UPS SCS

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Dec 3, 2010

12-CA-026437 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 3, 2010)

JD(ATL)–26–10
Miami, FL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
DIVISION OF JUDGES
UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC.
and Cases 12-CA-26437
12-CA-26446
12-CA-26564
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 769,
affiliated with INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
Nicholas M. Ohanesian, Esq., and John F. King, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Kelly-Ann G. Cartwright, Esq., and Christine Fuqua Gay, Esq.
for the Respondent.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
MICHAEL A. MARCIONESE, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this case in Miami,
Florida, on April 5 through 8, 2010. Teamsters Local Union No. 769, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Union here, filed the charge in Case No. 12-CA-26437 on
August 7, 2009 and amended it on September 18, 2009.1 The Union filed the charge in Case
No. 12-CA-26446 on August 20 and amended it three times, September 18, October 30 and
November 30. The Union filed the charge in Case No. 12-CA-26564 on November 30 and
amended that charge on December 23. Based upon these charges, as amended, the General
Counsel issued an order consolidating cases, consolidated complaint and notice of hearing on
February 25, 2010.
The consolidated complaint alleges, inter alia, that UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., the
Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in various ways, during the months of July and
August 2009, in response to the Union’s nascent organizing campaign. Specifically, it is alleged
that the Respondent maintained and enforced an overly broad no-solicitation rule, that several
of the Respondent’s supervisors told employees that they could not possess non-work related
literature at work and not to sign union authorization cards unless they spoke with the
Respondent’s supervisors, and threatened them with discharge and job loss if they selected the
Union as their collective bargaining representative. The complaint also alleges that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by showing employees a video entitled “Little
Card Big Trouble”, which is alleged to contain threats of plant closure and advice to employees
to report the union activities of their co-workers. Finally, the consolidated complaint alleges that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging Irving Puig on August
6 because of his union activities and support.

1 All dates are in 2009 unless otherwise indicated.
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
On March 9, 2010, the Respondent filed its answer to the consolidated complaint, which
it amended on March 29. 2010. The Respondent has denied the unfair labor practice allegations
and raised several affirmative defenses, including a Wright Line defense to the Section 8(a)(3)
allegation.2 In addition to the factual and legal issues raised by the pleadings, there is a dispute
over which version of the “Little Card, Big Trouble” video was shown, whether a 1997 edition
allegedly containing unlawful statements, or later versions that the parties apparently agree are
free of any unlawful statements.3
On the entire record4, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the
following
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
The Respondent, a corporation, is engaged in the business of parcel and cargo handling
at its facility in Miami, Florida, where it annually derives gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for
the transportation of freight in interstate commerce under arrangements with and as agent for
various common carriers, including United Parcel Service Inc., each of which operates between
various states of the United States. In addition, the Respondent annually purchases and
receives at its Miami facility goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
located outside the State of Florida. Based upon these admitted facts, I find that Respondent is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
See United Warehouse & Terminal Corp., 112 NLRB 959, 960 fn. 1 (1955); Siemons Mailing
Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85-86 (1959).
Based upon the undisputed testimony of Eduardo Valero, the Union’s business agent, I
find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
The Respondent is a fully-integrated logistical support company that manages other
companies’ supply chains (i.e., product inventories) from the assembly line to their customers’
physical locations, performing all intermediate functions related to moving and storing goods for

2 Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 622 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1980), cert. denied 455
U.S. 988 (1982).
3 It appears from the General Counsel’s efforts to prove that the 1997 copyrighted version
was shown, and the absence of any allegation that the later versions contain unlawful
statements, that the General Counsel concedes that the latter do not run afoul of the Act’s
proscriptions.
4 On April 22, 2010, after the close of the hearing, General Counsel and the Respondent
filed separate motions to receive into evidence agreed-upon translations of exhibits in Spanish
that had been received at the hearing. By Order dated April 26, 2010, I received the translations
as Joint Exhibits 1 through 8. Also on April 22, 2010, the General Counsel filed a motion for a
protective order with respect to videotapes that were received at the hearing as GC Exhibits 28
through 30. I granted this unopposed request in a separate order on April 26, 2010. Copies of
my two orders are made part of the record and attached to this decision as Appendices A & B,
respectively.
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
its customers. Although the Respondent has facilities throughout the country, the only one
involved in this proceeding is a warehouse located at 10000 N.W. 25th Avenue in Miami, Florida.
Approximately 125 employees work in the warehouse facility. Unlike the larger UPS, to which
the Respondent is related, the Respondent is a non-union enterprise. The record reveals that
the Union has unsuccessfully tried to organize the employees at the Miami facility on at least
two occasions before the 2009 campaign involved here.
The uncontradicted testimony of Business Agent Valero, discriminatee Puig and former
employees Mario Lopez and Ricardo Arriaza establishes that the Union’s organizing campaign
began sometime in June or early July after Lopez contacted Valero. According to Lopez, he got
Valero’s phone number from Puig. Lopez became the lead employee organizer until he was
discharged by the Respondent on July 15. Arriaza replaced Lopez as lead employee organizer
until he was fired a short time later. The Union alleged in Case No. 12-CA-26437 that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Lopez and Arriaza.
Neither discharge is alleged to be unlawful in the consolidated complaint before me, the
Regional Director having dismissed the allegation regarding Lopez, after investigation, and the
Union having withdrawn the allegation regarding Arriaza.
Puig assumed the leadership role after Arriaza’s discharge. There is no dispute that Puig
was also discharged, on August 6. His discharge is the subject of the instant complaint. Valero
testified that, with Puig’s assistance, he arranged a meeting with several of the Respondent’s
employees that took place on August 1, a Saturday, in a park not far from the Respondent’s
warehouse. Valero and Puig also testified that, before his termination, Puig solicited a number
of union authorization cards. There is no evidence in the record that the Respondent had any
direct knowledge of Puig’s union activities before his termination.5
The Respondent has an employee handbook that it distributes to employees which
includes the following statement as part of its “Employee Relations Philosophy”:
UPS SCS is in favor of maintaining a union-free environment. Our past experience
has shown that a third party is not able to accomplish anything that we cannot
accomplish by working together as a team. We believe that this direct approach –
without interference by an outside party – is the best way to maintain positive
relationships.
The Respondent, at page 2 of the handbook, further explains the basis for this philosophy in a
section entitled, “A Word About Unions”:
UPS Supply Chain Solutions works hard to maintain an employee relations
environment that promotes personal development and achievement. Open
communications, fair treatment, competitive compensation are hallmarks of our
company. Our compensation and benefits plans are reviewed annually and
necessary changes are made to ensure fairness and that our employees are
provided wages and benefits that are competitive within the logistics and global
industry. In addition, we provide a workplace where all employees are treated with
fairness, dignity, and respect.
We do not believe that our employees would benefit from outside union

