Matson Terminals, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 17, 2018

367 NLRB No. 20 (N.L.R.B. 2018)

367 NLRB No. 20
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Matson Terminals, Inc. and Hawaii Teamsters & Al-
lied Workers Union, Local 996. Case 20–CA–
178312
October 17, 2018
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS MCFERRAN
AND KAPLAN
On February 20, 2018, Administrative Law Judge
Amita Baman Tracy issued the attached decision, and on
March 6, 2018, she issued an Erratum. The Respondent
filed exceptions with supporting arguments, the General
Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Respondent filed
a reply brief. The General Counsel filed cross-exceptions
and a supporting brief, the Respondent filed an answering
brief, and the General Counsel filed a reply brief.1
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record in
light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm
the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions and to
adopt the recommended Order as modified.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recom-
mended Order of the administrative law judge as modified
below and orders that the Respondent, Matson Terminals,
Inc., Hilo, Hawaii, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modi-
fied.

1 Pursuant to Reliant Energy, 339 NLRB 66 (2003), the Respondent
filed a postbrief letter calling the Board’s attention to recent case author-
ity.
2 To the extent the judge suggested that the burden was on the Re-
spondent to prove that the alleged unilateral change was immaterial, not
significant, and not substantial, we disagree. “Generally, an employer
has a duty to bargain with the exclusive representative of a unit of its
employees before making a change in wages, hours, or other working
conditions, but that duty arises only if the change is a material, substan-
tial, and significant one affecting the terms and conditions of employ-
ment of bargaining unit employees. The General Counsel bears the bur-
den of establishing that the change was material, substantial, and signif-
icant.” North Star Steel Co., 347 NLRB 1364, 1367 (2006) (internal
quotes omitted). Here, the General Counsel has met his burden by show-
ing that the Respondent transferred barge menu work––which had been
performed exclusively by unit employees––to nonunit employees. See,
e.g., Regal Cinemas, 334 NLRB 304, 304 (2001), enfd. 317 F.3d 300
(D.C. Cir. 2003). Contrary to the Respondent, a change need not directly
affect employee compensation to be material.
3 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform to the
Board’s standard remedial language and the violations found, and we
shall substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified.
1. Insert the following as paragraph 2(a) and reletter the
subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
“(a) Before implementing any changes in wages, hours,
or other terms and conditions of employment of unit em-
ployees, notify and, on request, bargain with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of em-
ployees in the following bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time supervisors and sen-
ior supervisors employed by Matson Terminals, Inc. on
the island of Hawaii, excluding all other employees,
managers, guards and supervisors as defined by the
Act.”
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b).
“(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facilities on the island of Hawaii copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper no-
tices, 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. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material. If 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
For the reasons set forth by the judge, we deny the General Counsel’s
request for a notice-reading remedy. We find here that the Board’s stand-
ard remedies are sufficient to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Unlike her colleagues, Member McFerran would order a notice-read-
ing remedy. In particular, she notes that (1) the transfer of work affected
the entire unit with regard to a key element of employees’ duties; and (2)
the unlawful act occurred immediately after the Union’s certification as
the unit’s representative, which would undermine the Union’s position
in the eyes of the unit employees and call into question its ability to rep-
resent their interests. See Bozzutos, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 146, slip op. at
5 (2017). Accordingly, she would find that a reading of the notice is
appropriate “to dissipate as much as possible any lingering effects of the
Respondent’s unfair labor practices,” and will allow the employees to
“fully perceive that the Respondent and its managers are bound by the
requirements of the Act.” Homer D. Bronson Co., 349 NLRB 512, 515
(2007) (internal quotes omitted), enfd. mem. 273 Fed. Appx. 32 (2d Cir.
2008).
4 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.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
copy of the notice to all current employees and former em-
ployees employed by the Respondent at any time since
June 3, 2016.”
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.
Dated, Washington, D.C. October 17, 2018
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 vi-
olated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your
behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT change your terms and conditions of em-
ployment without first notifying your exclusive bargain-
ing representative, Hawaii Teamsters & Allied Workers
Union, Local 996, and giving it an opportunity to bargain.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL, before implementing any changes in wages,
hours, or other terms and conditions of employment of
unit employees, notify and, on request, bargain with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of our employees in the following bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time supervisors and sen-
ior supervisors employed by Matson Terminals, Inc. on
the island of Hawaii, excluding all other employees,
managers, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act.
