READYJET, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Oct 12, 2016

01-CA-132326 (N.L.R.B. Oct. 12, 2016)

JD(NY)-38-16
Boston, MA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
DIVISION OF JUDGES
READYJET, INC.,
RESPONDENT, Case No. 01–CA–132326
01–CA–140878
and 01–CA–155263
01–CA–159503
32BJ SEIU NEW ENGLAND 615, 01–CA–159509
CHARGING PARTY
DECISION
Statement of the Case
KENNETH W. CHU, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Boston,
Massachusetts on July 27 and 28, 2016. The initial charge was filed July 8, 20141 with
additional charges subsequently filed. A consolidated complaint was issued by Region 1 of the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on January 28, 2016 (GC Exh. 1aa).2
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction and Union Status
The Respondent, a corporation with an office and place of business located at the
General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport (Logan), has been engaged in providing
commercial cleaning services within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where it annually
provides services valued in excess of $50,000 at the Logan airport to airline carriers, which
directly engages in interstate commerce. The 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. The
32BJ SEIU New England 615 (the Union), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
The complaint paragraphs allege that ReadyJet, Inc. (Respondent or ReadyJet) violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act) when

1 All dates are in 2015 unless otherwise indicated.
2 The exhibits for the General Counsel are identified as “GC Exh.” The exhibits for the
Respondent are identified as “R. Exh.” Joint exhibits have been identified as “Jt. Exh.” The
hearing transcript is referenced as “Tr.” and closing briefs are identified as “GC Br.” for the
General Counsel and “R. Br.” for the Respondent.
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
8. In about January or February 2014, Respondent, by Rafael Felipe, at the Logan
Airport facility:
(a) interrogated employees about their union sympathies and union activities;
(b) threatened employees with loss of employment if they engaged in union activities;
and
(c) created the impression that employees’ union activities were being
watched by Respondent.
9. In about February or March 2014, Respondent, by Luis Oliva, at the Logan Airport
facility, interrogated employees about their union activities.
10. On various occasions between January and July 2014, Respondent, by
Geraldo Almonte, in his car in the metropolitan Boston area, interrogated employees
about the union activities of other employees.
11. About June 16, 2015, certain employees of Respondent employed at the Logan Airport
facility ceased work concertedly and engaged in a strike.
12. About June 18, 2015, Respondent, by Giovannie Martinez, at the Boston
Logan facility:
(a) told employees that they were issued warnings for participating in the strike
described above in paragraph 11; and
(b) threatened employees with more severe discipline, up to suspension and loss of
employment, if they continued to participate in union activities.
The complaint further alleges in the following paragraphs that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when
13. About June 18, 2015, Respondent issued written disciplinary warnings to its employees
named below:
Claudio Batista
Francisco Luna
Julio Medina
Gerfi Mendez
Sergio Restituyo
14. About July 27, 2015, Respondent terminated Francisco Luna.
15. About August 5, 2015, Respondent terminated Claudio Batista.
16. Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraphs 13, 14, and 15
because the named employees engaged in the strike described above in paragraph 11,
and because the employees formed, joined, or assisted the Union and engaged in
concerted activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities.
The complaint states that the conducted described in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
and 15, Respondent has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.3
The Respondent timely filed an answer to the complaint denying the material allegations
in the complaint (GC Exh. 1cc, 1hh).
III. Credibility Determinations
The credibility resolutions herein have been derived from a review of the entire
testimonial record and exhibits, with due regard for the logic of probability, the demeanor of the
witnesses, and the teachings of NLRB v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404, 408 (1962). A
credibility determination may rely on a variety of factors, including the context of the witness’
testimony, the witness’ demeanor, and the weight of the respective evidence, established or
admitted facts, inherent probabilities, and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the
record as a whole. Double D Construction Group, 339 NLRB 303, 305 (2003); Daikichi Sushi,
335 NLRB 622, 623 (2001). Credibility findings need not be all-or-nothing propositions—indeed,
nothing is more common in all kinds of judicial decisions than to believe some, but not all, of a
witness’ testimony. Daikichi Sushi, above.
1. Background
The Respondent provides cleaning service to Delta Airlines in Terminal A and to JetBlue
in Terminal C at Boston Logan Airport. The Union has been engaged in organizing efforts with
the employees of ReadyJet since 2013. At the time of the hearing, the Union has not been
certified by the NLRB as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Respondent’s
employees.
Andry Mendez (Mendez) testified that he is and has been a union supervisor lead for 9
years and involved in organizing the workers at Logan Airport since 2011. Mendez said that the
Union had organized the workers of Respondent’s predecessors, Aramark, which had a
cleaning service contract at Logan airport. The Union and Aramark negotiated a collective-
bargaining agreement, but after the company lost the cleaning contract, many of the employees
were laid off. Mendez said that eventually, ReadyJet was awarded a cleaning service contract
at the airport and a few of the Aramark employees were rehired by the Respondent (Tr. 15–19).
Mendez testified that Lydia Kamanou, Delfina Ramos, Rose Levy and Yusuf Farah were
a few of the union organizers involved in organizing the workers at ReadyJet. Mendez
supervises Kamanou and she had reported to him about intimidation from ReadyJet
management against the employees that included talks against the Union and threats made to
employees. Mendez said he spoke to management about this intimidation, specifically with
Sarah Colon and Rafael Felipe, as well as several other managers and supervisors (Tr. 20–25).
The genesis of the charges in the complaint is the alleged threats and intimidation made to the
employees by the Respondent related to the Union’s organizing efforts and the discipline issued
to the employees after an unfair labor practice strike.

3 The complaint was amended during the hearing (GC Exh. 4).
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
2. The Unfair Labor Practice Strike
Daniel Nicolai (Nicolai) testified that he is employed by the Union as a district leader and
was in charge of the logistics for a strike that the Union had organized against the Respondent
on June 16.4 Nicolai said that the June strike was for the unfair labor practices of the
Respondent. Nicolai testified that the strike was planned 2 weeks in advance. The Union policy
was to contact the company if there is a planned strike.
Nicolai testified that he prepared, signed and delivered the strike notice to the
Respondent by email to the CEO Richard Castellano with a scanned attachment of the strike
notice. He said that the email was sent on June 16 at 10:12 p.m. (GC Exh. 5). Nicolai said he
directed someone from the union office to also send the strike notice via fax to the Respondent.
Nicolai believed the fax was sent out the same time as the email (Tr. 156–159, 174, 181). The
strike notice (GC Exh. 6) stated
This is to notify you that ReadyJet cabin cleaners at Logan International Airport and
other employees who may sympathize are going on a one-day strike to start with the
employees’ regularly-scheduled shifts commencing this evening, Tuesday, June 16,
2015.
The employees will strike to protest the company’s lack of respect for their rights to form
a union free of intimidation and coercion. After the one-day strike, employees will return
to work on their next regularly-scheduled shifts beginning on Wednesday, June 17th.
ReadyJet workers do not take this action lightly. Both our union and the workers take the
services they provide very seriously and view this strike as a matter of last resort. The
workers have decided to strike because they can no longer tolerate this kind of
treatment, and they see no other alternative.
We ask that you respect the ReadyJet employees’ legally-protected rights to engage in
collective action to improve their working conditions.
Nicolai testified that he never received a response to the fax or email so he sent another
fax to the Respondent at approximately 2 a.m. on June 17 to Dominic Patti, a management
person with Respondent with copies to other union personnel (GC Exh. 7). Nicolai believed that
the earlier email was received by Respondent and “don’t know why I waited” to send the second
fax after the strike was over (Tr.159–161, 175–177).
Mendez testified that the strike occurred at Logan airport Terminal A, lower level. He
said that the front and entrance way through Terminal A is a glass wall and door. The entrance
by employees to the ReadyJet premises was through a security doorway next to a Dunkin’
Donuts coffee shop that is approximately 30 feet from the entrance of the glass exterior wall of
Terminal A (Tr. 25, 26).
Mendez said that the strike started around 9:00–9:15 p.m. on the exterior side of the
glass wall and entrance to Terminal A. Mendez said there was also a union-organized strike
occurring at the same time at Logan Airport Terminal C. Mendez testified that there were