5 The question whether the Respondent was aware of his Union “sympathies” will be
addressed later in this decision.
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
representation. Our employees do not need to deal with cumbersome union rules; to
assume the financial costs and other obligations of union membership; or to face the
possibility of costly work stoppages to be fairly compensated and be treated fairly at
UPS SCS. We already have processes in place such as our Open Door Policy,
Employee Dispute Resolution Program (EDR), Employee Opinion Survey (EOS),
and other opportunities that allow our employees to have a critical voice in our
company and give them an opportunity to resolve concerns quickly and fairly.
Our customers entrust us with significant portions of their business.
They expect a business partner whose employees can adapt to their changing
needs and provide uninterrupted service.
Our business and the jobs we provide depend upon our employees’ ability to fulfill
our service commitments. Union work rules and work stoppages could prevent us
from meeting our customers’ expectations.
Although UPS is unionized, it operates in a different industry and was unionized in a
different era. Its relationship with the union began in the 1920’s, before laws
guaranteed minimum wages, overtime, safety, and non-discrimination. This
relationship demonstrated UPS’ commitment to fair treatment of its people. UPS
was able to grow with limited competition for decades.
In contrast, UPS SCS began operations in a different, highly competitive industry
and in a time when laws and company policies protect employees’ rights. Like UPS,
we are committed to treating our people fairly. But a union is no longer necessary to
demonstrate this commitment.
In summary, we don’t believe that a union could gain anything more for our
employees than what we can accomplish through our direct and open working
relationship. We believe strongly that the interests of our employees, our customers
and our company are best served without union intervention.
There is no dispute that the Respondent became aware of the Union’s organizing efforts
sometime in mid-July and that it conducted a campaign to convince its employees that, as
stated in the handbook, a union was not needed. David Cole, the Respondent’s Director of
Human Resources for the Americas Region, testified that he provided training to the
Respondent’s supervisors in July regarding what they could say legally to the employees during
the campaign. He referred to this training as “TIPS”, an acronym for “threats, interrogation,
promises and surveillance”, essentially what the Act proscribes. According to Cole, he also
instructed supervisors that, if employees came to them with questions, to discuss it with Human
Resources before answering the question.
The testimony and documents in the record show that the Respondent conducted its
campaign through a series of Pre-work Communications Meetings, or PCMs. The Respondent
has had a practice of communicating information to employees on a regular basis through these
PCMs, which are conducted by front-line supervisors using scripts prepared by management to
ensure consistency. Beginning about July 17 and continuing until the beginning of August, the
subject of most of these PCMs was the Union. The General Counsel has alleged that some of
the statements made by supervisors during these PCMs violated the Act. In addition to the
PCMs, as noted above, the Respondent held a series of meetings around the same time at
which a video, “Little Card Big Trouble”, was shown to employees in small groups. Clara
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
Polanco-Guzman, a Human Resources Supervisor at the Miami facility, conducted most if not
all of these meetings. As noted previously, the General Counsel alleges that the video contains
two statements that violate the Act. Finally, according to the General Counsel’s theory of the
case, the Respondent’s campaign culminated with the discharge of Puig on August 6, effectively
ending the union’s organizing efforts.
A. No Solicitation Rule
The Respondent’s handbook contained the following no solicitation rule, as it applies to
employees:
In order to maintain and promote efficient operations, discipline, and security, UPS SCS has
established rules applicable to all employees regarding solicitation, distribution of written
material and entry into buildings and work areas. All employees are expected to comply
strictly with these company rules….
Employees of the company: Employees of the company may not solicit or distribute literature
during work time or in work areas for any purpose.
Work areas are all areas where employees perform work.
Work time: Does not include break periods and meal times or other periods during the work
day when employees are not engaged in performing their work tasks. Work time includes the
time of both the employee doing the solicitation or distribution and the employee to whom the
solicitation or distribution is directed.
The policy also applies to solicitation for personal interests such as the sale of goods,
subscriptions, products and food.
*United Way is the only exception for the No Solicitation Policy.
There is no dispute that, during the union’s organizing campaign, this rule was posted at various
locations in the warehouse. In addition, the Respondent had reminded employees of the rule by
memo and at PCMs conducted by the supervisors on February 19. The PCM script quoted the
rule verbatim as it appeared in the handbook.
The Board has held, almost since the Act’s inception, that an employer may, in normal
situations, make and enforce a rule prohibiting employees from engaging in solicitation during
“work time”, but that a broad rule barring such activity during non-working time is presumptively
unlawful. Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Company, 138 NLRB 615, 617-618 (1962). The
Supreme Court long ago affirmed the Board’s approach to such rules. Republic Aviation Corp.
v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 801-804 (1945), citing Peyton Packing Company, 49 NLRB 828, 843
(1943). Although there had been some disagreement among Board members over the years
over what precise language would pass muster, in Our Way, Inc., the Board held that a rule
barring solicitation during “work time” would be found valid as long as it states with sufficient
clarity that employees may solicit on their own time. 268 NLRB 394, 395 (1983). This is the
standard applied by the Board in recent years. See Cardinal Home Products, 338 NLRB 1004,
1005-1006 (2003), citing Grandview Health Care Center, 332 NLRB 347, 349 (2000), enfd. sub
nom, Beverly Health & Rehabilitation Services v. NLRB, 297 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2002).
The complaint alleges that the above rule, on its face, violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
because it is overly broad. I disagree. The portion of the handbook rule quoted in the complaint
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
and relied upon by the General Counsel is taken out of context. A plain reading of the entire
rule, including its definitions of work areas and work time establishes that the rule did not
prohibit employees from soliciting other employees “on their own time.” An objective employee
reading the entire rule in the handbook would reasonably believe that he could solicit his co-
workers when he and the other employee were not “performing work tasks”, i.e. working.
Accordingly, I shall recommend dismissal of this allegation.
The Respondent also referenced the no solicitation rule during the July 17 PCM, which
was the first conducted after the Respondent became aware of the Union’s campaign. The
script for this series of PCMs deviates from the handbook version of the rule by stating:
UPS has a “No Solicitation” policy, where no solicitation of any kind is allowed in the
workplace. This policy is posted in the building.
According to the Respondent’s witnesses, and its established practice with regard to PCMs, the
supervisors were expected to read this script verbatim and not deviate or improvise. I am thus
constrained to find that the Respondent’s supervisors in fact told employees on July 17 that “no
solicitation of any kind is allowed in the workplace.” In contrast with the rule contained in the
handbook and reiterated in February, this version of the Respondent’s policy is not limited to
work times or work areas and seems to apply whether or not the employees are working at the
time. To the extent the complaint alleges that the rule, as conveyed to employees on July 17, is
overly broad, I agree. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent, on or about July 17, violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when its supervisors, including Operations Manager Raul Echeverria,
during PCMs, broadened the scope of its existing no solicitation rule to prohibit solicitation
during non-work times.
B. Section 8(a)(1) Allegations related to the Respondent’s PCM campaign
As noted above, the first PCMs conducted by the Respondent’s supervisors that
addressed the Union were held on or about July 17. The script prepared for these meetings is in
evidence. The General Counsel also offered testimony from an employee, Miguel Osorio, who
was present at the July 17 PCM delivered by Operations Manager Echeverria, one of the top
managers at this facility. The complaint alleges that Echeverria violated the Act in the course of
this meeting by telling employees that they could not possess non-work related material at work,
and by threatening employees with job loss if they selected the Union as their bargaining
representative.6
Osorio has been employed at this facility for about three years, the first two as a
temporary employee. In summer 2009, he worked in the SPL department, supervised by
Eduardo Diaz. Osorio recalled attending meetings with his supervisor at which the union was
discussed almost on a daily basis over a two week period. These were PCMs at which Diaz
read from a paper, in English and then in Spanish. Osorio could not recall the dates of any of
these meetings and his recollection as to other specific details was poor. He did recall that the
very first meeting about the Union was conducted by Echeverria and that it came about
suddenly, at the end of the workday. He and his fellow employees in the SPL department were

6 The complaint, as drafted, does not clearly specify the date or meeting at which these
allegedly unlawful statements were made. It appears from the evidence cited in counsel for the
General Counsel’s brief that these violations are alleged to have occurred during the July 17
meeting.
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
called together with employees in the Sony Ericcson and Intel departments.7 The meeting took
place in the Intel department with about 30 employees present. The only other employee Osorio
recalled by name was Juan Millet. Osorio recalled that two other men from management were
there with Echeverria but he did not know them by name. He recalled that Echeverria had a
paper that he read from in English, translating what he read into Spanish as he went along. He
also recalled that Echeverria spoke “with passion.”
When asked to recount what Echeverria said, Osorio testified that Echeverria told them
that there were rumors of an organization forming in the place and that the company was not
going to permit a union to form.8 Echeverria told the employees to think carefully about what
they were going to do because “if a union came, we could lose our jobs.” According to Osorio,
Echeverria also said that, because of the type of clients the Respondent had in that building, the
company could not permit a union to form or they would lose clients. In response to a leading
question, Osorio added that Echeverria said they could close the building if the company lost
clients. Osorio testified that Echeverria was speaking Spanish when he said these things.
Osorio was also asked if he ever kept non-work related literature at his work place and
responded that he did not because he knew it was not permitted under the company policies.
When questioned further about this, Osorio testified that Echeverria also told the employees at
this meeting that it was not permitted to have union cards or flyers in their work place. He then
added that he didn’t remember anyone else saying this, but it was a “done deal.”
Although Osorio testified that Millett was at this meeting and Millet testified as a witness
for the General Counsel, he was not asked about this meeting. Instead, Millett was asked about
statements his supervisor, Eduardo Diaz, made regarding authorization cards. Millett testified
that he did not recall any meetings with supervisors about the Union. On cross-examination, he
testified that he did not recall being told by any supervisors that work would decline or jobs be
lost if the Union came in.
The July 17 PCM text, which is in English, does not contain any explicit threat of job loss
upon the formation of a union nor any reference to possession of non-work related material.9
The text of the meeting opens with an explanation of the purpose of the meeting, i.e. to answer
questions from employees about the recent efforts by the Union to organize them. In addition,
the text discusses the uncertainty of economic conditions and the steps that the Respondent
has and is taking to grow the business. There is also a discussion of union authorization cards
and the disadvantages of having a union, including the costs of dues and fees. The text also
reiterates many of the themes contained in the handbook’s statement about unions, i.e., the
Respondent’s preference for dealing directly with employees and its commitment to fair
treatment. The General Counsel does not cite any specific language in the script for this PCM
as being violative of the Act and I can find none.
Echeverria denied making the statements attributed to him by Osorio. These denials
were elicited through leading questions from the Respondent’s counsel. With respect to the
meeting itself, Echeverria testified that he read the script verbatim and did not expand on its
contents. He also claimed that he translated the script into Spanish word for word without any

