procedure/standards/norms.
The document distinguishes between serious violations and other violations. This is 25
similar to the distinctions made in Section 17 of the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act
(OSH Act), 29 U.S.C. section 666.8 Respondent’s Procedure defines a serious violation as one
that is likely to result in a severe disabling injury such as amputation, spinal injury, broken finger
or limb, unconsciousness or death. It then gives examples, “which warrant corrective action”
including two relevant to the disciplines at issue in this case, “bypassing safety devices or 30
machine guards,” and “improper use of equipment or using inappropriate equipment for the task
which is likely to result in a significant injury.”
The procedure defines other violations as those that are not likely to result in a severe
disabling injury such as an amputation…One of the examples given is “failure to use required 35
personal protective equipment, such as gloves..” and improper use of equipment or using wrong
equipment for the task.”
The document mandates that, in the discretion of facility management, for a first time
serious violation, an employee is to be suspended for three days and for a second serious 40
violation, the employee is to be terminated. The implementation of the new discipline policy
for safety violations was also a significant departure from Respondent’s long-standing
progressive discipline policy, Tr. 529. This was a material change in Respondent’s past practice

the testimony of Rich Brighenti to the contrary at Tr. 652. None of the disciplinary actions taken prior to
the termination of Ken Wilkins appear to follow the discipline policy set forth in the work instructions.
The Accident Investigation Policy referred to by Noyes may be a different document.
8 Section 17 of the OSH Act provides that, “a serious violation shall be deemed to exist in a place of
employment if there is a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a
condition which exists, or from one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes which
have been adopted or are in use, in such place of employment unless the employer did not, and could not
with the exercise of reasonable diligence, know of the presence of the violation.”
JD-23-11
7
regarding a mandatory subject of bargaining, which Respondent was not privileged to change 5
unilaterally, Toledo Blade Co., 343 NLRB 385, 387 (2004).
An employer’s practices, even if not required by a collective bargaining agreement,
which are regular and long-standing, rather than a random or intermittent, become terms and
conditions of unit employees’ employment, which cannot be altered without offering their 10
collective bargaining representative notice and an opportunity to bargain over the proposed
change, Granite City Steel Co.,167 NLRB 310, 315 (1967); Queen Mary Restaurants Corp. v.
NLRB, 560 NLRB 403, 408 (9th Cir. 1977); Exxon Shipping Co., 291 NLRB 489, 493 (1988); B
& D Plastics, 302 NLRB 245n. 2 (1991); DMI Distribution of Delaware, 334 NLRB 409, 411
(2001). A practice need not be universal to constitute a term or condition of employment, as 15
long as it is regular and long-standing, Brotherhood of Locomotive Fireman and Enginemen, 168
NLRB 677, 679-80 (1967). Respondent’s unilateral abandonment of the past practice of
progressive discipline for safety violations violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
I also note that Article 6 of the collective bargaining agreement in force, G.C. Exh. 4, 20
provides that the employer has the right to discharge, suspend or otherwise discipline employees,
but that no such action shall be taken without just cause. Respondent’s Procedure for Corrective
Action, as implemented at Lydonville, converted virtually any significant safety violation or
injury into just cause for discipline or discharge. In so doing, it materially modified the parties’
contract and was done so without providing the Union with notice of this change and an 25
opportunity to bargain about it.
The Management Based Safety Program
Lydonville Plant Manager Richard Brighenti and EHS Coordinator Amy Morissette 30
attended training on the MBS Program at Respondent’s headquarters in Latrobe, Pennsylvania,
in December 2009.
Respondent’s Management Based Safety Program was presented to unit employees at
Lydonville via a power point presentation on February 2, 2010. The next day, the Union 35
requested that Respondent bargain with it over implementation of the program. Respondent
refused, asserting that MBS was not a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Union then filed a
grievance. Respondent reasserted this position in a meeting attended by USWA staff
representative Carl Turner on March 19, 2010.
