ADT LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 27, 2020

369 N.L.R.B. 31 (N.L.R.B. 2020)

369 NLRB No. 31
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.
ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services and Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union 43. Cases 03–CA–184936 and 03–CA–
192545
February 27, 2020
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN
AND EMANUEL
On August 4, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Mi-
chael A. Rosas issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions, a supporting brief, and a reply
brief. The Charging Party filed an answering brief. The
General Counsel filed an answering brief, cross-
exceptions, a brief in support of cross-exceptions, and a
reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions only to the extent consistent with
this Decision and Order.1
This case arises from the Respondent’s unilateral deci-
sion to implement, temporarily, a mandatory 6-day
workweek at its Albany and Syracuse, New York facili-
ties for service and installation technicians covered by
collective-bargaining agreements between the Respond-
ent and the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local Union 43 (the Union). For the reasons
discussed below, we find, contrary to the judge, that the
Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act by unilaterally implement-
ing a 6-day workweek for service and installation techni-
cians at both the Albany and Syracuse facilities. Because
the Respondent had no duty to bargain over the change to
a 6-day workweek, and because the Union communicat-
ed to the Respondent that it was requesting information
solely for the purpose of bargaining about that change,
we also reverse the judge’s finding that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unreasonably delay-
ing in providing the Union with the requested infor-
mation.2 We also find that the Respondent did not vio-

1 We shall amend the judge’s conclusions of law and modify his
recommended Order to conform to the violation found. We shall sub-
stitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified.
2 See, e.g., American Stores Packing Co., 277 NLRB 1656, 1658–
1659 (1986); Emery Industries, 268 NLRB 824, 824–825 (1984); see
also NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, 152 (1956) (holding that
the duty to furnish information derives from the statutory duty to bar-
late Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act within the meaning
of Section 8(d) by modifying its collective-bargaining
agreements with the Union when it implemented the 6-
day workweek. Accordingly, we dismiss those com-
plaint allegations. However, we agree with the judge, for
the reasons he states, that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) by bypassing the Union and dealing
directly with employee Michael Sopok when it granted
him an exemption from the mandatory 6-day workweek.3
I. FACTS
The Respondent installs and services residential and
commercial security systems. Since 1968, the Respond-
ent has had collective-bargaining agreements with the
Union (the Agreements) covering service and installation
technicians at its Albany and Syracuse facilities.4 Article
6, section 1 of the Agreements defined a “normal work
schedule” for service technicians as
a shift of eight and one-half hours with a thirty-minute
lunch period comprising of [sic] five consecutive days,
Monday through Saturday between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 12:00 midnight. There will also be a four-day
workweek comprised of ten and one half hour shifts,
with a thirty-minute lunch period, between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 12 midnight, Monday through Friday.
Customer needs may periodically make it necessary for
work to be performed beginning at 7:00 a.m. The
Company will first seek qualified volunteers to perform
such work. If there are no qualified volunteers the least
senior qualified person will be assigned to perform the
work.
Article 6, section 1 of the Albany Agreement provided
that installation technicians
may be scheduled for any eight-hour period between
7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. in any given day between
Monday and Friday. Customer needs may periodically
make it necessary to add an additional shift for residen-
tial installers from Tuesday through Saturday. The
Company will first seek qualified volunteers to perform

gain in good faith); FirstEnergy Generation, LLC v. NLRB, 929 F.3d
321, 334 (6th Cir. 2019) (finding that because the employer did not
have a duty to bargain over a particular subcontracting decision, it had
no duty to provide the Union with information related to that decision).
3 Sopok worked out of the Albany facility. Because the violation
for dealing directly with Sopok is the only unfair labor practice viola-
tion in this case, we shall limit the notice-posting remedy to the Albany
facility. See Marriott Corp., 313 NLRB 896, 896 (1994).
4 The most recent collective-bargaining agreement covering the Albany
unit (the Albany Agreement) was effective from June 11, 2015 to June
10, 2018. The most recent collective-bargaining agreement covering
the Syracuse unit (the Syracuse Agreement) was effective from June
11, 2016, to June 10, 2019.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
such work. If there are no qualified volunteers then the
least senior qualified person will be assigned to per-
form the work.
Article 6, section 1 of the Syracuse Agreement provid-
ed that installation technicians
may be scheduled for any eight-hour shift between 7:00
a.m. and 5:30 p.m. in any given day between Monday
and Friday. Customer needs may periodically make it
necessary for work to be performed on a second shift
and/or Saturdays. The Company will first seek quali-
fied volunteers to perform such work. If there are no
qualified volunteers then the least senior qualified per-
son will be assigned to perform the work.
The overtime provision in Article 6, section 3 of the
Agreements provided that
[a]ll time worked daily in excess of eight (8) hours in a
scheduled 5 x 8 hour workweek, in excess of ten (10)
hours in a 4 x 10 hour workweek, or weekly in excess
of forty (40) hours, or on scheduled days off shall be
compensated for at one and one-half (1½) times the
employee’s regular straight time hourly rate.
In addition, Article 1, section 2 of the Agreements
provided that “[t]he operation of the Employer’s business
and the direction of the working force including . . . to
determine the reasonable amount and quality of work
needed . . . is vested exclusively in the Employer, sub-
ject, however, to the provisions of this agreement.”
In 2016, the Apollo Group purchased the Respondent
and merged it with Protection One, another Apollo
Group subsidiary. Subsequently, the Apollo Group de-
cided to apply to the Respondent, on a nationwide basis,
Protection One’s customer retention policy of responding
to 75 percent of service calls within 24 hours.
Service and installation technicians’ regular schedule
was a 40-hour, 5-day workweek. On September 7,
2016,5 the Respondent emailed technicians and the Un-
ion’s president, Patrick Costello, announcing that it
would be implementing a mandatory 6-day workweek in
Albany and a mandatory biweekly 6-day workweek in
Syracuse for all technicians in order to meet new “cus-
tomer service targets” resulting from the Respondent’s
integration with Protection One. The email added that
the 6-day workweek would begin on September 22 and
would be in effect every week at the Albany facility and
the second and fourth week of each month at the Syra-
cuse facility until the “market achieves the desired target
which the manager will post locally for each market.”

