Valmet, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Apr 17, 2018

15-CA-206655 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 17, 2018)

JD–26–18
Columbus, MS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
VALMET, INC.
and Cases 15-CA-206655
15-RC-204708
UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY
RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY,
ALLIED AND INDUSTRIAL SERVICE
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
AFL-CIO, CLC
Andrew T. Miragliotta, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Joshua H. Viau, and Douglas R. Sullenberger, Esqs.
(Fisher and Phillips, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for the Respondent.
Brad Manzolillo, Esq. (United Steel, Paper and Forestry Workers,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,) for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Arthur J. Amchan, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Columbus,
Mississippi on February 26-27, 2018. It involves unfair labor practice allegations and objections
to a representation election.
The Union filed objections to the September 14 and 15, 2017 representation election at
Respondent’s Columbus, Mississippi facility on September 20, 2017. The Region directed that a
hearing be held on these objections on September 27, 2017. The Union filed the initial charge
alleging unfair labor practices on September 21, 2017 and the General Counsel issued a
complaint on December 27, 2017. The Region consolidated the objections case and unfair labor
practice proceeding for trial on February 1, 2018. The General Counsel and Union seek a
direction of a second election as well as posting of a notice regarding the alleged unfair labor
practices.
The alleged unfair labor practices and objections overlap. The General Counsel alleges
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and the Union alleges objectionable conduct on the part
of Respondent, as follows:
JD–26–18
2
1. by promising employees a benefit in the form of a cash raffle prize if employees
participated in an anti-Union campaign on about September 1, 2017 and conducting such a raffle
on September 13.1(Union objections 3 and 4).
2. by Environmental, Health and Safety Manager Tiffany Wallace threatening employees 5
with job loss and loss of benefits if they selected union representation in September 2017.
3. by General Manager Brian Hammerbacher, on about September 7, 2017, threatening
employees with loss of benefits and frozen wages and loss of raises, if they selected union
representation .10
4. by Supervisor Chris Cliett, threatening employees with frozen wages and loss of raises
if they selected union representation.
5. by Human Resources Vice President Douglas Scheaffer, threatening employees with 15
frozen wages and loss of raises if they selected union representation, promising increased
benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment if employees rejected union
representation, and informing employees that selecting union representation would be futile as a
means of achieving better wages or benefits. (Union objections 1 and 2).
20
6. by Production Manager Larry Richardson, threatening employees with termination
and unspecified reprisals if they selected union representation. (Union objections 5, 6 and 7).
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Respondent and the Charging Party 25
Union, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION30
The Respondent, Valmet, Inc., is a global corporation,2 that rebuilds equipment that is
used by customers in paper industry at its facility in Columbus, Mississippi. Respondent
annually sells and ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 from the Columbus facility directly to
points outside of Mississippi. It also purchases and receives goods valued in excess of $50,000 35
at the Columbus facility directly from points outside of Mississippi. Respondent admits, and I
find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act and that the Union, referred to herein as the United Steelworkers, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

1 Conducting the raffle is also alleged to be a violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
2 Valmet was “spun off” by the Metso Group several years ago. The company’s headquarters are located in
Finland. Valmet has 9 production locations in North America and about 12,000 employees world-wide.
JD–26–18
3
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On August 21, 2017, the Union filed a petition with the Board to represent a unit of all
the full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees at Respondent’s
Columbus, Mississippi plant. There apparently was an earlier organizing campaign by the 5
Steelworkers at this facility in 2015. The Board scheduled a representation election at the facility
for the afternoon of September 14 and the morning of September 15, 2017. Thus, the critical
period during which the conduct of the employer and the Union is more closely scrutinized runs
from August 21, to September 15, 2017. 85 of 87 eligible voters cast ballots in the election that
were counted. 43 votes were cast against union representation; 42 were cast in favor of 10
representation by the United Steelworkers.
Respondent conducts a raffle/ contest during the critical period (complaint paragraphs 7 and 13;
objections 3 and 4)
15
On August 30, 2017, during the critical period, Respondent announced a contest for
employees via an informational poster that was either posted at the Valmet facility or mailed to
employees’ homes, or both. This flyer, Jt. Exh. 1, stated that:
…we keep hearing that a small group of union supporters keep telling co-workers to 20
“ignore” the FACT SHEETS and examples that we are putting out to help you make
intelligent decisions.
…
25
To make it more interesting-and to keep the union from keeping you from the FACTS-we
are going to run a CONTEST to make sure you have plenty of incentive to learn all the
REAL FACTS about the Union and what it actually can-and cannot do for you.
…30
On September 11, you all will get the chance to test your knowledge by taking a 12-
question quiz. The quiz will be based on the FACTS we are providing
…35
1st Prize: $900 (=1 year’s Union Dues)
2nd Prize $450 (=6 months’ Union Dues)
Respondent posted a reminder about the contest on September 11, Jt. Exh. 2, which 40
advised employees to see their supervisors for a quiz entry form starting at 5:30 a.m. on
September 12.3
Valmet Supervisor Chris Cliett advised unit employee Roman "Casey” Nail that he could
not hand him an entry form because it would look like a bribe. Supervisor Kevin Clark told unit 45