40
In July 2010, as part of the MBS, Respondent installed laminated white boards in every
production area of the plant. Next to these boards were laminated check lists for each production
operation. There are about 40-50 check lists in the Lydonville facility. The Union was not
consulted and was not given the opportunity to have an input regarding the content of the check
lists.45
Each employee was required beginning in July to review the check list pertaining to his
work each day and then initial each item on the white board corresponding to a requirement on
the safety check list. If the employee initialed the item in green it signified that the employee
agreed with the statement on the check list. The employee was to initial in red if he or she 50
disagreed with any statement and was to complete an EHS (environmental, health and safety)
alert.
JD-23-11
8
5
The objective requirements of the safety check lists were not new. Thus, if an employee
was, for example, required to wear hearing protection after MBS, that was also the case prior to
the implementation of MBS. Similarly, an employee’s duty to comply with Respondent’s
jewelry policy did not change with the implementation of MBS.
10
If the operator disagrees with the statement on the check list, they are required to initial
the laminated white board in red and fill out an EHS alert. Then the operator’s supervisor is
supposed to determine what if anything needs to be done to make the operation safe.
For example, G.C. Exh. 8 is a safety check list for hand chamfer grinders.9 Among the 15
approximately 20 items that the operator must attest to are:
That he or she has been properly trained to operate the machine safely;10
That he or she checked the grinding wheel and determined that it is in good condition and
free from defects.20
The installation of the white boards and the initialing procedure was implemented
unilaterally by Respondent. John Eastman, the Chair of the Union Grievance Committee and
member of the Employer-Union Safety Committee, refused to initial the white boards on the
grounds that Respondent was shifting the blame for any accident to the machine operator. 25
Eastman put a check or his clock number on the white board instead of his initials until
Respondent threatened to discipline him.
Changes in the way accidents are investigated since the implementation of MBS
30
Prior to the implementation of MBS, the Union Safety Committee was actively involved
in investigating accidents at the Lydonville plant. This included participation in the Accident
Report. An example of the report is in this record as G.C. Exhibit 17. Employer and Union
Safety Committee members worked jointly in addressing issues concerning the accident. Among
these were whether or not the injured employee was properly instructed and whether he or she 35
was performing the operation consistent with those instructions. If the task was not being done
in accordance with the operator’s instructions, the committee members addressed the issue of
whether the employer and/or the injured employee could have prevented the accident.
Upon implementation of MBS, the Union and its Safety Committee played no role in 40
investigating accidents at the plant. This was done unilaterally by Respondent. A change in an
employer’s investigatory method, which as in this case, substantially alters the mode of
investigation and character of evidence on which an employee’s continued job security might
hinge, is a bargainable change in the terms and conditions of his or her employment. By
unilaterally cutting the Union out of the investigation of accidents in situations in which the 45

9 The dictionary definition of chamfer is a flat surface made by cutting off the edge or corner
of something. I assume the hand chamfer is the equipment by which this is accomplished.
10 The discipline imposed on Ken Wilkins establishes the potential impact of initialing off on
this item. Eric Huttenlocker’s conclusion that Wilkins had been adequately trained and
documents indicating that he had been adequately trained were relied upon by Respondent in
deciding to terminate Wilkins, Tr. 632.
JD-23-11
9
investigation could lead to serious disciplinary consequences to the injured employee, 5
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1), Midcenter, Mid-South Hospital, 221 NLRB 670,
675 (1975).
The Union filed a grievance regarding its exclusion from accident investigations on
January 14, 2011. The grievance alleged that Respondent is violating Section 16.07 of the 10
collective bargaining agreement, which requires an investigation of by a union member of the
joint safety committee and an employer representative.
Discipline Imposed Before and After the Implementation of MBS
15
On August 24, 2010, Doug Noyes, a former Union President, was drilling a hole in a
piece of metal, when the metal stuck on the drill bit and spiraled up cutting Noyes’ left hand.
