UNF WEST, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Aug 3, 2015

21-CA-129446 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 3, 2015)

JD(SF)–30–15
Moreno Valley, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
UNF, WEST, INC.
and Case 21–CA–129446
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN,
INDUSTRIAL AND ALLIED WORKERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL 166, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
Thomas Rimbach, Esq. and Cecelia Valentine, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Nicholas Leitzes, Assistant General Counsel,
of Providence, Rhode Island, for the Respondent.
Shirley Lee, Esq. (Reich, Adell & Cvitan), of
Los Angeles, California, for the Charging Party.
Daniel Adlong, Esq. and Douglas Topolski, Esq.
(Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.),
Of Costa Mesa, California and Washington, D.C.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
JOHN J. MCCARRICK, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Moreno Valley,
California, on April 14 and 15, 2015, upon the complaint in Case 21–CA–129446 issued on
September 16, 2014, by the Acting Regional Director for Region 21.
The complaint alleges that UNF, West, Inc. (Respondent) violated Section (8)(a)(1) of
the Act by interrogating employees about their union activities, threatened employees with
futility concerning their Section 7 rights and threatened employees with reduction of wages if
they voted for the Union.
Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint stating it had committed no
wrongdoing.
JD(SF)–30–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon the entire record herein, including the briefs from the counsel for the General
Counsel and Respondent, I make the following findings of fact.
I. Jurisdiction
In its answer Respondent admitted and I find that it is a California corporation with a
facility in Moreno Valley, California, where it is engaged in distributing foods and that during a
12-month period it sold and shipped from its Moreno Valley facility goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to points outside the State of California.
Based upon the above, I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. Labor Organization
Respondent admitted and I find that Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, Industrial
and Allied Workers of America, Local 166, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Union) is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. History
In 2012, the Union began an organizing campaign among Respondent’s warehouse
employees at its Moreno Valley facility. On May 17, 2012, the Board conducted a
representation election among Respondent’s employees. The results showed that the Union lost
the election 88 to 152. The Union filed objections seeking to set the election aside. After an
investigation, the Regional Director concluded that there was merit to the objections and
consolidated the objections with an unfair labor practice complaint for hearing before an
administrative law judge (ALJ). On April 10, 2014, the Union withdrew its objections to the
election and on April 16, 2014, the Union filed a new petition1 to represent Respondent’s
warehouse employees. On April 24, 2014, Adminstrative Law Judge Schmidt issued his
decision in the above case.2 A second election was scheduled for May 29, 2014.3 However, on
May 28, 2014, the Regional Director issued an order cancelling the election after the Union filed
unfair labor practice charges, including the charge in the present case.4
On September 3, 2014, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision in UNF West, Inc., 361
NLRB No. 42 (2014). The Board found that Respondent violated the Act by coercively
questioning employees about their activities on behalf of the Union; by threatening that it would
be futile for employees to select the Union to represent them; by stating that Respondent would

1 GC Exh. 4.
2 GC Exh. 3.
3 GC Exh. 5.
4 GC Exh. 6.
JD(SF)–30–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
not negotiate or sign any contract with the Union; by threatening the loss of employees’ 401 (k)
benefit if they selected the Union to represent them; by threatening employees by telling them
Respondent was looking for a way to fire them because they engaged in activities on behalf of
the Union; and by threatening employees by suggesting that their working conditions will not
improve until they quit complaining to the Union and the National Labor Relations Board.
B. The alleged unfair labor practices herein
The parties stipulated5 that Juan Negroni (Negroni), Carlos Ortiz (Ortiz), and Luisa Perez
(Perez), labor consultants of Kulture, were agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section
2(13) of the Act.
1. The May 9, 2014 interrogation of Aceves
a. The facts
On May 9, 2014, Respondent’s employee, Armando Perez Aceves (Aceves), attended a
2:15 p.m. presentation given by labor consultant Ortiz, with labor consultant Negroni also
present, in a meeting room near the human resources department. Negroni and Ortiz are
employed by Kulture, a company Respondent employed to respond to the Union’s organizing
campaign. While Aceves was an open, union activist who passed out union authorization cards
and spoke to employees about the Union and attended union meetings, there is no evidence that
Aceves was known to Respondent as a union supporter.
According to Aceves, the meeting lasted about 40 to 50 minutes and did not go beyond
3 p.m. When the meeting ended, Aceves left to return to work in the warehouse. The meeting
room is near the warehouse.
At about 3 p.m., Negroni approached Aceves in the warehouse and said in Spanish, “How
are you doing? How do you feel with the Union?” Aceves replied, “Is this an interrogation? I’m
working. Leave me alone. I’m working. Don't interrupt me.” Negroni said, “Calm down.”6
Aceves took a document,7 entitled, “Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act.”
from his pocket and showed it to Negroni. According to Aceves, he showed the document to
Negroni because Negroni pressured employees and spoke ill of the Union. After Aceves showed
Negroni the document, Negroni said, “This document doesn't work here, my brother.” And
stated, “Who pays your check, the company or the Union?” Aceves asked Negroni, “If the
firemen, the policemen, have [a] union, why are you always talking bad about the Union?”8
Negroni simply stared at Aceves and left.
Negroni testified that the May 9, 2014 meeting lasted no longer than 45 minutes, and
ended “3:00-ish.” Negroni claims that he left the facility for his hotel no later than 3p.m.
immediately after the meeting, stopping nowhere in Respondent’s facility.