3 Joint Exhibits 1-4 are attachments to G.C. Exh. 2.
JD–26–18
4
employee Rodriguez Bush that he could get an entry form from Clark’s office. Clark either gave
Travis Leonard an entry form or told him where he could get one.
The quiz consisted of 10 multiple choice questions.
5
1. In the U.S. what percentage of non-government employees belong to unions?
2. After weeks of talking to Valmet Columbus employees, the USW has delivered
written, signed Guarantees that they will deliver on the following promises?
10
3. During contract negotiations, if the USW union cannot force Valmet Columbus to
agree to deliver on promises it made to our employees, the union can do which of the following?
4. Under U.S. labor laws, the USW can actually guarantee Columbus employees the
following?15
5. After the Omnova-USW strike ended, Omnova later shut down forever. How many
former Omnova employees got jobs at other USW-represented companies?
6. Based on the USW’s 1.45% formula, Columbus employees could be required to pay 20
monthly union dues of:
7. The USW union took in $513,000,000.00 in 2018 in union dues and other income.
How much of that was paid back out on behalf of individual members?
25
8. Since 1968 the USW union has lost how many “dues paying” members?
9. How many unfair labor practice charges have been filed by “dues-paying” members
against the USW since 2007?
30
10. At the unionized Neenah, Wisconsin operation,4 Valmet contracted out how much
more work in 2017 (so far) than it has at the Columbus operation?
Employees were encouraged to detach one part of a two-part raffle ticket, keep one part
and drop the other in a contest quiz box in the employee break room. Entries had to be submitted 35
by noon on September 13, the day before the representation election, which started at 2 p.m. on
September 14. On September 18, 3 days after the representation election ballots were counted,
Respondent randomly selected 2 winning tickets and announced the ticket numbers of the
winners. Apparently there were multiple entries which had the most “correct” answers; thus the
winning tickets were selected from this pool. On October 6 or October 9, employee Daniel 40
Carter received $900 via direct deposit and employee Charlie Horton received a $450 direct
deposit as the winners of the contest.

4 Neenah is the only Valmet facility at which employees are represented by the Steelworkers. Two other plants are
organized, one by the Teamsters; the other by the IAM.
JD–26–18
5
Participation in the raffle/contest was voluntary. Respondent had never conducted a
similar raffle/contest.
Respondent’s mandatory meetings to encourage unit employees to vote against union
representation5
Respondent held a number of meetings at which attendance was mandatory in which it
endeavored to convince employees to vote against union representation.
Company mandatory meetings on September 6 and 7, 2017(complaint paragraph 9).10
Brian Hammerbacher, the General Manager of the Columbus plant, held 2 sets of 5 or 6
mandatory meetings for employees at the facility. 5 or 6 sessions of one meeting for employees
in different departments were conducted on August 30, and September 1, 2017. Another 5 or 6
sessions were conducted by department on September 6 and 7. Hammerbacher conducted a 15
make-up session for one in which the company’s video machine did not work and a separate
meeting solely for the machine shop employees on September 12. Travis Leonard, a unit
employee, recorded one of the meetings on September 7, 2017, at which 16-20 employees were
present. Lori Kohl, Respondent’s regional human resources manager, attended this meeting with
Hammerbacher and addressed certain topics.20
During this meeting, which was about 50 minutes long, Hammerbacher told employees
that if they selected the Union, Respondent would maintain the status quo. He went on to
elaborate that this meant that everything, including compensation would be “frozen” because
everything would be subject to negotiation. Thus, there would be no wage increases, and no 25
merit wage increases. In response to an inquiry from an unidentified speaker in the audience,
Hammerbacher said that there would be no step progression increases as well, G.C. Exh. 3
(between minutes 7:04 and 7:53 of the September 7, 2017 recording). Hammerbacher did not
indicate whether or not Respondent’s annual cost of living increases would continue to be
implemented during negotiations.30
Respondent has a corporate severance plan for its employees that covers the Columbus
facility, Tr. 225. During his meetings with employees, Hammerbacher referred to that plan as
the “non-union” plan. This implied that if employees selected the Union they would necessarily
lose some or all of the benefits of this plan. These statements were misleading and coercive. 35
During contract negotiations, Respondent would have been obliged to continue the benefits of
the company plan until it either negotiated a contract with the Union or implemented its final
offer upon reaching impasse. To suggest, as did Hammerbacher, that employees would
necessarily lose the benefits of the company severance plan if they chose union representation
and in failing to assure employees that they would continue to receive its benefits during contract 40
negotiations, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), Lynn-Edwards Corp., 290 NLRB 202, 205
(1988); Longview Fibre Paper & Packaging, Inc., 356 NLRB 796, 796n.3, 804 (2011).5

