The Leaguers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Dec 13, 2017

22-CA-189289 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 13, 2017)

JD(NY)-20-17
Newark, NJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
DIVISION OF JUDGES
THE LEAGUERS, INC.
And Case 22–CA–189289

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS
OF AMERICA
Joanna Pagones, Esq., of Newark, New Jersey,
for the General Counsel.
Melvin C. Randall, Esq., of Newark, New Jersey,
for the Respondent.
Ira W. Mintz, Esq., of Somerset, New Jersey,
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
KENNETH W. CHU, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Newark, New
Jersey, on October 24, 2017, pursuant to a complaint issued by Region 22 of the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) on March 31, 2017.1
The complaint states that at all times since June 20, 2016, the Communications Workers
of America, AFL–CIO (Union or CWA) has been the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the following employees of The Leaguers, Inc. (Respondent), constituting a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time Teachers, Lead Teachers, EHS Teachers, and
Family advocates, Receptionists, Associate Teachers, EHS Teaching Assistants,
Assistants/Aides, Child Care Providers, Home Visitor Specialists, Health/Nutrition
Specialists, EHS/CCP Clerks, Floaters, Cooks, Food Service Workers, Maintenance
Workers, Custodians, and Substitute including Teachers and Cooks, employed by
the Employer at its various New Jersey locations, including its Newark, New Jersey
facilities, its Irvington, New Jersey facilities, its Elizabeth, New Jersey facility, and its
Roselle, New Jersey facility, but excluding all Office Clerical employees,
Administrative Assistants, Managerial Employees, Directors, Guards and
Supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees.
The complaint alleges that about October 2016, the Respondent changed the health
benefits provided to the unit employees without prior notice to the Union and without affording

1 All dates are in 2016 unless otherwise noted.
JD(NY)-20-17
2
the Union an opportunity to bargain with the Respondent over the change in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act). The complaint alleges that the change
in the health plan relates to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of the
unit and is a mandatory subject for the purposes of collective bargaining (GC Exh. 1e).2
5
The Respondent timely filed an answer denying the material allegations in the complaint
(GC Exh. 1).3
On the entire record, including my assessment of the witnesses’ credibility4 and my
observations of their demeanor at the hearing and corroborating the same with the adduced 10
evidence of record, and after considering the brief filed by the General Counsel, the Union, and
the Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
15
I. JURISDICTION AND UNION STATUS
The Respondent, a non-profit New Jersey corporation, is engaged in human services
and community development in various locations in the State of New Jersey, including Newark,
Irvington, Elizabeth, and Roselle, the facilities involved in this complaint. The Respondent 20
derived gross revenues valued in excess of $250,000 and purchased and received at the
named facilities goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of New
Jersey. 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 Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act (GC Exh. 2).25
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
a. The Change in the Health Care Insurance Plan
30
On about June 20, Region 22 certified the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the above unit employees. By letter dated June 27, the Union requested
certain relevant information for the purpose of collective-bargaining and reminded the
Respondent that the Union is the exclusive representative of the unit employees and “. . . any
discussions over terms and conditions of employment must occur directly with our union” (R. 35
Exh. 2). Veronica Ray, who was and is the CEO and executive director of the Respondent,
acknowledged that she received the letter from the Union and understood that the Respondent
is to maintain the status quo (Tr. 100).
It is not disputed that the Respondent has provided the unit employees with a health 40
insurance plan through Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield (Horizon) at the time of the union
certification through October 31 (GC Exh. 7).

2 The parties signed an informal settlement agreement prior to opening the record resolving the allegations in
Case No. 22–CA–190370 (GC Exh. 1n).
3 The exhibits for the General Counsel are identified as “GC Exh.” and the Respondent’s exhibits are identified
as “R. Exh.” The posthearing brief of the General Counsel is identified as “GC Br.;” the Union’s brief is identified as
“U. Br.;” and the Respondent as “R. Br.” The hearing transcript is referenced as “Tr.”
4 Witnesses testifying at the hearing included Fareeda Mabry, Hetty Rosenstein, Anne Luck-Deak, Veronica Ray
and Janet Ramos.
JD(NY)-20-17
3
The counsel for the General Counsel argues that the Respondent unilaterally changed
the bargaining unit health insurance and medical benefits plan, effective November 1, without
first notifying the Union and offer to bargain over the changes. It is maintained that the Union
became aware of the change only after being informed by the unit employees.
