VT Hackney, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 2018

367 NLRB No. 15 (N.L.R.B. 2018)

367 NLRB No. 15
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes. 
VT Hackney, Inc. and United Steel, Paper and For-
estry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers International
Union, AFL–CIO, CLC. Cases 06–CA–199799,
06–CA–200380, and 06–RC–198567
October 24, 2018
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN
AND EMANUEL
On April 19, 2018, Administrative Law Judge Robert
A. Ringler issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel and Charging Party each filed an answering
brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings,1 findings, and conclusions2
and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.3

1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
In addition, some of the Respondent’s exceptions allege that the
judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions demonstrate bias and preju-
dice. On careful examination of the judge’s decision and the entire
record, we are satisfied that the Respondent’s contentions are without
merit.
The Respondent has also requested oral argument. The request is
denied as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the
issues and the positions of the parties.
2 In excepting to the judge’s finding that it unlawfully confiscated
union materials, the Respondent points to inapposite Board law holding
that an employer may enforce a valid no-solicitation/no-distribution
rule against employees while lawfully permitting its supervisors to
distribute antiunion material on company time. The exception is merit-
less. Here, although the judge refers to the supervisors' distribution of
materials in his description of the Respondent's unlawful conduct, the
Respondent’s distribution of antiunion material is not alleged to be
unlawful. Rather, the relevant paragraph of the complaint only alleges
that the Respondent unlawfully “removed union literature and union
buttons” from employees’ tool cabinets while permitting other para-
phernalia to remain in the tool cabinets. See Earthgrains Co., 336
NLRB 1119, 1125 (2001) (prohibitions restricted only to union conver-
sations and the possession of union literature violated Sec. 8(a)(1)),
enfd. 61 Fed.Appx. 1, 9 (4th Cir. 2003). In addition, in agreeing with
the judge that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1), we have modified
the Order consistent with the complaint allegation that the Respondent
unlawfully “removed” the union material, which more accurately re-
flects the violation found. Finally, we do not rely on the judge’s cita-
tion to Circuit-Wise, Inc., 306 NLRB 766, 766 fn. 1 (1992), enfd. mem.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Substitute the following for the judge’s Conclusion of
Law 3(a).
“3(a) Removing union materials from its employees’
tool cabinets while permitting other paraphernalia to re-
main in the tool cabinets.”
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, VT
Hackney, Inc., Montgomery, Pennsylvania, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a) of the
judge’s recommended Order.
“(a) Removing union materials from its employees’
tool cabinets while permitting other paraphernalia to re-
main in the tool cabinets.”
2. Substitute the following for the final paragraph of
the judge’s recommended Order.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on June
1, 2017, is set aside, and Case 06–RC–198567 is severed
and remanded to the Regional Director for Region 6 to
direct a second election whenever the Regional Director
shall deem appropriate.”
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Admin-
istrative Law Judge.
Dated, Washington, D.C. October 24, 2018

______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman

______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member

______________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member

(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

992 F.2d 319 (2d Cir. 1993), because the issue for which he cited it was
not before the Board.
We adopt the judge’s finding that the Respondent unlawfully inter-
rogated an employee about his union views. See Rossmore House, 269
NLRB 1176 (1984), affd. sub nom. Hotel Employees Local 11 v. NLRB,
760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985).
In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent, through its la-
bor consultant, unlawfully solicited and promised to remedy grievanc-
es, we note that the labor consultant is an admitted agent of the Re-
spondent within the meaning of Sec. 2(13) of the Act.
3 We have modified the judge’s conclusions of law and recom-
mended Order consistent with the complaint, the violations found, and
standard Board language, and we have substituted a new notice for that
of the administrative law judge.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
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 vio-
lated 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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT remove flyers or other material from
your tool cabinets that support the United Steel, Paper
and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers International Union,
AFL–CIO (the Union) or any other union, while permit-
ting other paraphernalia to remain in the tool cabinets.
WE WILL NOT interrogate you about your union or oth-
er protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT solicit your grievances and make im-
plied promises to remedy them in order to discourage
you from supporting the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above, which are guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
VT HACKNEY, INC.