7 The Respondent’s departments are named after the customers each services.
8 Osorio, as did almost all the other witnesses for the General Counsel, testified in Spanish
with the aid of a translator.
9 As noted above, the text does refer to the no solicitation rule but says nothing about
literature or other printed material.
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
deviation.10 The Respondent also called as a witness employee Avellino Herrera.11 Herrera, a
five-year employee, was present at the same meeting with Echeverria that Osorio attended.
According to Herrera, Echeverria read from a script in English, then repeated what he had said
in Spanish. Another Human resources representative, whose name Herrera did not know, was
there and assisted with the translation. When asked directly what Echeverria said at the
meeting, Herrera recalled that he told the employees there was talk of a union in the facility and
that Echeverria wanted everybody to make sure they knew what they were doing, not to let
people mislead them into something they did not want to do. In response to leading questions
from the Respondent’s counsel, Herrera denied that Echeverria said anything about the building
closing or the company losing customers if the employees selected a union. Herrera did not
recall anything that was said about union authorization cards. Herrera confirmed Osorio’s
testimony that employees were not permitted to have any outside literature in their work areas.
He did not, however, recall Echeverria mentioning this at the July 17 meeting. As Herrera
recalled, the meeting was “extensive” and it was at the end of the day when the employees
were getting ready to go home. His memory of what was said was really no better than that of
Osorio. 12
1. Alleged Prohibition of Non-Work Related Material
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated the Act at this meeting by
Echeverria telling the employees that they could not possess non-work related literature at work.
The General Counsel cites Brooklyn Hospital, 302 NLRB 785, at fn. 3 (1991), in support of this
allegation. However, in that case, the Board held that employees generally have a Section 7
tight to possess and display union materials at their work place, absent evidence that the
employer restricted possession of other personal items. Thus, it would not be unlawful if the
Respondent had a policy prohibiting the possession of non-work related materials in the work
area, as long as it was not discriminatorily promulgated or enforced. Here, both employees who
testified, Osorio and Herrera, apparently believed that the Respondent had such a policy even
before attending the meeting on July 17. In fact, Osorio called it a “done deal.” The only
evidence that Echeverria attempted at the July 17 meeting to restrict only the possession of
union materials is the uncorroborated testimony of Osorio, which I find insufficient to meet the
General Counsel’s burden of proof.
The text of the July 17 PCM makes no mention of this subject. Both Echeverria and
Herrera testified that Echeverria merely read the text and did not deviate from it, even when
translating the text into Spanish. Although General Counsel called one other employee who was
at this meeting to testify, he did not corroborate Osorio’s version of the meeting. I credit the
testimony of Echeverria that he did not deviate from the text. Considering his position in the
Respondent’s management hierarchy and his experience having worked in a unionized
environment, it is highly unlikely that he would have deviated from the script. There is no
question that the Respondent reacted to the Union’s campaign quickly, but it did so in a
carefully orchestrated manner. The Respondent’s managers, and Echeverria in particular,
certainly knew how not to violate the Act. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent did not tell
employees on July 17 that they could not posses union, or other non-work related material at

10 There is no dispute that, unlike later PCMs, there was no Spanish version at the time
Echeverria met with the employees. The text of this PCM was translated into Spanish at a later
time.
11 Herrera testified without an interpreter.
12 Herrera also recalled attending 2 or 3 other meetings with his immediate supervisor,
Pedro Garcia, on the subject of unions. These meeting will be discussed later.
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
their work places and shall recommend dismissal of this allegation.
The complaint alleged that supervisor Eduardo Diaz also told employees that they could
not possess non-work related literature at their work place. As with most of the allegations, the
complaint is vague and non-specific as to where and when this is supposed to have occurred. In
his brief, counsel for the General Counsel concedes that there is no evidence that Diaz ever
said this to any employee.13 Instead, according to counsel, this allegation is based on the
testimony of former employee Miguel Villarroel regarding a statement made by his supervisor,
Sam Rios, at a PCM held about two months before Villarroel left the company.14
Villarroel testified that Rios conducted the meeting in the area outside his office and that
there were about 15-18 employees there. He also recalled that a man whose name he did not
know but was with the company was present as well as either Belkis Cruz or Polanco-Guzman
from Human Resources. According to Villarroel, Rios told the employees that he knew there
were employees who were unhappy with the company and that there was an organization being
formed to bring a union into the company. Rios also talked about union authorization cards,
telling the employees that they were a legal document. He remembered Rios telling the
employees not to sign the union card. On cross-examination, Villarroel admitted that, in his pre-
trial affidavit, he stated that he did not recall being told not to sign a card unless he spoke to
management first. Villarroel testified that Rios also explained the disadvantages of having a
union, such as the loss of direct communication with the Respondent and the intervention of a
third party. It was in this meeting, according to Villarroel, that Rios told employees that the
Respondent had a zero tolerance policy for people having non-work literature and that
employees would be disciplined if they were found to have any. Rios was called as a witness by
the Respondent. Although he denied telling employees that they had to check with management
before signing union authorization cards, or otherwise threatening them, he did not specifically
deny making the statement about non-work related materials in the workplace.
Counsel for the General Counsel seeks, in his brief, to amend the complaint to allege
that Rios violated the Act by telling employees that they could not possess non-work related
material in the work place and by telling employees not to sign union authorization cards.
Counsel argues that such a late amendment is proper because the Rios’ allegations are similar
to allegations already in the complaint attributed to other supervisors and because the issue has
been fully litigated, citing Yellow Ambulance Service, 342 NLRB 804, 824 (2004). As noted
previously, the complaint, generally, is vague and nonspecific as to the time and place of the
independent Section 8(a)(1) allegations. But it is specific as to the Respondent agent liable for
committing the alleged violation. Under these circumstances, I find that it would be prejudicial to
the Respondent to find a violation based on Villarroel’s testimony regarding Rios’ PCM.
Although the Respondent’s counsel called Rios as a witness, she did not ask any questions
regarding these two statements allegedly made by Rios. Instead, she had him generally deny
making the threats and other statements alleged in the complaint to have been committed by
the Respondent’s supervisors. Ordinarily, one might draw an adverse inference from a parties’

13 As noted above, even if he did tell employees they could not possess non-work related
materials at work, this would not be per se unlawful. There would need to be evidence that the
prohibition was discriminatorily promulgated or applied only to union materials.
14 Villarroel was employed by the Respondent at this facility from December 1, 2003 until
August 17, 2009. His memory was about as poor as that of Osorio and Herrera. Thus, he
recalled first hearing about the Union campaign five months before he left, which would have
been in March. The earliest any witness placed the beginning of any organizing activity was in
June.
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
failure to address a specific allegation in the complaint. In this case, however, there was no
allegation in the complaint attributed to Rios. Counsel for the Respondent may have called him
in an overabundance of caution, not knowing what exactly he was alleged to have done.
Counsel for the General Counsel could have moved at the hearing to amend the complaint, as
soon as he became aware that the wrong supervisor was named in the complaint. Such a
motion would have given the Respondent time to object or otherwise respond to the new
allegation. At a minimum, a motion made at the hearing would have put the Respondent’s
counsel on notice what exactly was being claimed by the General Counsel and she could have
tailored her examination to address that. Under these circumstances, I cannot find that the
allegations were fully and fairly litigated. Accordingly, I shall deny General Counsel’s post-
hearing motion to amend the complaint.
2. Threat of Job Loss
My decision to credit Echeverria’s testimony also disposes of the other allegation arising
out of the July 17 meeting, i.e. that he threatened employees with job loss and plant closure if
they selected the Union to represent them. Again, the only evidence to support this allegation is
Osorio’s uncorroborated testimony. As with the above allegation, there is nothing in the printed
text of this PCM that remotely resembles a threat of job loss and plant closure. Although the text
does describe the economic uncertainty within which the Respondent operates and the
Respondent’s efforts to attract and keep business to ensure its employees have jobs, there is
no linkage between these efforts and the Union in the text of Echeverria’s speech. To find a
violation here, I would have to find that he deviated from the text. As noted above, without some
corroboration, I find it doubtful that a savvy manager like Echeverria would have done so in
order to make such a bald-faced unlawful threat. Accordingly, I shall also recommend that this
allegation be dismissed.15
In addition to the testimony of Osorio regarding the July 17 PCM with Echeverria,
counsel for the General Counsel cites language in several of the PCM scripts as conveying a
message to the employees that unionization would lead to job loss. Specifically, counsel cites
the following excerpts from the PCM scripts in evidence:
The July 15 PCM entitled “We are committed to working with you!”16
UPS has announced several initiatives this year to ensure that we remain a strong
and financially sound company that is able to continue:
Securing non-union jobs by proactively managing costs and aggressively growing
the business…
For non-union employees, we have been able to secure their job by creating
opportunities for areas where they are needed…