5 At page 21 of its brief, Respondent contends that Hammerbacher clarified his statement by telling employees
that the severance plan was among the things that would be negotiated. His remarks at 32:30, five minutes after
he discussed the severance plan, are not specific and would not have clarified his earlier statement.
JD–26–18
6
Lori Kohl compared Respondent’s non-union plan with the severance plan negotiated at
Respondent’s Neenah, Wisconsin facility at one captive audience meeting, Tr. 226. The
severance plan at the Neenah facility, where employees are represented by the Steelworkers,
only covers employees in the event of a plant closure. Respondent’s plan also covers employees
who are laid-off. Kohl and Hammerbacher’s remarks together could only leave employees with 5
the impression that selecting union representation would necessarily mean they would not get
severance benefits in the event of a lay-off. Kohl herself conceded that the reason the Neenah
plan was so limited was that the parties probably did not negotiate broader coverage. This is a
far cry from the impression left with employees, i.e., there will be no severance for employees
who are laid off if you select the Union.10
Respondent is correct that an employer may lawfully compare union and nonunion
benefits of historical fact. However, an employer violates the Act and engages in objectionable
conduct when it makes statements from which employees could reasonably infer that they will
lose an existing benefit if they select union representation, Georgia-Pacific Corp., 325 NLRB 15
867 (1998); Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 340 NLRB 958, 959 (2003); TCI Cablevision of
Washington, Inc., 329 NLRB 700 (1999). Hammerbacher’s remarks about the company
severance plan did just that.
Meetings conducted by Human Resources Vice-President Douglas Scheaffer on September 12 20
and 13, 2017 (complaint paragraph 11; objections 1 and 2)
Douglas Scheaffer, a global vice-president of human resources for Valmet, conducted 6
meetings for unit employees over two days, September 12 and 13. Unit employee Travis
Leonard recorded one of the September 13 meetings at which 15-20 unit employees were in 25
attendance. Schaeffer spoke from prepared remarks at all 6 meetings and then entertained
questions. I conclude that his talks, with the exception of his remarks in response to questions,
were essentially the same at all 6 meetings as those recorded by Travis Leonard. Human
Resources Regional Manager Lori Kohl was in attendance at this meeting as well and addressed
certain topics.30
The general tenor of the Scheaffer’s prepared remarks was that unit employees were
unlikely to benefit from selecting union representation.6 He told employees that everything
would be up for negotiation if they selected union representation and that Respondent could not
give any wage increases, G.C. 3, tape of September 13 meeting at 28:00-30:00. Scheaffer also 35
told employees that negotiations for a first contract could go on for months, a year or even 15
months, Ibid. After about 38 minutes, Scheaffer entertained questions. An employee asked if the
progressive step wage increases would be “frozen.” Scheaffer responded that once employees
selected the Union and the Union was certified, Respondent could not give any wage increases,
G.C. 3 tape of September 13 at 38:45-40:00.40

6 For example between 15:00 and 18:00 elapsed minutes on the recording, G.C. 3, September 13, Scheaffer talked
about Respondent’s need or desire to keep all its plants the same with regard to pay and benefits. He said he did
not see how a 10% wage increase was going to happen if the employees selected the Union. Later he said if
employees expected a big windfall from union representation that was not possible. Scheaffer then told
employees that they were competing with other plants and that if Respondent raised wages, it would have to raise
prices.
JD–26–18
7
A little later an employee asked whether employees would still have their medical
insurance during negotiations if employees selected union representation. Scheaffer responded
by saying that would not change because Respondent would have to maintain the “status quo”
during negotiations. However, he stated further that Valmet could not give any wage increases
during this period and that wages would have to be frozen, G.C. 3, tape of September 13, 49:00-5
50:00.
Unless their performance is unsatisfactory, Respondent’s Columbus employees receive
wage increases every 3 months for 4 years and every 6 months the fifth year until they reach the
top of their pay grade (“max out”).10
Shipping and Receiving Supervisor Chris Cliett testified that he had declined to give
progressive wage increases on 10-15 occasions out of approximately 100 opportunities to grant
them during his tenure. Progressive wage increases are denied to employees who have
attendance issues, disciplinary write-ups or have caused Respondent to lose money (an in-plant 15
loss).
Alleged violation by Supervisor Chris Cliett (complaint paragraph 10)
Scotty Lawrence, a unit employee in Valmet’s shipping department, testified that during 20
the week prior to the representation election, supervisor Chris Cliett, came to talk to him about
why employees at Valmet Columbus did not need a union. Lawrence testified that Cliett told
him that if employees selected the Union that the company’s wage progression process would be
frozen. Unit employee Roman Casey Nail, who was also present, testified that either Lawrence
or Cliett used the word “frozen.” Nail recalled Cliett telling him and Lawrence that the 25
progression wages would be “stuck in the status quo.” This led Nail to believe that he might not
get the progression wage increase that he was due in about a week if the employees voted for
union representation.
Cliett testified that Lawrence came to him after attending one of the meetings with Doug 30
Scheaffer (either September 12 or 13). Lawrence was up for a wage increase pursuant to
Respondent’s progressive wage increase process in October 2017. Cliett testified that he told
Lawrence that whether he would get his October increase would depend on the status quo. Cliett
was not sure whether or not employees would receive progressive wage increases pursuant to the
status quo. Thus, at a minimum, he created uncertainty in the minds of Lawrence and Nail as to 35
whether they would receive the progressive wage increases that they were otherwise expecting.
Lawrence had received progressive wage increases in the past. There is no evidence that either
he or Nail was ever denied a progressive increase. Lawrence received his increase in October
2107.7