5 All subsequent dates are in 2016 unless otherwise stated.
The Union protested the Respondent’s decision, de-
manded that the Respondent rescind it, and asserted that
the Respondent’s failure to bargain over the change was
an unfair labor practice. Nevertheless, the Respondent
implemented the decision. It maintained a 6-day work-
week for technicians for approximately 1 month at the
Syracuse facility and until December 2016 or January
2017 at the Albany facility.6
II. ANALYSIS
The General Counsel alleges that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to
bargain with the Union regarding implementing a 6-day
workweek for service and installation technicians at the
Albany and Syracuse facilities. The General Counsel
also alleges that the Respondent violated the Act under a
different theory when it implemented a 6-day workweek
for Albany service technicians, Albany installation tech-
nicians, and Syracuse service technicians. The General
Counsel asserts that by doing so, the Respondent modi-
fied the Agreements without the Union’s consent and
thereby failed to continue in effect all the terms of the
Agreements as required by Section 8(d), in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.7
The Respondent points out that the Agreements grant-
ed it the authority to determine the amount of work need-
ed to conduct its business, to modify technicians’ work
schedules, and to assign technicians to work on sched-
uled days off at time-and-a-half pay. This combination
of provisions, the Respondent asserts, authorized it to
implement a 6-day workweek, and therefore it did not
violate the Act by doing so.
As the Board has explained, unilateral-change cases
and contract-modification cases
are fundamentally different in terms of principle, possi-
ble defenses, and remedy. In terms of principle, the
‘unilateral change’ case does not require the General
Counsel to show the existence of a contract provision;
he need only show that there is an employment practice
concerning a mandatory bargaining subject, and that
the employer has made a significant change thereto

6 Albany technicians worked Saturdays in addition to their regular
Monday through Friday schedules, while Syracuse technicians worked
one of their scheduled days off.
7 The judge found the implementation of a 6-day workweek unlaw-
ful with respect to all technicians, but his analysis addressed only the
General Counsel’s unilateral-change allegations. The General Counsel
cross-excepts to the judge’s failure to consider the contract-
modification allegations in the complaint regarding both groups of
Albany technicians and the Syracuse service technicians, but not the
Syracuse installation technicians—doubtless because language in art. 6,
sec. 1 of the Syracuse Agreement expressly provided that installation
technicians may periodically have to work on Saturdays.
ADT, LLC D/B/A ADT SECURITY SERVICES 3
without bargaining. The allegation is a failure to bar-
gain. In the ‘contract modification’ case, the General
Counsel must show a contractual provision, and that
the employer has modified the provision. The allega-
tion is a failure to adhere to the contract. . . . [T]he is-
sue [in a contract modification case] is whether the con-
tract forbade the conduct. In the unilateral change cas-
es, the issue is whether the contract privileges the con-
duct.
Bath Iron Works Corp., 345 NLRB 499, 501-502 (2005)
(emphasis in original), affd. sub nom. Bath Marine Drafts-
men’s Assn. v. NLRB, 475 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2007). “[A]
remedy for a unilateral change is to bargain; the remedy for
a contract modification is to honor the contract.” Id. at 501.
Unlike an employer that unlawfully modifies a contract, an
employer that implements an unlawful unilateral change
only needs to restore the status quo ante until the parties
reach an impasse in bargaining. Id. at 503. Because the
remedies are mutually exclusive, an allegedly unlawful em-
ployer decision cannot be both a unilateral change and a
contract modification. Accordingly, the General Counsel
has alleged these theories in the alternative. For the follow-
ing reasons, we reject them both.8
A. The Unilateral-Change Allegations
The Board recently announced that it would apply the
“contract coverage” standard to evaluate the merits of an
employer’s defense that contractual language privileged
it to make a disputed unilateral change without further
bargaining with a union. See MV Transportation, Inc.,
368 NLRB No. 66, slip op. at 1–2 (2019). The Board
decided to apply the “contract coverage” standard retro-
actively in all pending cases. Id., slip op. at 2. Accord-
ingly, we do so here.
Under contract coverage, the Board examines “the
plain language of the collective-bargaining agreement to
determine whether action taken by an employer was
within the compass or scope of contractual language
granting the employer the right to act unilaterally.” Id.
In doing so, “the Board will give effect to the plain
meaning of the relevant contractual language, applying
ordinary principles of contract interpretation.” Id., slip
op. at 11. Cognizant of the fact that “‘a collective bar-
gaining agreement establishes principles to govern a
myriad of fact patterns’” and that “‘bargaining parties
[cannot] anticipate every hypothetical grievance and . . .
address it in their contract,’” the Board stated that it “will

8 The Respondent also defends against the unilateral-change allega-
tions on the basis that its implementation of a 6-day workweek did not
constitute a material, substantial, and significant change in the techni-
cians’ terms and conditions of employment. For the reasons stated by
the judge, we reject that defense.
not require that the agreement specifically mention, refer
to or address the employer decision at issue.” Id., slip
op. at 11 (quoting NLRB v. Postal Service, 8 F.3d 832,
838 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (alterations in MV Transportation)).
“Where contract language covers the act in question, the
agreement will have authorized the employer to make the
disputed change unilaterally, and the employer will not
have violated Section 8(a)(5).” Id.
We find that the Respondent’s implementation of a 6-
day workweek for technicians at both the Albany and
Syracuse facilities was within the compass or scope of
language in the Agreements granting the Respondent the
right to take that action unilaterally. Article 6, section 3
of the Agreements provided for payment of overtime
wages for work performed “weekly in excess of forty
(40) hours, or on scheduled days off.” Article 1, section
2 of the Agreements vested in the Respondent the exclu-
sive right “to determine the reasonable amount . . . of
work needed.” Read together, these provisions author-
ized the Respondent to determine the amount of work it
needed the technicians to perform and to require its tech-
nicians to work in excess of 40 hours a week or on
scheduled days off to accomplish that work. According-
ly, we find that the Agreements covered the Respond-
ent’s decision to implement, temporarily, a 6-day work-
week for service and installation technicians in Albany
and Syracuse, and the Respondent did not violate Section
8(a)(5) and (1) by doing so without bargaining with the
Union.9
B. The Contract-Modification Allegations
To determine whether an employer has unlawfully
modified a contract by failing to adhere to its terms, the
Board applies the “sound arguable basis” standard. Bath
Iron Works, 345 NLRB at 501–502. Under that standard,
if “an employer has a ‘sound arguable basis’ for its inter-
pretation of a contract and is not ‘motivated by union
animus or . . . acting in bad faith,’ the Board ordinarily
will not find a violation.” Id. at 502. The employer’s
interpretation need not be the only reasonable one in or-