WE WILL rescind the changes in the terms and condi-
tions of employment for our unit employees that were uni-
laterally implemented on or about June 3, 2016.
MATSON TERMINALS, INC.
The Board’s decision can be found at
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/20-CA-178312 or by using the
QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of
the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor
Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
Scott E. Hovey, Jr., Esq., for the General Counsel.
Barry W. Marr, Esq., and Christopher S. Yeh, Esq., for Respond-
ent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
AMITA BAMAN TRACY, Administrative Law Judge. This con-
troversy concerns whether Matson Terminals, Inc. (Respondent)
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act (the Act) when it transferred work which was performed by
employees represented by the Hawaii Teamsters & Allied Work-
ers Union, Local 996 (Charging Party or Union) to employees
represented by another labor organization without providing the
Union prior notice and an opportunity to bargain. Respondent
defends its action by alleging that Respondent was contractually
obligated to have the work at issue performed by these other em-
ployees. As discussed below, I find that Respondent violated the
Act as alleged.
In detail, the General Counsel alleges, in the June 30, 2017
complaint, based on a charge and amended charge filed by the
Charging Party on June 14, 2016, and June 23, 2017, that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to
provide the Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain over
its decision to transfer barge menu work performed by Union
represented employees to nonunion represented employees. Re-
spondent filed a timely answer and amended answer.
The parties filed a joint motion, joint exhibits, issues pre-
sented, and stipulation of facts on August 24, 2017 (Stipulation),
MATSON TERMINALS, INC. 3
pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(9) of the National Labor Relations
Board’s (the Board) Rules and Regulations, and the Stipulation
was granted. Thereafter, the parties filed briefs on October 2,
2017.
On the entire record, including the stipulated facts and exhib-
its,1 and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel
and Respondent,2 I make the following
STIPULATED FACTS AND ANALYSIS
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a State of Hawaii corporation with offices and a
facility located in Hilo, Hawaii (Hilo facility), is engaged in
providing stevedoring and terminal operations, where it annually
purchases and received goods and supplies in excess of $5000
directly from points outside the State of Hawaii and purchased
and received at its Hilo facility goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside of the State of Hawaii. Re-
spondent 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. Also, the Union has been a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Based on the above, I find that these allegations affect com-
merce and that the Board has jurisdiction of this case, pursuant
to Section 10(a) of the Act.
II. BACKGROUND: THE UNION AND RELEVANT
LITIGATION HISTORY
On May 27, 2016, the Board certified the Union as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the following em-
ployees (the Unit) as a unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time supervisors and senior su-
pervisors employed by Matson Terminals, Inc. on the island of
Hawaii, excluding all other employees, managers, guards and
supervisors as defined by the Act.
Thereafter, on June 10, 2016, Respondent filed a request for
review of the Region 20 Regional Director’s decision and direc-
tion of election in case 20–RC–173297. Respondent disagreed
with the Regional Director’s decision, dated May 9, 2016, which
determined that these full-time and regular part-time supervisors
and senior supervisors are not managers and/or statutory super-
visors under the Act. On October 7, 2016, the Board denied Re-
spondent’s request for review.
On November 9, 2016, the Union filed charge 20–CA–187970
alleging that Respondent refused to recognize and bargain with
the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the Unit.
On April 7, 2017, the Board issued a decision and order in case
20–CA–187970 finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by Respondent’s failure and refusal to recog-
nize and bargain with the Union. Matson Terminals, Inc., 356

1 Other abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “Exh.” for
the parties’ exhibits attached to the original and revised stipulations; “GC
Br.” for the General Counsel’s brief; and “R. Br.” for the Respondent’s
brief.