The Board’s decision can be found at
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/06-CA-199799 or by using the
QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Re-
lations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.

David L. Shepley, Esq., for the General Counsel.
James H. Fowles, III and Sara McCreary, Esqs. (Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC), for the Respondent.
Brad Manzolillo, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. RINGLER, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, on February 21, 2018.
The complaint alleged that VT Hackney, Inc. (Hackney or the
Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor
Relations Act (the Act) by, inter alia, removing union literature
and materials from its employees’ tool cabinets, interrogating
workers about their union sympathies, and soliciting employees
to present their grievances in order to discourage them from
unionizing. The complaint allegations were consolidated with
several election objections,1 which the United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO (the Union)
asserts warrant setting aside an election that it consequently
lost.
On the entire record, including my observation of the wit-
nesses’ demeanors, and after considering the parties’ post-
hearing briefs, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT2
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, Hackney, a corporation with an office
and place of business in Montgomery, Pennsylvania (the plant),
has manufactured and sold refrigerated truck bodies and trail-
ers. Annually, it sells and ships from its plant goods valued at
more than $50,000 directly outside of Pennsylvania. It, thus,
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. It
further admits, and I find, that the Union is a labor organiza-
tion, within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
In early 2017,3 the Union began organizing the plant. On
May 18, the parties entered into a Stipulated Election Agree-
ment, which set a vote in this bargaining unit (the unit):4

All . . . production, maintenance, shipping and receiving, and
quality control employees, . . . employed at the plant, exclud-
ing all office clerical employees and guards, professional em-
ployees and supervisors as defined by the Act.

(GC Exh. 1.) A vote was held on June 1, which the Union lost
by a 113 to 83 margin. (Id.). The complaint alleged that Hack-
ney committed 3 unfair labor practices (the ULPs) before the
election; the Union averred in its objections that 2 of the ULPs
caused its election defeat.
B. May—Confiscation of Union Election Materials
1. General Counsel’s (the GC) stance
Electrician Brian Schutt testified that, on May 11, he placed

1 The Union initially filed eight objections. (GC Exh. 1(m).) On
October 13, it withdrew Objections 1, 2, 3, and 5. (Id.) At the hearing,
it then retracted 6 and 8 (tr. 6), which only left Objections 4 and 7.
Objection 4 mirrors complaint ¶7 (i.e., removal of prounion material),
and objection 7 mirrors complaint ¶9 (i.e., solicitation of grievances).
2 Unless otherwise stated, factual findings arise from joint exhibits,
stipulations and undisputed evidence.
3 All dates are in 2017, unless otherwise stated.
4 There were approximately 215 employees in the unit.
VT HACKNEY, INC. 3
prounion flyers and a pin in his tool cabinet.5 He said that 4
coworkers (i.e., Jason Koch, Joe Hemus, Willie Wingo, and
Mike Mitchtree) also placed prounion flyers in their tool cabi-
nets. He recollected David Bohannon, his then supervisor,6
removing and discarding these flyers. He said that Bohannon
handed the pin back to him and said that pins could only be
worn.77 He insisted that Hackney never previously limited what
was stored in tool cabinets.8 He said that, shortly thereafter,
Bohannon contradictorily passed out antiunion flyers to him-
self, Koch, Hemus, Wingo, and Mitchtree, and directed them to
educate themselves. (Tr. 37–38.) He recollected the others
placing these antiunion flyers in their tool cabinets in Bohan-
non’s presence, without objection. (Tr. 38.) He noted that,
when employees received antiunion flyers at company meet-
ings, their flyers were often placed in their tool cabinets, with-
out objection from Bohannon or Baker.
Employee Corey Trojan testified that, in mid-May, he ob-
served Bohannon removing and discarding pro-union flyers and
pins from tool cabinets. He said that Bohannon told him that
flyers “are not to be displayed,” and pins could only be worn.
(Tr. 69.) He corroborated that he was unaware of any rule at
that time, which supported Bohannon’s actions. Employee
Jason Sees corroborated Schutt’s and Trojan’s accounts. He
said that, when he asked Bohannon why it was okay for him to
pass out antiunion flyers after contrarily discarding prounion
flyers, Bohannon retorted that it was okay because the company
was paying their salaries. (Tr. 95.)
2. Hackney’s position
Supervisor Baker testified that, in the interest of workplace
safety, the plant must be kept free of debris. He said that stand-
ard housekeeping principles apply, and that employees pos-
sessing flyers at work is solicitation, which is covered by this
policy:

Solicitation by employees on company property is prohibited
when the person soliciting or the person being solicited is on
working time. . . .

Distribution of non-work related literature by employees on
company property in nonworking areas during working time
is prohibited.

Distribution of non-work related literature by employees on
company property in working areas is prohibited.

(R. Exh. 3.) He said that he would permit photos taped to
tool cabinets, wallets, phones or similar items that could not be
blown away and become litter. He added that the plant gets
breezy, when doors are left open for ventilation in the spring
and summer. It is noteworthy that Hackney did not rebut Bo-
hannon’s confiscation of prounion flyers, his distribution of
antiunion flyers during working time, or the open storage of
antiunion flyers in tool cabinets.
3. Credibility analysis
Schutt’s, Trojan’s and Sees’ accounts that Bohannon confis-
cated prounion materials and then distributed his own antiunion

5 Electricians utilized multidrawer tool cabinets, which are several
feet in height.
6 Bohannon left Hackney on May 22 and was replaced by supervi-
sor Ryan Baker.
7 The pin only stated the Union’s name.
8 He added that workers routinely stored food, sodas, wallets, cell
phones, and car keys in their tool cabinets.
materials during work hours, and that both Bohannon and
Baker knowingly permitted antiunion flyers to be stored in tool
cabinets was not rebutted and has been credited.9
C. May 20—Exchanges with HR Manager Judy Ross
Former employee David Wise testified that, on May 20, HR
Manager Judy Ross stopped him on the plant floor, told him
that Bohannon said that he was a good worker, and asked him
what he thought about the Union. (Tr. 15.) He replied that he
was still gathering information. He recalled her then stating
that in reference to the election, “we are counting on you.”10
Ross generally recalled talking to Wise about the election
and contended that she only asked him how he was faring with
the “craziness of the campaign.” (Tr. 157.) She recalled gen-
erally telling employees that the company was counting on
them to vote, their opinion matters, voting is a privilege and
other words to that effect. She denied asking Wise how he felt
about the Union and insisted that she knew better. She did
agree, during cross-examination, that her question about the
campaign craziness was vague, and could have coaxed the
revelation of union activities. (Tr. 166–167.) She agreed that
she had many conversations before the election, and that it was
hard to recall each discussion. (Tr. 169.)
Given that Wise said that Ross asked him whether he sup-
ported the Union and told him that Hackney was counting on
him during the election, and Ross denied such commentary, a
credibility resolution must be made. For several reasons, Wise
has been credited. He was a straightforward and consistent
witness, with a strong recollection. He had a good overall de-
meanor and was consistently cooperative. Ross, however, had
a poor recollection of their exchange. I also find it plausible
that, after approaching dozens of workers about the election,
Ross simply chose the specific words that she stated to Wise
unartfully and made the alleged comments. In sum, I find that,
on May 20, Ross asked Wise what he thought about the Union,
and said that, “we are counting on you,” in reference to the
election.
D. May 22—Meeting with Labor Consultant
Charles Stephenson
On May 22, Schutt, Trojan, and about 15 coworkers attended
a 1-hour meeting in the plant’s training room. Production
Manager Jim Moser and Stephenson presented Hackney’s
stance on the Union and election.
1. GC’s stance
Trojan recalled the May 22 meeting and testified that Ste-
phenson told employees that they did not need a Union, “asked
the employees what our concerns were,” said that he would
then take those concerns back to management,” and pledged
that “management would fix any issue addressing our con-
cerns.” (Tr. 63.) Schutt generally corroborated his account.
2. Hackney’s position
Stephenson testified that he made individual and small group
presentations to workers before the election. He related that he
used power point slides and recited selected provisions from the
Basic Guide to the National Labor Relations Act (the NLRA
Guide), which he found on the NLRB’s website. See also (R.