Noyes was not wearing protective gloves while performing this operation, although the use of
such gloves is not required by Respondent, but merely recommended. Noyes received 5 stitches
in his left hand and was placed on restrictive duty, i.e., painting instead of fabricating metal.20
Respondent suspended Noyes for one day on September 2, 2010. The General Counsel
alleges that Noyes’ suspension is part of or at least related to the implementation of MBS.
Respondent contends the suspension has nothing to do with MBS. I find the Respondent’s
escalation of discipline was part and parcel of the MBS and thus its enhanced disciplinary policy 25
was implemented in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1). 11
What this record clearly demonstrates is that Respondent escalated its disciplinary
punishments for safety violations and accidents at virtually the same time that it introduced MBS
at Lydonville. Between July 2003 and February 12, 2010, Respondent took very few 30
disciplinary actions for safety violations. Moreover, it had never imposed more than an oral
warning for a safety violation or accident, G.C. Exh. 39.12
On February 12, 2010, Respondent suspended David Jenotte for one day for failing to
follow Respondent’s lockout/tagout policy. A one-day suspension is not consistent with the 35
Procedure for Corrective Action/ Work Instructions. A lockout/tagout is classified as a serious
violation for which at least a 3-day suspension would be imposed. Thus, in February 2010,
although while Respondent had escalated in its disciplinary policy shortly after the
implementation of MBS, it had not implemented the Correction Action/Work Instructions as
policy at Lydonville.1340

11 I would note that the one-day suspension appears inconsistent with the Procedure for Corrective
Action. Failure to use required personal protective equipment such as gloves, is classified as an “other”
violation for which a suspension was not warranted under the work instructions. Moreover, Noyes did
not fail to use required personal protective equipment; gloves were merely recommended for the
operation in which Noyes cut his hand.
12 In April 2007, Respondent initially proposed issuing a first written warning to employee David
Jennotte for a lock out/tag out violation, but on its own accord, without any apparent intervention of the
Union, reduced Jennotte’s discipline to an oral warning, G.C. Exh. 39, page 10.
13 Amy Morissette testified about the suspension of Jenotte at Tr. 425-26. I discredit that testimony.
First of all, I find that Morissette had no first-hand knowledge of the process by which Jenotte was
suspended for one day; her testimony in this regard is pure hearsay. Moreover, as stated before, a one-
day suspension for failing to lockout/tagout is inconsistent with the work instructions.
JD-23-11
10
5
On February 12, Respondent also issued an unprecedented second written warning to
employee Chad Tibbetts for failing to lock out a belt sander. This was reduced to a first written
warning apparently because there was no notice regarding lock out/tag out on the machine. I
infer from its timing that the escalation to a written warning 2 was associated with the increased
pressure placed on management by the implementation of MBS and the involvement of Eric 10
Huttenlocker in the management of labor relations at the Lydonville facility beginning in
December 2009.
On April 12, 2010, Respondent initially issued a written warning 2 to employee David
Brousseau for a safety violation. This was reduced to a written warning 1 and then rescinded 15
pursuant to a grievance settlement. On April 19, Respondent issued a written warning 2 to first
shift production supervisor Sean Jewell. Jewell went into a power supply cabinet without the
proper protective equipment, exposing him to the hazard of being burned. Since this would
appear to serious violation, Jewell’s discipline appears inconsistent with the work instructions for
corrective actions. This is additional evidence that the disciplinary policy utilized to suspend 20
Noyes and terminate Kenneth Wilkins had not been fully implemented as of April 2010.14
The next safety discipline was the suspension given to Noyes. I infer that this ratcheting
up on the discipline scheme was also related to MBS since it followed closely the installation of
the white boards and Respondent’s August 24, 2010 memo insisting the employees initial the 25
white boards. It was also the result of the resignation of Taryn Blair as human resources director
at Lydonville and the assumption of her day to day responsibilities by Eric Huttenlocker.15
Indeed, I find that Huttenlocker implemented the new disciplinary policy without providing
notice to the Union between July and early September.