5
Fareeda Mabry (Mabry) testified that she was and is a lead organizer for the Union. She
testified that the Respondent had a health plan with Horizon at the time the Union was certified
by the Region as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative for the unit employees at the
four New Jersey facilities. Mabry stated that she received an email on October 27 from a
teacher in the Elizabeth facility who had received notification from the Respondent’s human 10
resources office of a change in the health care provider from Horizon to Cigna. The email was
distributed to all employees in the four facilities on October 26 by Janet Ramos, the director of
human resources for the Respondent. At the time of the change in health providers, the Union
had already requested bargaining with the Respondent. Mabry stated that she forwarded her
email to Hetty Rosenstein, the union area director, Anne Luck-Deak, the union organizing 15
director and to the Union’s attorney, Ira W. Mintz (Tr. 22–28; GC Exh. 7).
The Cigna health plan became effective on November 1 (GC Exh. 8). Mabry again
forwarded the email referencing the effective date of the new health plan to Rosenstein, Luck-
Deak and Mintz. Mabry testified that she was instructed to talk to the unit employees about the 20
previous health plan under Horizon and gather information about the two plans and report back
to her superiors. Mabry received a copy of the Horizon plan for 2014 and 2015 from one of the
unit employees. The Horizon plan set forth the cost of the plan for various categories of
coverage for the 2 prior years (Tr. 31–36; GC Exhs. 9, 10 and 11).
25
Hetty Rosenstein (Rosenstein) testified that she is the Union’s New Jersey area director
and the District 1 organizing director. Rosenstein stated that she received the information from
Mabry and then sent a letter to Veronica Ray on November 14 informing her that the
Respondent is obligated to maintain the status quo on the health plan and demanded to bargain
over any changes (Tr. 45; GC Exh. 12). Rosenstein testified that she received a response from 30
the Respondent’s attorney, Melvin C. Randall (Randall), on November 17. In his letter, Randall
stated that negotiations with the Union would be “counterproductive at this time” because there
was a pending unfair labor charge with Region 22 by another union, SEIU, contesting the
representation of certain unit employees by CWA. Randall requested to hold any negotiations
in abeyance pending the outcome of the charge against CWA by SEIU. In addition, Randall 35
stated that a new health care plan was necessary because of the premium increase in 2016 by
Horizon of 25 percent and there would only be an 8 percent increase under Cigna. Randall
asserted that this new plan resulted in a savings for all employees of 17 percent (GC Exh. 13).
Rosenstein testified that she did not respond to Randall’s letter, but instead, wrote again 40
to Ray on November 18, stating to her that the Respondent had made a unilateral change in
terms and conditions of employment and is refusing to bargain with the Union (Tr. 49–51; GC
Exh. 14). Rosenstein testified that she did some research in comparing the two health plans
after receiving the information from Mabry. Rosenstein discovered that the plans were similar in
coverage for primary care and hospitals. Rosenstein then discovered that the Cigna plan had 45
no coverage for out-of-network medical providers and no coverage for medical specialists (Tr.
51–55; GC Exh. 8). Rosenstein provided a summary of her analysis to Mintz (GC Exh. 15).
Anne Luck-Deak (Luck-Deak) testified as the Union’s district organizing director. Luck-
Deak stated that she compiled the information received by Mabry (GC Exhs. 7, 9, 10, and 11) 50
into a spread sheet to determine the premium increases based upon the information provided
by the Respondent to the unit employees. Luck-Deak had four columns that set forth the dates
JD(NY)-20-17
4
of the premium costs provided to the employees.5 Luck-Deak testified that each column was
captioned with the four dates and had the corresponding premium cost for each date. She
testified to a situation where the premium for health coverage of a single person in 2014 was
$46.57, but in 2016 (under the Cigna plan), the coverage for the same category would increase
to $171.67. Luck-Deak asserted that this was an increase of 286.6 percent in the cost of 5
coverage. Luck-Deak testified that depending on the coverage, the increase for the employees
under the Cigna plan for 2016 was from 10.6 percent to 53.9 percent (Tr. 75–83, 86; GC Exh.