5 Jt. Exh. 1.
6 Tr. at 31, LL.14–24 and p. 32, LL. 1–3.
7 GC Exh. 2.
8 Tr. at 33, LL. 3–11.
JD(SF)–30–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
Ortiz testified to the contrary that the May 9, 2:15 p.m. meeting lasted an hour-and-a-half.
Ortiz also testified that after the meeting, both Ortiz and Negroni went to the human resources
department to meet with a manager for about 20 minutes and both left the facility.
Negroni denied, with extra emphasis, having been on the warehouse floor on
May 9, 2014, or having a conversation with Aceves that day. He further denied having ever seen
the document titled, “Employees Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act” at
Respondent’s facility. However, labor consultant Luisa Perez admitted she had seen such a
document posted in glass cases between the lunchroom and the warehouse and also by the
transportation department. She also admitted that there were copies of these documents in the
employees’ locker room.
b. Credibility findings
To paraphrase Queen Gertrude from act III, scene II of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “The
gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.” Negroni’s denial that he committed any unfair
labor practice was given in such an exaggerated and bombastic manner, as to convince me just
the opposite. In assessing the credibility of this witness, a reading of the transcript alone is
insufficient, for it is the tone of the witness’ testimony that must be considered. The witness’
testimony had a theatrical quality that was both exaggerated and contrived. Moreover, he is
contradicted by Ortiz as to leaving the facility immediately and going to his hotel; leaving open
the possibility that he did indeed have time to speak with Aceves. His denial of ever seeing the
document titled, “Employees Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act” at Respondent’s
facility when it was posted prominently by Respondent supports my conclusion that Negroni is
not to be believed. I credit Aceves, as his testimony was given without contradiction, was
specific and had the ring of truth to it.
c. The analysis
Complaint paragraph 6(a) alleges that on about May 9, 2014, Negroni interrogated
employees about their union sympathies in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Complaint
paragraph 6(b) alleges that on about May 9, 2014, Negroni threatened employees with futility
regarding Section 7 rights.
In Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176, 1177 (2003), the Board set forth its test for
determining if employer interrogation of its employees about their union activities violates
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Board’s test considers the totality of the circumstances, including
whether the interrogation reasonably tends to restrain, coerce, or interfere with rights guaranteed
by the Act. In making this determination the Board considers the so called Bourne9 factors
including the background, the nature of the information sought, the identity of the questioner, the
place and method of the interrogation, and whether the employee is an open and active union
supporter. Norton Audubon Hospital, 338 NLRB 320, 320–321 (2002). However, the Board has
noted that it does not apply the Bourne factors lavishly. Medcare Associates, Inc., 330 NLRB
935, 939–940 (2000),