15 I have noted, as General Counsel argues, that Osorio, as a current employee was
testifying against his economic interest and have weighted this factor in assessing credibility.
However, I also noted the poor state of his memory and the absence of any corroborating
testimony, which makes this testimony unreliable. I do not believe that Osorio fabricated the
testimony. On the contrary, I believe his memory was simply mistaken and he may have been
testifying as to the message he carried away from the meeting, rather than what was actually
said.
16 This PCM makes no reference to the Union’s organizing campaign.
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
Providing the UPS Retirement Plan for all non-union employees…
We are proud to be one of the very few companies as large as ours to have not had
to announce lay-offs…
(emphasis supplied by the General Counsel). The General Counsel omits the portions of
the PCM in which the Respondent discusses business results since the first of the year and
the specific steps the Respondent has taken to increase work opportunities for employees.
July 17 PCM, discussed above, entitled “Questions from employees regarding
Unionization
Why is a union trying to organize us – is it because of the uncertainty in the
economy and that employees are concerned about their jobs?
The PCM indicates that this is a question that had been asked by employees. The General
Counsel omits the response, in which the Respondent factually describes the efforts it had
made to provide job security to the employees at this facility.
July 20 PCM entitled “Our SCS Customers”
…A union environment will impose limitations that could prevent us from meeting
our customers’ expectations…
In a unionized environment, there is an expected rise in the time and resources
required, in addition to running a day-to-day business, which will put the company at
a competitive disadvantage.
Customer confidence may suffer.
…Our entire business at SCS, the jobs we provide, and the growth here at 25th
street, depends on our ability to be flexible and to provide quality, uninterrupted
service to our customers.
(emphasis in original). Again, these statements are taken out of context. The entire script is a
specific explanation of the impact unionization may have on the Respondent’s ability to satisfy
its customers’ requirements.
July 20 PCM “Re: Job Security”
…Job security is very important to all of us…through all of the economic challenges
thrown at us so far, we have had zero layoffs in this operation. Others have not
been so fortunate…
…Again, the link between customers and job security is strong. That has been
demonstrated here in this workgroup, hasn’t it? Zero layoffs…
As with the above quotes, GC has selected these two statements out of a two-page document
that describes in detail the Respondent’s position regarding the issue of job security.
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
July 31 PCM entitled “Our Customers and You.”
…Our ability to retain our customers and grow the business is directly related to the
operational flexibility a union free environment provides.
This one sentence is taken out of a longer presentation full of specifics regarding the
Respondent’s position on the issue of unions and operational flexibility and how that impacts
customer service.
Contrary to General Counsel’s suggestion, I find that none of the Respondent’s written
PCMs, either individually or considered as a whole, conveys a threat of job loss if the
employees select the Union to represent them. It is well-established that an employer is free to
communicate to employees its views regarding the effects the employer believes unionization
will have on the business, as long as such statements are “carefully phrased on the basis of
objective fact to convey an employer’s belief as to demonstrably probable consequences of
unionization beyond his control.” Only if there is an implication that the employer may or may
not take action solely on his own initiative for reasons unrelated to economic necessities and
known only to the employer, does the statement become a threat of retaliation. NLRB v. Gissel
Packing Co., 395 NLRB 575, 617 (1969). The statements quoted by the General Counsel here
do not cross the line between protected and unlawful speech by an employer.
The only witness for the General Counsel, other than Osorio, to testify regarding any
alleged threats of job loss was discriminatee Puig, who recalled such threats being made by his
supervisor, Pedro Garcia, during a PCM, and by Polanco-Guzman, during the meeting at which
“Little Card Big Trouble” was shown.17 Puig testified that he attended approximately 15
meetings, including the one with Polanco-Guzman, at which the Respondent’s supervisors
talked about the Union. He recalled that these meetings occurred during the period from early
July until the date he was discharged. According to Puig, the discussion of the Union took place
during PCMs that were conducted by Garcia. In the beginning, Garcia held such meetings every
day, but later the frequency diminished to two or three times a week. Puig recalled that
Echeverria was present for these meetings on two or three different occasions. All of the
Meetings conducted by Garcia were conducted within his department. Puig testified that Garcia
spoke in Spanish at these meetings.
Puig testified that Garcia said essentially the same thing at all 14 or 15 meetings he
attended. When asked specifically what Garcia said at these meetings, Puig testified as follows:
He was saying that – there’s more, but he was saying that the unions were good
(sic), that there would be consequences, that the clients would take away the
accounts because they would be uneasy about strikes forming, and that there would
be loss of jobs. He also talked about a fee that had to be given to the Union,
between 200 and 300 dollars. And then you had to pay a monthly quota, to ask
them in writing for the promises that they were making and not to trust the Union,
and as a consequence we could lose our job because the clients would be afraid
that there would be strikes.18
Puig also testified that Garcia always asked, at the conclusion of his presentation, if there were

17 The allegation regarding Polanco-Guzman will be discussed later in connection with other
allegations related to the showing of the video.
18 This is the English translation of what Puig testified in Spanish.
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
any questions. According to Puig, he spoke up at several meetings, including one time when he
challenged Garcia’s assertion that the Respondent would lose customers if the Union were
selected. Puig testified that he questioned why the customers would be unhappy since UPS
already had a union with the drivers and some of the warehouse workers and why hadn’t the
clients left that operation. Puig did not testify as to Garcia’s response, if any. Garcia testified that
he also raised personal issues that he had with the Respondent in the past and that he had
never received a written response to concerns he submitted in writing. According to Puig, these
PCMs lasted about 20-30 minutes and discussion generated by his remarks typically consumed
five to seven minutes. Although Puig recalled that another employee, Avellino Herrera also
spoke up at these meetings, Puig did not relate what Herrera said.
Garcia was called to testify by the Respondent and, as General Counsel points out, his
denial of this allegation was elicited by leading questions. However, Garcia also testified that, at
the PCMs he conducted regarding the Union’s campaign, he merely read the script provided by
the Respondent and did not deviate from it. Avellino Herrera, an employee called to testify by
Respondent, corroborated Garcia.19 A review of the written PCMs in evidence reveals that a
theme of the Respondent’s campaign was the importance of customer satisfaction to ensuring
job security. However, none of the written PCM’s makes an explicit threat that the Respondent
will lose customers if employees become unionized, or that jobs will be lost because of the
Union. This may have been how Puig interpreted Garcia’s statements, but it is not in the written
documents. To find a violation based on Puig’s testimony, I would have to find that Garcia
deviated from the text to make the statements attributed to him.
Having considered the evidence in the record, I cannot find that General Counsel has
met his burden of proving that Garcia threatened employees with job loss if they selected the
Union as their bargaining representative. The only evidence offered in support of this allegation
is Puig’s uncorroborated testimony. I credit Herrera and Garcia that Garcia merely read the
written text of the PCM. As noted above, none of the written PCM’s contains even an implicit
threat of job loss. On the contrary, they are lawful expressions of the Respondent’s views of the
effect of unionization on its business based on objective facts. In reaching this conclusion, I also
note that Puig’s testimony was vague as to exactly when such a threat was made and he failed
to identify any other employees, other than Herrera, who were present when the threat was
made. Accordingly, I shall recommend that this allegation be dismissed as well.
3. Advising Employees Not to Sign Union Authorization Cards
Without Speaking to the Respondent’s Supervisors
The complaint also alleges that employees were told not to sign union authorization
cards unless they spoke with the Respondent’s supervisors. The complaint, although vague as
to time, specifically attributes these statements to Belkis Cruz, a Human Resources Supervisor,
and Eduardo Diaz. In his post-hearing brief, counsel for the General Counsel seeks to add
Polanco-Guzman to the list of supervisors making this statement, based on former employee
Villaroel’s testimony. 20 Counsel for General Counsel also implicitly amended the allegation in
his brief by arguing that the Respondent’s supervisors violated the Act by simply telling
employees not to sign union cards. This was apparently based on the failure of General
Counsel’s witnesses to establish that employees were told to speak with their supervisors