16).
b. The Respondent’s Rationale for Changing the Health Plan10
The counsel for the Respondent does not dispute that the Union was certified as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative for the unit employees by the Board. The
Respondent provided four reasons for unilaterally changing the health care plan. First, the
Respondent states it never refused to bargain with the Union. It asserts that the composition of 15
the unit employees represented by the Union was under dispute based upon an unfair labor
charge filed by SEIU against CWA over some of the unit employees and that Respondent was
waiting for the outcome of the charge so it would bargain with the appropriate union. Second,
the Respondent argues that the change in the health plan benefited the employees by reducing
their premium cost under the old Horizon plan. Third, the Respondent maintains that the 20
change in the health plan was a mere continuation of the status quo because the employees
were being provided the same benefits. The Respondent states that it was simply engaging in a
longstanding practice of annually reviewing and evaluating the healthcare plan and making
adjustments to provide the best affordable plan for its employees. Finally, the Respondent
believes there was an exigent situation to provide the insurance by November 1 to meet budget 25
requirements and that any lapse in coverage would have resulted in penalties under the
Affordable Care Act (see R. Br.).
Veronica Ray (Ray) testified that she was and is the executive director and CEO of the
Respondent. Ray stated that she was aware of the union certification and never refused to 30
bargain with the Union. Roy explained that she was approached by an official from another
union, the SEIU, and was told that the SEIU represented all employees in the Respondent’s
Head-Start program. Ray stated that a charge was filed against the Respondent by SEIU (Tr.
99–108; R. Exh. 1). Ray stated that she never refused to bargain with the Union but wanted to
wait until the Region decided on the charge filed by SEIU. Ray stated that it was the practice of 35
the Respondent to annually review the health care plan and to provide the cost of the plan in the
new budget no later than October 31. Ray stated that this was a requirement for the
Respondent’s Federal funding under the Department of Education Administration of Children
and Families (ACF) (Tr. 97–99). Ray believed that adjusting the healthcare plan was keeping
with the status quo and that she realized that an exigent situation existed to submit her 40
proposed budget no later than October 31 (Tr. 106–108). Ray maintains that by the time she
received the November 14 letter to demand bargaining over the health care changes from
Rosenstein (GC Exh. 12), it was already too late to bargain because the new budget went into
effect on November 1. She stated that failure to sign the contract with ACF would have resulted
in all employees losing their health coverage and the Respondent subjected to penalties under 45
the Affordable Care Act (Tr. 113–115).

5 The four dates were October 19, 2014, October 27, 2014, October 19, 2015 and October 26, 2016.
JD(NY)-20-17
5
Ray confirmed that the premium increase under Horizon for 2016 would have increased
by 25 percent for Respondent’s employees. Ray stated that this was untenable and instructed
her insurance broker to find a better health care plan (Tr. 118–128, 135–137).
Janet Ramos (Ramos) testified that she was and is the Respondent’s human resources 5
director. She testified that Horizon was going to increase its premium of 25 percent and
instructed the insurance broker to find a better plan. She testified that the Cigna plan was
quoted with only an 8.6 or 8.8 percent increase over the 2014 plan (Tr. 149–153; R. Exh. 7).
Ramos also insisted that the two plans were comparable with similar health coverage. Ramos
testified that the Cigna plan “. . . mimic the same benefit plan as Horizon” (Tr. 157,158). 10
Ramos also testified that exhibit 16 of the General Counsel was in fact accurate. She
stated that for a single, EPO-1, 10 months coverage, the increase in premiums from 2015 to
2016 would have been 53.9 percent (Tr. 162–165).
15
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The General Counsel contends that Respondent violated 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when
it unilaterally implemented a new health insurance plan without notice and an offer to bargain
over the changes with the Union (GC Br.). With regard to the unilateral change in the health 20
insurance plan, the Respondent contends that (1) it was waiting for the outcome of the NLRB
charge filed by SEIU as to which is the appropriate union to represent some of the unit
employees; (2) the change in the health plan benefited the employees by reducing the premium
cost; (3) the change in the health plan was a mere continuation of the status quo of a
longstanding practice to annually review and evaluate the healthcare plan and to make 25
adjustments to find the best affordable plan for its employees; and (4) there was an exigent
situation to meet the budget deadline and that any lapse in health care coverage after
November 1 would have resulted in penalties under the Affordable Care Act.