9 Additional contractual language further supports our finding as to
the Albany and Syracuse installation technicians. Art. 6, sec. 1 of the
Albany Agreement provided that “[c]ustomer needs may periodically
make it necessary to add an additional shift for residential installers
from Tuesday through Saturday,” and art. 6, sec. 1 of the Syracuse
Agreement similarly provided that “[c]ustomer needs may periodically
make it necessary for work to be performed on a second shift and/or
Saturdays.” Although the Agreements provided that the Respondent
“will first seek qualified volunteers to perform such work,” perfor-
mance of the work was compulsory: the Agreements provided that “[i]f
there are no qualified volunteers then the least senior qualified person
will be assigned to perform the work.” Plainly, these provisions grant-
ed the Respondent the right to periodically require installation techni-
cians to work an extra shift on a 6th day.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
der to pass muster under the “sound arguable basis”
standard; it is sufficient that its interpretation is “colora-
ble.” Id. at 503. If an employer presents a reasonable
interpretation of the relevant contractual language, and
the General Counsel does likewise, the Board “will not
enter the dispute to serve the function of arbitrator in
determining which party’s interpretation is correct.”
NCR Corp., 271 NLRB 1212, 1213 (1984). Under those
circumstances, the employer will not have violated the
Act. See id.
We find that the Respondent had a sound arguable ba-
sis for interpreting the Agreements as giving it the right
to implement a 6-day workweek for Albany service and
installation technicians and Syracuse service technicians.
Preliminarily, no party claims that the Respondent im-
plemented a 6-day workweek for anything other than
legitimate business reasons—i.e., that it was motivated
by animus or acting in bad faith. And its interpretation
of the relevant contract language was certainly reasona-
ble. As discussed in detail above in connection with the
General Counsel’s unilateral-change allegations, Articles
1 and 6 of the Agreements, read together, granted the
Respondent the right to modify technicians’ regular work
schedules by requiring them to work a 6-day workweek.
The Agreements required the Respondent to pay techni-
cians time-and-a-half for work on scheduled days off, but
it is undisputed that the Respondent paid technicians the
appropriate overtime rate during the temporary 6-day
workweek period.
The General Counsel argues that the Respondent failed
to follow the overtime provisions in the contract, which
require the Respondent to seek volunteers when overtime
work is necessary before assigning the work to the least
senior qualified employee. The Respondent, however,
was in an “all hands on deck” situation, in which it need-
ed every available employee to perform overtime work in
order to meet its customer service targets. It would have
been nothing more than a formality for the Respondent to
have sought volunteers when it was assigning overtime
to all of the technicians, whether they would have volun-
teered or not.10

10 In a contract-modification case, “the Board may examine the past
practice of the parties as to the interpretation and implementation of the
contractual language in question, in order to determine the parties’
intent.” Comau, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 48, slip op. at 5 fn. 16 (2016). A
memo included in the record shows that, on a previous occasion, the
Respondent sought volunteers to work 1 scheduled day off per month
for 2 months but added that it may resort to “mandatory overtime”
should it not “get enough volunteers.” There is no indication that the
Union protested this earlier, comparable decision by the Respondent.
Indeed, at the hearing, Union President Costello testified that employ-
ees on a Monday through Friday schedule have worked on Saturdays,
and he conceded that “the contract gives the employer the right to
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent adhered to
the Agreements when it implemented a 6-day workweek,
and we therefore dismiss the allegations that it violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) within the meaning of Section
8(d) of the Act.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT Security
Services, is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local Union 43 is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act by bypassing the Union and dealing direct-
ly with a unit employee regarding his terms and condi-
tions of employment.
4. The above unfair labor practice affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent has not otherwise violated the Act
as alleged in the complaint.
ORDER
The Respondent, ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT Security Ser-
vices, Albany and Syracuse, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Bypassing the Union and dealing directly with unit
employees regarding their terms and conditions of em-
ployment.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Albany, New York facility copies of the attached no-
tice marked “Appendix.”11 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 3,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily 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,

schedule work on a day off.” This evidence further supports the Re-
spondent’s reasonable interpretation of the Agreements.
11 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
ADT, LLC D/B/A ADT SECURITY SERVICES 5
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent custom-
arily 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 cov-
ered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone
out of business or closed the Albany facility, the Re-
spondent 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 that facility at
any time since September 22, 2016.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 3 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps the Respondent has taken to
comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the complaint is dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not spe-
cifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 27, 2020
John F. Ring, Chairman
_
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 bypass the Union and deal directly with
unit employees regarding their terms and conditions of
employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
ADT, LLC D/B/A ADT SECURITY SERVICES
The Board’s decision can be found at
http://www.nlrb.gov/case/03-CA-184936 or by using the
QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of
the decision from the Executive Secretary, National La-
bor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street S.E., Washington,
D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
Alicia E. Pender, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Jeremy C. Moritz, Esq. (Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak
& Stewart, P.C.), of Chicago, Illinois, for the Respondent.
Bryan T. Arnault, Esq. (Blitman & King), of Syracuse, New
York, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEL A. ROSAS, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Albany, New York, on June 13, 2017. Based on
timely filed charges by the International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, Local Union 43 (Union or Charging Party), the
General Counsel issued a complaint alleging that ADT, LLC
d/b/a ADT Security Services (ADT or the Respondent) violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the
Act)1 by failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good
faith with the Union in several respects. The dispute revolves
around the Respondent’s implementation on September 22,
2016 of a mandatory biweekly 6-day workweek for all service
technicians in its Syracuse office and a mandatory 6-day work-
week for all service and installation technicians in its Albany
office without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain
over such changes.2 An additional issue arose when the Re-
spondent allegedly bypassed the Union and dealt directly with
an Albany office employee in granting him an exception from
the new scheduling policy. Finally, it is alleged that the Re-

