READYJET, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 16, 2017

365 NLRB No. 120 (N.L.R.B. 2017)

365 NLRB No. 120
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Readyjet, Inc. and 32BJ SEIU New England 615.
Cases 01–CA–132326, 01–CA–140878, 01–CA–
155263, 01–CA–159503, and 01–CA–159509
August 16, 2017
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS PEARCE
AND MCFERRAN
On October 12, 2016, Administrative Law Judge Ken-
neth W. Chu issued the attached decision. The General
Counsel filed a brief in partial support of the decision
and a motion to correct omissions from the Decision and
Order, and the Respondent filed a response to the motion
to correct omissions. The Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
cross-exceptions.1
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions
only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Or-
der.3
We agree with the judge’s findings that the Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act by discriminatorily issuing written warnings to
employees Claudio Batista, Francisco Luna, Gerfi Men-
dez, Julio Medina, and Sergio Restituyo;4 discriminatori-

1 The Respondent has requested oral argument. The request is de-
nied as the record, exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs adequately
present the issues and the positions of the parties.
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
3 The General Counsel has cross-excepted to the judge’s failure to
order that the Respondent cease and desist from telling employees that
their discipline was for their participation in the strike and threatening
further discipline for supporting the Union. The General Counsel also
has excepted to the judge’s omission of order language requiring a
public notice reading, which the judge found to be appropriate in his
decision. We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform
to our findings and the Board’s standard remedial language, and to
correct these inadvertent omissions. We shall also substitute a new
notice to conform to the Order as modified.
4 In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(1) by issuing warnings to employees for engaging in a 1-day strike
without complying with its “no call/no show” policy that requires ad-
vance notice of absences from work, we do not rely on his analysis
ly discharging Batista and Luna; telling Batista, Luna,
Mendez, and Medina that their discipline was for their
participation in the strike and threatening them with fur-
ther discipline for their activity in support of the Union;
and, through Supervisor Luis Oliva, unlawfully interro-
gating employees.5
The judge also found that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1), through Supervisor Rafael Felipe, by
unlawfully interrogating employees Evelyn Gonzalez
and Egla Cruz, threatening Gonzalez and Cruz with loss
of employment, and creating the impression that employ-
ees’ union activities were under surveillance. It is undis-
puted that these allegations arose from incidents that oc-
curred on January 7, 2014. The Respondent excepts to
the judge’s findings, arguing that, because the relevant
charge was filed more than 6 months later on July 8,
2014, these allegations are time barred under Section