The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act When it 30
Unilaterally Changed the Health Insurance Plan of the Unit Employees
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act requires an employer to provide its employees’ representative
with notice and an opportunity to bargain before instituting changes in any matter that
constitutes a mandatory bargaining subject. NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962); Toledo Blade 35
Co., 343 NLRB 385 (2004). Health insurance benefits for active employees are a mandatory
subject of bargaining. Allied Chemical and Alkali Workers of America, Local Union No. 1 v.
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Chemical Div., 404 U.S. 157, 159 (1971). The duty to bargain in
good faith includes a duty to abstain from unilaterally changing terms and conditions of
employment without first bargaining to impasse with the designated representative regarding the 40
changes. NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 743 (1962). However, a unilateral change in a
mandatory subject of bargaining is unlawful only if it is a “material, substantial, and significant
change.” Flambeau Airmold Corp., 334 NLRB 165 (2001), quoting Alamo Cement Co., 281
NLRB 737, 738 (1986).
45
Here, the Respondent argues that there was no material, substantial, and significant
change in the health plan. Indeed, the Respondent contends that the new plan would save
money for its employees. Ray and Ramos testified that the Cigna plan had an increase for the
following year at 8.5 percent while the previous Horizon plan would adversely increase the cost
to employees to 25 percent.50
JD(NY)-20-17
6
I find that Rosenstein credibly testified that in comparing the two health plans, she
discovered that the plans were similar in coverage for primary care and hospitals, but that the
Cigna plan had no coverage for out-of-network coverage and no coverage for medical
specialists. This testimony was not refuted by the Respondent and while the Respondent
objected to Rosenstein’s analysis in comparing the two plans, she has experience in the health 5
care industry and has reviewed health plans in the past. While her comparison may be not 100
percent accurate, it is not disputed that the Cigna plan with no out-of-network or a narrow
network coverage is a material, substantial and significant change inasmuch as it would not
matter how little the employee pays in premiums if there is no out-of-network or for specialist
treatment coverage. 10
Even accepting some inaccuracies in Rosenstein’s analysis, I find that Luck-Deak also
credibly testified that there would be a substantial increase in the premium cost for health
coverage. Luck-Deak provided an example of a single person in 2014 paying $46.57 in
healthcare premiums, but that by 2016 (under the Cigna plan), the coverage for a single person 15
would increase to $171.67. Luck-Deak asserted that this was an increase of 286.6 percent in
the cost of coverage. Luck-Deak testified that depending on the coverage, the increase for the
employees under the Cigna plan was from 10.6 percent to 53.9 percent. Significantly, Ramos,
testifying on behalf of the Respondent, did not dispute the accuracy of the calculations provided
by Luck-Deak. As such, I find that the change in the healthcare insurance plan was a material, 20
substantial, and significant change from the previous plan when it provided fewer out-of-network
coverage options and little coverage for medical specialists. In addition, the cost of the new plan
for the employees was a substantial increase in premiums from the previous Horizon plan.
The Respondent also contends that it never refused to bargain with CWA, but was 25
waiting for the outcome of an NLRB charge filed by SEIU contesting the proper representation
of some unit employees. The NLRB charge filed by SEIU was dismissed on March 20, 2017 (R.
Exh. 4). The certification of representative issued by Region 22 clearly stated that CWA is the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the aforementioned unit of employees. The
certification emphasized the potential liabilities of the employer to make unilateral changes in 30
the unit employees’ terms and conditions of employment and warned it would be a violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act even if the changes were motivated by sound business
considerations and not for undermining the labor organization (GC Exh. 5).
During the pendency of the SEIU charge, there was no prohibition for the Respondent to 35
begin bargaining with CWA. There was no request made by the Respondent to the Region for
guidance. The Region never prohibited the Respondent from bargaining with CWA or
recommended that the Respondent refrain from bargaining with CWA. While I could empathize
with Ray, who has little experience in collective-bargaining and was a novice in dealing with
unions (Tr. 107, 108), I find that the Respondent could have nevertheless bargained with the 40
Union with the understanding that some unit employees in the Head-Start program would not be
included in the negotiations or the parties could have agreed that those employees would be
handled separately once a decision from the Region is made on the SEIU charge.