1 29 U.S.C. §§ 151–169.
2 All dates are 2016 unless otherwise indicated.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
spondent unreasonably delayed in fully responding to infor-
mation requested by the Union relevant to the 6-day workweek
scheduling change.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the follow-
ing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a corporation with offices and places of
business in Albany and Syracuse, New York, has been engaged
in the installation and services of residential and commercial
security systems. In conducting such business operations, the
Respondent annually derives gross revenues in excess of
$500,000 from the sale and retail alarm systems, and purchases
and receives at said facilities goods valued in excess of $5000
directly from points outside the State of New York. The Re-
spondent 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 is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Respondent’s Operations
The Respondent was purchased by the Apollo Group in
2016. Subsequently, the Apollo Group merged the Respondent
with another subsidiary, Protection One. As part of the consol-
idation, the Apollo Group decided to apply Protection One’s
customer retention policy of responding to 75 percent of service
calls within 24 hours (the In Standard policy) to the Respondent
on a nationwide basis.
During the period of time at issue, the following individuals
were employed by the Respondent as supervisors within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and as its agents within the
meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: Peter Bernard—Manager;
Michael Kirk—Area General Manager; Michael Stewart—
Regional HR Manager.
Prior to September, employees worked standard 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. shifts, five days per week, 40 hours total. The Re-
spondent occasionally requested employees to work overtime
beyond the end of their regular shifts or on regular days off, but
did so in order of seniority. If necessary, all employees could
be required to work overtime. However, backlogs were usually
handled by a manager calling Patrick Costello, the Union’s
president and assistant business manager, and asking for volun-
teers. Costello would then call employees and offer the over-
time opportunities based on seniority.
B. The Collective-Bargaining Agreements
As of September 2016, there were three technicians employ-
ees by the Respondent’s Albany office. They comprised the
Albany unit, which constituted the following unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time employees originally de-
scribed in the certification dated November 20, 1968 (Case
Number 3-RC-4533) classified by the Respondent as residen-
tial and small business installers, residential and small busi-
ness high volume commissioned installers, residential and
small business service technicians, employed by the Re-
spondent at its facility in Albany, NY; but excluding all alarm
service investigators, relief supervisors, all office clerical em-
ployees and professional employees, guards and supervisors,
as defined in the Act; and excluding all commercial installers
and commercial service unless the employees are employed
by the Respondent and are located at, or are directly super-
vised by the Respondent’s supervisors located at its Albany,
NY facility.
As of September 2016, there were 12 technicians employed
by the Respondent’s Syracuse office. They comprised the Syra-
cuse unit, which constituted the following unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time employees originally de-
scribed in the certification dated November 20, 1968 (Case
Number 3–RC–4533) classified by the Respondent as resi-
dential and small business installers, residential and small
business high volume commissioned installers, residential and
small business technicians, employed by the Respondent at its
facility in Syracuse, NY, but excluding all alarm service in-
vestigators, relief supervisors, all office clerical employees
and professional employees, guards and supervisors, as de-
fined by the Act; and excluding all commercial installers and
commercial service unless the employees are employed by the
Respondent and are located at, or are directly supervised by
the Respondent’s supervisors located at, its Syracuse, NY fa-
cility.
The Respondent has recognized the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the Syracuse and Alba-
ny units as reflected in successive collective-bargaining agree-
ments (CBA), the most recent of which are effective from June
11, 2016, to June 10, 2019 as to the Syracuse unit, and June 11,
2015, to June 10, 2018 with respect to the Albany unit.3
The disputed scheduling provisions are set forth in identical
versions of article 6 in the Syracuse and Albany CBAs. In
pertinent part, the identical provisions establish a 40-hour em-
ployee workweek and 8-hour workday. The workweek is
deemed to start on Wednesday and end on Tuesday, the same
as the payroll week. Section 1 further defines the regular
workweek as follows:
The normal work schedule for the Service Department shall
be a shift of eight and one-half hours with a thirty-minute
lunch period comprising of five consecutive days, Monday
through Saturday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 12:00
midnight. There will also be a four-day workweek comprised
of ten and one half hour shifts, with a thirty-minute lunch pe-
riod, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 12 midnight, Mon-
day through Friday. Customer needs may periodically make it
necessary for work to be performed beginning at 7:00 a.m.
The Company will first seek qualified volunteers to perform