2 The Charging Party did not file a separate posthearing brief.
3 The parties stipulated that nothing in this proceeding for case 20–
CA–178312, including but not limited to the Stipulation, constitutes a
NLRB 289 (2010). On April 28, 2017, Respondent filed a peti-
tion for review with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
of the Board’s Decision and Order in case 20–CA–187970. On
June 6, 2017, the Board filed with the District of Columbia Court
of Appeals a cross-application for enforcement of the Board’s
order in case 20–CA–187970. Respondent’s petition for review
and the Board’s Cross-Application for Enforcement are currently
pending before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.3
III. RESPONDENT’S OPERATIONS
Respondent provides its customers with stevedoring and ma-
rine terminal services, including the shipping and receipt of
cargo. Respondent conducts such operations at its facilities on
the island of Hawaii (the Big Island) where it has two ports—
Hilo and Kawaihae, as well as the islands of Kauai, Maui, and
Oahu. Respondent conducts a “hub-and-spoke” operation which
means that cargo from the West Coast is delivered to the Hono-
lulu, Oahu port which is the hub and, if cargo is needed to go to
any of the neighboring islands which are the spokes, the cargo is
then transported to that neighboring island on a barge.4
At each of Respondent’s facilities, including on the Big Is-
land, the stevedoring operations include, without limitation,
loading cargo onto and unloading cargo from barges. Respond-
ent’s barge fleet includes barges with cranes to move cargo con-
tainers, as well as one barge, named the Waialeale, which is a
roll-on/roll-off operation where cargo is driven onto and off the
barge rather than the use of a crane to move the cargo. Respond-
ent’s barge menu work performed on barges with cranes consists
of communicating to crane operators over two-way radios as to
which containers to load or off-load on the barge and communi-
cating to the rig drivers over two-way radios which chassis are
to be brought to the barge to load or off-load containers on the
barge.
IV. THE ALLEGED UNILATERAL CHANGE
The parties stipulated as follows: For at least 10 years prior to
June 3, 2016, barge menu work at Respondent’s Hawaii island
operations performed on barges with cranes had exclusively
been performed by supervisors and senior supervisors. On or
about May 27, 2016, the same day the Board certified the Union
as the exclusive representative of unit employees, Vice-president
and Director of Stevedoring Laurence “Rusty” Leonard (Leon-
ard) notified Respondent’s Big Island Terminal Manager Mi-
chael Leite (Leite) that Respondent would be using nonunit em-
ployees to perform the barge menu work.5 About June 3, 2016,
Respondent transferred barge menu work performed on barges
with cranes, previously performed by the unit employees, to em-
ployees outside the Unit who are represented by the International
Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 142 (ILWU).
waiver or limitation of any arguments being presented by Respondent in
its petition for review of the Board’s decision and order in case 20–CA–
187970.
4 The barge is an unmanned vessel which has no engine and is usually
towed by a tugboat.
5 The parties stipulated that Leonard and Leite are agents of Respond-
ent within the meaning of Sec. 2(13) of the Act.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel’s position is that Respondent admittedly
transferred work from unit employees to nonunit employees
thereby violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The General
Counsel argues that Respondent’s defense that it was obligated
to transfer the work to nonunit employees is unavailing for sev-
eral reasons including the obligation for Respondent to negotiate
with the Union.
Respondent contends that its witnesses would testify that
ILWU had a contractual right to perform the barge menu work
pursuant to the wharf clerk collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween Respondent and ILWU. Furthermore, Respondent con-
tends that for at least the past 30 years, ILWU represented wharf
clerks exclusively performed the barge menu work for Respond-
ent’s West Coast operations. In 2001, Respondent in Hawaii
converted from a straddle carrier operation, where straddle car-
riers picked up and put down cargo containers on the ground, to
a wheeled operation, where cargo containers were landed on
trucks or trailers and taken to the container yard and parked in
parking spaces. During this 2001 time period, Respondent had
ongoing discussions and an understanding with ILWU that wharf
clerks were continuing to control the flow of cargo to and from
the crane, using new technology including mobile data termi-
nals,6 and they would be assigned to and physically situated near
Respondent’s cranes. Moreover, Respondent contends that its
witnesses would testify that for at least the past 30 years at Re-
spondent’s Kauai operations, ILWU represented wharf clerks
have performed the barge menu work for all of Respondent’s
barges. In addition, since at least 2012 on Oahu and Big Island,
ILWU represented wharf clerks have performed barge menu-like
work on the roll-on/roll-off Waialeale barge by directing long-
shoremen drivers as to the sequence of moving wheeled cargo
onto and off of that barge. And since at least summer 2016, and
due to Respondent’s and ILWU’s discussions about wharf clerk
duties pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement including
Exhibit B, Section IV, ILWU represented wharf clerks have per-
formed the barge menu work on all the barges at Respondent’s
Oahu, Maui and Big Island operations. Finally, in the assump-
tion of barge menu work by the wharf clerks, there has been no
loss of productivity, in other words, no loss of crane speed and
efficiency.