9 Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964).
JD(SF)–30–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
In applying the Rossmore considerations, I find that Negroni’s interrogation of Aceves
was coercive given that Aceves was questioned by Respondent’s agent charged with combatting
the Union’s organizing campaign shortly before an election. While Aceves was a union activist
there is no evidence that Aceves engaged in union activity in an open manner at the workplace or
that Negroni was aware of this. Moreover, the Board has repeatedly held that this is only one
factor to take into consideration. President Riverboat Casinos of Missouri, Inc., 329 NLRB 77,
78 (1999). Furthermore, it is clear that this was no casual, friendly or joking conversation as
Aceves asked Negroni if he was being interrogated and told Negroni to leave him alone. Rather
than leave Aceves alone, after being shown the employees’ rights document, Negroni made it
clear that Section 7 rights did not apply at Respondent’s facility and emphasized an employer’s
ultimate threat, that it controlled Aceves’ employment. The entire conversation established that
Respondent's interrogation was coercive and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Gelita
USA Inc., 352 NLRB 406, 406 (2008).
In Wellstream Corp., 313 NLRB 698, 706 (1994), the Board held an employer violates
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by telling employees that attempts to secure union representation
would be futile where they are clearly intended to and had the effect of conveying to the
employees the futility of their support of the Union.
Here, after Aceves gave Negroni the document explaining employees’ Section 7 rights
Negroni told Armando, “This document doesn't work here, my brother. Who pays your check,
the company or the Union?” Negroni’s message was clear that Section 7 rights, including the
right to form a union, did not apply to Respondent and it was therefore useless for Aceves to
attempt organize with his coworkers and assert their Section 7 rights to join the Union. Negroni's
statement that Aceves could not exercise his Section 7 rights violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. The May 16, 2014 threats to reduce wages
a. The facts
On May 16, 2014, Respondent’s employee Lino Contreras (Contreras) was told to go to a
meeting in the human resources department. At the meeting were labor consultants Ortiz and
Perez and several other employees. A sign-in sheet10 for this meeting shows that four employees
were present, including Contreras, Juan Urquiza (Urquiza), Omar Solorio, and Mario Hernandez.
According to Contreras, Ortiz conducted the meeting in Spanish. Ortiz began the
meeting by saying that the “Union's no good” and that the Union only “want[s] the employees’
money.” Contreras said, in Spanish, “I have heard from the warehouse that you guys are saying
that if the Union wins, the Company’s going to reduce the wages of all the employees.” Ortiz
then said, “Lino, we put that message on the projector so everybody could see it. Lino, of
course, if the Union wins, the Company could reduce your wages.” Contreras responded, “But
that's illegal.” Ortiz then said, “Lino, who pays your salary? The Company, right? Therefore, the
Company has the right to reduce your salary.” Contreras responded, “Yes, if that's what you

10 R Exh. 3.
JD(SF)–30–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
say.”11
Respondent’s employee Juan Urquiza corroborated Contreras’ account of the
May 16, 2014 meeting. Urquiza said that Ortiz said that he had some bad experiences with the
Union, and that the Union only wanted employees’ money. Urquiza said Ortiz also stated, “If
the Union won and they would represent [you], . . . the company could lower [your] wages,
salaries.” Urquiza further said that Contreras replied, “Carlos, can the company do that?” Ortiz
then said, ‘Yes, because the company pays our salaries.”12
Ortiz made a slide presentation at the meeting.13 Some of the slides are accompanied by
passages of text. Contreras did not recall Ortiz reading from the slides. Urquiza had little
recollection of the slides’ content. Contreras also did not recall Ortiz ever telling employees at
this meeting, or any other meeting, that“bargaining starts from where you are, and you can go up,
down, or stay the same” or reading from a slide that contained something to that effect.
However, pages 7 and 60 of the slide presentation states, “The company has never stated that
bargaining ‘starts from scratch.’ In fact, we have told you that the bargaining starts from where
you are now and you can gain, stay the same or you can lose . . .”14 Page 15 of the slide
presentation states, “As a result of bargaining, you may end up with more than you have to day,
the same as you have today, or less than you have today.”15
Ortiz claimed that he read the slide presentation “word-for-word” and denied telling
employees “that they would lose wages if the Union got in.” Ortiz claimed that during his
presentation, he said nothing other than reading the slide presentation. Perez said that Ortiz read
the slide script word-for-word, however she admitted that Contreras asked questions during the
meeting. She admitted that Contreras claimed, “We could get less if we vote for the union.”16
Perez said that Ortiz said it was subject to negotiation. Perez testified that she could not
remember Ortiz’ exact words.
b. Credibility findings
While it is credible that during the slide presentation Ortiz simply read the content of the
slides, it is hard to believe that during the entire presentation to employees, of which, the slide
presentation was only part, that Ortiz would have remained mute other than reading slide text.
Perez admitted that there was more colloquy between Ortiz and Contreras than simple slide
reading. It appears that both Ortiz and Perez deny that Ortiz made statements about reduction in
benefits during the slide presentation, but this does not preclude any statements Ortiz may have
made before or after the slides being presented. Further Contreras is corroborated by Urquiza as
to comments made by Ortiz that appear to have occurred at the beginning of the meeting and
prior to the slide presentation. While there is no doubt that Ortiz read from the power point
presentation, this is not inconsistent with comments he may have made prior to the slide