4 Nicolai testified that the strike and picket occurred on June 14, but it was in fact held on
June 16.
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
approximately 10 workers walking around in a circle and sang and shouted slogans (“stuff of the
strike”). He said that the rest of the strikers mingled in a side corner of the terminal entrance.
Mendez believed that the strike ended around 11 p.m. and he went upstairs to the union office
that was located on another level in Terminal A (Tr. 26–28, 31, 33).
Nicolai testified that the strike at Terminal A with the ReadyJet workers started at 10:30
p.m. on June 16 and ended at 12:30 a.m. on June 17. He confirmed that there was a second
strike at Terminal C, but that strike did not start until 3 a.m. and was with a different service
cleaning company. (Tr. 168, 169, 172).
Mendez said the night employees involved in the strike included Gerfi Mendez, Julio
Medina, Claudio Batista, Victor Mendez, Cosme De La Cruz, Sergio Restituyo and Francisco
Luno. Mendez said one of Respondent’s supervisors, Jean Carlos Torres, was present around
8:30 p.m. near the security door entrance to the Respondent’s premises just before the strike
started. Mendez said he was literally one step from Torres. He noticed Torres make a phone
call to someone by the name of “Giovannie,” who has been identified as Giovannie Martinez,
the ReadyJet overnight manager. Mendez testified that he heard Torres speak into a cell phone
saying “I told you that the strike was today. Andry is here and a few people of the Union.”
Mendez testified that Torres was present for “maybe one minute” before entering through the
security door. Mendez knew Torres was talking to Martinez because he named the recipient of
the call by name (Tr. 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, and 34).
Mendez testified that he subsequently observed Martinez at Terminal A around 9:15–
9:20 p.m. in front of the Dunkin’ Donuts. Mendez was certain that Martinez was in front of the
Dunkin’ Donuts observing the striking employees. Mendez averred that he did not observe any
other supervisor at that time (Tr. 29, 30). Mendez believed that Martinez stood observing the
strikers for approximately 15–20 minutes (Tr. 32).
Nicolai testified that there was a large group of workers standing nearby and that he
actively participated in the strike. Nicolai did not recall observing any supervisors standing
around Terminal A during the strike (Tr. 166, 167).
Mendez and Nicolai returned the following night (June 17) around 8:00–8:30 p.m. to
Terminal A. He waited around for the strikers from the previous night to arrive for work.
Mendez testified that he wanted to make sure that the striking employees came to work but was
also concerned that Respondent would not permit them to work (Tr. 37–39).
Mendez noticed a group of workers arriving around 9:10 p.m. when one of the
Respondent’s supervisors appeared. Mendez identified the supervisor as Jensy Diaz (Diaz)
and he was given a packet of documents by the Union. Mendez believed that Diaz came
outside to the Terminal A area from the ReadyJet security door to meet some workers who had
not been issued their security clearance in order to escort them through security (Tr. 37).
Nicolai testified that he spoke to Diaz around 10:30 p.m. at Terminal A on June 17. He
gave Diaz a packet of information and said he hoped that management will respect people’s
right and allow people to return to work. Nicolai said Diaz responded if Nicolai knew what “no
call/no show” meant. Nicolai replied that this was not a “no call/no show” situation but rather, a
protected unfair labor practice strike (Tr. 162–164, 177). Mendez also recalled Diaz stating that
the workers who were “no-calls” and “no-shows” were going to receive discipline (Tr. 30, 31).
Nicolai testified that the workers were not given instructions by the Union as to whether to call in
or not (Tr. 164). Nicolai said that there has been no contact between the Respondent and
Union since the time of the strike (Tr. 171).
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
3. The Discipline and Discharge of ReadyJet Workers
Claudio Batista
Claudio Batista (Batista) was employed by ReadyJet from 2013 until August 5, 2015
when he was discharged. Batista was supervised by Martinez and Torres. Batista was
scheduled to work at Logan airport Terminal A from 9:45 p.m. to 8 a.m. on the night of the strike
(Tr. 76, 77, 91).
Batista recalled participating in the strike by walking in a circle while picketing at
Terminal A. Batista picked up a sign and began to picket. He described the picket signs as
saying “Strike” and “Stop the exploitation.” He said the signs were in English. Batista also
remembered employees Julio Medina, Gerfi Mendez, Sergio Restituyo, and Francisco Luna
were on strike with him (Tr. 77–79).
Batista knew he was not going to work because he was involved in the strike (Tr. 92).
Batista said he was on the outside of the exterior glass wall of Terminal A when he observed
supervisor Torres through the glass wall, who was standing by the security door to the ReadyJet
premises. Batista described that Torres was behind the revolving luggage carousel (Tr. 93).
Batista testified that Torres was standing by the security door for approximately 20–25
minutes. Batista did not notice that union organizer Mendez was standing next to Torres.
Batista did not know if Torres went through the security door afterwards. Batista was unsure
how far away Torres was from him (Tr. 79–82, 89, 93).
Batista testified that Torres had called him by phone about 9:45 p.m. while he was on
the picket line. According to Batista, he was asked by Torres if Batista was coming to work this
night. Batista responded no because he was on strike. Batista went to Terminal C to continue
the strike after the strike concluded at Terminal A (Tr. 90).
Batista met Torres the next day around 9:45 p.m. According to Batista, Torres inquired
as to “When you gonna tell me?” (referring to the no call/no show policy) and was instructed by
Torres to see Martinez. Batista went to see Martinez in his office and received a final written
warning from Martinez. Torres was also present when Batista received the notice. The final
written warning (Jt. Exh. 1) dated June 18, in part, stated
The purpose of this letter is to emphasize the seriousness of calling in advance to inform
ReadyJet, Inc. of your absence. This letter is being issued as a Final Written Warning
for failure to comply on Tuesday, June 16, 2015.
Martinez warned Batista that this was his last chance because of involvement with the
union strike. Batista refused to sign the warning because he was not in agreement that he
should receive a warning for going out on strike (Tr. 82–85).
Batista conceded that he was familiar with company policy about calling in when absent
or not showing up for work. He admitted not calling in on the night of the strike. (Tr. 92).
Batista was subsequently discharged by ReadyJet on August 5. Martinez informed
Batista of his discharge and was told that he was no longer working for the company. According
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
to Batista, Martinez said the discharge was because of Batista “having been absent without call-
in and for being involved in matters with the Union” (Tr. 86, 87). The employee termination
notice did not state the reason for his discharge (Jt. Exh. 6).
Batista repined that he never missed a call-in or absent without leave and never had any
attendance infractions since the time of the strike until his termination (Tr. 87, 88). Batista
conceded he had been absent from work in the past for attending school on Mondays but
maintained that he had not been absent from work while attending school since the time of the
strike (Tr. 96).
Gerfi Mendez
Gerfi Mendez (Mendez) worked as a cleaner at Logan airport Terminal A for ReadyJet
from February 2014 and resigned in July 2016. Mendez’ work shift was from 10 p.m. to either 6
or 7 a.m. Mendez was supervised by Torres and Martinez. Mendez said he was contacted by
Andry Mendez about the strike and whether he would join the strike (Tr. 105). Mendez testified
that he participated in the strike at Terminal A and did not report to work nor gave notice that he
was not coming to work on the night of the strike. Mendez testified that he joined his colleagues
at the picket line and participated for an hour. Mendez recalled that Luna, Batista, Medina and
Restituyo were walking the picket in a circle during the strike (Tr. 98–100). Like Batista,
Mendez went to Terminal C afterwards to continue the strike (Tr.103).
Mendez testified that he received a written warning from supervisor Martinez, dated
June 18 (Jt. Exh. 4). The warning notice, in part, stated
The purpose of this letter is to emphasize the seriousness of calling in advance to inform
ReadyJet, Inc. of your absence. This letter is being issued as a Final Written Warning
for failure to comply on Tuesday, June 16, 2015.
According to Mendez, Martinez asked why Mendez did not go to work on the night of the
strike and was told if he did not show up for work again, he could lose his job (Tr. 100–102).
Mendez admitted to having received prior warnings for attendance infractions before and after
the date of the strike (Tr. 105).
Julio Medina
Julio Medina (Medina) was employed by ReadyJet in 2015 and voluntarily resigned in
mid-February 2016. He was a cleaner and worked from 10 p.m. to the morning. Medina also
participated in the June 16 strike. He did not report to work nor gave notice that he was not
reporting to work (Tr.109, 110).
Medina received a written warning notice from Martinez and was allegedly told by
Martinez that he got the warning “because I have gone on strike” (Tr. 111, 112; Jt. Exh. 3). The
warning stated
The purpose of this letter is to emphasize the seriousness of calling in advance to inform
ReadyJet, Inc. of your absence. This letter is being issued as a Written Warning for
failure to comply on Tuesday, June 16, 2015.
Continued lack of communication could result in further disciplinary action, up to and
including Termination of Employment.
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
Medina maintained that Martinez told him that if he continued to support the Union, he
would receive more warnings or be discharged. Medina testified that nothing else was said at
the meeting (Tr. 112–114).
Medina conceded that he was aware of the company’s policy to call in when he was a no
show or absent from work. Mendez said no one told him not to call in and he did not have any
discussions with the Union or anyone else before the strike (Tr. 115).
Francisco Luna
Francisco Luna (Luna) worked for ReadyJet as a cleaner from September 2014 until
June 2015 when he was terminated. Luna was responsible for removing trash from Terminal A
and for replenishing the water in the planes’ lavatories. At the time, Luna was supervised by
Martinez, Torres and Diaz (Tr. 118, 119, 127).
Luna also participated in the June 16 strike that occurred during his work shift. He did
not call to say that he was not coming to work. Luna testified that he observed other workers on
strike as he arrived at Terminal A at 10 p.m. and decided to join the strike.
Luna testified that he received a warning for no call/no show by Martinez on June 18.
Luna was told by Martinez that he did not call in when he failed to show up for work. Martinez
told him that this was his final warning. Luna said nothing in response. (Tr. 121, 122, 131,
132). The written final warning (Jt. Exh. 2) stated:
The purpose of this letter is to emphasize the seriousness of calling in advance to inform
ReadyJet, Inc. of your absence. This letter is being issued as a Final Written Warning
for failure to comply on Tuesday, June 16, 2015.
Continued lack of communication could result in further disciplinary action, up to and
including Termination of Employment.
Luna was subsequently discharged on July 27 (Jt. Exh. 7). Sarah Colon (Colon) gave
Luna his termination notice. The termination notice stated:
Employee is being terminated because of his failure to follow company policies and job
duties as Expected and trained. Employee has received 4 discipline notices in
accordance with the company’s Progressive discipline policy. Warnings consist of three
instances whereby the employee did not fulfill his job duties as required by the company
and the customer, one of which cost the company a fine of $90 by the airport. Another
of the warnings caused a safety hazard to all employees. Additionally, The employee
did not follow company policy by not calling management to inform them he would not be
at work. The latest incident caused the company to receive a delay by the airport for
failing to perform services that were assigned to him. The employee falsified work time
sheets which is also against company policy where (Falsification of Company Records).
Luna testified that he could not understand nor was he able to read the termination
notice because of his limited English. Luna maintains that Colon did not translate the
information in the termination notice for him. Luna thought that he was signing a renewal
application for his security credentials and not his termination notice. Luna said he was never
informed of the reason for his termination until after he signed the form. Luna said that Colon
told him it was a termination notice and that Andry (Mendez) would be able to find him a new job
(Tr. 123–128).
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
Luna maintained that he found out “a few days later” the reason for his termination when
a friend translated the termination notice, but admitted that it was explained to him at the
meeting with Colon and Martinez that he was terminated because he did not replenish the water
tank in the plane’s lavatory. He replied to Colon that it was “not his job” (Tr. 136–139).
On cross-examination, Luna admitted that he did not ask Martinez or Colon to translate
the termination notice even though he knew that they were both bilingual in Spanish and English
(Tr. 135). Luna also admitted that he was previously given a written warning on March 17 for
failing to pick up trash, which he signed and was aware of what he was signing (Tr. 136; R. Exh.
2).5
Respondent’s Rebuttal to the Discipline and Discharges
It has been stipulated that Giovannie Martinez (Martinez) is the overnight manager for
ReadyJet and is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act (Jt. Exh. 8).
Martinez was a supervisor with ReadyJet and was on the 11 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. work shift during
the June 16 strike at Terminal A (Tr. 191, 192).
Martinez was aware of the June 16 strike, but does not recall whether he was working
on that day but believed he was (Tr. 192). At the time, Martinez supervised Gerfi Mendez,
Claudio Batista, and Francisco Luna. Martinez believed that the three employees were aware
of the Respondent’s no call/no show policy and recalled giving them warnings about their no
call/no show for June 16 (Tr. 193, 194). Martinez testified that he met with each individual and
gave them warnings for their no call/no show for June 16. He said that either supervisor Diaz or
Torres was present with him when the warnings were issued. He did not recall if any individual
responded to the warning, but believed they said nothing (Tr. 194, 195).
With regard to Batista’s termination, Martinez said that Batista was terminated because
he arrived late every Monday and then he had a no call/no show, “so we terminated him.”
Martinez testified that Batista told him that he was late on Mondays because of his scheduling
conflict with school. Martinez said he promised to work with Batista in arranging his work and
school schedules but that would require Batista to work on Saturdays and Sundays and Batista
refused the offer. According to Martinez, Batista told him that he will keep his current schedule
and do the best he could to arrive on time on Mondays. Martinez could not recall how many
times that Batista had been late for work on Mondays (Tr. 196, 197).
With regard to Luna, Martinez testified that he was terminated for falsification of records.
According to Martinez, Luna was responsible to ensuring there is sufficient water in the planes’
lavatories and a pilot had called that this service was not done. Martinez had a meeting with
Luna in the office of Sarah Colon. Martinez believed that Colon explained to Luna the reason
for his termination. He did not recall if Luna responded. His termination notice was written in
English but insisted that the explanation for his termination was verbally given in Spanish by
Colon (Tr. 197–199). Martinez said that Luna had also received a warning for his no call/no
show on the strike date, but did not recall if Luna had any attendance warnings prior to the strike
date (Tr. 200).