The Respondent further argues that the change in the health care plan was a mere 45
continuation of the status quo of a longstanding practice to annually review and evaluate the
healthcare plan and to make necessary adjustments to provide the best affordable plan to its
employees. The Respondent argues that in Courier-Journal at 342 NLRB 1148 (2004) and in a
companion case, Courier-Journal I, 342 NLRB 1093 (2004), the Board held that there was no
violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act when the employer made unilateral changes to the health 50
care plan. The Board reasoned that
JD(NY)-20-17
7
[T]he Respondent’s collective-bargaining agreement (with a different union) authorized
the Respondent to change the costs and benefits of the health care plan for bargaining
unit employees unilaterally, on the same basis as for nonrepresented employees. There,
as here, the Respondent made numerous unilateral changes in the health care plan,
both during the term of the agreement and during the hiatus periods between contracts, 5
without opposition from the Union. In these circumstances, we find, as we did in Courier-
Journal I, that the Respondent’s practice has become an established term and condition
of employment, and therefore that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(5) when it
acted consistently with that practice by making further unilateral changes.
10
The situation here is easily distinguishable from the Courier-Journal cases cited by the
Respondent. In the Courier-Journal cases, the employer was negotiating with a union on an
expired collective-bargaining agreement and the changes were made without opposition by the
union. Unlike the Courier-Journal cases, the Respondent did not have an agreement with the
Union and the Union here opposed any changes in the health care plan without first negotiating 15
the proposed changes.
Finally, the Respondent argues there was an exigent situation to meet a budget deadline
and that any lapse in health coverage after November 1 would have resulted in penalties under
the Affordable Care Act.20
Generally, overall impasse is required before an employer can implement changes in
conditions of employment during negotiations. At the time of impasse, the employer may
unilaterally implement its offer. Litton Financial Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190, 198 (1991).
However, the Board in Bottom Line Enterprises crafted two exceptions for (1) when a union 25
engages in bargaining delay tactics and (2) “where economic exigencies compel prompt action.”
302 NLRB 373, 374 (1991).6 The Respondent contends the latter.
The record shows that the Respondent was informed on June 27 by the Union (R. Exh.
2) that it was the exclusive collective-bargaining representative and requested bargaining. The 30
Respondent was also reminded in the letter not to make any unilateral changes without notifying
and bargaining with the Union over the changes. On the other hand, there was a need for the
Respondent to have a health care plan in the budget by October 31. The Respondent had from
June to begin negotiations with the Union through October to engage in some meaningful
discussions over the health care changes. If there was an exigent situation, it was caused by 35
the Respondent. Instead of negotiating with the Union, the Respondent spent its time reviewing
various health care plans, discussing the plans with the insurance broker, and engaging in the
process to obtain a new plan and inform the employees of the changes. During all this time, as
argued by the counsel for the General Counsel, the Respondent could have negotiated the
changes in the health care plan with the Union. At the very least, the parties could have 40
negotiated some other options by October 31.
Due to the fault of the Respondent, it now faced the untenable position of having
penalties imposed under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) if a health care plan was not in place by
November 1. The ACA mandates coverage for employees. Although providing health 45
insurance coverage may have been an ACA requirement, the Respondent has nonetheless
failed to meet its burden to show that the change it made was mandated by the ACA and thus

6 Exigent circumstances has been defined by the Board as extraordinary unforeseen events having a major
economic effect which requires immediate action such to excuse the employer from its obligation to notify and
bargain with the union. RBE Electronics of S.D., 320 NLRB 80 (1995).
JD(NY)-20-17
8
did not involve discretionary decision-making over which the Respondent was obligated to
bargain. As held by the Board in Western Cab Company, 365 NLRB No. 78, slip op. at 2
(2017),
It is well established that when an employer is compelled to make changes in terms and 5
condition of employment in order to comply with the mandates of another statute, it must
provide the collective-bargaining representative of its employees with notice and an
opportunity to bargain over the discretionary aspects of such changes.
While the health care plan was mandated, the provisions over the medical coverage and 10
cost were discretionary aspects of the changes and thus, subject to bargaining. In Foodway,
234 NLRB 72, 77 (1978), the Board stated that
[T]he Act is the legislative scheme which, in final analysis, prescribes Respondent’s
bargaining obligation. While the mandate and requirements of other Federal statutes 15
may serve to limit the area of discretion which a party may exercise in fulfilling [its]
bargaining obligation . . . to enter into the bargaining process in good faith is not thereby
minimized or obviated.