19 On cross-examination, Puig acknowledged that Garcia read from a folder at these PCMs.
20 As previously discussed, counsel for the General Counsel moved, in his post-hearing
brief, to amend the complaint to add Sam Rios as another supervisor who made this statement
to employees, based on Villaroel’s testimony. I have already denied this motion.
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
before signing a card.
Current employees Osorio and Millett testified regarding the allegation involving Diaz.
Osorio recalled that, after the meeting with Echeverria on July 17, Diaz held PCMs in the
department almost daily for two weeks at which the Union was discussed. According to Osorio,
all of the employees in his department, about nine or ten including Millett, were present for these
PCMs. When asked what Diaz told employees at the meetings, Osorio testified that Diaz said,
at several meetings, that it was not good to sign the Union card, that the company helped
employees to enjoy the benefit of bringing money home in an honorable fashion, and to just
think it over carefully before joining a union because that was not good. When asked specifically
what Diaz said about authorization cards, Osorio testified that Diaz told the employees that the
company would not permit the signing of cards within the building under no circumstances.21
Millett testified that Diaz told employees at a PCM that, before signing a union card, to be sure
about what they were signing, “to see if we were for it or against it.” In response to several
leading questions from counsel for the General Counsel, Millett recalled that employees were
told “to check and be sure of what we were signing before signing the card.” When asked by
General Counsel who employees were to check with, Millett finally recalled that Diaz said the
office, meaning Human Resources. Millett’s memory about these meetings was generally
poor.22
Diaz recalled giving six to ten PCMs on the subject of the Union. He recalled that they
were prepared by management and he was given English and Spanish versions to read to the
employees. Although he specifically denied other allegations attributed to him, in response to
leading questions, he did not specifically deny this allegation. Although several of the written
PCMs in evidence urge employees to think carefully about what they were doing in signing a
union authorization card, none explicitly requests employees to check with a supervisor or
Human Resources before doing so.
The General Counsel cites one case in support of this allegation. In Modern
Manufacturing Company, 261 NLRB 534 (1982), enfd. 723 F.2d 902 (4th Cir. 1983), an
administrative law judge found that an employer’s “advising employees not to sign Union cards”
amounted to restraint and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In that
case, the “advice” occurred in the context of pervasive unfair labor practices which resulted in
the issuance of a bargaining order remedy. That case is thus distinguishable from the present
one.
I find that General Counsel has failed to meet his burden of proving that Respondent,
through Diaz, told employees to speak with a supervisor before signing a union authorization
card, as alleged in the complaint. Only Millett testified to anything approaching such a
statement. His testimony was not corroborated by Osorio, who worked in the same department
and attended the same PCMs as Millett. In addition, General Counsel was only able to elicit this
testimony though a series of leading questions because of Millett’s generally poor recollection of
the meetings. In addition, the PCMs in evidence show that the Respondent merely advised
employees to carefully consider what they were doing before signing a union card and to make
sure this is what they wanted. That is consistent with Osorio’s testimony that Diaz told the
employees to think carefully about it and to be sure they knew what they were signing. Such

21 This may have been a reference to the overly broad no-solicitation rule contained in one
of the PCMs, as noted above.
22 Both Osorio and Millett testified in Spanish with the aid of an interpreter.
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
“advice” is not unlawful. Accordingly, I shall recommend that this allegation be dismissed.23
The allegation that Belkis Cruz told employees not to sign a union authorization card
unless they spoke to a supervisor is based solely on the testimony of Ricardo Arriaza, the
second lead employee organizer who was fired on July 21. Arriaza testified that this statement
was made during a meeting with about 20 employees held in the conference room at the
beginning of July. According to Arriaza, Cruz showed the employees a video and explained that
the union authorization card was a legal document and not to sign the cards because it was a
legal document. Arriaza recalled that the video showed people trying to get other people to join
the union, portraying the way the Union acted to get people to sign. Arriaza testified that they
said that the Union was not good for the company because there was no guarantee that they
could give the employees what they wanted. After the video ended, according to Arriaza, Cruz
again told employees not to sign the union card without first speaking to management. On
cross-examination, Arriaza acknowledged that in his affidavit he stated that this meeting
occurred in the middle of June. Although Cruz was called as a witness by the Respondent, she
was not asked any questions about this allegation.
Ordinarily, uncontradicted testimony would be sufficient to establish that a statement
was made. However, in this case, the testimony is of doubtful reliability. There is no other
evidence in the record to support the testimony that such a meeting occurred in early July, or in
the middle of June, as Arriaza claimed in his testimony and affidavit, respectively. Nor is there
any other evidence that Belkis Cruz was involved in showing any videos to employees as part of
the Respondent’s campaign. Moreover, I note that the evidence in the record indicates that the
Respondent did not even become aware of the Union’s organizing campaign until the middle of
July, shortly before Lopez and Arriaza were terminated, and did not begin its “anti-union”
campaign until July 17. The attendance sheets in evidence also show that the earliest showing
of the video, presented by Polanco-Guzman, occurred on July 23, after Arriaza was terminated.
Based on the above, I do not credit Arriaza’s testimony that Belkis Cruz told employees not to
sign union authorization cards unless they spoke with Respondent’s supervisors. I shall
recommend dismissal of this allegation of the complaint.
The new allegation regarding Polanco-Guzman was based solely on the testimony of
former employee Villaroel. Villaroel testified that, before he was terminated, he attended a
meeting with about eight to ten employees at which Polanco-Guzman showed a video depicting
how an employee would approach another employee to sign a card. After the video, Polanco-
Guzman asked if there were any questions and there were none. According to Villaroel,
Polanco-Guzman then gave a brief explanation about what was in the video and told employees
not to sign cards, that they were legal documents, not just cards. He recalled she also said that
signing the card did not mean the Union was going to come in, that it would only lead to an
election. During cross-examination, Villaroel acknowledged that, in his pre-trial affidavit, he
stated that he “did not recall them saying that you shouldn’t sign an authorization card unless
we spoke with them first.” Polanco-Guzman, in response to a leading question from the
Respondent’s counsel denied telling employees that they had to check with management or
Human Resources before signing a union authorization card.
I find that Villaroel’s testimony, if credited, fails to establish that Polanco-Guzman told

23 As noted, counsel for the General Counsel sought to broaden the allegation to cover any
statement in which a supervisor told an employee not to sign a card, Even assuming such an
explicit instruction was given, I find that this “amended” allegation has not been fully and fairly
litigated.
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
employees not to sign a union card unless they speak with a supervisor. On the contrary,
Villaroel denied she said this. At most, crediting Villaroel, General Counsel has established that,
in the context of the video presentation, to be discussed later, and while describing the legal
significance of signing a card, Polanco-Guzman told employees not to sign. Such a statement
contains no threat of reprisal, implicit or explicit. Accordingly, I shall recommend dismissal of this
newly added allegation as well.
C. “Little Card Big Trouble”
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, on
various dates in July and August, through a video entitled “Little Card Big Trouble”, by
threatening employees with plant closure and job loss if they selected the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative, and by advising employees to report the union activities of
other employees to the Respondent. There is no dispute that the Respondent showed
employees the video “Little Card Big Trouble” as part of its response to the Union’s campaign.
The video was shown at a series of 13-14 meetings, conducted by Polanco-Guzman, on July
23, 24, 27, 29 and August 3. The attendance sheets showing which employees attended these
meetings are in evidence. All but three or four of the meetings were in Spanish. Polanco-
Guzman had an English and a Spanish version of the video to show to the employees. Although
there is only one Spanish version, there are two English versions, one from 1997 and another
from 2000. The parties have stipulated to the written transcripts of all three versions of the
video.
The General Counsel’s complaint allegations are based on the following two statements
from the 1997 English version:
NARRATOR:
So if you’re harassed or threatened by Union supporters; if they try to make you do
something you’re not willing to do, or if you see acts of vandalism or sabotage,
report it to your management immediately. The Union’s rights do not include
infringing on other people’s rights.
Shortly after this statement, which appears about midway through the video, another scene has
employees talking with a union organizer. One of the employees makes the following statement:
Some [employees] are saying they don’t want to lose their jobs if the company
closes down or moves; and they think a Union might cause that.
General Counsel concedes that these two statements are not contained in the 2000 English
version or the Spanish version of the video. Thus it is crucial that General Counsel establish that
the 1997 English version was shown to at least some of the Respondent’s employees.24
There is no dispute that, at the time the video was shown, the Respondent had in its
possession both the 1997 and 2000 English language versions of “Little Card Big Trouble.”