Respondent and ILWU’s wharf clerk collective-bargaining
agreement (June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2019) Section 2.01, contains
a provision which states that wharf clerk duties include “all
checking of cargo on vessels and on docks when such work is
performed by employees.” In addition, a letter of understanding
between the parties, originally dated September 15, 2008, and
updated and revised on June 1, 2015, stated, “the following work
and functions shall be assigned to wharf clerks at all facilities
covered by the wharf clerk agreement: 1) New Operations. All
new duties that are traditionally wharf clerk functions generally

6 For example, the wharf clerks handle the receipt of containers at the
terminal, confirming that a particular discharged container was landed
on a specific chassis.
7 Respondent claims that the unit employees have not suffered from
loss of compensation due to the transfer of barge menu work (R. Br. at
10). Respondent makes this claim without any evidence and fails to
identified as directing and executing the flow of cargo, [Re-
spondent] shall first discuss the work jurisdictional issues in a
meeting” with ILWU. Other provisions of the ILWU collective-
bargaining agreement permit the expansion of wharf clerk duties.
V. ANALYSIS OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
Under Section 8(d) of the Act, mandatory subjects of bargain-
ing include wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment. It is well established that an employer violates Sec-
tions 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when it makes substantial and
material unilateral changes during the course of a collective bar-
gaining relationship absent impasse on matters that are manda-
tory subjects of bargaining. NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962).
Generally, an employer should give notice of a change in work-
ing conditions to the union, provide an opportunity to the union
to bargain before implementing the change in working condi-
tions, bargain in good faith if bargaining is requested by the un-
ion, and bargain to reach agreement or impasse concerning man-
datory subjects of bargaining. A decision to subcontract or trans-
fer unit work alters the terms and conditions of employment and
is therefore a mandatory subject of bargaining.7 See Fibreboard
Corp., 379 U.S. 203, 210 (1964); see also Regal Cinemas, Inc.,
334 NLRB 304, 312–313 (2001), enfd. 317 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir.
2003) (transfer of bargaining unit projectionist work to non-bar-
gaining unit managers and assistant managers); Cincinnati En-
quirer, Inc., 279 NLRB 1023 (1986) (assigning bargaining unit
fourth assistant editor work to deputy features editor supervisor).
Moreover, it is well established that “once a specific job has been
included within the scope of a bargaining unit by either Board
action or consent of the parties, the employer cannot unilaterally
remove or modify that position without first securing the consent
of the union or the Board.” Hill-Rom Co. v. NLRB, 957 F.2d
454, 457 (7th Cir. 1992); accord: United Technologies Corp.,
292 NLRB 248 (1989), enfd. 884 F.2d 1569 (2d Cir. 1989); Bay
Shipbuilding Corp., 263 NLRB 1133 (1982), enfd. 721 F.2d 187
(7th Cir. 1983).
Here, it is undisputed that Respondent failed to provide the
Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain over the deci-
sion to transfer barge menu work performed by the unit employ-
ees for at least the prior 10 years to employees represented by
ILWU. Respondent’s transfer of unit employees’ barge menu
work, date June 3, 2016, is a mandatory subject of bargaining.
Respondent’s bargaining obligation attached once the Union
won the election and was certified by the Board on May 27,
2016, and Respondent acted at its own peril by not providing
notice and an opportunity to bargain to the Union.8 See Thesis
Painting, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 142, slip op. at 4 (2017) (citing
Clement Wire, 257 NLRB 1058 (1981)). Thus, I find that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when it uni-
laterally transferred bargaining unit barge menu work performed
by Unit employees, to nonunit bargaining unit employees.
Respondent alleges that its action to transfer the unit
present any evidence as to how this transfer of work is immaterial, un-
substantial and insignificant. See Weather Tec Corp., 238 NLRB 1535,
1536 (1978).
8 Respondent challenged the Union’s certification by filing a request
for review of the Regional Director’s decision on June 10, 2016.
MATSON TERMINALS, INC. 5
employees’ work to the ILWU represented employees was law-
fully permitted because it was obligated to transfer the barge
menu work, and therefore did not have a bargaining obligation
with the Union. Respondent cites to section 2.01 of the ILWU
collective-bargaining agreement which states that wharf clerk
duties include “all checking of cargo on vessels” as well as to the
letter of understanding which states that wharf clerks direct and
execute the flow of cargo.