5 The General Counsel maintains that Sergio Restituyo was also given a written warning for
no show/no call on June 16, the night of the strike (Jt. Exh. 5). Restituyo did not testify at the
hearing and no testimony was proffered as to the circumstances of Restituyo’s participation in
the strike or the warning notice that he received on June 18.
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
Jean Carlos Torres Pietris (Torres) testified that he is one of the overnight supervisors
and is responsible for ensuring that the lavatories of the planes are clean and properly
maintained with water. Torres became a supervisor in 2014 at Terminal A and supervises all
employees on the overnight shift from 10 p.m. to the morning until the work is finished, usually
around 6:30–7 a.m. (Tr. 204–206).
Torres described that employees would routinely arrive at work and go through a
security door to the ReadyJet premises. He said that the employee would show a badge; enter
their fingerprint; and then a PIN number at the security door. Torres testified he never had a
reason to stand by the security door and was not familiar with the June strike (Tr. 206–208).
Torres said he was a management witness for Batista’s termination. He testified that
Martinez terminated Batista after management had change his work schedule to accommodate
his attendance at school on Mondays, but Batista continued to be a no call/no show on the fifth
day of his work schedule. Torres believed that Batista understood that he was wrong for not
calling in (Tr. 208, 209).
Jensy Alexander Diaz (Diaz) is a supervisor and started working for Respondent on
March 5, 2014. Diaz was a group lead before becoming a supervisor. He was a group lead in
June 2015. As a group lead, Diaz was responsible for guiding the workers with their work
assignments (Tr. 212).
Diaz works the 10 p.m. until 6 or 7 a.m. shift. Diaz does not recall working on the night
of the strike, but was nevertheless aware there was a strike. Diaz worked the following
day/night on June 17. Diaz knows union organizer Mendez, but denied having a conversation
with him in regard to the strike on the night of June 17 and only spoke to him once regarding a
non-strike matter (Tr. 213, 214).
Diaz was involved as a management witness in the discipline meeting of Medina
regarding his no call/no show. He denied that the warning was in regard to the strike. Diaz did
not recall the date of the discipline or much more from the meeting (Tr. 215, 216).
As stipulated, Sarah Colon (Colon) is the general manager at ReadyJet (Jt. Exh. 8) and
has been for the past 2 years. She has been employed by ReadyJet for over 5 years. She
started as a cleaner in 2011 and progressed to general manager in 2014. Colon oversees
operations at Logan airport Terminals A and C and deals with staffing, scheduling, and
disciplinary issues. She said there are 240 employees in various cleaning positions and in “lav
and water” with responsibility for cleaning the lavatories of the planes and for removing waste
and replenishing the water (Tr. 229–231).
Colon testified that ReadyJet’s no call/no show policy means that an employee is
required to call in advance if he or she plans not to show up for work. She stated that if the
employee does not call in, he or she will be disciplined (Tr. 245). Colon also stated that a final
warning is defined as a performance infraction and another subsequent infraction can lead to
termination or will lead to termination (Tr. 254). Colon testified that the no call/no show policy is
reflected in the Respondent’s attendance policy (Tr. 248, 249; R. Exh. 5) and states in relevant
part:

Employees who fail to contact their Station or General Manager cause others to take on
additional duties which lead to an overall loss in productivity. An employee, who fails to
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
notify his/her department of any absence in accordance with the department’s policy, will
be subject to corrective action as follows –
1st failure to notify of absence - verbal warning
2nd failure to notify of absence - written warning
3rd failure to notify of absence - termination
With regard to Batista’s discharge, Colon testified he was terminated due to attendance
infractions. Colon said that Batista had asked to change his schedule because he needed
Mondays as a non-work day to attend school. He was given a new work schedule but he was
required to report to work on Saturday and Sunday, which he would not accept (Tr. 231). Colon
describe that ReadyJet has timesheet records when the employees punch in and out (R. Exh.
3). She testified that on July 6, 2015, Batista called out (Monday); on July 13, Batista also
called out (Monday); on July 20, he called out (Monday); and on August 3 (Monday), Batista
was a no call/no show. Colon said that it was noted in Spanish on the timesheet report that
Batista’s absences were “Excuse Not Valid” (Tr. 232–235).
With regard to Luna, Colon said he was terminated due to performance issues. Colon
complained that ReadyJet received a fine by Massport for not collecting trash, which was Luna’s
responsibility and that he also failed to empty the waste and replenish the water on a Delta
plane’s lavatory. Colon testified the plane’s departure was delayed because the lavatory had to
be re-serviced with water and Luna was subsequently terminated because of the latest incident
dealing with the plane’s lavatory (Tr. 236–240).
Colon testified that the termination notice was written in English and explained to him in
English by Colon. Colon said that Luna understood English. Colon said that Luna insisted that
he had serviced the plane. However, Colon testified that Luna was discharged based upon
previous infractions and the non-service of the Delta plane the night before. Colon said Luna
did not ask any questions and he knew he was terminated because he had to turn in his security
credentials, including his badge (Tr. 240–242; 250, 251).
Colon said that other employees not involved with the June 16 strike have also been
disciplined for no call/no show. Colon indicated that on March 16, 2015, Eliezer Jiminian was
disciplined for failure to show up for scheduled start time after a prior discussion regarding his
start time. She also stated that Maria Garcia was disciplined on June 14 for no call/no show,
which was 2 days before the strike. Colon described that employee Hector Gomez was written
up on July 4 for being a no call/no show, as well as other employees, Yilma and Ortiz (Tr. 246–
248; R. Exh. 4).
Discussion and Analysis
The counsel for the General Counsel argues that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by (a) on about June 18, 2015 telling employees they were issued warnings for
participating in a strike and by threatening employees with more severe discipline, up to
suspension and loss of employment, if they continued to participate in union activities; (b)
issuing written disciplinary warnings to employees Claudio Batista, Francisco Luna, Julio
Medina, Gerti Mendez, and Sergio Restituyo; and (c) terminating employee Francisco Luna
on about July 27, 2015; and terminating employee Claudio Batista on about August 5, 2015
(GC Br. at 3, 4).
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act provides that it is an unfair labor practice to interfere with,
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7. Discharging
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
and disciplining employees because they engaged in activity protected by Section 7 is a
violation of Section 8(a)(1). Section 7 of the Act guarantees employees the right “to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . . . .” See, Brighton Retail,
Inc., 354 NLRB 441, 447 (2009). In Myers Industries (Myers I), 268 NLRB 493 (1984), and in
Myers Industries (Myers II) 281 NLRB 882 (1986), the Board held that “concerted activities”
protected by Section 7 are those “engaged in with or on the authority of other employees, and
not solely by and on behalf of the employee himself.”
Concerted activity includes not only activity that is engaged in with or on the authority of
other employees, but also activity where individual employees seek to initiate or to induce or to
prepare for group action, as well as individual employees bringing truly group complaints to the
attention of management. Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, 361 NLRB No. 12, slip op. at 3
(2014). If the employee or employees who are acting in concert are seeking to improve terms
and conditions of employment, their actions are for mutual aid and protection of all employees
within the meaning of Section 7. Id., slip op. at 3, 5–6.
a. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
Issuing Disciplinary Warnings to Employees who were on Strike
The counsel for the General Counsel argues that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act when written warnings were issued to Batista, Medina, Luna, Restituyo, and
Mendez for “failure to comply on Tuesday, June 16, 2015” (Jt. Exh. 5). The alleged failure to
comply was the failure of the employees to call-in and inform ReadyJet supervisors that they
would not be showing up for work on June 16 (the night of the strike) under the company’s “no
call-no show” policy.
When an employer discharges an employee ostensibly for conduct unrelated to
protected activity, the Board must determine whether an unlawful consideration—the protected
activity of the employee or other employees—entered into the decision making process and, if
so, whether it affected the outcome of that process. In such situations, the Board follows the
mixed motive analysis articulated in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. on other grounds
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved in NLRB v.
Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983).
However, the Board has held that where the conduct for which the employee is
disciplined is intertwined with protected concerted activity, the Board’s traditional Wright Line
analysis does not apply. Rogers Corp., 344 NLRB 504, 513 (2005), citing Felix Industries,
331 NLRB 144, 146 (2000). Rather, the Board applies the test set forth by the Supreme
Court in NLRB v. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21, 23 (1964); Amelio’s, 301 NLRB 182
(1991). The Court held in Burnup that
In sum, Section 8(a)(1) is violated if it is shown that the discharged employee was
at the time engaged in a protected activity, that the employer knew it was such, that
the basis of the discharge was an alleged act of misconduct in the course of that
activity, and that the employee was not, in fact, guilty of that misconduct.
As with all alleged Section 8(a)(1) violations, the judge’s task is to “determine how a
reasonable employee would interpret the action or statement of her employer . . . and such a
determination appropriately takes account of the surrounding circumstances.” The Roomstore,
357 NLRB 1690, 1690, slip op. at 1 fn. 3 (2011).
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
It has not been seriously disputed that Martinez the overnight manager, was aware that
the disciplined employees were engaged in a protected activity. Union organizer Mendez
overheard Torres talking to Martinez on the phone on the night of the strike. Martinez testified
that he was aware of the strike and the employees involved in the strike. It is also not seriously
disputed that Martinez, on June 18, issued the written warnings to the five workers because
they failed to call in when they did not work their scheduled shifts but instead, participated in the
strike.6 The Respondent issued final warnings to Batista, Mendez and Luna. Medina and
Restituyo were given warnings (JT Exhs. 1–5).
Martinez testified that he was aware that the strike had occurred on June 16, although
he could not recall if he was working that night. Martinez also testified (Tr. 192–194):
Q. Do you recall giving warnings to certain employees for no call/no show on or about
June 16, 2015?
A. I have given out warnings for no call/no show, but I don’t remember exactly the dates.
Q. Do you recall giving warnings for no call/no show for the picketing activity of June 16,
2015?
A. Yes, I issue warnings.
It is clear that the June 16 strike and picketing was a concerted activity afforded
protection under Section 7 of the Act. The courts have likewise repeatedly recognized and
effectuated the strong interest of federal labor policy in the legitimate use of the strike.
Automobile Workers v. O’Brien, 339 U.S. 454; Amalgamated Assn. of Electric Railway.
Employees v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 340 U.S. 383 (1951) ;Labor Board v.
Remington Rand, Inc., 130 F.2d 919 (1942); Cusano v. NLRB, 190 F.2d 898 (1951); cf. Sinclair
Ref. Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U. S. 195 (1962); NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U.S. 221, 233
(1963). Picketing, of course is also a concerted activity. Picketing “generally involves persons
carrying picket signs and patrolling back and forth before an entrance to a business or worksite.”
NLRB v. Retail Store Union Local 1001, 447 U.S. 607, 618–619 (1980) (picketing “involves
patrol of a particular locality”) (quoting Bakery Drivers v. Wohl, 315 U.S. 769, 776–777 (1942);
Overstreet v. Carpenters Local 1506, 409 F.3d 1199, 1213 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Classically,
picketers walk in a line and, in so doing, create a symbolic barrier”).
I find that Martinez’ testimony (above), without dispute, shows that the warnings were
issued because the five employees failed to call in when they were picketing on June 16. The
alleged misconduct was not following ReadyJet’s policy to call when not reporting to work.
However, the conduct for which the employees were disciplined is itself protected concerted
activity and unlawful under the Act. Burnup, above. Additionally, the Board has held that the
Act protects the “right to strike without prior notice” despite an employer’s policy that requires
advance notice by a worker when not coming to work. Iowa Packing Co., 338 NLRB 1140, JD
at 1144 (2003); also, NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U.S. 221 (1963) (the Act protects the
right of employees to engage in concerted activities, including the right to strike without prior
notice).

6 Sergio Restituyo received a written warning on June 18 for his failure to call in advance of
his absence on June 16, the night of the strike (Jt. Exh. 5). Restituyo did not testify at the
hearing. However, Restituyo did participate in the strike as corroborated through testimony from
his coworkers. As such, I find that Restituyo was also issued a warning by the Respondent
based upon his no call/no show on the night of the strike.
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
Accordingly I find that the written warnings clearly had the tendency to restrain and
coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. Electrical South, Inc., 327 NLRB
270, 277 (1998).
b. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Telling Employees
That They Were Disciplined for their Participation in the Strike and
Threatened with Discipline for Further Union Involvement
The counsel for the General Counsel further argues that threats made by Martinez of
future discipline in support of the Union is also a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I agree.
I credit the testimony of Batista, Mendez, Medina and Luna when Martinez threatened
them with more severe discipline because of their participation in Union activity. Martinez
warned Batista that this was his last chance because of involvement with the Union strike (Tr.
82–85). Martinez asked Mendez why he did not go to work on the night of the strike and told
Mendez he could lose his job if he did not show up for work again (Tr. 100–102). Martinez told
Medina that he would receive more warnings or a discharge if he continued to support the Union
(Tr. 112–114). Martinez told Luna that he did not call in when he failed to show up for work on
June 16. Martinez told him that this was his final warning (Tr. 121).
It is well settled that coercive and threatening statements are measured not by the
subjective views of either the speaker or the listener, but by whether the remarks had the
reasonable tendency to interfere with the free exercise of Section 7 rights. See NLRB v. Illinois
Tool Works, 153 F.2d 811, 816 (7th Cir. 1946). In these circumstances, Martinez’ remarks were
clearly coercive, and Respondent thus violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Ellison Media
Co., 344 NLRB 1112, 1113 (2005); George L. Mee Memorial Hospital, 348 NLRB 327 (2006);
Armstrong Machine Co., 343 NLRB 1149, 1151 (2004).
Each of the four employees was sequestered before testifying. Each testified and
corroborated that similar threats were made by Martinez. Their testimony over receiving the
warnings by Martinez because of their participation in the strike was consistent and did not falter
under cross-examination. The Board “has long held that such statements by an employer
implicitly threaten discharge because they convey the impression that the employer considers
complaining about working conditions and engaging in union activity incompatible with
continued employment.” Equipment Trucking Co., 336 NLRB 277 (2001). The threats,
moreover, made by Martinez, the overnight manager and a top official is a factor that the Board
has long recognized as significant. “The threats were made by Respondent’s general manager,
a man who possessed the power not only to threaten but also to turn threat into reality.”
General Stencils, Inc., 195 NLRB 1109, 1110 (1972).
As noted in Pro-Spec Painting, Inc., 339 NLRB 946, 949 (2003), the threats of future
discipline, including discharge, for engaging in union activity is an independent violation of the
Act: “These statements not only confirm the discrimination against Hemberger, but also
amounts to threats and coercion, constituting independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.” Accordingly, I find that the threats regarding future discipline, including potentially
discharge, made by Martinez, in the presence of a second supervisor, also violated Section 8
(a)(1) of the Act.
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
c. The Respondent Violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
By Discharging Batista and Luna
The counsel for the General Counsel argues that Batista and Luna were discharged in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because they would not have been terminated under the
Respondent’s progressive discipline policy but for their final warnings received for participating
in the strike. The Respondent argues that Batista was discharged because he was arriving late
to work “almost every Monday” (Tr. 196) and Luna was discharged because he had falsified a
document of completing an assignment to replenish the potable water in the aircraft’s lavatory,
which he did not actually do (R. Br. at 16, 17). The question remains under Burnup, above,
whether the workers were guilty of the misconduct as charged.
The Respondent has a progressive disciplinary policy (Jt. Exh.10). This policy states
Progressive discipline may range from a verbal warning, a written warning, or a
discharge. Each level of discipline need not be imposed in every case, but is dependent
on all the circumstances. Although not intended to cover every situation that may arise,
the following are the general guidelines to be used in the progressive discipline process:
1. A Verbal Warning will be the first level of disciplinary action. Verbal warnings
should be documented by the Supervisor/Manager - issuing the warning, and
should be retained by that Supervisor or Manager.
2. A Written Warning will typically be the next action.
3. A Disciplinary Leave Notice is the third step of disciplinary action.
4. Termination is the final step in the progressive discipline program.
Colon stated that a final warning is defined as a performance infraction and another
subsequent infraction can lead to termination or will lead to termination (Tr. 254).
Batista was discharged by ReadyJet on August 5 after receiving a final written warning
for his no call/no show strike participation on June 16. Martinez informed Batista of his
discharge and was told that he was no longer working for the company. According to Batista,
Martinez said the discharge was because of Batista “having been absent without call-in and for
being involved in matters with the Union” (Tr. 86, 87). The employee termination notice did not
state the reason for his discharge (Jt. Exh. 6).
Martinez said that Batista was terminated because he arrived late every Monday and
then he had a no call/no show, “so we terminated him.” Martinez testified that Batista told him
that he was late on Mondays because of his scheduling conflict with school. Martinez promised
to work with Batista in arranging his work and school schedule but Batista told him that he would
keep his current schedule and do the best he could to arrive on time on Mondays. Martinez
could not recall how many times that Batista had been late for work on Mondays from the
summer of 2015 until his discharge on August 5 (Tr. 196, 197).
A review of Batista’s absences subsequent to June 16 shows the following: On July 6,
Batista called out. There is no documentation of the reason he called out and nothing to
indicate that his absence was considered unexcused by the Respondent; On July 13, Batista
called out and it was documented that he was sick as the reason for his absence. On July 20,
Batista called out, but his excuse for his absence was not accepted. Finally, on August 3,
Batista was a no call/no show. Batista was discharged on August 5 (R. Exh. 3).
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
Based upon this review, it is clear that absent the final warning issued to Batista
because of his June 16 participation in the strike, he would not have been discharged. Without
the June 18 final written warning for being no call/no show, Batista would have received his final
warning for his August 3 no call/no show infraction. Under the Respondent’s progressive
discipline policy, Batista would not have been discharged because he would not have received
a final warning until August 3 and not June 18. Inasmuch as the June 18 final warning was a
violation of Section 8(a)(1), Batista’s termination was also intertwined with his participation in the
strike to invalidate his discharge. Batista’s support of the Union through his participation in
strike activity subjected him to termination upon his next infraction.7
With regard to Luna, he was discharged on July 27 (Jt. Exh. 7). The termination notice
stated:
Employee is being terminated because of his failure to follow company policies and job
duties as Expected and trained. Employee has received 4 discipline notices in
accordance with the company’s Progressive discipline policy. Warnings consist of three
instances whereby the employee did not fulfill his job duties as required by the company
and the customer, one of which cost the company a fine of $90 by the airport. Another
of the warnings caused a safety hazard to all employees. Additionally, The employee
did not follow company policy by not calling management to inform them he would not be
at work. The latest incident caused the company to receive a delay by the airport for
failing to perform services that were assigned to him. The employee falsified work time
sheets which is also against company policy where (Falsification of Company Records).8
With regard to Luna, Martinez testified that he was terminated for falsification of records.
According to Colon, Luna was responsible for ensuring there is sufficient water in the planes’
lavatories and Luna was terminated because a pilot had called to complain that this service was
not done, which delayed the departure of the plane. Martinez said that Luna had also received
a warning for his no call/no show on the strike date, but did not recall if Luna ever had any
attendance warnings prior to the strike date (Tr. 200). Colon said he was terminated due to
performance issues. Colon complained that ReadyJet received a fine by Massport for not
collecting trash, which was Luna’s responsibility and that he also failed to empty the waste and
replenish the water on a Delta plane’s lavatory (Tr. 236–240). Colon testified he was terminated
because of the latest incident in failing to replenish the plane’s water in the lavatory. However,
Colon could not recall when Luna had allegedly failed to replenish the plane’s lavatory water
supply. Colon testified that she believed Luna’ dereliction of duty occurred either the night of or
2 days before the incident when the Respondent was fined $90 (Tr. 250).
Luna’s termination notice cited three work-related infractions and one no call/no show
policy violation. A review of Luna’s disciplinary record shows that he received a prior written
warning on March 17 for failing to remove airport terminal trash and the Respondent was fined
$90 by Massport for littering (R. Exh. 2). Accepting Colon’s testimony that the failure to