7 I infer from this record that Nail also received the increase he was expecting.
JD–26–18
8
Alleged violation by Tiffany Wallace (complaint paragraph 8)
On or about September 13, Tiffany Wallace, Valmet’s Safety, Health and Environmental
Manager, left a management training meeting regarding the union campaign. At least one of
Respondent’s attorneys was present at that meeting. Almost immediately thereafter, Wallace 5
met with unit employees Rodriguez Bush and Michael Frierson in their work area. Wallace is an
employee of Solutions Group, which has contracted with Valmet to provide it her services.
However, there is no indication that unit employees are aware that Wallace is not an employee of
Valmet. When Wallace tells an employee that, for example, they must wear personal protective
equipment such as safety glasses, employees regard that as direction coming directly from 10
Valmet.
Wallace was looking to speak with leadman William Jenkins, who had left work for the
day. Leadmen are unit employees who voted in the representation election, but are paid 10% of
their base salary extra for being leadmen. Rodriguez Bush and Michael Frierson, who are not 15
leadmen, testified that Wallace told them that she had just left a meeting with Respondent’s
attorneys and that if employees selected union representation, either that the leadman position
would be eliminated or that there would be no more leadman openings in the future.8 Bush
relayed this conversation to Travis Leonard, who is a leadman, after work on September 13. He
also told several other employees about the conversation the same day. Bush told William 20
Jenkins what Wallace said on September 14. It is not clear whether he talked to Jenkins before
or after the election started.
The subject of whether Respondent would continue to have leadmen and how they would
be compensated was raised by an employee in the question and answer period of Douglas 25
Scheaffer’s September 13 meeting. It was an obvious concern to a number of unit employees.
Scheaffer responded that whether Respondent continued to have leadmen, how many and how
much extra they would be paid would be a subject of negotiation if employees selected the
Union, G.C. 3, tape of September 13 meeting, 40:00-44:00.
30

8 I find Bush and Frierson’s testimony to be more credible than that of Wallace. First of all, Bush would have had
no way of knowing that Wallace had just come from a management meeting at which an attorney was present
unless Wallace told him that. Thus, his testimony at Tr. 97-98 is far more credible than her denials at Tr. 154. In
fact, Wallace did not deny that she told Bush that she had just left a meeting with the company attorney. She
denied only that she told Bush that the company attorney or anyone else told her that Respondent was going to
cut out leadmen.
Secondly, her explanation as to why she came to talk to Bush and Frierson is nonsensical. According to Wallace,
she wanted them to talk to pro-union employee Larry Parker to put in a good word for her. She testified she didn’t
want to talk to Parker herself even though she considered him a friend. Wallace confirmed that she spoke to Bush
and Frierson about negotiations if the employees selected the Union just after leaving a meeting in which a
company attorney was present. She did not get any more specific than that. While Wallace had plenty of
motivation to deny the comments attributed to her by Bush and Frierson, they had no motivation to fabricate their
testimony. Moreover, other things being equal, the testimony of a current employee, which is made at the risk of
alienating his or her employer, is likely to be particularly reliable, Flexsteel Industries, 316 NLRB 745 (1995).
JD–26–18
9
Alleged violative and objectionable conduct by Production Manager Larry Richardson
(complaint paragraph 12; objections 5, 6 and 7)
At a mandatory company meeting most likely one conducted by Brian Hammerbacher on
September 6 or 7, unit employee and leadman Justin Leonard (Travis’ son) complained about 5
Production Manager Larry Richardson. He intimated or said that Richardson’s manner was one
reason or the main reason some employees supported the Union. He also mentioned that
Richardson had let a rebuilt part be shipped to a customer which Leonard believed should not
have been shipped out.9
10
On September 14, about an hour or less before the representation election began,
Richardson stopped at Leonard’s work station. Richardson told Leonard that he wanted to
discuss with Leonard what Leonard had said about him at the company meeting. Leonard asked
Richardson who told him about his comments. Leonard had been led to believe that whatever he
said at this meeting would be kept confidential. Richardson did not tell him.15
Leonard does not have a clear recollection about everything Richardson said to him.10 He
did recall that during that discussion, Richardson said something to the effect that if employees
selected union representation, he would not be able to have one-on-one conversations with unit
employees. Richardson also said, “just remember who hired you.” Leonard’s supervisor, Ken 20
Hopper, in a November 8, 2017 affidavit, remembered that Leonard told him on September 14,
that Richardson said he hired Leonard and could fire Leonard. I conclude that is exactly what
Richardson said to Leonard.11 Given the timing of this conversation, this was said to intimidate
Leonard just before he went to vote in the representation election.
25
Leonard was very upset and immediately went to his supervisor, Ken Hopper, to
complain about Richardson’s conversation with him. Hopper then went to Lori Kohl, Valmet’s
regional human resources manager. Several employees questioned Leonard about his
conversation with Richardson before Leonard went to cast his ballot in the representation
election. No later than the evening after the September 14 voting, but before the September 15 30
voting, many employees were aware of the conversation/confrontation between Leonard and
Richardson, Tr. 216-17.