3 Jt. Exh. 2–3.
ADT, LLC D/B/A ADT SECURITY SERVICES 7
such work. If there are no qualified volunteers then the least
senior qualified person will be assigned to perform the work.
Second shift will be defined as those shifts beginning at 12:00
noon and after. Advance notice of schedule changes will be
given whenever possible, except in cases of emergency, such
schedules shall be established one week in advance.
The Installation Department may be scheduled for any eight-
hour period between 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. in any given day
between Monday and Friday. Customer needs may periodi-
cally make it necessary for work to be performed on a second
shift and/or Saturdays. The Company will first seek qualified
volunteers to perform such work. If there are no qualified vol-
unteers then the least senior qualified person will be assigned
to perform the work. Such second shifts will occur between
the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight. Except in cases of
emergency, such schedules shall be established one week in
advance. Second shift will be defined as those shifts begin-
ning at 12:00 noon and after.
Section 2 provides the Respondent with additional authoriza-
tion regarding assignments outside of the regular schedule:
In accordance with Section 1 of this article, the Employer will
establish 12:00 noon to 8:30 p.m. for trouble and maintenance
requirements. Volunteers among qualified personnel will be
solicited. If no qualified volunteers exist, assignment will be
based on reversed seniority among qualified personnel. As-
signment (or volunteer) will be for a minimum of six (6)
months. The Employer reserves all rights under Section 1 of
this article.
Sections 3 and 4 provide for the assignment and compensa-
tion of overtime and emergency overtime work, respectively:
All time worked daily in excess of eight (8) hours in a sched-
uled 5 x 8 hour workweek, in excess of ten (10) hours in a 4 x
10 hour workweek, or weekly in excess of forty (40) hours, or
on scheduled days off shall be compensated for at one and
one-half (1-1/2) times the employee’s regular straight time
hourly rate. No time worked except for work performed on
paid holidays, as hereinafter, listed in Article 8, shall under
any circumstances be compensated for at more than one and
[one-half] (1-1/2) times the straight time hourly rate. There
shall be no compounding, duplicating or pyramiding of over-
time payments of any description. In any cases when an em-
ployee is not able to complete an assigned job during sched-
uled work hours he will notify his Supervisor by 1:30 p.m. of
that day. At such point a decision shall be made as to when
the job will be completed if the job was scheduled to be com-
pleted that day.
Emergency overtime calls from home shall be compensated at
one and one-half (1½) times the employee’s regular hourly
rate of pay from the time the employee leaves his home to the
time reasonably required for him to return home. Employees
on-call will receive at least three (3) hours at overtime rate
each time they are notified, 3respond to a call and return
home. If they are sent on another call before returning home,
the time is added. (Example: Employee is called out, responds
to the site and fixes the problem within two (2) hours. He re-
ceives a minimum of three (3) hours pay at the overtime rate.
If he is beeped prior to returning home and responds to anoth-
er call for an additional hour he would be paid three (3) hours
minimum for the first call and one (1) hour for the second
call. Total call out pay is four (4) hours overtime.)
C. The 6-Day Workweek
The mandatory nationwide 6-day workweek was prompted
by ADT’s acquisition by Apollo and ADT’s subsequent merger
with Protection 1 on September 1. Based on Protection 1’s
superior customer retention rate, Apollo instructed ADT to
adopt Protection 1’s policy requiring that 75 percent of service
calls be responded to within 24 hours. Under that directive, the
mandatory overtime was applicable to all employees. There
was no limitation on ADT’s ability to schedule work 7 days a
week for 8 hours each day. The only exceptions were for those
attending school classes paid for by ADT.4
On September 6, Kirk communicated the rollout of the ADT
integration with Protection 1 in an email to ADT managers and
supervisors:
Team,
With the integration of ADT and Protection 1 we have been
given new customer service targets of 1.69 days on all new
installations and service tickets created. This equates to being
able to deliver, 24-hour customer service to our new and ex-
isting customers 75% of the time which is a great objective to
meet, while understanding that 25 percent of our customers
may not be able to be available within 24 hours. While I un-
derstand that each market is different, and we need to ap-
proach each market as a separate entity and make decisions
that are based solely on each location. Until we meet the pre-
sent target, we will be implanting a mandatory 6-day work-
week in the following markets beginning on Thursday, Sep-
tember 22 and will continue until each market achieves the
desired target which the manager will post locally for each
market. I understand that this is a burden on some of our tech-
nicians and the only exception at this time are those techni-
cians that are currently attending classes and are enrolled in
higher education.
Allentown Pa
Wilkes-Barre Pa
Bridgeville Pa
Albany NY
The following districts will implement a mandatory 6 Day
workweek on Thursday, September 22 2016 for the second
and fourth week of every month until the target is achieved
and can change to weekly if needed with no additional notice.
Syracuse NY
Buffalo NY
Erie Pa
Altoona Pa
Lancaster Pa

4 James Nixdorf, ADT’s director of labor relations, oversee the pro-
cessing of disciplinary matters and CBAs. He testified about the chang-
es, but professed little knowledge about the actual rollout.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
I appreciate your understanding and dedication to providing
faster service to our customer and I truly appreciate your sup-
port, I am providing a two week notice to all technicians as I
truly believe that this is the right thing to do! Please keep in
constant communication with your manager and myself if you
are confused as to why this critical initiative is important and
why we need your immediate assistance and to see where we
are to the target. Thank you for all that you do and keep those
great customer service emails coming to me from your cus-
tomers as I love to recognize great individual performances . .
. You guys and girls are awesome. Thank you.
Kirk followed up 1 minute later with another email directing
the “Team” to “get this in the hands of every technician no later
than 9:00 AM tomorrow morning.”5 His email was forwarded
to the technicians on September 7. Additionally, Stewart, the
Respondent’s regional human resources manager, forwarded
the email to Costello, the Union’s representative. During the
conversation that followed, Costello asserted that the change
violated the CBA and requested it be rescinded immediately.
Stewart agreed to pass along Costello’s view to the Respond-
ent’s hierarchy but doubted that the change would be rescind-
ed.6
In the Albany location, the 6-day schedule was implemented
during the week of September 22 and lasted until December or
January 2017. In the Syracuse location, the biweekly 6-day
workweek occurred over the course of nearly a month. During
that time, Albany unit employees worked Saturdays in addition
to their regular Monday through Friday schedules, while Syra-
cuse unit employees worked their off day. Based on article 6 of
the Syracuse CBA, Albany and Syracuse unit employees re-
ceived 1-1/2 times regular compensation for working on their
regular days off.
In Albany, David Madsen, an installation technician in the
Albany branch, served as the Union’s shop steward and report-
ed to Costello. He worked the 6 days per week schedule for at
least 6 Saturdays until December or January 2017. At the time,
two technicians were out or going out on medical leave, which
left Madsen and another employee as the only technicians
available to work on Saturdays. As it turned out, Madsen was
the only technician to work on Saturdays. He did not, however,
file a grievance over the directive.
D. The Information Request
On September 19, prior to the scheduling change, Costello
wrote to Stewart protesting ADT’s unilateral decision to im-
plement a 6-day workweek schedule:
As I previously explained, Article 6 of the CBA explicitly and
unambiguously provides for only four or five-day workweeks.
At no point does the CBA authorize a 6-day workweek or al-
low ADT to change the agreed-upon schedule.
The letter further demanded ADT rescind the directive and
asserted that the failure to bargain over the change constituted
an unfair labor practice. The letter further requested the pro-
duction by October 7 of a broad range of information relating to