7 Batista’s absence on July 20 was not a violation of ReadyJet’s no call/no show policy.
Batista had in fact called in. His absence was not accepted, but he was not disciplined.
8 There were some inconsistencies in Luna’s testimony as to whether or not he was
informed as to the reasons for his termination in his native language due to his limited English
ability. It is not necessary to decide this issue since it is sufficient that Luna did eventually find
out the reasons for his discharge.
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
replenish the water occurred 1 or 2 days before Respondent was fined $90 by Massport, it is
clear there were no discipline given to Luna between March 17 and his June 18 final warning.9
Luna was issued a final written warning on June 18 for his June 16 participation in the
strike when he was a no call/no show (R. Exh. 2). Unlike Batista and Mendez, there is no prior
discipline noted for Luna’s final warning. Consequently, I could reasonably conclude that Luna
had only one prior discipline (March 17 warning), and perhaps one verbal counseling, before his
June 18 written final warning. Subsequent to his final warning, the record shows no discipline
except for his termination on July 24.
Like Batista, the dates of Luna’s discipline is critical because if Luna had no subsequent
discipline after his June 18 final warning, then the basis for his termination becomes faulty
inasmuch as the final warning was issued on the basis of his protected activity for the June 16
strike. Luna’s termination notice stated that “Additionally, the employee did not follow company
policy by not calling management to inform them he would not be at work,” which is a reference
to his June 16 no call/no show. This statement is read in conjunction with the following sentence
in the termination notice that stated “The latest incident caused the company to receive a delay
by the airport for failing to perform services that were assigned to him.” In my opinion, a
reasonable reading of these two sentences means that Luna was terminated due to his failure
to call in on June 16, which caused a delay in the performance of services. As such, Luna
would not have been terminated but for his final warning for participating in the strike when he
was a no call/no show.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that the Respondent discharged Batista and Luna due
to their protected activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.10

9 It is not clear when the alleged falsification “. . . of work time sheets” occurred, but I would
reasonably conclude that this alleged infraction occurred prior to the June 18 final written
warning because there was no discipline issued for this infraction by ReadyJet under its
progressive discipline policy.
10 Assuming, arguendo, that the mixed motive analysis articulated in Wright Line, 251 NLRB
1083 (1980), enfd. on other grounds 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989
(1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983) applies
under the circumstances of this complaint, I find that the General Counsel had met his initial
burden and that the Respondent failed to meet its burden to show it would have taken the same
action even absent the employee’s protected activity. The employer does not meet its burden
merely by showing it had a legitimate reason for the action; it must demonstrate that it would
have taken the same action in the absence of the protected conduct. In finding that the
employer’s proffered reasons are pretextual, the employer fails by definition to meet its burden
of showing it would have taken the same action for those reasons, absent the protected activity.
See Alternative Energy Applications, 361 NLRB No. 139, slip op. at 3 (2014), citing authorities.
It has long been recognized that where an employer’s reasons are false, it can be inferred “that
the [real] motive is one that the employer desires to conceal—an unlawful motive—at least
where . . . the surrounding facts tend to reinforce that inference. See Shattuck Denn Mining
Corp. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 1966).
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
4. The Surveillance and Interrogation of ReadyJet Employees
a. The Surveillance and Interrogation of
Evelyn González and Egla Cruz
Evelyn González (González)11 testified that she previously worked for ReadyJet in
Terminal C from December 2011 to May 2016 from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. (Tr. 42). While on her
lunch break at the Terminal C food court on January 7, 2014, González was asked to sign a
union card by Lydia Kamanou, a union organizer (Tr. 54). González said she was approached
by Kamanou while having lunch with coworker Egla Cruz (Cruz). Both were asked to sign union
cards. All three sat at a table in the food court and their conversation lasted about 15 minutes.
González noticed that they were being observed by two ReadyJet supervisors who were also at
the food court approximately about one meter away (Tr. 56). She did not recall their names.
She thought they saw her talking to Kamanou. González said she was unfamiliar with the
concept of a union and had never spoken to a union representative before this time. She said
she signed and dated the union card on January 7, 2014 (Tr. 43–54; GC Exh. 2).
After the union cards were completed and signed, González and Cruz went down to the
lower level to the company break room and were met by supervisor Rafael Felipe (Felipe) and
he called them to his office. González and Cruz were told that they were seen with the Union
and he said “don’t pay attention to them” and “stay away from them because they were not good
for us or for the company.” According to González, Felipe discussed his own work experience
at Aramark as an example as to what happened after Aramark lost its cleaning service contract
and the union members subsequently lost their jobs. González said that Cruz responded by
saying it was their right to know about the Union while on their break time. González did not say
anything. They then left his office (Tr. 49–51, 56).
Cruz testified that she has been working as a cleaner with ReadyJet since November
2012 at Terminal C from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. Cruz confirmed that she was asked to sign a union
card by Kamanou in January 2014 at the food court. Cruz said she was with González eating at
the table when approached by Kamanou. Cruz said Kamanou introduced herself and asked if
they wanted to be part of the Union. Since neither knew anything about the Union, Cruz
testified that Kamanou proceeded to explain the benefits of a union and asked them to sign
union cards (Tr. 64–66; GC Exh. 3).
Cruz said they finished their break and were walking towards the break room when
approached by Felipe and instructed to go to his office. Cruz said that Felipe asked “what were
they doing upstairs, what they were up to, and if had spoken to anyone from the Union.”
According to Cruz, Felipe said that the Union was “no good” that the Union “will take their
money for themselves” and that they should “run away” from them (union representatives) if
they see them again. Cruz said she responded to Felipe by saying that it was their right to listen
and that they don’t have to run away from them. Cruz said their conversation ended and Felipe
warned them “Don’t do it again. Don’t stop and talk to those people again” (Tr. 68, 69).
Cruz admitted that she did not observe any ReadyJet supervisors at the food court.
Cruz also admitted that neither Felipe nor any Respondent management official had threatened
her or González with losing their jobs if they support the Union (Tr. 71–73).