9 Plant Manager Brian Hammerbacher may also have talked to Leonard about this part prior to September 5, R.
Exh. 3.
10 Regardless of what Richardson said or didn’t say about Leonard’s complaints about him, Richardson
communicated to Leonard that somebody had told Richardson about what Leonard said at the company meeting.
Since Leonard knew he complained about Richardson, he reasonably would have inferred that somebody told
Richardson about those complaints. Thus, Richardson, by letting Leonard know that he was aware of what Leonard
said at the meeting and reminding Leonard that he hired him, was trying to and did intimidate Leonard just before
the representation election.
11 Hopper’s affidavit constitutes substantive evidence of what transpired, Conley Trucking, 349 NLRB 308, 309-13
(2007). Hopper’s affidavit is not hearsay evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d).
JD–26–18
10
When Kohl arrived, Leonard said, “go ahead and fire me.” Kohl assured Leonard he was
not going to be fired.
I credit Leonard’s testimony over that of Respondent’s witnesses.12 Richardson testified
that he only discussed the rebuilt part with Leonard. He testified further that the reason he went 5
to talk to Leonard just before the election was that Brian Hammerbacher had mentioned the part
to him that morning. This testimony is clearly inaccurate because Hammerbacher left the facility
to go to Michigan on September 12 and did not return until after the election, Tr. 127-28.
Moreover, an email chain introduced by Respondent establishes that Hammerbacher told
Richardson about the issue with the rebuilt part on the morning of September 5, R. Exh. 3.10
Richardson testified that Hopper told him that Leonard had come to him to report that
Richardson had just threatened his job. Thus, Hopper’s testimony at Tr. 201 that Leonard did
not tell him that Richardson threatened him is not credible and indeed is inconsistent with the
affidavit he gave to Respondent’s counsel on November 9, 2017.13I find that Leonard told 15
Hopper that Richardson threatened his job immediately after Richardson did so.
Analysis
The Raffle/Contest20
The lead Board case on raffles during the critical period before an election is Atlantic
Limousine, 331 NLRB 1025, 1029 (2000). In that case, the Board set forth a bright-line test
which prohibits unions or employers from conducting a raffle if (1) eligibility to participate or
win prizes is in any way tied to voting in the election or being at the election site on election day, 25
or (2) the raffle is conducted at any time within a period beginning 24 hours before the scheduled
opening of the polls and ending with the closing of the polls. On page 1029 note 13, the Board
discussed situations not falling within this bright line or per se rule, that might also be prohibited.
Raffles conducted more than 24 hours before the scheduled opening of the polls, not 30
aimed at encouraging employees to come out to vote, do not raise the concerns that
underlie the Board’s decision in Sunrise. Rather, such raffles held earlier in the election
campaign primarily would raise issues of whether or not they involve promises or grants
of benefits that would improperly affect employee free choice; or whether they allow the
employer to identify employees who might or might not be sympathetic, and thus to learn 35
where to direct additional pressure or campaign efforts. See National Gypsum Co., 280
NLRB 1003 (1986). Accordingly, we shall not apply our new per se rule to such raffles,
but shall analyze them based on whether or not they implicate those particular concerns.
Respondent goes to great lengths to argue that it conducted a contest, not a raffle on the 40
day before the election. I find that it was close enough to a “raffle” that the standards in Atlantic