11 Tr. at 55, LL. 4–24 and p. 56, LL.s 1–13.
12 Tr. at 82, LL. 15–19 and p. 83, LL. 3–14.
13 R Exh.s 2 and 6.
14 R Exh. 2.
15 Ibid.
16 Tr. at 175, LL. 3–5.
JD(SF)–30–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
presentation. I credit Contreras and Urquiza.
c. Analysis
Complaint paragraph 7 alleges that on about May 16, 2014, Ortiz threatened employees
with wage reductions if they voted for the Union.
The Board has long held that an employer may not tell employees that the consequences
of unionization may result in a cut in wages. President Riverboat Casinos of Missouri, Inc., 329
NLRB 77, 77 (1999). Such a pronouncement is an implied threat because the statement, without
reference to the bargaining process, suggests that wages might be reduced as a result of a vote for
unionization. Id.
Here, Ortiz told the employees, “Lino, of course, if the Union wins, the Company could
reduce your wages.” When Contreras said that was illegal. Ortiz told him, “Lino, who pays your
salary? The Company, right? Therefore, the Company has the right to reduce your salary.”
There was no mention of bargaining and while later Ortiz may have made reference to
bargaining in the slide presentation, he never specifically corrected or rescinded his earlier
unlawful statement. I find that Ortiz’ statement violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The May 22, 2014, interrogation of employees and threats of futility
a. The facts
Contreras stated he had conversation with Negroni on May 22, 2014. Contreras said that
at about 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. he was working in an aisle of the repack department when Negroni
approached him. No one else was present. Negroni said in Spanish, "Hi Lino. What about the
Union?" Contreras responded, “Fine. Everything's fine. Why are you asking?” Negroni then
said, “I have heard that the Union is making a lot of promises.” Contreras responded, “The
Union is not making any promises. You guys are making false promises. Lying to people and
threatening them.” Negroni then said, “I hope the company won’t hear what you’re saying.”17
Contreras then pulled out the document Aceves showed Negroni about 2 weeks earlier. After
Contreras gave Negroni the document, Negroni said, “You know what, this is useless. The
Company has its own policies.”18 Negroni gave the document back to Contreras, and left.
Negroni testified that he was in the warehouse on May 22, 2014, but denied speaking
alone with any employees.
Respondent’s employee, Ana Bravo, who works in the same area as Contreras as a picker
selector, testified that on May 22, 2014, she could observe Contreras all day and never saw
Negroni speaking with Contreras.