11 González testified by video. There was no opposition to her video testimony.
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
19
González testified that 2 months later, she was spoken to by Luis Oliva (Oliva), a
ReadyJet supervisor at the break room. Oliva asked González and Cruz whether they had
signed union cards. Cruz responded that it was their right and they were not going to confirm or
deny signing the cards. Oliva then left (Tr. 51–53).
b. The Interrogation of Rafael Marty
Rafael Marty (Marty) testified that he started at ReadyJet in January 2014 until July 2014
cleaning airplanes in Terminal A. He testified that ReadyJet supervisor Geraldo Almonte
(Almonte) gave him rides to work on the weekends in his car during the months of February or
March because they lived in the same general neighborhood (Tr. 140–142). He said that
Almonte would always drive him to work and sometimes back home depending on Almont’s
departure schedule. He said the commute was usually a 30-minute car ride (Tr. 144–145).
Marty testified that his initial work shift was at 9 p.m. until the following morning and then
he switched his schedule to 2 p.m. until 9 p.m. (Tr. 145, 146). Marty was certain that Almonte
worked the weekend shifts (Tr. 146) when Marty began working his 2 p.m. shift in February and
part of March (Tr. 146–147).
Marty testified that Almonte would talk about the Union in the car during their ride and
how Almonte would tell him that the Union was no good for the company. Marty said this same
conversation occurred “over and over again” during their Saturday and Sunday rides to work.
Marty maintained that Almonte would repeatedly asked Marty who else supported the Union.
Marty would respond that he did not know. Marty said he never responded to Almonte’s
criticisms of the Union (Tr. 142–144).
Respondent’s Rebuttal to the Surveillance and Interrogation
Rafael Felipe (Felipe) is and has been a supervisor for the past 4 years with ReadyJet.
He started in 2011 as a group lead. His work shift starts at 7 a.m. and finishes around 3:30 p.m.
and he had the same shift for the past 3 ½ years at Terminal C. Felipe is responsible for
ensuring that employees have the proper equipment to do their job. (Tr. 218, 219).
Felipe testified that he knows Cruz and González and recalled interacting with them after
supervisor Oliva observed them being approached by the Union in the food court in January
2014 (Tr. 219). Felipe approached them while they were coming out of the bathroom and
started a conversation with them together with supervisor Oliva in the office. Felipe said the
subject of the Union came up because they were asking the supervisor about the Union, how it
functions, its purpose and objectives. Felipe discussed the concept of a union with them and
gave them his opinion that the Union was “so-so” but inferred that they could reach their own
conclusions about the Union because “they are grownups” (Tr. 220–225).
Felipe admitted to discussing his own experience with the Union as the basis for his “so-
so” comment when he worked for Aramark and the Union promised much and then everyone
lost their jobs after Aramark lost the cleaning contract. Felipe denied saying that the Union was
no good; denied telling them not to talk to the Union; and denied telling them not to sign union
cards (Tr. 224, 225).
Geraldo Almonte (Almonte) testified that he previously worked for ReadyJet from 2011
to November 2014 (Tr. 188). Almonte said he was a manager assistant with the Respondent
and worked the overnight shift from 10 p.m. until nighttime operations were completed around 7
or 8 a.m. from Monday through Friday (Tr. 184–186).
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20
Almonte said he knows Rafael Marty as a worker with ReadyJet and as a neighbor in the
same general area. Almonte denied talking to Marty about the Union at any time (Tr. 187).
Almonte also denied ever working on weekends and stated that his hours and shift have always
been the same during his employment with ReadyJet (Tr. 189, 190).
Discussion and Analysis
The counsel for the General Counsel argues that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by (a) in about January or February of 2014 interrogating employees
about their union sympathies and union activities, threatening employees with loss of
employment if they engaged in union activity, and creating the impression that employees’
union activities were being watched by Respondent; (b) in about February or March of
2014, interrogating employees about their union activities; and (c) on various occasions
between January and July 2014, interrogating employees about the union activities of other
employees.12
a. The Respondent Violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
When it interrogated and Threatened Evelyn González and Egla Cruz
With Loss of Employment Due to Their Union Involvement
The counsel for the General Counsel alleges that González and Cruz were subjected to
questions and comments about the Union on January 7, 2014 by Rafael Felipe, who was a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and an agent of the Respondent within
the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act at the time. The General Counsel also argues that
manager Luis Oliva questioned González and Cruz about their union activity in February or
March 2014. The Respondent denied that González and Cruz were interrogated about their
union activity.
The lead Board case regarding the legality of interrogations is Rossmore House, 269
NLRB 1176 (1984), affd. 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985). Pursuant to the Rossmore test,
Under Board law, it is [well established] that interrogations of employees are not per se
unlawful, but must be evaluated under the standard of “whether under all the
circumstances the interrogation reasonably tended to restrain, coerce, or interfere with
rights guaranteed by the Act.”
In making that determination, the Board considers such factors as the background, the
nature of the information sought, the identity of the questioner, the place and method of
interrogation, and whether or not the employee being questioned is an open and active union
supporter, Norton Audubon Hospital, 338 NLRB 320, 320–321 (2002); also, Intertape Polymer
Corp., 360 NLRB 114 (2014).

12 Testimony was provided by the General Counsel that supervisors Torres and Martinez
were present and observed the picketing activities of the employees on the night of the strike.
To the extent that this is an allegation not in the complaint, I find that mere observation of open
activity from a workplace site does not rise to the level of surveillance. F.W. Woolworth, 310
NLRB 1197 (1993) (employer’s mere observation of 20 employees’ open, public union activity
on its premises does not violate the Act).
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
21
Statements made by an employer to employees may convey general and specific views
about unions or unionism or other protected activity as long as the communication does not
contain a “threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.” NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395
U.S. 575, 618 (1969). Statements are viewed objectively and in context from the standpoint of
employees over whom the employer has a measure of economic power. See, e.g., Mesker
Door, Inc., 357 NLRB 591, 595 (2011). When an employer tells employees that they will
jeopardize their jobs, wages, or other working conditions by supporting a union or engaging in
concerted activities, such communication tends to restrain and coerce employees if they
continue to support a union or engage in other concerted activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
Noah’s Bay Area Bagels, LLC, 331 NLRB 188 (2000); Bloomfield Health Care Center, 352
NLRB 252 (2008).
In applying the totality of the circumstances test, and considering the context, I find the
allegation of interrogating González and Cruz about their union sympathies as coercive and that
they violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Association of Community Orgs. For Reform Now,
338 NLRB 866 (2003).
González and Cruz were called into Felipe’s office after the employees were observed
by a supervisor talking to a known union organizer in the food court. González and Cruz did not
ask to speak with Felipe. They were either instructed or asked into Felipe’s office. The timing
and place of the interrogation is suspect since it comes immediately after the workers met with a
union organizer. The Respondent’s explanation that González and Cruz were called into
Felipe’s office because they wanted to know about the Union lacks any merit. Felipe testified he
was informed that González and Cruz were approached by the Union. Felipe identified Oliva as
the individual who had informed him of this fact. Felipe testified that he initiated the
conversation in his office regarding the Union with González and Cruz. Supervisor Oliva was
also present at this discussion (Tr. 220–222). Felipe denied criticizing the Union or telling
González and Cruz to stay away from the Union. Felipe did express his own negative
experience with the Union and told the employees that they were adults and could make up
their own minds about the Union.
I credit the testimony of González and Cruz that they did not seek out Felipe to find out
about the Union; rather, they were observed by Oliva talking to Kamanou and were directed to
Felipe’s office. I also credit their testimony that both were warned to stay away from the Union
and that the Union would not be beneficial to them. Felipe denied making these statements.
Oliva, who could have corroborated the denials, was not called as a witness for the
Respondent. Even assuming that I accept Felipe’s denials that he did not criticize the Union in
front of González and Cruz, I find that Felipe’s anecdotal story about his own negative
experience with the Union was intended and is the equivalent of discouraging employees from
supporting the Union. By telling González and Cruz that their jobs may be jeopardized based
upon Felipe’s own experience when he was working at a company that subsequently laid off or
discharged union employees, such communication tends to restrain and coerce employees for
their continued union support or for their concerted activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
Noah’s Bay Area Bagels, LLC, above.
I find that the inquiry from Felipe was designed to gain information about their union
sympathies, violates Section 8(a)(1). Particularly, coming on the heels of being observed by a
supervisor of González and Cruz with Kamanou, followed by the employees being directed to
attend a meeting in Felipe’s office, in which Felipe made it clear through his own work
experience of his opposition to unionization, the entire conversation regarding the Union was
coercive.
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
22
Similarly, I find that the inquiries made by supervisor Oliva 2 months later on company
premises as to whether González and Cruz had signed union cards, Cruz replied that it was
their right to do so and they did not have to answer his questions, were coercive and restrain
their Section 7 rights. Employees have a right to support for or against union representation
without their views being made known to management.
As noted above, supervisor Oliva did not testify. The counsel for the General Counsel
argues that the failure of the Respondent to call Oliva as a witness supports an adverse
inference against the Respondent. However, an adverse inference need not be drawn
inasmuch as the Respondent simply failed to credibly rebut the testimony of Cruz and González
that they were subjected to interrogating inquiries by Oliva as to whether they had signed union
cards.
I also find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening
González and Cruz with loss of employment due to their Union activity. Here, it is not disputed
that Felipe told them about his own work experience at Aramark and how employees lost their
jobs after the Union was voted in. The telling of his story obviously gave the impression to
González and Cruz that potentially, they could also lose their jobs for supporting the Union.
In specifically assessing whether a remark constitutes a threat, the appropriate test is
“whether the remark can reasonably be interpreted by the employee as a threat.” Smithers Tire,
308 NLRB 72 (1992). Further, “It is well settled that the test of interference, restraint, and
coercion under Section 8(a)(1) of the Act does not turn on the employer’s motive or on whether
the coercion succeeded or failed.” American Tissue Corp., 336 NLRB 435, 441 (2001) (citing
NLRB v. Illinois Tool Works, above.
Here, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) when it communicated to employees that
they will jeopardize their job security, wages or other working conditions if they support the
Union. Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group, supra, 356 NLRB 89, 89–90 (2010)
(employer statement that employees should be grateful for their years of service and pay rates
and warning that it could get much worse if a union came in constituted unlawful threat). The
mere threat of an unspecified reprisal is sufficient to support a finding that the employer has
violated Section 8(a)(1). See, e.g., SDK Jonesville Division, LP, 340 NLRB 101, 101–102 (2003)
(unspecified threat that it was not in employee’s best interest to be involved with the union found
violative, citing Keller Ford, 336 NLRB 722 (2001), enfd. 69 Fed. Appx. 672 (6th Cir. 2003) (a
supervisor unlawfully advised an employee not to talk to other employees about insurance
copayments, because it could be “hazardous to [his] health);” Long Island College Hospital, 327
NLRB 944, 945 (1999) (a supervisor unlawfully told employees to proceed with caution in taking
a work related issue to the union because one of the employees was getting an unfavorable
reputation with management).
Accordingly, I find and conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
when it interrogated González and Cruz about their union activity on about January 7, 2014,
threatened them about loss of employment for supporting the Union and 2 months later when
supervisor Oliva questioned them about signing union cards.
b. The Respondent Violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
Creating an Impression that the Union Activity of
Evelyn González and Egla Cruz Was Under Surveillance
The counsel for the General Counsel alleges that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) by giving the impression that the union activities of González and Cruz on January 7,
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
23
2014, in the Terminal A food court was under surveillance in order to interfere with their ability to
meet and talk with union organizer Kamanou. The Respondent denies creating the impression
that their concerted activity was under surveillance.
Under Board precedent, “management officials may observe public union activity,
particularly without violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, unless such officials do something out of
the ordinary.” Arrow Automotive Industries, 258 NLRB 860 (1981), enfd. 679 F.2d 875 (4th Cir.
1982) (Table); see also Durham School Services, 361 NLRB No. 44, slip op. at 1 (2014)
(observation of union activities in a public area was unlawful surveillance when manager “was
observing employees in way that was out of the ordinary”). Such “out of the ordinary”
surveillance of union activity in public places includes an employer’s “unreasonably close”
observation of organizers as they finish their lunches. Montgomery Ward & Co.,692 F.2d 1115,
1128 (7th Cir.1982), enfd. 256 NLRB 800 (1981).
González testified that she, along with Cruz, sat at the food court in Terminal A and were
talking with union organizer Kamanou. All three sat at a table in the food court while talking and
their conversation lasted about 15 minutes. González testified that they were being observed
by two ReadyJet supervisors who were also at the food court approximately about one meter
away. She did not recall their names (Tr. 56). Cruz did not recall seeing any supervisors at the
food court.
Supervisor Felipe testified that Oliva observed González and Cruz talking to Kamanou.
Immediately following the food court observation by at least two ReadyJet supervisors, just after
their lunch break, González and Cruz were directed by Oliva into Felipe’s office. At that
meeting, Felipe and Oliva already knew that González and Cruz spoke to Kamanou and Felipe
had to have inquired about their union activity with Kamanou because he then told them about
his own experience with the Union.