24 In Flying Foods, 345 NLRB 101, 105 (2005) a majority of the Board found that it was not
unlawful for an employer to show the 2000 version of “Little Card Big Trouble” to employees.
See also Sodexho Marriott Services, 335 NLRB 538, 547, 555 (2001) in which an administrative
law judge reached the same conclusion as to the 1997 version. Because no exceptions were
filed to that portion of his decision, it is of no precedential value.
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
There is also no dispute that, during the General Counsel’s investigation of the unfair labor
practice charges, the Respondent’s counsel submitted the 1997 version in response to a
request from the General Counsel’s investigating agent to see the video that was shown to the
employees. The Respondent contended at the hearing that this was an inadvertent error that
was corrected a within a couple months when counsel sent the 2000 version and informed the
General Counsel’s office of the error.
None of the witnesses called by the General Counsel saw the English language version
of the video. The only evidence as to which version was shown is the testimony of the
Respondent’s Human Resources Supervisor, Polanco-Guzman, who was assigned the task of
showing the video to employees by Regional Human Resources Director David Cole, who also
testified for the Respondent. According to Polanco-Guzman, Cole gave her two videocassettes
to show to the employees, one in English and one in Spanish. She testified that she was the
only management representative involved in showing the video to the employees and that she
kept both versions of the video in her possession during the period in which she showed the
videos. At the conclusion of this task, she returned both copies to Cole. Polanco-Guzman
testified with certainty that the only English language version she showed was the 2000 edition.
She did not know how it came to be that counsel sent the earlier version to the General
Counsel’s office because she was not involved in responding to that request. Cole, for his part,
testified that he had three copies of the video in his possession, two in English and one in
Spanish. He admitted that he was not aware that the two English language versions were
different until it was brought to his attention during the investigation. He did not testify
specifically regarding which version he gave Polanco-Guzman when he assigned her the task of
showing the video to the employees. He did testify that, when the issue was brought to his
attention, he asked Polanco-Guzman which version she showed and she responded that she
showed the 2000 version.
The General Counsel argues that the Respondent’s October submission of the 1997
version of the video to the General Counsel’s office, with the representation that this was the
video shown to the employees, constitutes an admission that should be credited over the
testimony of Polanco-Guzman that she showed only the later, 2000 version, of the video.
Counsel for General Counsel notes, correctly, that Cole did not corroborate Polanco-Guzman’s
testimony because he never testified precisely which version of the video he gave her to show
to the employees. In fact, it is doubtful Cole could testify with any certainty as to which version
he gave Polanco-Guzman because he admittedly did not realize there was any difference
between the two English language videos until months later. Polanco-Guzman did testify that
she knew she was given the 2000 English version of the video because it was in the same white
container with the title and a picture as the Spanish language version. The packaging for the
1997 English version is markedly different and would be noticeable. This testimony rebuts
General Counsel’s assertion that Polanco-Guzman could not have differentiated the two English
language versions of the video because their content is so similar.
After having carefully considered the matter, and despite some reservations, I find that
Polanco-Guzman’s testimony that she showed the 2000 English language version of “Little Card
Big Trouble” is credible. The representation made by Respondent’s counsel when it submitted
the earlier version to the General Counsel’s office is troubling, but I accept the representations
of counsel and the witnesses that this was done in error due to Cole’s mistake in providing
counsel with the wrong version of the videotape. Neither counsel for the Respondent, nor Cole,
showed the video to the employees. Only Polanco-Guzman did and her testimony was not
contradicted by any witness for the General Counsel. In fact, General Counsel made no effort to
call any English speaking employee who would have been shown the video to testify as to what
was shown. While such a witness may not have been able to testify as to the date of the video,
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
such an employee might have recalled hearing the statements upon which the General Counsel
relies to prove a violation. Absent such evidence, I am reluctant to find an unfair labor practice
based on what may very well have been an inadvertent error by Respondent in gathering
evidence to respond to the investigation. Were a violation to be found based solely on the
October submission by counsel, it is likely that employer’s would not wish to cooperate during
an investigation by General Counsel in the future. Such a result would essentially lead to
issuance of complaints based on a one-sided presentation of evidence and create more
litigation like that involved here.
Having found that the Respondent showed its employees the 2000 English language
and the Spanish language versions of “Little Card Big Trouble video, and noting the absence of
any allegation that these versions contain unlawful statements, I shall recommend dismissal of
the complaint allegations related to the video.25
D. Discharge of Irving Puig
Irving Puig, a native of Cuba, was 69 years old when he testified at the hearing. He had
been employed at this facility since 1997. Prior to 2002, the facility was operated by Fritz
Companies, Inc., which was acquired by the Respondent. Puig continued his employment with
the Respondent until he was discharge on August 6. Although Puig appeared to speak and
understand English, he testified through a translator. As previously noted, uncontradicted
testimony in the record indicates that Puig gave Lopez the Union’s phone number so that Lopez
could initiate the organizing campaign. Puig also became the lead employee organizer around
July 20, after both Lopez and Arriaza had been terminated. Puig organized the August 1
meeting at Tropical Park, introduced the employees there to Union organizer Valero, and
solicited about 5 union authorization cards before his discharge. Puig signed a card himself on
July 13. As previously noted, there is no evidence that the Respondent was aware of this
activity before Puig’s termination. There is also evidence that Puig was involved in at least one
earlier organizing attempt, but there is no evidence that the Respondent had knowledge of this
earlier activity.
As demonstrated by the Respondent’s evidence, and detailed in counsel’s brief, Puig’s
employment with the Respondent was marked by a series of conflicts. Puig could be
characterized as the proverbial squeaky wheel, frequently complaining about perceived
injustices and demanding a response from the company’s managers, including the CEO. His
complaints were expressed verbally at PCMs conducted by his immediate supervisors, and in
writing to managers and Human Resources representatives. Although his complaints would
often be couched as general complaints of unfair treatment of employees, they invariably arose
out of a personal concern Puig had about the Respondent’s conduct toward him. There is no
dispute that, in early 2008, Echeverria fired Puig when Puig was overheard him loudly
disparaging the employer to employees in the lunch room and office area over a pay dispute.
Echeverria’s decision was reversed by his boss, Alina Fernandez, the Respondent’s Divisional
Operations Manager responsible for, inter alia, the Miami warehouse involved in this
proceeding. Fernandez testified, credibly, regarding her efforts over the years to placate Puig,
working with him and her supervisors and mangers to try to resolve his many complaints. In
fact, it is clear from the testimony in the record that the Respondent’s supervisors and managers
bent over backward for Puig, perhaps out of respect for his age. Puig, in his testimony, did not

25 The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated the Act, through Polanco-Guzman,
during one of these meetings by threatening employees with job loss. As this allegation is based
on the testimony of Puig, I shall address it in the next section of the decision.
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
19
really contradict Respondent’s evidence regarding his employment history. Instead, he and
General Counsel attempted to show that all of his complaints had merit and that he frequently
caught the Respondent’s supervisors violating company policies. I need not recite here all of the
evidence in the record regarding this history. Suffice it to say that Puig was a “thorn in the side”
of management and an employee the Respondent’s managers would be happy to see gone.
However, aside from the incident with Echeverria, Respondent had essentially tolerated his
behavior for years, without issuing him any discipline, giving him favorable employee
evaluations and raises, and failing to document all of the incidents relied upon by the
Respondent’s witnesses. The record before me shows clearly that the tipping point for the
Respondent, and what led to Puig’s discharge, was his conduct at the July 23 presentation of
the “Little Card Big Trouble” video by Polanco-Guzman.
The sign-in sheets for Polanco-Guzman’s meetings show that Puig attended the first
meeting she conducted, on July 23 at 11:00 am. Three other names appear on the sheet for this
meeting, including Avellino Herrera, who testified for the Respondent.26 The sign-in sheets also
show that Polanco-Guzman’s next meeting was at 11:30. The parties stipulated that the
Spanish language version of “Little Card Big Trouble” that was shown at the meeting lasts 20
minutes. After the video was shown, Polanco-Guzman asked the employees if there were any
questions. It is undisputed that, as was his custom, Puig spoke up at the meeting. The only
language spoken at the meeting was Spanish. Based on the sign-in sheet, Puig’s exchange with
Polanco-Guzman, which is at the heart of this case, and any other discussion between her and
the employees lasted no more than ten minutes.
Puig testified that, after showing the video, Polanco-Guzman told the employees to think
about what they were going to do because the Union didn’t always keep the promises it made.
According to Puig, she also said that, if a Union was formed, the clients could be unhappy and
jobs could be lost, that if the Respondent lost accounts, employees would lose their jobs and be
out in the street.27 After concluding her remarks, which Puig estimated lasted about five
minutes, she asked if there were any questions. Puig responded to this invitation by saying that
if there were rumors about a union, it would be because the employees were unhappy. He
continued by saying that the company would need to see what was happening and give
answers to the employees’ unhappiness and uneasiness because “I, for one, had presented
some concerns that I had in writing and never received a response.” Puig did not testify
regarding any response to his comments. He estimated that his comments lasted about two or
three minutes. According to Puig, none of the other employees at the meeting appeared
uncomfortable when he spoke and none complained to him afterward about his conduct at the
meeting. He specifically denied that he told Polanco-Guzman at this meeting that he did not
personally support the Union, a claim made by Polanco-Guzman in her written report of the
meeting.
Polanco-Guzman testified twice regarding this meeting, first as an adverse witness
called by the General Counsel under FRE 611(c) and later as one of the Respondent’s
witnesses. She testified that the meeting lasted 30-40 minutes and that the video presentation
consumed only 10 minutes of this time. According to Polanco-Guzman, Puig was the only
employee to respond to her requests for questions or comments and his response dominated
the meeting and extended it beyond the time it should have taken. As shown above, this
testimony was contradicted by the sign-in sheets in evidence.