17 Tr. at 59, LL. 11–25 and p. 60 LL. 1–10.
18 Tr. at 62, LL. 1–5.
JD(SF)–30–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
b. Credibility findings
Bravo admitted on cross-examination that the 7 aisles in the department she and
Contreras works in are like those in a big box store. The aisles are 60 feet long and are separated
by shelves of merchandise 8 feet high and 6 feet wide. Like in a big box store, Contreras uses a
forklift to move merchandise from the shelves. Ultimately, Bravo admitted she could not see
Contreras at every minute of the day on May 22, and that she did not know where Contreras was
at any given hour. I do not credit Bravo’s testimony nor do I credit Negroni’s denials for the
reasons set forth above. As I explained earlier, I credit Contreras.
c. Analysis
Complaint paragraph 6(c) alleges that on about May 22, 2014, Negroni interrogated
employees about their union activities. Complaint paragraph 6(d) alleges that Negroni
threatened employees with futility concerning their Section 7 rights.
Like Negroni’s interrogation of Aceves, his interrogation of Contreras violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Under the Rossmore standard, from the entire context of the conversation,
Negroni’s comments were plainly coercive. Even though Contreras may have been a union
advocate, Negroni was not satisfied with mere interrogation about how Contreras felt about the
Union and what the Union was promising. After Contreras defended the Union, Negroni
emphasized the Respondent would not want to hear such statements, implying there would be
adverse consequences. This was clearly coercive and the interrogation violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
As discussed above, in Negroni’s statement to Aceves concerning the futility of his union
activity, his similar statement to Contreras violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Like Aceves,
Contreras gave Negroni the same document “Employee Rights Under the National Labor
Relations Act.” Negroni looked at the document and said, “You know what, this is useless. The
Company has its own policies.” As with Aceves, Negroni’s message to Contreras was that it was
futile for him and his coworkers to assert their Section 7 rights to join or support the Union and
violated Section 7 of the Act.
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent UNF, West, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce and in an industry
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, Industrial and Allied Workers of America,
Local 166, International Brotherhood of Teamsters is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in the following conduct, the Respondent committed unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(a) Interrogating employees about their union activities.
(b) Threatening employees with futility regarding their rights under the Act.
JD(SF)–30–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
(c) Threatening employees with reduction in wages if they voted for the Union.
Remedy
In addition to the ordinary remedies, General Counsel seeks the extraordinary remedy of
having the notice read to employees. The Board had held in Federated Logistics, 340 NLRB
255, 258 (2003), that when an employer commits pervasive unfair labor practices by high level
managers in the context of an organizing campaign, that such conduct will tend to have a chilling
effect. To fully remedy these unfair labor practices the Board will order that the notice to
employees be read to employees.
Here, Respondent has engaged in repeated unfair labor practices over a 2-year period of
time. UNF West, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 42 (2014). These include threats of termination, coercive
interrogation, threats that engaging in Section 7 activity would result in loss of benefits, and
threats that working conditions would not improve if employees exercised right under the Act.
There can be little doubt that Respondent’s conduct has chilled employee support for the Union.
Accordingly, I will order that the notice to employees be read to employees in English and
Spanish by Respondent and/or by a Board agent in the presence of Respondent, to assure
employees of their rights and Respondent’s obligations under the Act.
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent shall be required to post a notice that assures its employees that it will
respect their rights under the Act. As the Respondent has a large number of employees whose
primary language is Spanish, the Respondent shall be required to post the paper notice in both
English and Spanish.
In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the
Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. J. Picini Flooring,
356 NLRB No. 8 (2010).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended.19
ORDER
The Respondent, UNF, West, Inc, Moreno Valley, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall

19 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted
by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(SF)–30–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating employees about their union activities.
(b) Threatening employees with futility regarding their rights under the Act.
(c) Threatening employees with reduced wages if they voted for the Union.
Instructing employees not to discuss the Union or engage in union activities, including by telling
them, in reference to their union activities, not to cause trouble or problems.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Moreno Valley, California
facility, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”1720 Copies of the notice in Spanish
and English, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, 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 electronic
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
May 9, 2014.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, hold a meeting or meetings, during
working time to be scheduled to ensure the widest possible attendance, at which the attached
Notice is to be read in English and Spanish to the employees assembled for this purpose, by a
responsible official of the Respondent in the presence of a Board agent, and/or by a Board agent
in the presence of a responsible official.

20 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 Realtions Board.”
JD(SF)–30–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, filed with the Regional Director for
Region 21 a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 3, 2015
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
After a trial at which we appeared, argued and presented evidence, the National Labor Relations
Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has directed us to post
this notice to employees and to abide by its terms.
Accordingly, we give our employees the following assurances:
WE WILL NOT ask you about your union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten you that your wages will be reduced if you vote for the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten you that it is futile to exercise your rights under the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with your rights under Section 7 of the
Act.
UNF, WEST, INC.
(Employer)
Dated: By:
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
888 South Figueroa Street, 9th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017-5449
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
213-894-5200.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/21-CA-129446 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, 213-894-5229.