30
On October 27, 2010, employee Ken Wilkins received several cuts on his hand when he
reached into a grinder to retrieve a jammed part. The feeder block of the grinder pushed
Wilkins’ hand into the moving grinding wheel. Respondent investigated this accident without
input from any union members of the safety committee. Respondent determined that Wilkins
was at fault because he did not wait for the grinding wheel to stop and did not insure that the 35
feeder block switch was in the automatic position. Wilkins was off of work for several weeks as
a result of his accident.
In December Eric Huttenlocker made the decision to terminate Wilkins’ employment.
Respondent presented Wilkins with a termination letter on January 11, 2011. In January 2011 an 40
inspector of the Vermont State OSHA plan conducted an inspection related to the Wilkins

14 The new disciplinary policy applies to management employees as well as bargaining unit
employees, Tr. 434. Although failure to use protective equipment may often or usually be an other
violation, it would appear to be a serious violation when the likely result of an accident if it would to
occur would be burns. Under the OSH Act, for example, it is the likelihood of serious physical harm or
death arising from the violative condition if an accident occurs, rather than the likelihood of the accident
occurring, which is considered in determining whether a violation is serious. See, Dravo Corp., 7 BNA
OSHC 2095, 2101 (No. 16317, 1980), pet. for review denied, 639 F.2d 772 (3d Cir. 1980). An event that
is not unexpected and thus likely to occur is not an accident.
15 Blair was Respondent’s human resources director at Lydonville from about January 1, 2010 to July
2010.
JD-23-11
11
accident. He has informed Respondent that it is likely to be issued a citation because the guard 5
on Wilkins’ machine could be opened without automatically stopping the grinding wheel. The
VOSHA inspector also recommended that the labeling of the switch on Wilkins’ machine be
replaced or enhanced to more clearly indicate whether or not it was in the automatic position.16
Union Information Requests: (G.C. Exh. 1(v), Exhibits A-D; G.C. Exh. 20, reverse side)10
Respondent and the Union signed a Memorandum of Agreement regarding the Shipping
Room at Lydonville in March 2002. That MOU provides that if, in any continuous 90 day
period, the cumulative hours of employees temporarily transferred to work in the Shipping Room
is equal or greater than 40 hours each week, a regular full-time position will be created. On 15
April 5, 2010, the Union requested that Respondent provide it with a list of names of employees
transferred to the Shipping Department during the prior 3 months and the number of hours each
of them worked in the Shipping Department during this period. It asked for the information by
April 12. Respondent provided a partial list in April but did not give the Union a complete list
until August 20.20
On April 21, 2010, Respondent posted a notice informing employees that effective June
1, 2010, all employees would be required to wear the highest level of slip resistant shoes. The
mandated shoes had a particular grid pattern on the sole and are available through a supplier
named Shoes for Crews. The notice instructed employees with a medical condition that would 25
not allow them to wear such shoes to discuss their problem with Taryn Blair, then Respondent’s
human resource manager.
On May 26, 2010, the Union requested proof and/or documentation as to the reasons that
the tread design Respondent was proposing to require on safety shoes was superior to other slip 30
resistant shoes approved by Federal OSHA and Vermont’s OSH agency. The Union also
requested a list of employees who had a deviation from Respondent’s proposed shoe policy. The
Union requested that this information be provided by June 3. In November 2010 Respondent
provided Union with a list of employees who were exempt from its shoe policy. It did not give
the Union the name of an employee who was allowed to wear different shoes for medical 35
reasons, citing the privacy rules of the HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act) statute. It has not provided the Union any documents regarding the superiority of the safety
shoes it requires.