12 See footnote 5 for an additional reasons I find Leonard credible.
13 Lori Kohl’s testified that Leonard did not tell her that Richardson said he could hire and fire Leonard. She did not
recall Leonard saying anything about Richardson’s remark about hiring Leonard. This brings me to one of three
conclusions: 1) Leonard did not repeat everything he said to Hopper to Kohl, or 2) Kohl’s recollections are faulty,
or 3) Kohl’s testimony is not believable.
JD–26–18
11
Limousine govern its legality. The winners of the contest or raffle were determined at least in
part by a random drawing of the participants. Respondent in its brief states that the entries were
graded after the election ended. However, there is no evidence to support this contention.14 The
parties stipulated that Respondent randomly selected two winning tickets, G.C. Exh. 2. There is
no evidence as to how Respondent determined which tickets were winners. 5
The raffle or contest in this case clearly falls outside of the bright line rule enunciated in
Atlantic Limousine. However, the raffle/contest did run afoul of one of the considerations
governing contest/raffles conducted more than 24 hours prior to the election. By requiring or
suggesting that employees obtain a quiz from their supervisor the contest assisted Respondent in 10
identifying which employees might or might not be sympathetic with the organizing drive. One
would reasonably infer that employees who asked their supervisor for a quiz would be more
likely to oppose the Union than those who did not request one. On this basis alone, I find that
Respondent’s raffle/contest violated the Act.
15
Progressive Wage Increases were part of the “status quo” which Respondent was
required to continue if employees selected union representation.
Respondent’s progressive wage increases occurred with such regularity and frequency
that employees could reasonably expect them on a regular and consistent basis, Philadelphia 20
Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 340 NLRB 349, 353-354 (2003). These raises were awarded on a fixed
schedule and apparently in fixed amounts. Based on Chris Cliett’s testimony, I infer that
progressive increases were denied only on the basis of fixed criteria, i.e., disciplinary write-ups,
attendance issues or causing an in-plant loss.15 The only relevant factual question is whether the
employer’s action is similar in kind and degree to what the employer did in the past, Raytheon 25
Network Centric Systems, 365 NLRB No. 161 (2017), slip opinion at page 13. Daily News of
Los Angeles, 315 NLRB 1236 (1994) enfd. 73 F. 3d 406 (D.C. Cir. 1996); United Rentals, 349
NLRB 853 (2007); Mission Foods, 350 NLRB 336, 337 (2007). I conclude this is the case.
Thus, Respondent’s obligation in maintaining the status quo during negotiations, if employees
selected the Union, included continuing granting these progressive increases as it had in the past.30
Respondent, by Brian Hammerbacher, Douglas Scheaffer and Chris Cliett violated
Section 8(a)(1) and engaged in objectionable conduct by telling employees that wage increases
that were established past practices would be frozen if they selected union representation and/or
indicating the employees would not receive such wage increases if they selected union 35
representation
Respondent, by Brian Hammerbacher, Douglas Scheaffer and Chris Cliett violated
Section 8(a)(1) and committed objectionable conduct by telling employees that wage increases
that were established past practices would be frozen, and/or otherwise indicating that employees 40
would not receive such increases during collective bargaining negotiations, Alpha Cellulose
Corporation, 265 NLRB 177, 178 fn. 1 (1982) enfd. mem. 718 F. 2d 1088 (4th Cir. 1983); ADIA

14 If this were so, the grading could be a statutory violation in that it would indicate to Respondent how employees
voted in the representation election, which must be a secret ballot election.
15 That an employee may be denied a progressive increase for unsatisfactory performance does not negate the fact
that the increases are an established past practice, Jensen Enterprises, 339 NLRB 877 (2003).
JD–26–18
12
Personnel Services, 322 NLRB (1992);16W.F. Hall Printing Co., 239 NLRB 51, 52-53 (1978);
More Truck Lines, 336 NLRB 772, 773 (2001) enfd. 324 F.3d 735 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Illiana
Transit Warehouse Corp., 323 NLRB 111, 115 (1997); Jensen Enterprises, 339 NLRB 877
(2003). The impact of Scheaffer’s remarks was exacerbated by his emphasis on how long
negotiations might take. This reasonably would suggest to employees that if they selected union 5
representation they would not receive their progressive wage increases for an extended period.
Respondent suggests that it should not be held responsible for Scheaffer’s remarks
because he was “set-up” by pro-Union employees. It is clear from this record that Scheaffer was
not very familiar with the step-progression system for wage increases at the Columbus facility, 10
Tr. 140-144. He talked about Respondent not being able to give wages increases without
distinguishing the step increase system to which employees were clearly entitled during
negotiations. This would leave employees with the impression that they might not get these
increases for some time, since Scheaffer indicated negotiations might drag on for some time. I
conclude that Respondent bears full responsibility for this uncertainty. Had Scheaffer been 15
adequately familiar with the wage system at Columbus, he would have able to correctly explain
what would happen to wages during negotiations and after negotiations end.
Respondent, by Brian Hammerbacher violated the Act and engaged in objectionable
conduct by suggesting that if employees selected union representation, they would lose the 20
benefits of Respondent’s severance plan
As stated earlier, to suggest, as did Hammerbacher, that employees would necessarily
lose the benefits of the company severance plan if they chose union representation and in failing
to assure employees that they would continue to receive its benefits during contract negotiations, 25
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), Lynn-Edwards Corp., 290 NLRB 202, 205 (1988);
Longview Fibre Paper & Packaging, Inc., 356 NLRB 796, 796n.3, 804 (2011); Georgia-Pacific
Corp., 325 NLRB 867 (1998); Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 340 NLRB 958, 959 (2003);
TCI Cablevision of Washington, Inc., 329 NLRB 700 (1999). This is so because the
severance benefit was an existing benefit for Columbus employees.30
Respondent, by Douglas Scheaffer, did not violate the Act by soliciting grievances.
As stated in the General Counsel’s brief, towards the end of his speech on September 13,
Douglas Scheaffer said “If you have a problem, put it out there, let’s talk about it, and let’s 35
resolve it and let’s agree.” G.C. 3, 55:09-55:24. As I listened to the recording, Schaeffer
continues to say something like “if we can’t agree, we’ll move on.” I conclude that Scheaffer
did not implicitly promise to remedy employee grievances. The speech in toto rebuts the
presumption that Valmet would remedy all or even any employee grievances. Thus, I dismiss
the allegation in complaint paragraph 11(b), Maple Grove Health Care Center, 330 NLRB 775 40
(2000).