9 Schutt, Trojan and Sees were also credible and consistent witness-
es, with solid demeanors.
10 He denied ever communicating his position on unionization to
Ross.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4
Exhs. 1–4,) He denied asking employees to state their con-
cerns, or promising to bring their problems to management for
resolution. He initially insisted that he read his slides verbatim,
but, then reluctantly agreed that he might have elaborated. (Tr.
149.) He remarkably denied, however, that the goal of his
meetings was to help the company win the election, and aston-
ishingly claimed that his only goal was to neutrally and impar-
tially educate workers.11 Moser stated that he was present dur-
ing Stephenson’s meetings; he also averred that the meetings
were designed to educate employees and not sway them.
3. Credibility analysis
I credit Schutt and Trojan. Stephenson was a slick and, un-
fortunately, deceitful witness. His contention that his sole goal
was to kindly educate workers as a neutral was preposterous,
given that Hackney paid him to present its lawful stance against
unionization. His claim that he was an impartial educator was
also contradicted by his slides, which clearly advocated against
unionization. I find, as a result, that his neutral educator de-
fense was unavailing, and eviscerated his credibility. I found
Moser’s comparable claims to be equally unappealing. I found
Schutt and Trojan, however, to be persuasive and believable
witnesses with strong demeanors. As current employees, they
courageously and diplomatically presented difficult facts to the
detriment of their employer in the presence of high level com-
pany officials at the hearing; such candor enhanced their credi-
bility. I find, as a result, that, on May 22, Stephenson told em-
ployees that they did not need a Union, asked them what their
concerns were, and said that he would bring their concerns back
to management for resolution.
III. ANALYSIS
A. ULP Allegations
1. Removal of union literature12
Hackney violated Section 8(a)(1), when Bohannon confis-
cated prounion materials stored in employees’ tool cabinets,
distributed antiunion materials to the same workers, and then
permitted them to store antiunion materials in their tool cabi-
nets. The Board has long held that the application of a pre-
sumptively valid rule in a disparate manner violates Section
8(a)(1). Circuit-Wise, Inc., 306 NLRB 766, 787–788 (1992);
South Nassau Hospital, 274 NLRB 1181 (1985); St. Vincent’s
Hospital, 265 NLRB 38 (1982), enfd. in pertinent part 729 F.2d
730 (11th Cir. 1984). Bohannon’s actions were, as a result,
unlawful.
2. Interrogation13
Hackney violated Section 8(a)(1), when, on May 20, Ross
asked Wise, a neophyte whose union sympathies were un-
known, what he thought about the Union, and told him that,
“we are counting on you” in the election. In Westwood
Healthcare Center, 330 NLRB 935 (2000), the Board held that
the following factors determine whether an interrogation is
unlawful:

(1) The background, i.e. is there a history of employer hostili-
ty and discrimination?
(2) The nature of the information sought, e.g., did the interro-

11 Although Hackney paid him, he amazingly said that, “I really
don’t have a dog in the fight.” (Tr. 149–50.)
12 This allegation is listed under complaint pars. 7 and 10.
13 This allegation is listed under complaint pars. 8 and 10.
gator appear to be seeking information on which to base tak-
ing action against individual employees?
(3) The identity of the questioner, i.e. how high was he in the
company hierarchy?
(4) Place and method of interrogation, e.g. was employee
called from work to the boss’s office? Was there an atmos-
phere of unnatural formality?
(5) Truthfulness of the reply.