On June 2, 2010, the Union requested that Respondent provide it a copy of documented 40
ergonomic restrictions for the hand chamfer job, by June 7. An ergonomic study was performed
at Lydonville in March 2005. The physical therapist performing the study advised Respondent
in September 2010, that on the basis of his 2005 evaluation, he believed limiting an employee to
4 hours a day on the hand chamfer would alleviate the risk of ergonomic injury (e.g., carpel
tunnel syndrome). Respondent did not provide the Union with a copy of either the 2005 analysis 45
or the September 2010 note from the physical therapist.
On July 16, 2010, USWA Staff Representative Carl Turner requested Respondent
provide him any information on what he understood was a new safety procedure at the plant and

16 OSHA citations may be issued for a condition completely unrelated to an accident that leads to the
inspection of a workplace.
JD-23-11
12
to bargain with the Union over its implementation. This referred to Respondent’s posting of the 5
white boards and the requirement that employees initial these boards. Respondent has not
provided this information.
Analysis
10
Respondent violated Section8(a)(5) and (1) by implementing new policies regarding discipline
and discharge for safety violations
Board law is clear that disciplinary policies and procedures constitute mandatory subjects
of bargaining. Further, work rules that could be grounds for discipline are mandatory subjects of 15
bargaining, Southern Mail, Inc., 345 NLRB 644, 646 (2005); Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of
Fayetteville, Inc., 330 NLRB 900, 904 (2000), enfd. In relevant part 24 Fed. Appx. 104 (4th Cir.
2001); Frontier Hotel & Casino, 309 NLRB 761, 766 (1992), enfd. 71 F. 3d 1434 (9th Cir. 1995).
It is clear that the Union requested to bargain over the MBS and that Respondent refused. 20
At least that part of the MBS requiring employees to initial the white boards is a mandatory
subject of bargaining in that employees are subject to discipline if they refuse to do so. Thus,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) with regard to the MBS at least with respect to this
requirement of the program.
25
Secondly, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) with regard to the
disciplinary policy reflected in the work instructions for corrective action regardless of whether it
is deemed to be part of MBS or a totally separate policy. However, in the context of this case to
consider the disciplinary policy for safety violations as a totally separate and distinct matter from
MBS would elevate form over substance. MBS and the discipline policy are part of the same 30
corporate initiative to improve Respondent’s safety record, particularly at Lydonville.
Regardless of what was posted on Respondent’s bulletin board, it is clear that the safety
policy was not implemented until July 2010.17 Moreover, even assuming that the policy was in
effect earlier, Respondent’s disciplinary policy for safety violations changed from virtual 35
nonenforcement to strict enforcement after July 2010. I infer that the implementation or stricter
enforcement of this safety policy is related to other initiatives that clearly were part of MBS, the
erection of the white boards and the imposition of the requirement that employees certify the
safety of their work environment.
40
Thus, the change in the safety policy, made without providing the Union an opportunity
to bargain, is a violation of Section 8(a)(5), whether or not it is technically part of MBS,

17 At pages 8-9 of its brief, Respondent suggests that employees were disciplined pursuant to the
Corrective Action policy beginning in February 2010. It suggests that none were suspended because their
violations “did not result in any actual harm.” An accident or injury is irrelevant to whether a safety
violation is classified as serious under Respondent’s Procedure for Corrective Action for Safety
Violations. Respondent’s failure to discipline any employee with more than a warning, other than a one-
day suspension for Jenotte, until August 2010, demonstrates that the policy had not yet been
implemented. Respondent’s claim at page 9 of its brief, that Noyes’ accident was the first serious safety
violation following the alleged adoption of the Corrective Action Policy in 2009, is simply inaccurate.
JD-23-11
13
Southern Mail, supra. As stated, I find Respondent did not provide adequate notice of the policy 5
itself until January 2011 and that for this reason, its Section 10(b) contention is without merit.