under NLRB v. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21 (1964). Under Burnup
& Sims, an employer violates Sec. 8(a)(1) by disciplining an employee
based on a good-faith but mistaken belief that the employee engaged in
misconduct in the course of protected activity. However, the Burnup &
Sims analysis “applies in cases involving mistakes of fact, not mistakes
of law.” Triple Play Sports Bar & Grille, 361 NLRB No. 31, slip op. at
6 fn. 20 (2014). Here, the Respondent admits that it disciplined the
employees solely because they struck without providing advance no-
tice, and argues that it lawfully did so. That presents an issue of law,
about which the Respondent is incorrect, as employees lawfully may
strike without prior notice, notwithstanding an employer’s policy that
requires advance notice of employee absences. Iowa Packing Co., 338
NLRB 1140, 1144 (2003). Accordingly, because the Respondent con-
cedes that it disciplined employees for conduct that was protected, its
motive for the discipline is undisputed and no further analysis is re-
quired. CGLM, Inc., 350 NLRB 974, 974 fn. 2 (2007); HMY Room-
store, Inc., 344 NLRB 963, 966 (2005). As this is a single-motive case,
we also reject the Respondent’s contention that the judge erroneously
failed to apply the dual-motive analysis set forth in Wright Line, 251
NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied
455 U.S. 989 (1982).
5 The General Counsel has not excepted to the judge’s finding that
the Respondent did not violate the Act, through Supervisor Geraldo
Almonte, by interrogating an employee about his union activities.
Chairman Miscimarra disagrees with two of the remedies that his
colleagues order: (1) ordering the Respondent to compensate Batista
and Luna for any search-for-work and interim employment expenses
regardless of whether those expenses exceed their interim earnings; and
(2) ordering that the notice be read aloud to employees. First, for the
reasons stated in his separate opinion in King Soopers, Inc., 364 NLRB
No. 93, slip op. at 9–16 (2016), enfd. in relevant part 859 F.3d 23 (D.C.
Cir. 2017), Chairman Miscimarra would adhere to the Board’s former
approach of treating search-for-work and interim employment expenses
as an offset against interim earnings. Second, notice reading is an
extraordinary remedy reserved for “unfair labor practices [that] are
sufficiently serious and widespread,” Homer D. Bronson Co., 349
NLRB 512, 515 (2007), enfd. mem. 273 Fed.Appx. 32 (2d Cir. 2008)
(emphasis added), and Chairman Miscimarra would not find that the
isolated early 2014 interrogation of two employees and the 2015 strike-
related discipline and threats to at most five employees constituted
widespread violations in a bargaining unit of about 240 employees.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
10(b) of the Act. We agree.6 Accordingly, we dismiss
these allegations.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Delete paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judge’s Conclu-
sions of Law and renumber the remaining conclusions
accordingly.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, ReadyJet, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging, disciplining, or otherwise discriminat-
ing against employees because of their support for 32BJ
SEIU New England 615 or any other union.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees about their un-
ion sympathies.
(c) Threatening employees with discipline or discharge
if they engage in protected concerted activities.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Claudio Batista and Francisco Luna full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed.
(b) Make Batista and Luna whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrim-
ination against them, in the manner set forth in the reme-
dy section of the judge’s decision.
(c) Compensate Batista and Luna for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay
awards, and 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 allo-
cating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar
years.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful discharges of
Batista and Luna and within 3 days thereafter notify the
employees in writing in English and Spanish that this has
been done and that the discharges will not be used
against them in any way.

6 Although the Respondent timely raised its 10(b) defense in its an-
swer to the complaint, the judge failed to address this argument in his
decision. The General Counsel did not respond to the Respondent’s
10(b) argument on exceptions.
(e) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful disciplines of
Batista, Luna, Gerfi Mendez, Julio Medina, and Sergio
Restituyo and within 3 days thereafter notify the employ-
ees in writing in English and Spanish that this has been
done and that the disciplines will not be used against
them in any way.
(f) 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 desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Boston, Massachusetts facility copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix”7 in English and Spanish. Cop-
ies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 1, after being signed by the Respond-
ent’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, notices shall be distributed elec-
tronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an
internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Re-
spondent 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. If the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate 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 March 1, 2014.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, hold a
meeting or meetings at Terminal A and Terminal C at
Logan International Airport, scheduled to ensure the
widest possible attendance, at which the attached notice
is to be read to the employees by the Respondent’s repre-
sentative in the presence of a Board agent and an agent of
the Union if the Union so desires, or, at the Respondent's
option, by a Board agent in the presence of supervisors,
to include Sarah Colon, Luis Oliva, Giovannie Martinez,
Jensy Diaz, and Jean Carlos Torres, and an agent of the

7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
READYJET, INC. 3
Union if the Union so desires. In either case, the Re-
spondent shall make translation available for Spanish-
speaking employees.
(i) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 1 a sworn certifi-
cation 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. August 16, 2017
______________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra, Chairman
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fits and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge, discipline, or otherwise dis-
criminate against you because of your support for 32BJ
SEIU New England 615 or any other union.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate you about your
union sympathies.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with discipline or discharge
if you engage in protected concerted activities.
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 re-
instatement to their former jobs or, if the jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prej-
udice 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 result-
ing from their discharges, less any net interim earnings,
plus interest, and WE WILL also make such employees
whole for reasonable search-for-work and interim em-
ployment expenses, plus interest.
WE WILL compensate Claudio Batista and Francisco
Luna for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiv-
ing a lump-sum backpay award, and WE WILL 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 awards to
the appropriate calendar years for each employee.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files all references to the unlaw-
ful discharges of Claudio Batista and Francisco Luna,
and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify them in
writing in English and Spanish that we have done so and
that we will not use the discharges against them in any
way.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files all references to the unlaw-
ful disciplines of Claudio Batista, Francisco Luna, Gerfi
Mendez, Julio Medina, and Sergio Restituyo, and WE
WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify them in writing in
English and Spanish that we have done so and that we
will not use the disciplines against them in any way.
READYJET INC
The Board’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 Re-
lations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
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, 2014,1 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 de-
meanor 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 Inter-
national Airport (Logan), has been engaged in providing com-
mercial cleaning services within the Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts, where it annually provides services valued in excess
of $50,000 at the Logan airport to airline carriers, which direct-
ly 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. (Re-
spondent or ReadyJet) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National
Labor Relations Act (Act) when
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 en-
gaged 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, Re-
spondent, 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 concert-
edly and engaged in a strike.