Id. at 939. In applying these factors, however, the Board con-
cluded that:

In the final analysis, our task is to determine whether under all
the circumstances the questioning at issue would reasonably
tend to coerce the employee at whom it is directed so that he
or she would feel restrained from exercising rights protected
by Section 7 of the Act.

Id. at page 940.
Wise’s commentary was an unlawful interrogation. These
factors are controlling: Ross, the questioner, was a high-
ranking plant official; Wise, the recipient, was a neophyte who
was reasonably insecure about his employment status; Hackney
concurrently committed other ULPs before the election; and the
interrogation occurred less than 2 weeks before the election.
Under these circumstances, Ross’ query to Wise about how he
felt about the Union and pointed reminder that Hackney was
counting on him during the election was highly coercive. Wise
could have reasonably concluded that Ross was subtly threaten-
ing him to support Hackney, and that his ongoing tenure might
be conditioned upon this ultimatum.
3. Solicitation of grievances14
Hackney violated Section 8(a)(1), when, on May 22, Ste-
phenson told employees during a meeting that they did not need
a Union, asked them what their concerns were, and said that he
would bring their concerns back to management for resolution.
An employer’s solicitation of grievances during a campaign is
unlawful when it “carries with it an implicit or explicit promise
to remedy the grievances and ‘impress[es] upon employees that
union representation [is] . . . [un]necessary.’” Albertson’s, LLC,
359 NLRB 1341, 1341 (2013) (quoting Amptech, Inc., 342
NLRB 1131, 1137 (2004), enfd. mem. 165 Fed.Appx. 435 (6th
Cir. 2006)), affd. and incorporated by reference 361 NLRB 761
(2014). The Board has held that:

Absent a previous practice of doing so . . . the solicitation of
grievances during an organizational campaign accompanied
by a promise, expressed or implied, to remedy such grievanc-
es violates the Act . . . [I]t is the promise, expressed or im-
plied, to remedy the grievances that constitutes the essence of
the violation. . . . [T]he fact [that] an employer’s representa-
tive does not make a commitment to specifically take correc-
tive action does not abrogate the anticipation of improved
conditions expectable for the employees involved.

Maple Grove Health Care Center, 330 NLRB 775, 775 (2000).
“An employer may rebut the inference of an implied promise
by . . . establishing that it had a past practice of soliciting griev-
ances in a like manner prior to the critical period, or by [show-
ing] . . . that the statements at issue were not promises.” Man-
dalay Bay Resort & Casino, 355 NLRB 529, 529 (2010).
Stephenson’s commentary was unlawful. A reasonable em-

14 This allegation is listed under complaint pars. 9 and 10.
VT HACKNEY, INC. 5
ployee would have interpreted his solicitation of grievances as
an implied promise to remedy the very same issues that
prompted the organizing drive. Hackney made no evidentiary
showing that it had an established past practice of previously
soliciting grievances in a comparable way. Stephenson’s solici-
tation, thus, violated Section 8(a)(1). See, e.g., Reliance Elec-
tric Co., 191 NLRB 44, 46 (1971), enfd. 457 F.2d 503 (6th Cir.
1972); Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, supra at 530. Cf. John-
son Technology, Inc., 345 NLRB 762, 764 (2005) (employer
did not unlawfully solicit grievances because it had an estab-
lished a past practice predating the organizing drive).
B. Representation Case
The Union’s objections are valid and warrant a rerun elec-
tion. It avers that objection 4 (i.e., removal of prounion materi-
al) and objection 7 (i.e., solicitation of grievances) prevented
employees from exercising free choice during the election.
These objections are sustained, inasmuch as they mirrored
complaint paragraphs 7 and 9, which were found to be 8(a)(1)
violations and occurred during the critical period before the
election (i.e., May 11 to June 1).15 Regarding Section 8(a)(1)
violations occurring during the critical period, the Board has
held that:

A violation of Section 8(a)(1) during the critical election peri-
od is, a fortiori, conduct that interferes with the results of the
election unless it is so de minimis that it is “virtually impossi-
ble to conclude that [the violation] could have affected the re-
sults of the election.” Super Thrift Markets, Inc., 233 NLRB
409, 409 (1977). See also Baton Rouge General Hospital,
283 NLRB 192, 192 fn. 5 (1987); Dal-Tex Optical Co., 137
NLRB 1782, 1786 (1962). In determining whether the un-
lawful conduct is de minimis, the Board considers the number
of incidents, their severity, the extent of dissemination, the
size of the unit, and other relevant factors. See Super Thrift
Markets, 233 NLRB at 409.

Intertape Polymer Corp., 363 NLRB No. 187, slip op. at 2
(2016).
Hackney’s unlawful conduct interfered with employees’ free
choice in what was already a fairly close election. See, e.g.,
Allied Mechanical, Inc., 343 NLRB 631, 632 (2004) (removing
union literature during the critical period “denied employees
access to an important medium of communication during the
union campaign” and warranted setting aside the election); Bon
Marche, 308 NLRB 184, 185 (1992) (change in bulletin board
policy to prohibit nonwork literature “clearly affected the entire
bargaining unit that the Union sought to represent”); Mandalay
Bay Resort & Casino, supra, 355 NLRB at 530 (unlawful solic-
itation of grievances during critical period warrants rerun). I
recommend, accordingly, that the election be invalidated and
employees be permitted to vote in a second untainted election.
Intertape Polymer Corp., supra; IRIS U.S.A., Inc., 336 NLRB
1013 (2001).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Hackney is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of §2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a §2(5) labor organization.
3. Hackney violated §8(a)(1) of the Act by:
(a) Confiscating Union materials from its employees’ tool

15 Ideal Electric Mfg. Co., 134 NLRB 1275 (1961) (critical period
runs from petition to election dates).
cabinets.
(b) Interrogating employees about their Union or other pro-
tected concerted activities.
(c) Soliciting grievances from employees and making an
implied promise to remedy such issues in order to discourage
their union support.
4. Such unfair labor practices affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7).
5. By engaging in the conduct cited by objections 4 and 7,
Hackney prevented employees from participating in a fair elec-
tion in Case 06–RC–198567.
6. The election in Case 06–RC–198567 should be set aside
and rerun.
REMEDY
Hackney is ordered to cease and desist, and take certain af-
firmative action designed to effectuate the Act’s policies. It
must distribute appropriate remedial notices electronically via
email, intranet, internet, or other appropriate electronic means
to its unit employees at the plant, if it normally communicates
with its workers electronically, in addition to the traditional
physical posting of paper notices. J. Picini Flooring, 356
NLRB 11 (2010).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended16
ORDER
The Respondent, VT Hackney, Inc., Montgomery, Pennsyl-
vania, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Confiscating union materials from its employees’ tool
cabinets.
(b) Interrogating employees about their Union or other pro-
tected concerted activities.
(c) Soliciting grievances from employees and making an
implied promise to remedy such issues, in order to discourage
their union support.
(d) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at it
Montgomery, Pennsylvania plant, copies of the attached notice,
marked “Appendix.”17 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 6, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of
such 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

16 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
17 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.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6
communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If
the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, it shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all unit employees em-
ployed by it at its Montgomery, Pennsylvania plant at any time
since May 11, 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 it
has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Regional Director for Region
6 shall, in Case 06–RC–198567, set aside that election, and
hold a new election.
Dated Washington, D.C., April 19, 2018
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 be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.

WE WILL NOT confiscate flyers and other materials from your
tool cabinets, which support the United Steel, Paper and Forest-
ry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Ser-
vice Workers International Union, AFL–CIO (the Union).
WE WILL NOT ask you about your Union or other protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT solicit your grievances and make implied
promises to remedy your issues in order to discourage you from
supporting the Union.
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.
VT HACKNEY, INC.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/06-CA-199799 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.