The Union did not waive its bargaining rights over MBS or Respondent’s new disciplinary policy
To be effective, a waiver of statutory bargaining rights must be clear and unmistakable, 10
California Offset Printers, 349 NLRB 732, 733 (2007). Wavier can occur in any of three ways,
by express provision in a collective bargaining agreement, by the conduct of the parties,
(including past practices, bargaining history and action or inaction) or by a combination of the
two. Nothing in this record establishes a waiver of the Union’s bargaining rights with regard to
those parts of the MBS effecting the terms and conditions of unit members’ employment or the 15
discipline policy implemented by Respondent in 2010 for safety violations.
The mere fact that a union previously acquiesced in an employer’s unilateral
implementation of safety rules does not give an employer the right to make different changes in
plant rules, or other terms and conditions of employment, if those changes are material and 20
significant, Bath Iron Works, 302 NLRB 898, 900 (1991). Moreover, in the instant case, while
the Union previously acquiesced in some of Respondent’s unilateral changes, it did not acquiesce
in others and requested bargaining.
The legality of Respondent’s disciplinary policy for safety violations was tried by consent and 25
fully and fairly litigated.
Assuming that the complaint allegations do not sufficiently addresses Respondents’
disciplinary policy for safety violations, I conclude that the issue was tried by consent and fully
and fairly litigated. It is well established that the Board may find and remedy an unfair labor 30
practice not specifically alleged in the complaint, “if the issue is closely connected to the subject
matter of the complaint and has been fully litigated, “ Pergament United Sales, 296 NLRB 333,
334 (1989), enfd. 920 F2d 130 2d Cir.. 1990); Gallup, Inc., 334 NLRB 336 (2001).
The Procedure for Corrective Action and Work Instructions and strict enforcement of the 35
new disciplinary policies are closely connected to the allegation that Respondent violated the Act
by unilaterally implementing the MBS in February 2010. First of all, G.C. Exh. 42, a document
promulgated to MBS, references counseling and discipline as one of the tools that Respondent
intended to utilize in improving its safety record and reducing the cost to it of workplace
accidents. Secondly, I infer, in the absence of any contrary evidence, that strict enforcement of 40
the discipline policies reflected in the work instructions are part of the same initiative as is MBS
to render Kennametal’s workplaces safer.
The Complaint in this matter did not allege that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by
implementing new disciplinary policies for safety violations, until the filing of the post-hearing 45
briefs. However, that Respondent was on notice that the disciplinary policies were at issue in
this case is established by its motion to amend its Answer to include a Section 10(b) defense to
any challenge to the Disciplinary Corrective Action Policy, Tr. 457 and the General Counsel’s
motion for the Board to remedy the discipline and discharge of employees Noyes and Wilkins.
Moreover, Respondent in fact defended against any Section 8(a)(5) challenge to this policy by 50
contending that it had been in force since at least September 2009, that the Union had notice of
the policy by the posting of documents on a bulletin board and that the Union had waived its
JD-23-11
14
bargaining rights on this policy by remaining silent in the face of such notification. Respondent 5
did not contend that it bargained with the Union regarding the markedly stricter discipline
imposed on employees for safety violations beginning in February 2010 and then made even
stricter starting with Doug Noyes’ injury in August and clearly could not have done so.
Failure to Respond to Information Requests; Delay in Responding10
Upon request, an employer has the legal duty to furnish its employees’ bargaining agent
with information relevant and necessary to the performance of its statutory duties. NLRB v. Acme
Industrial. Co., 385 U.S. 432. (1967). The law deems information about the wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment of unit employees to be presumptively relevant. 15
Timken Roller Bearing Co., 138 NLRB 15 (1962).
An employer’s statutory obligation to furnish the union relevant information, on request,
absent special circumstances, is not relieved merely because the union may have access to the
requested information from other sources, Postal Service, 276 NLRB 1282, 1288 (1985); New 20
York Times, Co., 265 NLRB 353 (1982); Kroger Co., 226 NLRB 512 (1976). Thus, the extent to
which the Union had access to information regarding the transfer of employees to the shipping
room is irrelevant to Respondent’s obligation to provide the information requested by the Union
on this issue.