Respondent’s argument is not persuasive. Despite Respond-
ent’s agreement with ILWU, Respondent stipulated that for at
least the past 10 years the unit employees performed barge menu
work on the Big Island. Suddenly, in June 2016, with the deci-
sion being made the same day the Union was certified by the
Board as the exclusive representative of unit employees, Re-
spondent decided that the barge menu work should be transferred
to ILWU represented employees. Rather than provide notice and
an opportunity to bargain to the Union, Respondent justifies its
unlawful actions by claiming that its collective-bargaining agree-
ment and letter of understanding with ILWU required the barge
menu work to be performed by ILWU represented employees.
Respondent further supports its argument by adding that wharf
clerks have been performing barge menu work on the West Coast
and on Kauai for the past 30 years. It is irrelevant as to what
work the ILWU represented employees performed on the West
Coast and on Kauai. Furthermore, Respondent, citing Murphy
Oil USA, Inc., 268 NLRB 1039, 1046 (1987), and Exxon Ship-
ping Company, 312 NLRB 566, 569 (1993), claims that Federal
law requires it to transfer the work to ILWU without bargaining
with the Union. However, both cases cited refer to the require-
ments of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA), 29
CFR § 1910.1200, and Federal maritime law, 46 U.S.C. §
10502(c), respectively. Respondent cites to no law which re-
quires the barge menu work to be performed by ILWU repre-
sented employees.
Moreover, the matter at issue in this proceeding is whether
Respondent failed to provide notice and an opportunity to bar-
gain with the Union when it transferred work from the Unit. I
decline to interpret the ILWU collective-bargaining agreement
and letter of understanding as to whether the barge menu work
should be performed by the ILWU represented employees. In-
stead, Respondent failed to provide notice and an opportunity to
bargain to the Union when it transferred barge menu work per-
formed by unit employees, thereby, violating Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act representing:
All full-time and regular part-time supervisors and senior su-
pervisors employed by Matson Terminals, Inc. on the island of
Hawaii, excluding all other employees, managers, guards and
supervisors as defined by the Act.

9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by,
on or about June 3, 2016, transferring barge menu work without
providing the Union with notice and the opportunity to bargain.
4. The above unfair labor practice affects commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Matson Terminals, Inc., has
engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall order it to cease
and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent, having unlawfully changed the terms and condi-
tion of employment, shall rescind the transfer of barge menu
work from the employees represented by the Union that was uni-
laterally implemented on or about June 3, 2016.
Respondent shall post an appropriate informational notice, as
described in the attached appendix. This notice shall be posted
in the Employer’s facility or wherever the notices to employees
are regularly posted for 60 days without anything covering it up
or defacing its contents. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by
email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other elec-
tronic means, if Respondent customarily communicates with its
employees by such means. In the event that, during the pendency
of these proceedings, Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facility involved in these proceedings, 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 June 3, 2016. When the notice is
issued to the Employer, it shall sign it or otherwise notify Region
20 of the Board what action it will take with respect to this deci-
sion. The General Counsel requests that the notice to employees
be read to all employees including employees at Respondent’s
Hawai`i island operations represented by ILWU during work
time by Respondent’s management representative. I decline to
recommend such a remedy as I do not find that the conduct of
Respondent, in this particular case, is sufficiently egregious to
warrant the granting of this “extraordinary” remedy. See
Dynawash, 362 NLRB 427, 434 (2015).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended9
ORDER
Respondent, Matson Terminals, Inc., island of Hawaii, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Changing the terms and conditions of employment of its
Unit employees without first notifying the Union and giving it
an opportunity to bargain over the decision to transfer barge
menu work.
(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 effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the change in the terms and conditions of
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.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
employment for its unit employees that was unilaterally imple-
mented on or about June 3, 2016.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cilities on the island of Hawaii, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”10 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being signed by
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by Re-
spondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily 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 Respondent customarily communicates with its em-
ployees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pen-
dency of these proceedings, Respondent has gone out of business
or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, Respondent
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed by Re-
spondent at any time since June 3, 2016.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 20, 2018
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 be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT change your terms and conditions of employ-
ment without first notifying your exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative, Hawaii Teamster & Allied Workers Union, Local 996,
and giving it an opportunity to bargain. The bargaining unit
(Unit) affected are all full-time and regular part-time supervisors
and senior supervisors employed by Matson Terminals, Inc. on
the island of Hawaii, excluding all other employees, managers,
guards and supervisors as defined by the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind the change (transfer of barge menu work) in
the terms and conditions of employment for our unit employees
that were unilaterally implemented on or about June 3, 2016.
MATSON TERMINALS, INC.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/20-CA-178312 or by using the QR code be-
low. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the
Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half
Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.

10 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.”