5 Jt. Exh. 1.
6 Costello’s credible testimony was not refuted. (Jt. Exh. 4; Tr. 25.)
the decision-making, planning and implementation of the
scheduling change.7
On October 6, Stewart responded to Costello that ADT was
putting together a response to the September 19 information
request and expected to provide it by October 14. Costello did
not object to the revised production date but requested that
Stewart immediately provide all of the responsive information
in his possession.8
On October 13, Stewart replied to Costello by email. Stew-
art noted at the outset that ADT considered several of the re-
quests vague, ambiguous or nonrelevant. Stewart then ex-
plained the purpose of the 6-day workweek as a measure to
reduce a backlog of open work orders so the offices would be
compliant with the company metric for customer service. To do
so, each location was required to respond to customer’s re-
quests within 24 hours, 75 percent of the time. Stewart noted
this was a standard also used by Protection-1 before the merger.
Stewart attached a data set to the email, showing the backlog of
open work orders in the Albany and Syracuse locations and
also the reductions achieved. He declined, however, to provide
information regarding ADT’s interactions with other unions,
claiming the information was not relevant. He did not provide
further explanation or an answer to other questions as set out in
the September 19th email.9
On October 24, Costello responded to Stewart’s email of Oc-
tober 13. He explained that Stewart’s response was insufficient
and restated his argument as to why the requested information
was relevant. Not having received a response to his October 24
information requests, Costello followed up with another letter
and email to Stewart on November 18. He warned that if the
information was not received by November 22 he would file an
unfair labor practice charge.10
On December 15, Costello asked Stewart to send him “all the
responses that you have generated concerning our most recent
information requests.”11 Stewart responded on December 16 by
providing a “Talking Points” memorandum given to all installa-
tion and service team managers.12 Costello did not understand
all of the information contained on the spreadsheets.
E. Direct Dealing
Michael Sopok, a technician in the ADT’s Albany branch,
learned of ADT’s 6-day workweek directive along with the rest
of the workforce on September 22. On that day, he told shop
steward Madsen that he had a problem working on Saturdays
because of his childcare situation but did not ask him to ap-
proach management. Sopok then called Peter Bernard, the in-
stallation team manager, about his dilemma.13 Bernard for-
warded Sopok’s request to Kirk. Kirk asked that Sopok pro-
vide documentation relating to the childcare issue, which Sopok
did. Kirk approved Sopok’s request through Bernard. As a re-