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 exhib-
its have been identified as “Jt. Exh.” The hearing transcript is refer-
enced as “Tr.” and closing briefs are identified as “GC Br.” for the
General Counsel and “R. Br.” for the Respondent.
12. About June 18, 2015, Respondent, by Giovannie Mar-
tinez, at the Boston Logan facility:
(a) told employees that they were issued warnings for partici-
pating 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 par-
ticipate 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 discipli-
nary 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 en-
gaged in the strike described above in paragraph 11, and be-
cause 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 para-
graphs 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15, Respondent has been inter-
fering 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 witness-
es, 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’ testimo-
ny, 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). Credibil-
ity 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.

3 The complaint was amended during the hearing (GC Exh. 4).
READYJET, INC. 5
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 Respond-
ent’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 predeces-
sors, 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 con-
tract 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 in-
volved in organizing the workers at ReadyJet. Mendez super-
vises Kamanou and she had reported to him about intimidation
from ReadyJet management against the employees that includ-
ed 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 gene-
sis 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.
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.

4 Nicolai testified that the strike and picket occurred on June 14, but
it was in fact held on June 16.
The employees will strike to protest the company’s
lack of respect for their rights to form a union free of in-
timidation and coercion. After the one-day strike, employ-
ees 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 re-
sort. 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’ le-
gally-protected rights to engage in collective action to im-
prove 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 approxi-
mately 2 a.m. on June 17 to Dominic Patti, a management per-
son 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 approxi-
mately 30 feet from the entrance of the glass exterior wall of
Terminal A (Tr. 25, 26).
Mendez said that the strike started around 9-9:15 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 testi-
fied that there were 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 in-
cluded 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
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
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’ Do-
nuts. 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 8-8:30 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 employ-
ees 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 be-
lieved 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 respond-
ed if Nicolai knew what “no call/no show” meant. Nicolai
replied that this was not a “no call/no show” situation but ra-
ther, 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 in-
structions by the Union as to whether to call in or not (Tr. 164).
Nicolai said that there has been no contact between the Re-
spondent and Union since the time of the strike (Tr. 171).
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 in-
volved in the strike (Tr. 92). Batista said he was on the outside
of the exterior glass wall of Terminal A when he observed Su-
pervisor 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 after-
wards. 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 Batis-
ta, 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 con-
cluded 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 fail-
ure 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 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 termina-
tion notice did not state the reason for his discharge (Jt. Exh. 6).
Batista repined that he never missed a call-in or absent with-
out 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 attend-
ing 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. Men-
dez said he was contacted by Andry Mendez about the strike
and whether he would join the strike (Tr. 105). Mendez testi-
fied that he participated in the strike at Terminal A and did not
READYJET, INC. 7
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. Men-
dez 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 contin-
ue the strike (Tr. 103).
Mendez testified that he received a written warning from su-
pervisor 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 fail-
ure 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 attend-
ance infractions before and after the date of the strike (Tr. 05).
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
give 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 “be-
cause 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 dis-
ciplinary action, up to and including Termination of Employ-
ment.
Medina maintained that Martinez told him that if he contin-
ued 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 dis-
cussions 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 re-
sponse. (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 fail-
ure to comply on Tuesday, June 16, 2015.
Continued lack of communication could result in further dis-
ciplinary action, up to and including Termination of Employ-
ment.
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 employ-
ees. Additionally, The employee did not follow company pol-
icy 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 sign-
ing 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).
Luna maintained that he found out “a few days later” the rea-
son 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
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
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 Ba-
tista was terminated because he arrived late every Monday and
then he had a no call/no show, “so we terminated him.” Mar-
tinez 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. Accord-
ing to Martinez, Batista told him that he will keep his current
schedule and do the best he could to arrive on time on Mon-
days. 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 terminat-
ed 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 re-
sponded. 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 warn-
ings prior to the strike date (Tr. 200).
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