16 This case is sometimes cited as Siemens.
JD–26–18
13
Respondent, by Douglas Scheaffer did not violate the Act, by suggesting that employees
would not benefit from union representation
While the general tenor of Scheaffer’s remarks on September 13 were that employees
would see little, if any, benefit from union representation, I conclude that his remarks did not rise 5
to the level of a statutory violation. The cases cited by the General Counsel are all factually
distinguishable. Respondent, did not for example, imply that it would insure its non-union
status by unlawful means, Winkle Bus Company, 347 NLRB 1203, 1205 (2006); Wellstream
Corp., 313 NLRB 698, 706 (1994).
10
Tiffany Wallace was an agent of Respondent
The Board applies common law agency principles in determining who is an agent under
the Act. When applied to labor relations, agency principles must also be broadly construed in
light of the legislative policies embedded in the Act. A party may be bound by the conduct of 15
those it holds out to speak and act for it, even though there is no proof that specific acts were
actually authorized or subsequently ratified. Atelier Condominium & Cooper Square Realty, 361
NLRB No. 111 (November 26, 2014), slip op. p. 36. Braun Electric Co., 324 NLRB 1, 2 (1997),
Dorothy Shamrock Coal Co., 279 NLRB 1298, 1299 (1986).17 Statements of a supervisor or
agent may be imputed to an employer even if that employer was not aware that the statements 20
were made, Jays Foods, Inc. v. NLRB, 573 F.2d 438 (7th Cir. 1978).
Common law principles incorporate the principles of implied and apparent authority.
Apparent authority is created through a manifestation by the principal to a third party that
supplies a reasonable basis for the latter to believe that the principal has authorized the agent to 25
do the act in question, Shen Automotive Dealership Group, 321 NLRB 586, 593 (1996). Another
way the Board has stated this principle is “whether under all the circumstances the employees
would reasonably believe that [a person] was reflecting company policy and speaking and acting
for management,” Community Cash Stores, 238 NLRB 265 (1978); Poly-America, Inc., 328
NLRB 667 (1999).30
Unit employees Bush and Frierson would have reasonably believed that Wallace was
speaking for management when she told them that leadmen positions would be eliminated or
reduced in bargaining. This is so given her responsibilities in the plant and because she told
them that she was imparting the information after attending a meeting with Respondent’s 35
management and attorneys.