25
Respondent has offered no valid excuse or explanation for its failure to comply with the
Union’s other information requests: 1) information showing that the slip resistant shoes it
proposed to require were superior to other types;18 2) information about ergonomic restrictions
for the hand chamfer19 and 3) Carl Turner’s request relating to the requirements for initiating the
white boards. Thus, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) in failing to provide this 30
information.20
Delay in providing names and hours of employees transferred to the Shipping Room
An employer must respond to an information request in a timely manner. An 35
unreasonable delay in furnishing such information is as much of a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act as a refusal to furnish the information at all, American Signature Inc., 334 NLRB 880,
885 (2001).21
40

18 Respondent in its brief at page 23 states it had no such information. If so, it was required to so
inform the Union, Days Hotel of Southfield, 306 NLRB 949, 954 (1992). There is no evidence that
Respondent replied to the Union’s May 26, 2010 request, although Amy Morissette testified that she told
the Union that OSHA had no such information sometime between April and September 2010, see Tr. 335,
491-2.
19 Respondent at page 23 also states that the Union was provided the ergonomic study regarding the
hand chamfer in 2009, before it made its information request. The preponderance of the record evidence
is to the contrary, Tr. 167, 120-21.
20 I have no basis for determining whether Respondent’s claim that it could not identify employees
who were exempted from the shoe policy pursuant to HIPAA is legitimate or not and thus conclude that
Respondent did not violate the Act in this regard.
21 This case has also been cited under the name of Amersig Graphics, Inc.
JD-23-11
15
The Board recently summarized the standard that it employs in assessing5
a claim of unreasonable delay: In determining whether an employer has unlawfully delayed
responding to an information request, the Board considers the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the incident. Indeed, it is well established that the duty to furnish requested
information cannot be defined in terms of a per se rule. What is required is a reasonable good
faith effort to respond to the request as promptly as circumstances allow. In evaluating the10
promptness of the response, the Board will consider the complexity and extent of information
sought, its availability and the difficulty in retrieving the information, West Penn Power Co., 339
NLRB 585, 587 (2003), enf. in pertinent part 349 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2005).
Applying this test to instant case, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) 15
in not providing the names and hours of work of employees transferred to shipping room for over
4 months. In American Signature, supra, the Board found a violation where the employer
provided the information requested by the Union two and a half to three months after the request.
In Earthgrains, Co., 349 NLRB 389, 400 (2007), the Board found a violation where the
employer responded four months after the request without explaining the delay.20
Respondent has offered no explanation as to why it took four months to provide the
Union with the information it requested regarding these temporary transfers. Thus, I find a
violation with respect to the delay in providing this information.
25
Summary of Conclusions of Law
Respondent Kennametal, Inc., violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by:
1) failing and refusing to bargain with the Union over the implementation of the 30
Management Based Safety Program insofar as it required employees to take such actions as
initialing agreement or disagreement with the safety check list on its white boards upon pain of
discipline;
2) Excluding the Union from accident investigations;
3) By unilaterally implementing and/or more strictly enforcing its disciplinary policies35
for safety violations;
4) By suspending Doug Noyes and terminating Kenneth Wilkins:
5) By failing and/or delaying the furnishing to the Union of information it requested that
is necessary for and relevant to the Union’s duties as collective bargaining representative of
Respondent’s employees.40
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 45
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having disciplined Kenneth Wilkins in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act, it must offer Ken Wilkins reinstatement and make Wilkins whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis from date of discharge to date of proper offer 50
of reinstatement, less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
JD-23-11
16
(1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 5
(2010). It must also make Doug Noyes whole for his one-day suspension in a similar manner.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended22
10
ORDER
The Respondent, Kennametal, Inc., Lydonville, Vermont, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
15
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unilaterally altering the wages, hours and/or terms and conditions of employment of
bargaining unit employees, by such means as, but not limited to, implementing a new discipline
policy for safety violations or more strictly enforcing its discipline policy for safety violations; 20
(b) Unilaterally implementing its Management Based Safety Program in a manner that
excludes union participation in accident investigations and/or results in the imposition of
discipline for an employee’s failure to comply with requirements unilaterally imposed pursuant
to the Management Based Safety Program;25
(c) Failing or delaying the providing of information to the Union that is necessary and
relevant to its role as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of production and
maintenance employees at its Lydonville, Vermont facility.