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 testi-
mony was proffered as to the circumstances of Restituyo’s participation
in the strike or the warning notice that he received on June 18.
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 ter-
mination. He testified that Martinez terminated Batista after
management had changed his work schedule to accommodate
his attendance at school on Mondays, but Batista continued to
be a no call/no show on the 5th 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 lava-
tories 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 termi-
nation 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 rele-
vant part:

Employees who fail to contact their Station or General Man-
ager cause others to take on additional duties which lead to an
overall loss in productivity. An employee, who fails to notify
his/her department of any absence in accordance with the de-
partment’s policy, will be subject to corrective action as fol-
lows—
READYJET, INC. 9
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 Batis-
ta had asked to change his schedule because he needed Mon-
days as a nonwork day to attend school. He was given a new
work schedule but he was required to report to work on Satur-
day and Sunday, which he would not accept (Tr. 231). Colon
described that ReadyJet has timesheet records when the em-
ployees 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 reserviced 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
nonservice of the Delta plane the night before. Colon said Lu-
na 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 disci-
plined 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 em-
ployee 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 partici-
pating in a strike and by threatening employees with more se-
vere 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 and
disciplining employees because they engaged in activity pro-
tected 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 collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive 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 In-
dustries (Myers II) 281 NLRB 882 (1986), the Board held that
“concerted activities” protected by Section 7 are those “en-
gaged 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 bring-
ing 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 em-
ployment, 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 Re-
spondent 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 deter-
mine 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. Trans-
portation 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 pro-
tected 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 protect-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
ed 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 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 determina-
tion appropriately takes account of the surrounding circum-
stances.” TheRoomstore, 357 NLRB 1690, 1690 fn. 3 (2011).
It has not been seriously disputed that Martinez the overnight
manager, was aware that the disciplined employees were en-
gaged in a protected activity. Union Organizer Mendez over-
heard 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, Men-
dez and Luna. Medina and Restituyo were given warnings (Jt.
Exhs. 1–5).
Martinez testified that he was aware that the strike had oc-
curred on June 16, although he could not recall if he was work-
ing 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 concert-
ed 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 car-
rying picket signs and patrolling back and forth before an en-
trance 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,

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.
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 employ-
ees 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. Addition-
ally, 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, 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).
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 in-
volvement 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. Mar-
tinez 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 testify-
ing. Each testified and corroborated that similar threats were
made by Martinez. Their testimony over receiving the warn-
ings 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 im-
plicitly threaten discharge because they convey the impression
that the employer considers complaining about working condi-
READYJET, INC. 11
tions and engaging in union activity incompatible with contin-
ued employment.” Equipment Trucking Co., 336 NLRB 277
(2001). The threats, moreover, made by Martinez, the over-
night 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.” Gen-
eral 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 dis-
cipline, including potentially discharge, made by Martinez, in
the presence of a second supervisor, also violated Section 8
(a)(1) of the Act.
c. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by dis-
charging 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 Re-
spondent’s progressive discipline policy but for their final
warnings received for participating in the strike. The Respond-
ent 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 cir-
cumstances. 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 ac-
tion. 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 termi-
nation or will lead to termination (Tr. 254).
Batista was discharged by ReadyJet on August 5 after receiv-
ing a final written warning for his no call/no show strike partic-
ipation 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 employ-
ee 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 sum-
mer 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 docu-
mentation 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).
Based upon this review, it is clear that absent the final warn-
ing 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 disci-
pline 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 vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1), Batista’s termination was also inter-
twined with his participation in the strike to invalidate his dis-
charge. 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 employ-
ees. Additionally, The employee did not follow company pol-
icy 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