Under such circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that González and Cruz would
assume that their union activities were under surveillance by Respondent. Stevens Creek
Chrysler Jeep Dodge, 353 NLRB 1294, 1296 (2009) (questioning employees about attendance
at union meetings constitutes unlawful interrogation as well as creating impression of
surveillance); United Charter Service, 306 NLRB 150, 151 (1992) (operations manager created
the impression that employees’ union activities were under surveillance by informing them that
he knew about the employees’ union meeting). In addition, I credit González’ testimony that two
ReadyJet supervisors were approximately one meter away from their discussions with
Kamanou. Although Cruz could not recall seeing a supervisor, it is not disputed that both were
seen by Oliva with the union organizer. A union organizer’s conversations with the two
employees—only a few feet away—significantly heightened the coercive effect of that
observation. See Flexsteel Industries, 311 NLRB 257 (1993) (employees should be free to
participate in union activities without fear that members of management are “peering over their
shoulders, taking note of who is involved in union activities, and in what particular ways”) and
Montgomery Ward &Co., above; North Memorial Health Care, 364 NLRB No. 61, JD slip op. at
23 (2016).
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when its
supervisors interrogated its employees about their union activities and gave the impression that
the employees’ union activities were under surveillance.
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
24
c. The Respondent did not Violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act When Rafael Marty
Was Allegedly Interrogated About Union Activities on
Various Occasions Between January and July 2014
The counsel for the General Counsel also maintains that Geraldo Almonte subjected
Rafael Marty to inappropriate union-related inquiries while they were commuting to and from
work in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The Respondent argues that Marty’s charge that he was interrogated in a car driven by
supervisor Geraldo Almonte from February until the end of March 2014 was untimely.13
Under Section 10(b) of the Act, a charge must be both filed and served within 6 months
of the alleged unfair labor practice. Section 10(b) provides that ‘‘no complaint shall issue based
upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge
with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is
made.’’ (Emphasis added.) Since the addition of the 10(b) proviso language by Congress in the
1947 Taft-Hartley amendments, the Board has consistently held that, absent the existence of a
properly served charge, a respondent will not be liable for conduct occurring more than 6
months earlier. Old Colony Box Co., 81 NLRB 1025, 1027 (1949); Erving Paper Mills, 82 NLRB
434, 435 (1949); Cathay Lumber Co., 86 NLRB 157, 162–163 (1949), enfd. 185 F.2d 1021 (2nd.
Cir. 1951), vacated on other grounds 189 F.2d 428 (5th Cir. 1951); Luzerne Hide & Tallow Co.,
89 NLRB 989, 1004 (1950); Koppers Co., 163 NLRB 517 (1967); and Ducane Heating Corp.,
273 NLRB 1389, 1391 (1985).
Marty’s charge was filed on November 13, 2014 (Case No. 01–CA–140878) (GC Exh.
1e and 1f). Six months prior to the date of the charge is May 13, 2014. Dun & Bradstreet
Software Services, 317 NLRB 84, 84–85 (1995).
I am in agreement with the Respondent that the portion in the complaint regarding
Rafael Marty’s charge should be dismissed. Marty testified that his rides with Almonte to work
on weekends began in February and ended in April 2014, when Marty purchased a vehicle for
his own commute. Marty never testified that he had any union-related conversations with
Almonte, or any other Respondent supervisors or agents after April 2014.
Alternatively, the Respondent argues that the conversations in the car never occurred
between Marty and Almonte. Marty testified that supervisor Almonte gave him rides to work on
the weekends in his car during the month of February and/or March. He said that during these
rides, Almonte would tell him that the Union was no good for the company. Marty said this
same conversation occurred “over and over again” during their Saturday and Sunday commute
to work. Almonte would also allegedly ask Marty to identify which workers were supporting the
Union.
Almonte was an assistant manager at the time and the parties stipulated that he was a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Almonte testified that he knows Marty
but denied talking to Marty about the Union at any time (Tr. 187). Almonte testified that he
never worked on weekends and that his hours and shift have always been the same during his
employment with ReadyJet.