30
(d) 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.
35
(a) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Kenneth Wilkins 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 Kenneth Wilkins and Doug Noyes whole for any loss of earnings and other 40
benefits suffered as a result of the disciplinary actions taken against them in the manner set forth
in the remedy section of the decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its files any
reference to Kenneth Wilkins’ unlawful discharge, or other discipline imposed related to his 45
October 27, 2010 accident, and Doug Noyes’ unlawful suspension and within 3 days thereafter
notify both of them in writing that this has been done and that these adverse personnel actions
will not be used against them in any way.

22 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-23-11
17
5
(d) At the request of the Union, rescind any unilateral changes that affect the wages,
hours and/or terms and conditions employment of unit employees. However, nothing in this
Order shall be construed as requiring or authorizing the Respondent to rescind any benefit
previously granted unless requested to do so by the Union.
10
(e) Furnish the Union with the information that it requested on April 5, May 26, June 2
and July 16, 2010, if not previously provided.
(f) Reinstitute an accident investigation process that provides the Union the opportunity
to meaningfully participate in such investigations, consistent with the parties 2005-2010 15
collective bargaining agreement.
(g) 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 20
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.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Lydonville, Vermont facility
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”23 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by 25
the Regional Director for Region1, 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 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 30
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 35
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since February 2, 2010.
(k) 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.40
Dated, Washington, D.C., April 12, 2011
____________________
Arthur J. Amchan 45
Administrative Law Judge

23 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-23-11
18
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 implement changes in your wages, hours or terms and conditions of
employment, including but not limited to our disciplinary policies, without providing adequate
notice to United Steelworkers Local 5518 and offering the Union an opportunity to bargain over
any proposed changes.
WE WILL NOT fail and unreasonably delay furnishing the Union with information that is
necessary and relevant to its role as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our
production and maintenance employees at Lydonville, Vermont.
WE WILL NOT exclude the Union from participation in the investigation of accidents.
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, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Kenneth Wilkins 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 make Kenneth Wilkins whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting
from his illegal termination or any other discipline resulting from his October 27, 2010 accident,
less any net interim earnings, plus interest compounded daily. WE WILL similarly make Doug
Noyes whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from his illegal suspension in
September 2010.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from our files any reference to
the unlawful termination of Kenneth Wilkins, or other discipline relating to Kenneth Wilkins’
October 27, 2010 accident and the unlawful suspension of Doug Noyes and WE WILL, within 3
days thereafter, notify them in writing that this has been done and that the discharge and
suspension will not be used against them in any way.
JD-23-11
19
WE WILL at the request of Local Union No. 5518, United Steel Workers of America rescind any
unilateral changes in our discipline policy for safety violations and/or the enforcement of that
policy.
WE WILL at the request of Local Union No. 5518, rescind any other part of the Management
Based Safety Program that affects the wages, hours and working conditions of bargaining unit
employees.
WE WILL reinstitute an accident investigation procedure that provides the Union with the
opportunity to meaningfully participate in such investigations as set forth in our 2005-2010
collective bargaining agreement.
WE WILL furnish the Union the information that it requested on April 5, May 26, June 2 and
July 16, 2010, if not previously provided.
.
KENNAMETAL, INC
(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.
10 Causeway Street, 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02222–1072
(617) 565-6700, Hours of Operation: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
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.