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.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
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 terminat-
ed 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 re-
ceived 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. Howev-
er, 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 infrac-
tions and one no call/no show policy violation. A review of
Luna’s disciplinary record shows that he received a prior writ-
ten warning on March 17 for failing to remove airport terminal
trash and the Respondent was fined $90 by Massport for litter-
ing (R. Exh. 2). Accepting Colon’s testimony that the failure to
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 disci-
pline (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 in-
asmuch as the final warning was issued on the basis of his pro-
tected activity for the June 16 strike. Luna’s termination notice
stated that “Additionally, the employee did not follow company

8 There were some inconsistencies in Luna’s testimony as to wheth-
er 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.
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.
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 inci-
dent 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 dis-
charged Batista and Luna due to their protected activity in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.10
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, Gonzá-
lez 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 approxi-
mately about one meter away (Tr. 56). She did not recall their
names. She thought they saw her talking to Kamanou. Gonzá-
lez 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

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 Gen-
eral 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 prof-
fered reasons are pretextual, the employer fails by definition to meet its
burden of showing it would have taken the same action for those rea-
sons, absent the protected activity. See Alternative Energy Applica-
tions, 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).
11 González testified by video. There was no opposition to her video
testimony.
READYJET, INC. 13
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 any-
thing 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 do-
ing 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 them-
selves” and that they should “run away” from them (union rep-
resentatives) 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 conversa-
tion 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 super-
visors 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).
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 (Al-
monte) gave him rides to work on the weekends in his car dur-
ing the months of February or March because they lived in the
same general neighborhood (Tr. 140–142). He said that Al-
monte 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
until 9 p.m. (Tr. 145, 146). Marty was certain that Almonte
worked the weekend shifts (Tr. 146) when Marty began work-
ing 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 thCcompany. Marty said this same
conversation occurred “over and over again” during their Sat-
urday and Sunday rides to work. Marty maintained that Al-
monte 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 3-1/2 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 re-
called interacting with them after supervisor Oliva observed
them being approached by the Union in the food court in Janu-
ary 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 in-
ferred 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 de-
nied 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).
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 em-
ployment 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 creat-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
ing 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, inter-
rogating employees about the union activities of other employ-
ees.812
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 supervi-
sor 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 un-
der 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 fac-
tors as the background, the nature of the information sought,
the identity of the questioner, the place and method of interro-
gation, 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).
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 con-
tain 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 jeop-
ardize their jobs, wages, or other working conditions by sup-
porting a union or engaging in concerted activities, such com-
munication tends to restrain and coerce employees if they con-
tinue to support a union or engage in other concerted activities