17 The language of Section 2(13) defining “agent” states that actual authorization or subsequent ratification of
specific acts is not controlling in determining whether a person is an “agent.”
JD–26–18
14
Respondent by Tiffany Wallace engaged in objectionable conduct and violated Section
8(a)(1)
Wallace’s statements are objectionable and violative of Section 8(a)(1). Wallace was not
telling employees that the status of leadmen was a subject of bargaining but rather that those who 5
voted for union representation would lose that status or be foreclosed from becoming leadmen in
the future. This is an obviously coercive statement the day before an election. It either
implicitly threatened incumbent leadmen of a 10% loss in wages or threatened aspiring leadmen
that selecting union representation would foreclose their opportunity in increasing their wages by
becoming a leadman.10
Respondent by Larry Richardson engaged in objectionable conduct and violated Section
8(a)(1)
Larry Richardson, either explicitly threatened Justin Leonard with loss of his job, or 15
implicitly threatened him with unspecified reprisals. Even though Richardson did not mention
the Union or the union campaign, Leonard was very likely to draw the connection between the
threat and his comments at the captive audience meeting and the representation election. This is
so because both he and Richardson understood that Richardson was talking to him about
comments made at a captive audience meeting concerning the election. At that meeting Leonard 20
had stated that Richardson’s conduct was a reason for the union drive. Moreover, the timing of
Richardson’s conversation, just before Leonard was about to vote, was likely to coerce and
interfere with Leonard’s right to exercise his right to vote freely, Jupiter Medical Center
Pavilion, 346 NLRB 650, 651 (2006). Additionally, assuming that Richardson did not
specifically threaten Leonard with loss of employment, a threat of unspecified reprisal related to 25
union or other protected activity violates the Act, Aladdin Gaming, LLC, 345 NLRB 585, 616-17
(2005).
Conclusions of Law
30
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and engaged in objectionable conduct
during the critical period between the filing of the representation petition as follows:
1. by Environmental, Health and Safety Manager Tiffany Wallace threatening employees
with job loss or loss of promotion opportunities (to leadman) if they selected union 35
representation on or about September 13, 2017.
2. by General Manager Brian Hammerbacher, on September 7, 2017, telling employees
that during collective bargaining negotiations they would not receive progressive step wage
increases, which were an established past practice of Respondent, if they selected union 40
representation .
3. by General Manager Brian Hammerbacher, suggesting that unit employees would
necessarily lose the benefits of Respondent’s severance plan if they selected union
representation.45
JD–26–18
15
4. by Supervisor Chris Cliett telling or suggesting to employees that they would not
receive progressive step wage increases during collective bargaining negotiations if they selected
union representation.
5. by Human Resources Vice President Douglas Scheaffer, on September 13, 2017, 5
telling employees they would not receive progressive step wage increases during collective
bargaining negotiations if they selected union representation.
6. by Production Manager Larry Richardson, threatening employees with termination
and/or unspecified reprisals because of protected activities related to the representation election.10
7. by conducting a raffle/contest during the critical period between the filing of a
representation petition and a representation election in a manner which would aid it in
identifying which employees were and which employees were not sympathetic to the Union.
15
Recommendations Regarding Objections
Generally, the Board will set an election and order a new election whenever an unfair
labor practice occurs during the critical period between the filing of the representation petition
and the election. The only exception to this policy is where the misconduct is de minimis, such 20
that it is virtually impossible to conclude that the election outcome could be affected. In
assessing whether the misconduct could have affected the result of the election, the Board has
considered the number of violations, their severity, the extent of dissemination, the size of the
unit, the proximity of the misconduct to the election and the closeness of the vote. It also
considers the position of the managers who committed the violations, Bon Appetit Management 25
Co., 334 NLRB 1042 (2001); Caterpillar Logistics, 362 NLRB No. 49 (2015) enfd. 835 F. 3d
536 (6th Cir. 2016)18.
Respondent’s statements, some of which were made by high-ranking company officials
in captive audience meetings had more than a minimal impact on employees in an election that 30
ended in an extremely close vote. Those statements include the statements by Hammerbacher,
Scheaffer and Cliett, suggesting that employees would not receive their progressive wage
increases, statements by Hammerbacher that employees would lose their severance plan benefit
if they selected union representation, the statements by Wallace that either the leadman position
would be eliminated or that there would be no more such positions and Richardson’s coercive 35
statements to Justin Leonard. Therefore, I recommend that the election be set aside and
remanded to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting a second election, ADIA
Personnel Services, & W.F. Hall Printing Company, supra.

18 The Court of Appeals noted that the direction of a second election was unreviewable.
JD–26–18
16
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate 5
the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended19
ORDER10
The Respondent, Valmet, Inc., Columbus, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from15
(a) Threatening employees with job loss or loss of promotion opportunities if they select
union representation..
(b) Telling or suggesting to employees that during collective bargaining negotiations they 20
will not receive benefits, such as progressive wage increases, that are an established past practice
of Respondent, if they selected union representation.
(c) Threatening employees with termination and/or unspecified reprisals because of
protected activities related to the representation election.25
(d) Suggesting to employees that they would lose the benefits of Respondent’s severance
plan if they select union representation.
(e) Conducting a raffle/quiz during the critical period between the filing of a 30
representation petition and a representation election in a manner that would assist it in
determining which employees favored and which employees opposed unionization.
(f) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.35
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Columbus, Mississippi facility
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”20 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by 40

19 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and
all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
20 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading
“Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.”
JD–26–18
17
the Regional Director for Region 15, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In
addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such
as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the 5
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 10
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since September 7, 2017.
(b)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.15
Dated, Washington, D.C., April 17, 2018
20
____________________
Arthur J. Amchan
Administrative Law Judge
8
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with job loss or loss of promotion opportunities if
they select union representation by the United Steelworkers or any other union.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that during collective bargaining negotiations they will
not receive benefits that are an established past practice of Respondent, such as progressive wage
step increases, if they select union representation by the United Steelworkers or any other union.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with termination and/or unspecified reprisals
because of protected activities related to a representation election or their support of the United
Steelworkers or any other union.
WE WILL NOT suggest to employees that they will lose the benefits of our severance
plant if they select union representation.
WE WILL NOT conduct a raffle/quiz during the critical period between the filing of a
representation petition and a representation election in a manner that aids us in identifying which
employees favor and which employees oppose unionization.
WE WILL NOT In any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
VALMET, 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.
600 South Maestri Place, 7th Floor, New Orleans, LA 70130-3413
(504) 589-6361, Hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/15-CA-206655 or by using the QR code below.
Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half
Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (504) 589-6389.