26 Although Puig testified there were five or six employees at this meeting, he conceded he
did not remember exactly how many were there.
27 The complaint alleges that this statement by Polanco-Guzman violated Section 8(a)(1).
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20
With respect to the alleged threat of job loss, Polanco-Guzman denied making such a
threat but admitted that, in response to one of Puig’s comments, she told the employees that
she was aware, from her experience in 2005, that the Respondent had some customers whose
contracts with the Respondent stipulated that the Respondent maintain its non-union status. On
cross-examination, while claiming that she was not familiar with the details because she no
longer worked in operations, she testified that she was aware, at the time of the campaign, of at
least one major customer, Proctor & Gamble, whose contract contained such language. Had
Polanco-Guzman merely cited this fact, as she claimed, her statement would not be a violation
because an Employer is free to inform employees of the demonstrably probable consequences
of unionization base on objective facts, See NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., supra. Crediting Puig,
I find that Polanco-Guzman went further and told the employees that they could lose their jobs if
they formed a Union because the Respondent could lose customers. While close to crossing the
line, I nevertheless find that even this version of Polanco-Guzman’s statement was lawful
because she never told, or implied to, the employees that the Respondent would terminate the
employees on its own simply because they chose the Union, without regard to business
necessity. Rather, her statement, or prediction, of possible job loss was couched in terms of the
effect of unionization on the Respondent’s customers, a factor outside the Respondent’s control.
Accordingly, I shall recommend dismissal of this allegation.
Polanco-Guzman initially testified that Puig expressed his disagreement with the
contents of the video and with company procedures. Although she testified that he provided
examples of his disagreements, she did not elaborate until she was cross-examined later by
General Counsel. The complaints he voiced at the meeting, as described by Polanco-Guzman,
were the same he had repeatedly raised with the Respondent’s management over the years.
She admitted that he said that these types of concerns might be a reason employees would
support a union. Polanco-Guzman characterized Puig’s demeanor at the meeting as agitated,
and disruptive, not allowing her or anyone else to speak, According to Polanco-Guzman, Puig
became more agitated as the discussion continued, resisting her efforts to re-direct the
conversation and save his complaints for another time. At one point, he raised his voice and
started shaking. Polanco-Guzman claimed she became concerned for his physical well-being.
She also testified that she observed that other employees appeared uncomfortable as the
meeting progressed and Puig became more agitated. She claimed that two employees, Herrera
and Gonzalo Alvarez, complained to her after the meeting that the meeting was unnecessarily
long because of Puig’s rehashing his old complaints. She admitted that, despite her concerns
about Puig’s conduct, she never felt threatened by him.
Herrera was the only one of the two employees who complained to Polanco-Guzman to
testify at the hearing. According to Herrera, when Polanco-Guzman asked the employees if they
had any questions or comments, Puig spoke up. Herrera testified that Puig got “real agitated
and real nervous and he started shaking and getting all worked up.” When Polanco-Guzman
asked Puig to calm down and wait until after the meeting to discuss his concerns, Puig persisted
and did not stop until Polanco-Guzman finally told him that they had to move on. Herrera’s
estimation that the meeting lasted 45 minutes to an hour is contradicted by the sign-in sheets
and was clearly an exaggeration. Herrera did confirm that he complained to Polanco-Guzman
after the meeting about Puig’s behavior at this and other meetings. On cross-examination,
Herrera denied feeling intimidated or threatened by Puig’s conduct. He merely felt “concerned”
about Puig’s reaction to the video. Only on re-direct examination, and in response to a leading
question, did Herrera say that Puig raised his voice during the meeting.
Polanco-Guzman testified that, after the meeting, she expressed her concerns about
Puig’s behavior to Alina Fernandez. She told Fernandez that Puig “had been very disruptive,
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
21
very disrespectful in his comments about management and the company overall, and that [she]
felt he should be disciplined.” Fernandez asked Polanco-Guzman to write up what had
happened at the meeting, which she did. The written report in evidence is not entirely consistent
with Polanco-Guzman’s testimony at the hearing. In her later testimony, during Respondent’s
presentation of the case, Polanco-Guzman testified that she also expressed her concerns about
Puig to Divisional Human Resources Director Cole. As a result of her report, Cole conducted an
investigation that led to the decision to discharge Puig. Cole testified that he reviewed Puig’s
employment history with the company, including whatever documentation the Respondent had
concerning the issues Puig had raised in the past and managements efforts to resolve them,
and then discussed the matter with Charnley Conway, the Respondent’s Vice President for
Human resources for the America Regions. Cole recommended that Puig be terminated. This
conversation occurred over the phone. Conway testified that he relied solely on the information
provided by Cole and agreed with his recommendation. Significantly, Operations Manager
Echeverria, whose displeasure with Puig was palpable on the witness stand, was on vacation
and absent from the warehouse for two weeks beginning July 23. He returned in time to carry
out the decision to discharge Puig on August 6.28
On August 6, Echeverria and Polanco-Guzman met with Puig to inform him of the
termination. This is the first notice Puig had that his job was in jeopardy. According to Puig,
Echeverria said that Polanco-Guzman had complained that Puig spoke badly about the
company at her meeting and that other employees had complained about what he said and that
this could not be permitted. Puig responded that he had been asked for an opinion at the
meeting and it was not his fault if his opinion was not in accord with theirs. Puig also told
Echeverria that no one had complained to him at the meeting or afterward that he was bothering
them. Puig recalled further that Echeverria said they were tired of him and that they were not
going to put up any longer with his speaking up “and things like that.” Puig was then terminated
and escorted out of the building. When asked by General Counsel if Echeverria gave him a
reason he was being fired, Puig testified that Echeverria said that Puig was a person who
caused conflict in the company, that he was a “bad influence.”
Echeverria testified that he told Puig on August 6 that he was being fired because of his
outburst at the July 23 meeting and because of his long history of insubordination. Echeverria
claimed that, when informed of the decision, Puig was “very quiet” as if he was expecting it. This
testimony is contradicted by Polanco-Guzman, who was also present, who testified that Puig
was upset and expressed the opinion that the Respondent was wrongfully terminating him. In
addition, a written report of this meeting, apparently prepared by Polanco-Guzman, corroborates
Puig’s testimony regarding his response to being informed of his discharge. Polanco-Guzman
also confirmed this on cross-examination.
Despite the Respondent’s efforts to portray the decision to discharge Puig as one based
on a history of insubordination and unprofessional conduct, all of the Respondent’s witnesses,
when pressed on cross-examination, conceded that it was his conduct at the July 23 meeting
that was the motivating factor in the decision, or as Echeverria acknowledged, “the straw that
broke the camel’s back.” Employees who speak up at group meetings conducted by their
employer are generally protected by Section 7 of the Act. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp., 331
NLRB 858, 863 (2000), enfd. 262 F.3d 184 (2nd Cir. 2001); Whittaker Corp., 289 NLRB 933
(1988). The Board has historically permitted some leeway for impulsive behavior when

