UNF WEST, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 20, 2016

363 NLRB No. 96 (N.L.R.B. 2016)

363 NLRB No. 96
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.
UNF, West, Inc. and Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen, Industrial and Allied Workers of
America, Local 166, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters. Case 21–CA–129446
January 20, 2016
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS HIROZAWA
AND MCFERRAN
On August 3, 2015, Administrative Law Judge John J.
McCarrick issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General
Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Respondent
filed a reply brief.
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,1 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order as modified.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, UNF,

1 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.
The Respondent has also excepted to the judge’s requirement that its
witness, Carlos Ortiz, testify in English, while permitting the Union’s
witnesses to testify in Spanish through an interpreter. We note that the
judge gave due consideration to Ortiz’ ability to understand and com-
municate in English, and provided that Ortiz could testify through the
interpreter if it appeared he was having difficulty. See Yaohan U.S.A.
Corp., 319 NLRB 424, 424 fn. 2 (1995), enfd. 121 F.3d 720 (9th Cir.
1997) (table). There was no evidence that Ortiz demonstrated such
difficulty, nor were there subsequent requests by Ortiz or the Respond-
ent’s counsel for translation assistance.
Finally, the Respondent has excepted to the judge’s refusal to allow
the testimony of four employee witnesses who purportedly would have
testified that they had never been threatened by the Respondent’s
agents, and that they had signed a petition stating that they wanted the
Union to leave them alone and stop filing frivolous charges. We agree
with the judge that the testimony was properly excluded as irrelevant;
further, none of these employees had personal knowledge of the state-
ments alleged to violate the Act. See Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, 342
NLRB 837, 845 (2004) (barring witness from testifying about event of
which she had no personal knowledge).
2 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to exclude a
provision that was apparently added inadvertently.
West, Inc., Moreno Valley, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Order as modified.
Substitute the following for paragraph 1(c).
“(c) Threatening employees with reduced wages if
they voted for the Union.”
Dated, Washington, D.C. January 20, 2016
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Kent Y. Hirozawa, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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, Cali-
fornia, 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 Re-
gion 21.
The complaint alleges that UNF, West, Inc. (Respondent) vi-
olated 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.
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 Cali-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
fornia 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 facili-
ty 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 facili-
ty. 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 investiga-
tion, 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 employ-
ees. On April 24, 2014, Administrative 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 deci-
sion in UNF West, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 42 (2014). The Board
found that Respondent violated the Act by coercively question-
ing 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 not
negotiate or sign any contract with the Union; by threatening
the loss of employees’ 401 (k) benefit if they selected the Un-
ion 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board.
B. The alleged unfair labor practices herein
The parties stipulated5 that Juan Negroni (Negroni), Carlos

1 GC Exh. 4.
2 GC Exh. 3.
3 GC Exh. 5.
4 GC Exh. 6.
5 Jt. Exh. 1.
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 pre-
sent, in a meeting room near the human resources department.
Negroni and Ortiz are employed by Kulture, a company Re-
spondent employed to respond to the Union’s organizing cam-
paign. 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 end-
ed, Aceves left to return to work in the warehouse. The meet-
ing room is near the warehouse.
At about 3 p.m., Negroni approached Aceves in the ware-
house 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. immedi-
ately after the meeting, stopping nowhere in Respondent’s fa-
cility.
Ortiz testified to the contrary that the May 9, 2:15 p.m. meet-
ing 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 docu-
ment titled, “Employees Rights Under the National Labor Rela-
tions 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.

6 Tr. at 31, LL.14–24 and p. 32, LL. 1–3.
7 GC Exh. 2.
8 Tr. at 33, LL. 3–11.
UNF WEST, INC. 3
363 NLRB No. 96
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 la-
bor 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 Na-
tional 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 testi-
mony 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 Bourne
9
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 employ-
ee is an open and active union supporter. Norton Audubon Hos-
pital, 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).
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 evi-
dence 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 em-

9 Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964).
phasized 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 doc-
ument 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 say.”11
Respondent’s employee Juan Urquiza corroborated Contre-
ras’ 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 repre-
sent [you], . . . the company could lower [your] wages, sala-
ries.” Urquiza further said that Contreras replied, “Carlos, can
the company do that?” Ortiz then said, ‘Yes, because the com-
pany pays our salaries.”12

10 R. Exh. 3.
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.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
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 rec-
ollection of the slides’ content. Contreras also did not recall
Ortiz ever telling employees at this meeting, or any other meet-
ing, that”bargaining starts from where you are, and you can go
up, down, or stay the same” or reading from a slide that con-
tained 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 wag-
es if the Union got in.” Ortiz claimed that during his presenta-
tion, he said nothing other than reading the slide presentation.
Perez said that Ortiz read the slide script word-for-word, how-
ever 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 re-
member 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 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 em-
ployees 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 bargain-
ing process, suggests that wages might be reduced as a result of

13 R. Exh.s 2 and 6.
14 R. Exh. 2.
15 Ibid.
16 Tr. at 175, LL. 3–5.
a vote for unionization. Id.
Here, Ortiz told the employees, “Lino, of course, if the Un-
ion wins, the Company could reduce your wages.” When Con-
treras 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 bar-
gaining and while later Ortiz may have made reference to bar-
gaining 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 re-
sponded, “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.
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 activi-
ties. Complaint paragraph 6(d) alleges that Negroni threatened
employees with futility concerning their Section 7 rights.

17 Tr. at 59, LL. 11–25 and p. 60 LL. 1–10.
18 Tr. at 62, LL. 1–5.
UNF WEST, INC. 5
363 NLRB No. 96
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 Con-
treras may have been a union advocate, Negroni was not satis-
fied 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 con-
cerning 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 Brother-
hood 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.
(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 employ-
ees. 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 em-
ployees.
Here, Respondent has engaged in repeated unfair labor prac-
tices 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 Re-
spondent’s obligations under the Act.
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.
The Respondent shall be required to post a notice that as-
sures 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, Califor-
nia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
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 ref-
erence to their union activities, not to cause trouble or prob-
lems.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate 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.”
20
Copies of the notice in Spanish and
English, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 21, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained 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 intra-
net or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Re-

19 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
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 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.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
spondent customarily communicates with its employees by
such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material. In the event that, during the penden-
cy of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of busi-
ness 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 meet-
ing 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.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, filed with the
Regional Director for Region 21 a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible 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 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 benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
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.
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.