13 Marty’s testimony establishes that the inquiries stopped at the latest in early April 2014
when Marty purchased his own vehicle in order to commute to work (Tr. 144).
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
25
Based upon the totality of the testimony provided by these two individuals, I find that
Almonte credibly testified that he never provided rides to work to Marty on weekends when
interrogation about the Union allegedly occurred. I find that Marty and Almonte never had any
Union-related conversations at any time because their work shifts never coincided in order to
have shared rides together.
Marty testified that he started working at ReadyJet as a cleaner on the overnight shift,
from 9 p.m. until the morning and then was accommodated with a different shift in late January
through March 2014 from 2 p.m. until 9 p.m. Marty testified that he was interrogated in
Almonte’s car during their weekend rides to work in February and March 2014 (Tr. 142).
Almonte, on the other hand, in his last year (2014) with ReadyJet, worked the overnight shift
from 10 p.m. until 7 or 8 a.m. and then his shift changed to the morning (Tr. 186). He also
testified without dispute that he never worked on weekends or could not recall working on
weekends (Tr. 190):
Q. And did you ever work during the weekend hour—on weekend days?
A. No.
Q. Not once did you work during any Saturday or Sunday, during your employment for
ReadyJet?
A. Not that I remember.
Contrary to the General Counsel’s assertions (GC Br. at 16, 17), Almonte was clear and
decisive in his testimony that he never worked on weekends. When pressed by the General
Counsel, Almonte said “not that I remember” to working on weekends, but that answer must be
considered in light of his earlier response, which was “no”. In weighing the credibility of
Almonte’s testimony with the testimony of Marty, it is my opinion that Almonte would have
truthfully recalled working every weekend in February and March 2014 (in order to have driven
Marty). The fact is that Almonte did not hedge his response when he responded “no” to the
question if he had ever worked on weekends. In my opinion, Almonte stated “not that I
remember” only because there could have been an outside possibility that he might have
worked on a particular weekend. Moreover, the General Counsel never asked Almonte whether
he ever gave work-related rides to Marty. The General Counsel argues that Almonte “neither
admitted nor denied giving rides to Marty” (GC Br. at 16). However this critical question was
never asked by the General Counsel, which would have resolved a significant credibility
question. Consequently, the failure of the General Counsel to ask this question and the fact that
the work shifts of Marty and Almonte never coincide leads me to conclude that the rides and the
union-related interrogations never occurred.
I credit Almonte’s testimony that he never worked on weekends or could not remember
working on weekends over Marty’s testimony that he was offered rides every weekend in
February and March 2014. However, even assuming that Almonte drove Marty to work on
some weekends during these 2 months, I do not find that Marty was subjected to constant
interrogations about his union activity and support or questioned about the Union activities of
other workers. Questioning an employee about protected activity is not a per se violation of the
Act but is evaluated considering the background, the nature of the information sought, the
identity of the questioner, the place and method of the interrogation, and whether the employee
is an open and active union supporter. Intertape, above.
Marty testified that they would discuss other matters, like work, “…other things from
work, friends or families of stuff we did or didn’t do, you know, just personal stuff” (Tr. 145).
According to Marty, Almonte never threatened Marty for his support of the Union; Almonte never
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
26
instructed or warned Marty to stay away from the Union; and Almonte never promised Marty any
benefits if he did not support the Union. It behooves one to ask the question that if Marty felt
intimidated by the alleged interrogations about his union activities, why Marty didn’t report these
interrogations to the Union, especially at a time that the Union was actively organizing the
Respondent’s employees. Indeed, if Marty felt threatened or uncomfortable with the alleged
discussions on his union support, why did Marty continue to accept rides from Almonte every
weekend in February and March 2014?
Based upon my review under all the circumstances, the alleged interrogation of Marty
did not reasonably restrain, coerce or interfere with rights guaranteed by the Act. Bloomfield
Health Care Center, above. The logical conclusion is that Marty never rode with Almonte to
work on weekends or that if Almonte had in fact discussed Union matters with Marty on those
rides, those discussions did not raise to the level of restrain or coercion of Marty’s Section 7
rights.
Accordingly, based on the above, I conclude that the General Counsel has failed to meet
his burden of proof as to the allegation in the complaint regarding the interrogation of Rafael
Marty by Geraldo Almonte while commuting to work, and therefore I shall recommend that this
allegation be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all material times, the Respondent, ReadyJet, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, 32 BJ SEIU New England 615, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on about June 18, 2015, by discriminatorily
issuing written final warnings to Claudio Batista, Francisco Luna, and Gerfi Mendez; and written
warning to Julio Medina and Sergio Restituyo.
4. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discriminatorily terminating Claudio
Batista on about August 5, 2015 and Francisco Luna on about July 24, 2015.
5. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by telling Claudio Batista, Francisco Luna,
Gerfi Mendez and Julio Medina that their discipline was for their participation in the strike and
threatening them with further discipline for their activity in support of the Union.
6. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating Evelyn González and
Egla Cruz about their union activity and support for the Union.
7. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening Evelyn González and Egla
Cruz with loss of employment for their support of the Union.
8. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by creating an impression that the
protected activity of Evelyn González and Egla Cruz was under surveillance.
9. The Respondent did not otherwise violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when Rafael Marty
allegedly repeatedly interrogated regarding his support and the support of other workers for the
Union by Geraldo Almonte.
10. The unfair labor practices described above affect commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, the Respondent having discriminatorily issued
terminations to Claudio Batista and Francisco Luna, I shall order the Respondent to offer Batista
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
27
and Luna full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those positions no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other employee
emoluments, rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and to make them whole for any loss of
earnings suffered as a result of the Respondent’s unlawful actions against them. Backpay shall
be computed in accordance with F.W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as
prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in
Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010).
In accordance with Don Chavas, LLC, d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB No. 10
(2014), my recommended order requires Respondent to compensate Claudio Batista and
Francisco Luna for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay
award and to file with the Regional Director for Region 1 within 21 days of the date the amount
of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the backpay award
to the appropriate calendar years. AdvoServ for New Jersey, 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016).
In addition to the remedies ordered, I shall recommend that the Respondent compensate
Claudio Batista and Francisco Luna for their search-for-work and interim employment expenses
regardless of whether those expenses exceed their interim earnings. King Soopers, Inc., 364
NLRB No. 93 (2016). Search for work and interim employment expenses shall be calculated
separately from taxable net backpay, with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356
NLRB 6 (2010).
My recommended order requires the Respondent to expunge from its files any and all
references to the unlawful termination of Claudio Batista and Francisco Luna, including the
“Employee Termination Form” dated August 5, 2015 issued to Batista and the “Employee
Termination Form” dated July 24, 2015 issued to Luna and to notify them in writing in English
and Spanish that this has been done and that the unlawful discharge will not be used against
them in any way.
My recommended order also requires that the Respondent remove all references to the
“Final Written Warning” dated June 18, 2015 issued to Claudio Batista, Francisco Luna and
Gerfi Mendez, including said “Final Written Warning,” from their files and notify them in writing in
English and Spanish that it has done so and that the final warnings will not be used against
them in any way.
It is further recommended that Respondent remove all references to the “Written
Warning” dated June 18, 2015 issued to Julio Medina and Sergio Restituyo, including said
“Written Warning,” from their files and notify them in writing in English and Spanish that it has
done so and that the written warnings will not be used against them in any way.
The General Counsel also requests that I order a responsible management official read
the notice to the assembled employees or to have a Board agent read the notice in the
presence of a responsible management official (GC Br. at 40). I note that the Board has held
that in determining whether additional remedies are necessary to fully dissipate the coercive
effect of unlawful discharges and other unfair labor practices, it has broad discretion to fashion a
remedy to fit the circumstances of each case. Casino San Pablo, 361 NLRB No. 148, slip op. at
6–7 (2014); Excel Case Ready, 334 NLRB 4, 4–5, (2001). In the instant case, I find that the
unfair labor practices of the Respondent justify the additional remedy of a notice reading. I
agree with the General Counsel that Respondent, as described above, engaged in numerous
violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In addition, the Respondent discharged Batista and
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
28
Luna, supporters of the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Board has held that
the unlawful discharges of union supporters are highly coercive. Excel Case Ready, supra at 5.
I find that a public reading of the remedial notice is appropriate here. The Respondent’s
violations of the Act are sufficiently serious and widespread such that a reading of the notice is
necessary to dissipate as much as possible any lingering effects of the Respondent’s unfair
labor practices. Accordingly, I will require the attached notice to be read publicly by the
Respondent’s representative or by a Board agent in English and Spanish, in the presence of the
Respondent’s supervisors and agents, to include Sarah Colon, Rafael Felipe, Luis Oliva,
Giovannie Martinez, Jensy Diaz and Jean Carlos Torres.
On these findings of facts and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended14
ORDER
The Respondent, ReadyJet, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging, disciplining, or otherwise discriminating against employees because of their
support for the 32 BJ SEIU New England 615, or any other Union.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees about their union sympathies.
(c) Creating the impression that employees’ union and other protected concerted activities
are under surveillance.
(d) Threatening employees with loss of employment and benefits in order to dissuade
employees from supporting the 32 BJ SEIU New England 615 or any other union.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make Claudio Batista and Francisco Luna whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits, including reimbursement for all search-for-work and interim-work expenses, regardless
of whether they received interim earnings in excess of these expenses, suffered as a result of
the unlawful suspension and discharge, as set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(b) Compensate Batista and Luna for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a
lump-sum backpay award, and to file with the Regional Director for Region 1 within 21 days of
the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating
the backpay award to the appropriate calendar years.
(c) Immediately offer full reinstatement to Claudio Batista and Francisco Luna and if the
offers are accepted, reinstate Batista and Luna to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights
or privileges previously enjoyed.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its files any reference to
the unlawful discharge of Batista and Luna, including the “Employee Termination Form” dated

14 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 If no exceptions are filed as provided
by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions and
recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board
and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
29
August 5, 2015 to Batista and the “Employee Termination Form” dated July 24, 2015 to Luna
and within 3 days thereafter notify them in writing in English and Spanish that this has been
done and that the discipline will not be used against them in any way.
(e) Remove all references to the “Final Written Warning” dated June 18, 2015 issued to
Claudio Batista, Francisco Luna and Gerfi Mendez, including said “Final Written Warning,” from
their files and notify them in writing in English and Spanish that it has done so and that the final
warnings will not be used against them in any way.
(f) Remove all references to the “Written Warning” dated June 18, 2015 issued to Julio
Medina and Sergio Restituyo, including said “Written Warning,” from their files and notify them
in writing in English and Spanish that it has done so and that the final warnings will not be used
against them in any way.
(g) 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.
(h) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the
Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay. Absent exceptions 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 due under the terms of this Order.
(i) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its existing properties in the greater
Boston, Massachusetts area, and particularly at Logan Airport Terminals A and C, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix”15 in the English and Spanish languages. Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be
distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or
other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by
such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of
these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the
notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since January 1, 2014.
(j) Mail a copy of said notice in the English and Spanish languages to Evelyn González and
Sergio Restituyo at their last known addresses.

15 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice
reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
JD(NY)-38-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
30
(k) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 1 a
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. October 12, 2016
__________________________________
Kenneth W. Chu
Administrative Law Judge
~r~ ~~ d/C
JD(NY)-38-16
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 benefits and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT discharge, discipline, or otherwise discriminate against any of you for engaging
in union or other protected activity, including announcing your support and participating in a
strike for the 32 BJ SEIU New England 615 or any other union.
WE WILL NOT interrogate you about your support or lack thereof for the 32 BJ SEIU New
England 615 or any other union.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that your union and other protected concerted activities
are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT threaten your loss of employment or benefits in order to discourage you from
supporting the 32 BJ SEIU New England 615 or any other union.
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, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Claudio Batista and
Francisco Luna full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if the jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Claudio Batista and Francisco Luna whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits resulting from their discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest, including
any pay increases made to similarly situated employees from the date of their respective
discharge dates to the present, and including reimbursement for all search-for-work and
interim-work expenses, regardless of whether they received interim earnings in excess of
these expenses, or at all, during any given quarter, or during the overall backpay period.
WE WILL compensate Claudio Batista and Francisco Luna for the adverse tax consequences, if
any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files all
references to the unlawful discharge of Claudio Batista and Francisco Luna, including their
respective Employee Termination Forms.
WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify Claudio Batista and Francisco Luna in writing that this
has been done and that their discharge will not be used against them in any way.
JD(NY)-38-16
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove all references to the
unlawful Final Written Warnings dated June 18, 2015 issued to Claudio Batista, Francisco Luna
and Gerfi Mendez, including the Final Written Warnings from their files.
WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify Claudio Batista, Francisco Luna and Gerfi Mendez in
writing in the English and Spanish languages that this has been done and that their discipline
will not be used against them in any way.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove all references to the
unlawful Written Warnings dated June 18, 2015 issued to Julio Medina and Sergio Restituyo,
including the Written Warnings from their files.
WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify Julio Medina and Sergio Restituyo in writing in the
English and Spanish languages that this has been done and that their discipline will not be used
against them in any way.
____________ReadyJet 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.
National Labor Relations Board Region 1
10 Causeway Street, Room 601
Boston, Massachusetts 02222–1072
Hours of Operation: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
617–565–6700
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/01-CA-132326 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.
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, 617–565–6700.