28 Although Echeverria claimed not to be involved in making the decision to terminate Puig,
he acknowledged being consulted about it, after the decision had been made by Conway, and
that he agreed with the decision.
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
22
employees are engaged in such activity. Tampa Tribune, 351 NLRB 1324 (2007), enf. denied
560 F.3d 181 (4th Cir. 2009); See also CKS Tool & Engineering, Inc. of Bad Axe, 332 NLRB
1578, 1585-1586 (2000). The issue here is whether Puig crossed the line between protected
and unprotected activity during the July 23 meeting.
Contrary to the Respondent’s assertions, the fact that the concerns raised by Puig at the
meeting may have originated as personal issues he had with the company over the years, does
not mean his conduct was not “concerted.” His grievances were cited as reasons employees
might be unhappy and desire union representation. Moreover, his comments were made
immediately after the Respondent had shown employees a video warning of the dangers of
signing a union authorization card and were a direct response to Polanco-Guzman invitation to
address the issues raised by the video. Accordingly, I find that Puig’s “outburst” at the July 23
meeting was concerted activity within the meaning of the Act.
In Atlantic Steel, 245 NLRB 814 (1979), the Board set forth a four factor analysis for
determining whether an employee’s conduct in the course of Section 7 activity is so opprobrious
as to lose the Act’s protection. Under that analysis, the Board considers (1) the place of the
discussion; (2) the subject matter of the discussion; (3) the nature of the employee’s outburst;
and (4) whether the outburst was, in any way, provoked by an employer’s unfair labor practice.
Id. at 816. Applying this analysis to the facts here, I conclude that Puig’s conduct, while it may
have been “unprofessional” under the Respondent’s policies, was not so outrageous as to lose
the Act’s protection.
Puig’s “outburst” occurred in a conference room where he and three other employees
were being shown a video as part of the Respondent’s campaign to dissuade employees from
signing a union authorization card. The only management representative present was Human
Resources Supervisor Polanco-Guzman. The subject matter of the discussion was the reasons
an employee might choose to sign a card, despite the warnings contained in the video. In
relaying his personal experiences dealing with the Respondent, Puig did not use any profanities,
did not verbally attack Polanco-Guzman personally, made no threats toward her or the
company, and did not become physically intimidating toward anyone in the room. Moreover, he
did not disrupt the showing of the video and only spoke when he was invited to do so during the
question and answer session after the video. Finally, although I have not found that any unfair
labor practices were committed during this meeting or as a result of the video presentations
generally, Puig’s outburst was provoked by the Respondent’s campaign opposing union
representation among its employees.
Having found that the Respondent discharged Puig because of his conduct at the July
23 meeting that was protected by the Act, I must find that the discharge violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act. See Network Dynamics Cabling, Inc., 351 NLRB 1423, 1429 (2007); CKS
Tool & Engineering, Inc. of Bad Axe, supra, and cases cited therein.29 Because I have found
that protected activity was the sole motivating factor in the Respondent’s decision to discharge
Puig, it is unnecessary to apply the Wright Line30 analysis applicable to mixed motive cases.31

29 The discharge violated Section 8(a)(3) as well as Section 8(a)(1) because Puig’s conduct
at the meeting was supportive of the Union,
30 251 NLRB 1083 (1980).
31 I am not unsympathetic to the Respondent’s sense of exasperation in dealing with an
employee like Puig. However, the Respondent had ample opportunity to address the situation
before the onset of union activity. It was only after Puig undermined the Respondent’s campaign
by speaking up at Polanco-Guzman’s meeting that the Respondent decided it had had enough.
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
23
Because Echeverria told Puig during the meeting that he was being discharged for activity that
was protected by the Act, I find further that this statement constituted an independent violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint.
Conclusions of Law
1. By announcing an overly broad no solicitation rule on or about July 17, 2009, and by
threatening employees with discharge for engaging in Union and protected concerted activities
on August 6, 2009, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By discharging Irving Puig on August 6, 2009 because of his protected conduct at a
meeting on July 23, 2009, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not violated the Act in any other manner alleged in the complaint.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. To remedy the overly broad no solicitation rule announced as
part of the July 17 PCM, I shall recommend that the Respondent rescind the rule and notify
employees that it has done so.
The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged an employee, it must offer him
reinstatement and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed on a
quarterly basis from date of discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement, less any net
interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest to be
compounded daily in accordance with the Board’s decision in Kentucky River Medical Center,
356 NLRB No. 8, slip op. at 4-5 (October 22, 2010).
Because the majority of the Respondent’s employees speak Spanish as their primary
language, I shall recommend that the Notice be posted in English and Spanish. Although there
is no evidence in the record before me that the Respondent customarily communicates with its
employees electronically, I shall recommend that the attached notice be distributed
electronically if, at the compliance stage, it is determined that the Respondent utilizes that
means of communicating with its employees. See J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB No. 9. slip op. at
3-4 (October 22, 2010).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended32

32 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(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
24
ORDER
The Respondent, UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
a. Announcing overly broad no solicitation rules that prohibit solicitation of any kind
anywhere in the workplace.
b. Threatening employees with discharge because they have engaged in union or other
protected concerted activities.
c. Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for supporting
Teamsters Local Union No. 769, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters or any other union
or for engaging in any other protected concerted activity.
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. Rescind the overly broad no solicitation rule announced as part of the July 17 Pre-
work Communication Meeting (PCM) and notify the employees that we have done so.
b. Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Irving Puig full reinstatement
to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
c. Make Irving Puig whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result
of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
d. Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its files any reference
to the unlawful discharge, and within 3 days thereafter notify the employee in writing that this
has been done and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way.
e. Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the
Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
f. Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Miami, Florida, copies
of the attached notice marked “Appendix C”33 in both English and Spanish. Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 12, after being signed by the

33 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in
the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
25
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
July 17, 2009.
g. Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director 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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C., December 3, 2010.
____________________
Michael A. Marcionese
Administrative Law Judge
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
26
APPENDIX A
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
DIVISION OF JUDGES
UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC.
and Cases: 12-CA-26437
12-CA-26446
12-CA-26564
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 769
affiliated with INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
ORDER RECEIVING EXHIBITS AND
ACCEPTING TRANSLATIONS OF EXHIBITS ALREADY ADMITTED
During the hearing in the above-captioned case, the parties offered into evidence
various documents that were in Spanish. The undersigned directed the parties to have such
documents translated into English so that any reader of the record who was not fluent in
Spanish could consider them in making findings of fact or otherwise disposing of issues in the
case. By separate motions dated April 22, 2010, counsel for the General Counsel and the
Respondent have submitted agreed-upon translations of the following exhibits that are already
in evidence:
R. Ex. 43 February 19, 2009 PCM34
R. Ex. 44 July 15, 2009 PCM
R. Ex. 45 July 17, 2009 PCM
R. Ex. 46 July 22, 2009 PCM
R. Ex. 47 July 27, 2009 PCM
R. Ex. 48 July 31, 2009 PCM
R. Ex. 49 May 3, 2008 letter from Irving Puig to Alina Fernandez
R. Ex. 50 December 13, 2006 letter from Puig to Belkis Cruz
Having considered the matter and noting the agreement of the parties, I shall receive the
proffered translations as Joint Exhibits 1-8, respectively.35

34 PCM refers to Pre-Work Communication Meeting.
35 Counsel for the General Counsel proffered two of the translations as GC Ex. 34 and 35,
while Respondent’s counsel attached all of the translations to her motion as Composite Exhibit
A. I have decided that marking them as joint exhibits will make for a cleaner record.
JD(ATL)–26–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
27
APPENDIX B
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
DIVISION OF JUDGES
UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC.
and Cases: 12-CA-26437
12-CA-26446
12-CA-26564
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 769
affiliated with INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
PROTECTIVE ORDER
The unfair labor practice hearing in the above-captioned case closed on April 8, 2010.
By motion dated April 22, 2010, Counsel for the General Counsel has requested that copies of
three versions of a videotape entitled “Little Card, Big Trouble”, that were received in evidence
as General Counsel Exhibits 28, 29 and 30, be received under seal and subject to a protective
order to protect the copyright of the producer of the videos.36 Respondent does not oppose this
motion. Having considered the matter and noting the absence of any objection, I shall grant
General Counsel’s motion and issue the following ORDER
The following exhibits received into evidence as General Counsel Exhibits 28, 29
and 30 shall be placed under seal
GC Ex. 28: Little Card, Big Trouble (1997 edition in English)
GC Ex. 29: Little Card, Big Trouble (2001 edition in English)
GC Ex. 30: Little Card, Big Trouble (2000 edition in Spanish)
Counsel for General Counsel may only make additional copies of these videos
sufficient for the record and to provide a copy to the Respondent, and for use in
connection with the litigation of Diaz v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., Case No.
1:10-cv-21038-JEM in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
No other copies shall be made or retained by the General Counsel without the
authorization of the undersigned or the District Court, or by permission of the holder
of the copyright to the videos.

36 When the videos were received in evidence at the hearing, General Counsel was given
permission to withdraw them for the purpose of making sufficient copies for the record and for
the parties.
APPENDIX C
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
WE WILL NOT announce overly broad no solicitation rules that prohibit solicitation of any kind
anywhere in the workplace.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with discharge because you have engaged in union or other
protected concerted activity.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any of you for supporting Teamsters
Local Union No. 769 or any other union or for engaging in protected concerted activity.
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 rescind the overly broad no solicitation rule announced at the July 17, 2009 Pre-work
Communication Meeting (PCM).
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Irving Puig full reinstatement to his
former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Irving Puig whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from his
discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from our files any reference to
Puig’s unlawful discharge, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify him in writing that this
has been done and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way.
UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, 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.
201 East Kennedy Boulevard, South Trust Plaza, Suite 530
Tampa, Florida 33602-5824
Hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
813-228-2641.
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, 813-228-2662.