7 Jt. Exh. 5.
8 Jt. Exh. 6.
9 Jt. Exh. 7
10 Jt. Exh. 10-13.
11 Jt. Exh. 14.
12 Jt. Exh. 15.
13 It is not disputed that as a shop steward, Madsen did not have the
authority to bargain with ADT.
ADT, LLC D/B/A ADT SECURITY SERVICES 9
sult, Sopok did not have to work the mandatory Saturday shift
and was removed from the 6-day workweek schedule. Howev-
er, a few weeks after submitting his request, Sopok’s exemption
was conditioned on an extended 5-day workweek, with up to 12
hours per day. As a result, he resigned.
Legal Analysis
1. unilateral change to a 6-day workweek in the Albany and
Syracuse units
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act on September 22 by imposing a mandatory 6-
day workweek for unit employees in the Albany unit. Further,
the Respondent is alleged to have violated the act by unilateral-
ly imposing a biweekly 6-day workweek on employees in the
Syracuse unit. The Respondent denies the allegations, claiming
the issue is not a unilateral change, but rather a dispute between
the Respondent and the Union over an interpretation of the
contract. In support of their interpretation, the Respondent re-
lies on the argument that Syracuse and Albany units have al-
ways permitted management to schedule work on regular days
off, schedule mandatory overtime and require employees to
work past the end of their shifts.
An employer violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act if it
makes material unilateral changes during the course of a collec-
tive-bargaining relationship on matters that
are mandatory subjects of bargaining, “for . . . a circumvention
of the duty to negotiate . . . frustrates the objectives of Section
8(a)(5) much as does a flat refusal.” NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S.
736, 743, 747 (1962); United Cerebral Palsy of New York City,
347 NLRB 603, 606 (2006).Items falling within the language of
Section 8(d) are mandatory subjects of bargaining. NLRB v.
Borg-Warner Corp., 356 U.S. 342, 349 (1958). The Board has
also held that “in order for a statutory bargaining obligation to
arise with respect to a particular change unilaterally imple-
mented by an employer, such change must be a 'material, sub-
stantial, and a significant' one affecting the terms and condi-
tions of employment of bargaining unit employees.” Angelica
Healthcare Services Group, 284 NLRB 844, 853 (1987).
The work schedules of ADT’s unit employees were vital as-
pects of working conditions and are mandatory subjects of bar-
gaining. See Meat Cutters, Local 189 v. Jewel Tea Co., 381
U.S. 676, 691 (1965); Bloomfield Health Care Center, 352
NLRB 252, 256 (2008). Moreover, the Board has long held
changes similar to ADT’s unilateral changes in a 6-day work-
week as material and significant. In Fall River Savings Bank,
the employer unilaterally changed scheduled work from a 5-day
workweek to a 6-day workweek based on the rationale that the
revision was a reasonable variation of past practices involving
flexible work on Saturdays. The Board disagreed, finding that
the change in working conditions amounted to a conversion
from voluntary to mandatory overtime. 260 NLRB 911 (1982).
Similarly, in Intracoastal Terminal, Inc., the Board held that
changing a Monday through Friday workweek to Wednesday
through Sunday was unlawful. The Board rejected the argu-
ment that changes in work schedules were insubstantial, even
though they roughly amounted to the same number of hours the
employees had worked under the previous schedule. The Board
noted that it was axiomatic that “regular and overtime hours of
work are vital aspects of working conditions” to be discussed
with a bargaining units representative. 125 NLRB 359, 359–
360, 367–368 (1959), enf. denied in relevant part on other
grounds 286 F.2d 954 (5th Cir. 1961).
Nor is the impact of the change any less significant because
it affected only a few members of the unit. See Bloomfield
Healthcare Center, supra at 252 (unilateral change made to
bargaining unit’s schedule was significant even though it only
affected a few members of the unit); Georgia Power Co., (uni-
lateral change to scheduling violated Section 8(a)(5) even
though it affected only one unit employee). Similarly, even a
slight change in the amount of time worked per day can consti-
tute a material change. See Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Fayette-
ville, Inc., 330 NLRB 134 (2000) (schedule change was a mate-
rial and significant change because it resulted in route salesmen
commencing their workdays 15 minutes earlier than they had
before).
The Respondent’s alteration of work schedules constituted a
material, substantial and significant change in the terms and
conditions of employment of the Albany units and, as such, was
a mandatory subject for the purposes of collective bargaining.
As such, the Respondent’s failure to afford the Union an oppor-
tunity to bargain over the scheduling change violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
2. Unilateral creation of exceptions in the Albany unit and
direct dealing with a bargaining unit member
The General Counsel and Charging Party further allege that
the Respondent, without prior notice to the Union or affording
it an opportunity to bargain, also violated Section 8(a)(5) by not
informing the Union of the change in schedule. Further, they
allege the Respondent dealt directly with unit Michael Sopok, a
unit employee, on September 22, creating an exception to the
mandatory 6-day workweek policy for all service and installa-
tion technicians in the Albany unit. The Respondent denies the
allegations, contends the exception granted to Sopok stemmed
from a unique situation that he chose to raise directly with the
Respondent, and was not intended to undermine the Union.
Direct dealing involves interaction with employees that by-
passes the union about a mandatory subject of bargaining. Mer-
cy Health Partners, 358 NLRB 566 (2012), citing Champion
International Corp., 339 NLRB 672, 673 (2003). The standard
for direct dealing was laid out in Permanente Medical Group,
332 NLRB 1143, 1144 (2000), as “[a]n employer engages in
unlawful direct dealing when (1) the employer communicates
directly with union represented employees; (2) the discussion is
for the purpose of establishing or changing wages, hours, and
terms and conditions of employment or undercutting the union's
role in bargaining; and (3) such communication is made to the
exclusion of the union.” Id. at 1144.
The Respondent argues that it did not engage in direct deal-
ing with Sopok because there was neither a promise of a benefit
nor issuance of a threat. It further argues that the prohibition of
such interaction with employees would mean that it would have
to negotiate with the Union over any trivial changes in shifts,
hours or time off.
I disagree with the Respondent’s belief that prohibiting in-
teractions between management and employees about work
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
schedules would lead to mandatory negotiations with the Union
over any change in shifts, hours or time off. Sopok’s request
stemmed from a unilateral and unexpected change made by the
Respondent that deviated substantially from the bargaining
agreement that unit members reasonably relied upon. It affected
the entire bargaining unit. I would decline to extend this inter-
pretation to situations involving shift changes or alterations
occurring during the course of a bargaining agreement resulting
from the normal course of business, and not stemming from any
unilateral and unexpected modification of the terms and condi-
tions of the bargaining agreement.
The Respondent’s direct dealing with Sopok, a unit bargain-
ing unit employee, in arranging an exception for him from the
6-day workweek schedule, bypassed the unit representative and
undermined the union’s role in bargaining. By granting a unit
employee member an exception that could plausibly be inter-
preted as favorable treatment, the Respondent effectively un-
dermined confidence in the Union by the bargaining group. In
doing so, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act by failing to meet and bargain exclusively with the bargain-
ing representative of its employees before implementing a
change to the terms and conditions of unit employees. See
Allied—Signal, 307 NLRB 752, 753 (1992); Northwest
Graphics Inc. and Local 6-505-M, 343 NLRB 84,176 (2004).
3. Delay in providing requested information to the union relat-
ing to the 6-day workweek
The General Counsel and Charging Party also allege that the
Respondent failed to provide requested information in a timely
manner. The Respondent contends that it met its obligation to
supply information to the Union by providing the requested
information or asserting legitimate objections to information
requests deemed vague or ambiguous.
Under Section 8(d) of the Act, the Respondent has an obliga-
tion to provide the Union with requested information that is
relevant and necessary to the Union's performance of its duties
as collective-bargaining representative, including deciding
whether to process grievances. NLRB v. Acme Industrial
Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435–436 (1967); Centura Health St. Mary-
Corwin Medical Ctr., 360 NLRB 689, 689 (2014). The applica-
ble standard is whether there exists “a probability that such data
is relevant and will be of use to the union in fulfilling its statu-
tory duties and responsibilities as the employees' exclusive
bargaining representative.” See Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB,
440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979) ("the duty to bargain collectively,
imposed by Section 8(a) of the NLRA, includes a duty to pro-
vide relevant information requested by the union for the proper
performance of its duty as the employees' bargaining repre-
sentative").
In determining whether the requested information is or was
probably relevant to the union’s role, the Board has typically
applied a liberal discovery-type standard. Brazos Electric Pow-
er Cooperative, 241 NLRB 1016(1979). When information
sought concerns matters outside the bargaining unit, the union
must establish the relevance of that information by making a
special demonstration of relevance based on the logical founda-
tion and a factual basis for the information. Shoppers Food
Warehouse Corp., 315 NLRB 258, 258 (1994). The Board need
only find a probability that the requested information is relevant
and would be useful to the union in carrying out its responsi-
bilities. Reiss Viking, 312 NLRB 622, 625 (1993), citing Postal
Service, 310 NLRB 391, 391–392 (1993).
Each of the Union’s requests explained in detail how the in-
formation was going to be used in relation to the dispute. Nei-
ther the October 13th nor December 16th emails provided suffi-
cient information relative to what was being sought by the Un-
ion. Stewart’s response on October 13th proffered justifications
for the change and provided a data set that seemed to answer
parts of Costello’s questions but it does not, as Stewart says
“address all of the concerns raised” in the September 19th re-
quest. The December 16th communication appears to be an
internally directed marketing document, apparently used by
management to explain to their employees why they were to
work longer hours. It is also the only document provided. The
Respondent provided information in a haphazard manner over a
3-month period.
The Respondent notes than the time to respond is not deline-
ated in the Act and the precedent is largely fact driven, differs
on a case by case basis, and is based on the totality of circum-
stances surrounding the event. Allegheny Power, 339 NLRB
585, 587 (2003). The Respondent’s delay in providing relevant
information sought by the Union, when evaluated in conjunc-
tion with its unlawful unilateral change to work schedules,
along with its direct dealing with a unit employee in carving out
exceptions to its unlawful action, was unreasonable.
The Respondent also concedes that the information could
have been forwarded to the Union earlier than December, but
denies that the delayed production was unreasonable, driven by
animus or resulted in harm to the Union. The Respondent also
cites several decisions in which delays ranging from several
months to almost a year were found neither unreasonable nor
prejudicial to the Union. Union Carbide Co., 275 NLRB 197,
201 (1985); see also Dallas & Mavis Forwarding Co., 291
NLRB 980 (1988). These arguments lack merit. The Union
became aware of the change in schedule only after the decision
was made and announced to employees. When the Union at-
tempted to respond, the Respondent was slow to act and pro-
vided insufficient information. Stewart’s belated and incom-
plete reply to the Union’s request for relevant information as it
rolled out the unlawful change to unit employees’ work sched-
ules, was prejudicial and hampered the Union’s ability to en-
force the contract.
Finally, the Respondent asserted that some of the requests
were vague or non-relevant without providing clarification and
proceeded to provide only information that obliquely responded
to the detailed requests made by the union. When an employer
believes an information request is vague, however, it has the
responsibility to request clarification. See Keauhou Beach Ho-
tel, 298 NLRB 702,702 (1990) (employer may not simply re-
fuse to comply with a request it deems overly broad, onerous or
non-relevant). See also Hospital Episcopal San Lucas, 319
NLRB 54, 57 (1995) (employer is required to notify the Union
of its objections to each request and as needed, ask for clarifica-
tion).
Under the circumstances, the Respondent’s repeated failure
to meet its statutory obligation to timely provide the requested
ADT, LLC D/B/A ADT SECURITY SERVICES 11
information violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
1 ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services is an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act by unilaterally and without the consent of the Union when
it:
(a) Changed the terms and conditions of employment in the
Albany unit by imposing a 6-day workweek for service and
installation technicians in that location.
(b) Changed the terms and conditions of employment in the
Syracuse unit by imposing a biweekly 6-day workweek for the
service technicians in that location.
(c) Refused to bargain with the Union by making changes to
employees’ terms and conditions of employment by unilaterally
imposing a biweekly 6-day workweek for the installation tech-
nicians in the Syracuse unit without first giving the Union no-
tice and an opportunity to bargain.
(d) Unilaterally created exceptions to the workweek policy
for the Albany unit. And engaged in direct dealing with em-
ployees regarding mandatory terms and conditions of employ-
ment.
(e) Delayed in providing information to the Union necessary
and relevant to its role as the employees’ bargaining representa-
tive.
4. The aforementioned unfair labor practices by the Re-
spondent affected commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended14
ORDER
The Respondent, ADT LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Unilaterally and without the consent of the Union impos-
ing a 6-day workweek for service and installation technicians in
the Albany unit, or otherwise changing employees’ terms and
conditions of employment as set forth in the Albany collective-
bargaining agreement.
(b) Unilaterally and without the consent of the Union impos-
ing a biweekly 6-day workweek for the service technicians in
the Syracuse unit, or otherwise changing employees’ terms and
conditions of employment as set forth in the Syracuse collec-
tive-bargaining agreement.
(c) Refusing to bargain with the Union by making changes