In RBE Electronics, above, the Board also found that there may be other economic 20
exigencies that, although not sufficiently compelling to excuse bargaining altogether, should be
encompassed within the exigency exception. The Board in RBE Electronics, above at 82, noted
“other economic exigencies … that should be encompassed within the Bottom Line exception.”
[W]here we find an employer is confronted with an economic exigency compelling 25
prompt action short of the type relieving the employer of its obligation to bargain entirely,
we will hold under the Bottom Line Enterprises exigency exception … that the employer
will satisfy its statutory obligation by providing the union with adequate notice and an
opportunity to bargain. In that event, consistent with established Board law in situations
where negotiations are not in progress, the employer can act unilaterally if either the 30
union waives its right to bargain or the parties reach impasse on the matter proposed for
change.
In defining the less compelling type of economic exigency, the Board in RBE Electronics
made clear that the exception will be limited only to those exigencies in which time is of the 35
essence and which demand prompt action. In those cases, the employer will “satisfy its
statutory obligation by providing [the union] with adequate notice and an opportunity to bargain
over the changes it proposes to respond to the exigency and by bargaining to impasse over the
particular matter. In such time sensitive circumstances, however, bargaining, to be in good faith,
need not be protected.” Id. at 82; see generally Naperville Ready Mix, Inc., 329 NLRB 174, 182–40
184 (1999).
However, “there is a ‘heavy burden’ upon an employer trying to establish application of
the exception.” Cibao Meat Products v. NLRB, 547 F.3d 336, 340 (2d Cir. 2008). The Board
clarified that not all employers’ proposals would meet this exception as “the exception is limited 45
only to those exigencies in which time is of the essence and which demand prompt action.” Id.
at 82. The employer must “show a need that the particular action proposed be implemented
promptly,” that its “proposed changes were ‘compelled,’” and “that the exigency was caused by
external events . . . beyond the employer’s control, or was not foreseeable.” Id.
50
JD(NY)-20-17
9
The Respondent has not shown that the unilateral implementation of the health care
plan was due to exigent circumstances. Here, the Respondent has not satisfied its obligation
under RBE Electronics, above, to provide notice and an opportunity to bargain over the change
in the insurance plan. The Respondent admittedly had decided in early summer to change the
plan. The decision to change the medical plan was based upon an assessment by Ray and 5
Ramos that the Horizon plan was too expensive. However, as noted above, the request by the
Union to bargain was made in June, which would have provided ample time for the parties to
begin negotiations over the planned changes by October 31.
I find that the Respondent could have timely informed the Union and begin bargaining 10
over the need to change before the plan was implemented at any time from June until the
unilateral implementation of a different health care plan on November 1 but did not do so. I find
that there were no exigent circumstances and time was not an essence for failing to inform the
Union and begin bargaining over any proposed new plan.
15
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when it
unilaterally changed the health insurance plan of the unit employees without first providing
notice to the Union and an opportunity to bargain over the changes.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW20
1. The Respondent, The Leaguers, Inc., is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, Communications Workers of America, AFL–CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.25
3. At all material times, the Union has been the designated exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of Respondent’s employees employed at its facilities in Newark, Irvington,
Elizabeth, and Roselle, New Jersey, in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time Teachers, Lead Teachers, EHS Teachers, and 30
Family advocates, Receptionists, Associate Teachers, EHS Teaching Assistants,
Assistants/Aides, Child Care Providers, Home Visitor Specialists, Health/Nutrition
Specialists, EHS/CCP Clerks, Floaters, Cooks, Food Service Workers, Maintenance
Workers, Custodians, and Substitute including Teachers and Cooks, employed by
the Employer at its various New Jersey locations, including its Newark, New Jersey 35
facilities, its Irvington, New Jersey facilities, its Elizabeth, New Jersey facility, and its
Roselle, New Jersey facility, but excluding all Office Clerical employees,
Administrative Assistants, Managerial Employees, Directors, Guards and
Supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees.
40
4. By unilaterally implementing health insurance changes on November 1, 2016, without notice
and bargaining with the Union to a lawful overall impasse in negotiations, the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. The unfair labor practices, described above, affect commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.45
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to 50
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, the Respondent shall be required to make whole
JD(NY)-20-17
10
its employees for any losses they suffered or expenses they incurred, including increased
premium costs that resulted from Respondent’s unlawful changes in health care insurance.