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 observa-
tion of 20 employees’ open, public union activity on its premises does
not violate the Act).
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 consid-
ering 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 Assn. of Community
Organizations 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 ap-
proached by the Union. Felipe identified Oliva as the individu-
al 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 state-
ments. 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 support-
ing 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 dis-
charged union employees, such communication tends to re-
strain 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 in-
formation 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 conver-
sation regarding the Union was coercive.
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,
READYJET, INC. 15
were coercive and restrain their Section 7 rights. Employees
have a right to support for or against union representation with-
out their views being made known to management.
As noted above, Supervisor Oliva did not testify. The coun-
sel for the General Counsel argues that the failure of the Re-
spondent to call Oliva as a witness supports an adverse infer-
ence 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 reasona-
bly 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 com-
municated to employees that they will jeopardize their job secu-
rity, wages or other working conditions if they support the Un-
ion. 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 consti-
tuted unlawful threat). The mere threat of an unspecified repris-
al is sufficient to support a finding that the employer has violat-
ed 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 man-
agement).
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 creat-
ing an impression that the union activity of Evelyn González
and Egla Cruz was under surveillance
The counsel for the General Counsel alleges that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by giving the impression that
the union activities of González and Cruz on January 7, 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 employ-
ees in way that was out of the ordinary”). Such “out of the or-
dinary” 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 talk-
ing and their conversation lasted about 15 minutes. González
testified that they were being observed by two ReadyJet super-
visors 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 lunchbreak, 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 Chrys-
ler Jeep Dodge, 353 NLRB 1294, 1296 (2009) (questioning
employees about attendance at union meetings constitutes un-
lawful interrogation as well as creating impression of surveil-
lance); 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
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD16
in union activities without fear that members of management
are “peering over their shoulders, taking note of who is in-
volved in union activities, and in what particular ways”) and
Montgomery Ward &Co., above; North Memorial Health Care,
364 NLRB No. 61, slip op. at 23 (2016).
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act when its supervisors interrogated its employ-
ees about their union activities and gave the impression that the
employees’ union activities were under surveillance.
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 un-
ion-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 in-
terrogated 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 (2d. Cir.
1951), vacated on other grounds 189 F.2d 428 (5th Cir. 1951);
Luzerne Hide & Tallow Co., 89 NLRB 989, 1004 (1950); Kop-
pers Co., 163 NLRB 517 (1967); and Ducane Heating Corp.,
273 NLRB 1389, 1391 (1985).
Marty’s charge was filed on November 13, 2014 (Case 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 dis-
missed. 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 Al-
monte, 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

13 Marty’s testimony establishes that the inquiries stopped at the lat-
est in early April 2014 when Marty purchased his own vehicle in order
to commute to work (Tr. 144).
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 Sec-
tion 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.
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 inter-
rogation 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 Janu-
ary through March 2014 from 2 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 with-
out 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?
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 re-
sponse 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 re-
solved a significant credibility question. Consequently, the
READYJET, INC. 17
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 interroga-
tions never occurred.
I credit Almonte’s testimony that he never worked on week-
ends 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 Al-
monte drove Marty to work on some weekends during these 2
months, I do not find that Marty was subjected to constant in-
terrogations 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 employ-
ee 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 instructed or warned
Marty to stay away from the Union; and Almonte never prom-
ised Marty any benefits if he did not support the Union. It be-
hooves 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 al-
leged 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 re-
strain 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 allega-
tion 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 or-
ganization 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 warn-
ings 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 in-
terrogating 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 em-
ployment 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 com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate 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
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 Fran-
cisco Luna for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiv-
ing 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 ex-
penses regardless of whether those expenses exceed their inter-
im 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).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD18
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 “Employ-
ee 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 refer-
ences 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 employ-
ees 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 discre-
tion 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, en-
gaged in numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In
addition, the Respondent discharged Batista and Luna, support-
ers 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 appro-
priate here. The Respondent’s violations of the Act are suffi-
ciently serious and widespread such that a reading of the notice
is necessary to dissipate as much as possible any lingering ef-
fects of the Respondent’s unfair labor practices. Accordingly, I
will require the attached notice to be read publicly by the Re-
spondent’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, Gio-
vannie 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

14 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 If no excep-
tions 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.
ORDER
The Respondent, ReadyJet, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, 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 effec-
tuate 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 ex-
penses, suffered as a result of the unlawful suspension and dis-
charge, as set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(b) Compensate Batista and Luna for the adverse tax conse-
quences, 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 ap-
propriate 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 en-
joyed.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, re-
move from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge of
Batista and Luna, including the “Employee Termination Form”
dated August 5, 2015, to Batista and the “Employee Termina-
tion 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 Span-
ish 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,
READYJET, INC. 19
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 addi-
tional 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 rec-
ords, 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 Section 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 ex-
isting 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 Span-
ish languages. Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 1, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous 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 al-
tered, 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.
(k) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director for Region 1 a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible 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
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

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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefits
and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
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 un-
ion.
WE WILL NOT interrogate you about your support or lack
thereof for the 32 BJ SEIU New England 615 or any other un-
ion.
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, re-
strain, 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 respec-
tive 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.
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 disci-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD20
pline 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 lan-
guages that this has been done and that their discipline will not
be used against them in any way.
READYJET INC.
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.