14 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.
to employees’ terms and conditions of employment by unilater-
ally imposing a biweekly 6-day workweek for the installation
technicians in the Syracuse unit without first giving the Union
notice and an opportunity to bargain.
(d) Unilaterally creating exceptions to the workweek policy
for the Albany unit.
(e) Engaging in direct dealing with employees regarding
mandatory terms and conditions of employment.
(f) Delaying in providing information to the Union that is
necessary and relevant to its role as the employees’ bargaining
representative.
(g) Refusing to provide information to the Union that is
necessary and relevant to its role as the employees’ bargaining
representative.
(h) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining
or coercing Respondent’s employees 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) At the request of the Union, rescind the unlawful unilat-
eral changes to the workweek for the Albany unit and Syracuse
unit.
(b) Provide the Union with the information it requested on
September 19 and October 24 that it has not already provided.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cilities in Albany and Syracuse, New York, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”15 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 3, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. 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 Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility in-
volved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respondent
since September 22, 2016.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn statement of a responsible official on
a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 4, 2017
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

15 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally make changes to unit work sched-
ules without consulting the bargaining representatives of the
unit.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally bargain, negotiate or directly deal
with individual members of the bargaining unit about the terms
and conditions of employment without notifying and including
the bargaining unit representatives.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse or unreasonably delay in provid-
ing requested information to bargaining unit representatives
when the information is necessary for the representatives to
fulfill their duty to unit members.
WE WILL notify you that the workweek directive has been
rescinded.
WE WILL notify you that the mandatory 6-day workweek
order from our September 7, 2016 memorandum has been
rescinded.
ADT, LLC D/B/A ADT SECURITY SERVICES
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found
at http://www.nlrb.gov/case/03-CA-184936 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., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.