Such amounts 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). 5
Further, upon request of the Union, rescind the unilaterally implemented changes in the
unit employees’ health care coverage and restore the coverage, copays, and premiums
available to employees prior to November 1, 2016.7
10
On these findings of facts and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended8
ORDER
15
The Respondent, The Leaguers, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Unilaterally implementing changes in its medical health care plan of its unit employees.20
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.25
(a) Upon request of the Union, rescind the unilaterally implemented changes in the unit
employees’ health care coverage, copays, and premiums and restore the coverage, copays,
and premiums available to employees prior to October 31, 2016.9
30
(b) Make all affected employees whole, with interest, in the manner set forth in the remedy
section of this decision for any losses they suffered or expenses they incurred as a result of
the unlawful action by Respondent.

7 The counsel for the General Counsel requests that I order a responsible management official read the notice to
the assembled employees or to have a Board agent read the notice in the presence of a responsible management
official (GC Br. at 18). I note that the Board has held that in determining whether additional remedies are necessary
to fully dissipate the coercive effect of unfair labor practices, it has broad discretion to fashion a remedy to fit the
circumstances of each case. Casino San Pablo, 361 NLRB 1350, 1355–1356 (2014); Excel Case Ready, 334 NLRB
4, 4–5 (2001). In the instant case, I find that the unfair labor practice of the Respondent does not justify the additional
remedy of a notice reading. The General Counsel provided no reasons, and I cannot find any, that would justify a
public reading of the notice. I find that The Leaguers is not a recidivist Respondent nor has General Counsel argued
there are outstanding unfair labor practice charges against the Respondent. For these reasons, a public reading of
the notice is not appropriate.
8 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 and if no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46
of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
9 The proper remedy for unilaterally implementing changes to the employee health plan is recession of the
unlawful unilateral changes and to restore the benefits that existed before the unilateral changes upon request from
the Union. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 8 (2016). However, if the Union decides not to request
the restoration of the status quo ante by returning to the original health care plan before the unilateral changes, the
employer must nevertheless make whole the unit employees for all losses they suffered as a result of the unlawful
changes in the health insurance plan. Goya Foods of Florida, 356 NLRB 1461 (2011).
JD(NY)-20-17
11
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make available to the Board or its agents for
examination, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if
stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of reimbursement of costs
incurred as a result of the change in the employees’ health care insurance under the terms 5
of this Order.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Newark, Irvington, Elizabeth, and
Roselle, New Jersey facilities, where unit employees work, copies of the attached notice in
English and Spanish marked “Appendix A.”10 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the 10
Regional Director for Region 22, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other 15
electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate
and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former 20
employees employed by the Respondent at any time since November 1, 2016.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 22 a
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.25
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 13, 2017
30

Kenneth W. Chu
Administrative Law Judge
35

10 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading
“Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.”
z
JD(NY)-20-17
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefits
and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively with the Communications Workers of
American, AFL–CIO (the Union) by unilaterally implementing a new health care insurance plan
without first giving notice to the Union and an opportunity to bargain over the changes of the
employees in the following unit:
All full-time and regular part-time Teachers, Lead Teachers, EHS Teachers, and
Family advocates, Receptionists, Associate Teachers, EHS Teaching Assistants,
Assistants/Aides, Child Care Providers, Home Visitor Specialists, Health/Nutrition
Specialists, EHS/CCP Clerks, Floaters, Cooks, Food Service Workers, Maintenance
Workers, Custodians, and Substitute including Teachers and Cooks, employed by
the Employer at its various New Jersey locations, including its Newark, New Jersey
facilities, its Irvington, New Jersey facilities, its Elizabeth, New Jersey facility, and its
Roselle, New Jersey facility, but excluding all Office Clerical employees,
Administrative Assistants, Managerial Employees, Directors, Guards and
Supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request of the Union, rescind the unilaterally implemented changes in unit
employees’ health care coverage, copays, and premiums and restore the coverage, copays,
and premiums available to employees prior to November 1, 2016.
WE WILL make you whole for any losses that you suffered or expenses you incurred as a result
of the unlawful action taken against you, with interest.
The Leaguers, Inc.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
JD(NY)-20-17
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
National Labor Relations Board Region 22
20 Washington Place, 5th Floor
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Hours of Operation: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
973–645–2100
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-189289 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND
MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS
CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE
REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 973–645–3784.