AIM Aerospace Sumner, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 2019

367 NLRB No. 148 (N.L.R.B. 2019)

367 NLRB No. 148
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.
AIM Aerospace Sumner, Inc. and International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, District 751 International
Association of Machinists, District 751. Cases 19–
CA–203455 and 19–CA–203586
June 6, 2019
DECISION AND ORDER
CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS MCFERRAN
AND EMANUEL
On May 16, 2018, Administrative Law Judge Eleanor
Laws issued the attached decision. The Charging Party
filed exceptions with supporting arguments, and the Re-
spondent filed an answering brief. The Respondent filed
cross-exceptions and a supporting brief, the General
Counsel and Charging Party filed answering briefs, and
the Respondent filed a reply brief. In addition, the General
Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief, and
the Respondent 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

1 The Respondent, General Counsel, and Charging Party have ex-
cepted to some of the judge’s credibility determinations. The Board’s
established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s credi-
bility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evi-
dence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have care-
fully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.
In the absence of exceptions, we adopt the judge’s dismissal of com-
plaint pp. 7–9, alleging violations of Sec. 8(a)(1) based upon allegedly
coercive comments and gestures made by the Respondent at its July 25
and 27, 2017 meetings.
2 In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent did not violate
Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) when it withdrew recognition from the Union, we do
not rely on the judge’s requirement that the General Counsel demonstrate
“specific proof of a causal connection” between employee Lori-Ann
Downs-Haynes’ promotion and the employees’ loss of support for the
Union. The judge’s statement is misleading, as the Master Slack test is
designed to provide a structure for establishing a causal relationship be-
tween the employer’s actions and employees’ loss of support for the un-
ion where there is no direct evidence of an employer’s active involve-
ment in the decertification process. 271 NLRB 78, 84 (1984) (applying
factors in order to demonstrate “causal relationship”); see also SFO
Good-Nite Inn, LLC, 357 NLRB 79, 80 (2011) (“In such cases, there is
no straight line between the employer’s unfair labor practices and the
decertification campaign, and the Master Slack test must be used to draw
one, if it exists.”), enfd. 700 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2012). However, the judge
applied the Master Slack test, and we adopt her analysis under that test
and her dismissal of the 8(a)(5) withdrawal-of-recognition allegation.
Our dissenting colleague asserts that Master Slack is inapplicable and
that this case is properly analyzed under Hearst Corp., 281 NLRB 764
(1986), enfd. mem. 837 F.2d 1088 (5th Cir. 1988), which holds that an
the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions2 and to
adopt the recommended Order as modified.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recom-
mended Order of the administrative law judge as modified
below and orders that the Respondent, AIM Aerospace
Sumner, Inc., Sumner, Washington, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the Order as modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a).
“(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Sumner, Washington, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice, in Eng-
lish and any other language or languages deemed appro-
priate by the Regional Director for Region 19, on forms
provided by the Regional Director, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecu-
tive days in conspicuous places including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition
to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be
distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an
intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means,
if the Respondent customarily communicates with its em-
ployees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken
employer may not withdraw recognition based on a petition that it un-
lawfully assisted, supported, or otherwise unlawfully encouraged, even
absent specific proof of the misconduct’s effect on employee choice. Id.
at 764-765. We disagree. Neither the General Counsel nor the Charging
Party argues that Master Slack is inapplicable in assessing whether
Downs-Haynes’ promotion tainted the petition. Furthermore, in order to
apply the Hearst presumption, the Board has required that an employer
“directly instigate[d] or propel[led]” the decertification effort by “ac-
tively soliciting, encouraging, promoting, or providing assistance in the
initiation, signing, or filing of an employee petition seeking to decertify
the bargaining representative.” SFO Good-Nite Inn, supra at 80. Here,
there is simply no evidence that the Respondent’s promotion of Downs-
Haynes directly assisted the decertification effort. The dissent cites no
cases applying Hearst to comparable facts, and we know of none. Fi-
nally, the dissent’s argument that the Respondent “was willing to pay to
have the Union ousted,” citing wage increases granted after the with-
drawal of recognition, is backward. The question is whether the with-
drawal of recognition itself was unlawful, and conduct after the with-
drawal is irrelevant to that analysis.
3 We shall substitute a new notice to conform to the Board’s standard
notice language, and we shall order the Respondent to post the notice in
English and in any other language or languages the Regional Director
deems appropriate. See Kolkka Tables & Finnish-American Saunas, 335
NLRB 844, 851 (2001). Because we otherwise find that the Board’s
standard remedies are sufficient to effectuate the policies of the Act, we
deny the General Counsel’s request for additional remedies.
4 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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 Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall dupli-
cate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current employees and former employees employed by
the Respondent at any time since July 11, 2017.”
1. Substitute the attached notice for that of the adminis-
trative law judge.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 6, 2019
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
______________________________________
Willian J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MEMBER MCFERRAN, dissenting in part.
Correctly analyzed, the evidence here establishes that
the Respondent unlawfully withdrew recognition from the
Union based on an employee petition tainted by its own
impermissible efforts to move the petition forward. The
Respondent unlawfully promoted bargaining unit em-
ployee Lori-Ann Downs-Haynes to a receiving clerk po-
sition, and gave her a significant wage increase, to reward
her for collecting signatures on the employee petition.
Less than 2 weeks later, a majority of employees had
signed the petition. Despite finding that the promotion of
Downs-Haynes was unlawful, the majority concludes that
the promotion did not taint the petition. As I will explain,
my colleagues have applied the wrong analytical frame-
work and, in turn, reached the wrong result.
I.
The material facts are not in dispute. The Union has
represented a unit of the Respondent’s production, mainte-
nance, and clerical employees since August 2013.
Downs-Haynes began working for the Respondent in
2013 as a laminator, a bargaining unit position.
In May 2017, the Respondent posted a job opening for
a receiving clerk position, also a bargaining unit position.
Downs-Haynes applied for the position, but was not se-
lected; in fact, the Respondent did not even interview
Downs-Haynes for the clerk position because she was not
sufficiently qualified for it. Instead, the Respondent hired
an external applicant who had substantially greater expe-
rience.
Following the hiring process for the clerk position,
Downs-Haynes began talking with other employees about
ousting the Union. Notably, in mid-June, Downs-Haynes
also told Human Resources Director Deborah Ruffcorn
that she wanted to get rid of the Union. In the same con-
versation, Downs-Haynes complained that she recently
had received only a 10-cent-per-hour wage increase.
About a week later, a like-minded coworker drafted a
decertification petition and provided it to Downs-Haynes.
Downs-Haynes began circulating the petition in late June.
She obtained the first signatures on June 28, and enlisted
help from second and third-shift employees to obtain ad-
ditional signatures. As found by the judge, the Respond-
ent had already learned that Downs-Haynes was leading
the decertification effort, and so informed its managers
and supervisors at a meeting on June 27.
In the meantime, the newly hired receiving clerk ab-
ruptly abandoned the job. The Respondent reposted the
position several days later. Once again, Downs-Haynes
applied. On July 5, while her application was pending,
Downs-Haynes attended another meeting with Human Re-
sources Director Ruffcorn—who this time was accompa-
nied by Vice President of Operations Mike Pratt—and
asked extensive questions about getting rid of the Union.
The Respondent evidently was impressed by Downs-
Haynes’ commitment to the decertification effort. Alt-
hough only weeks earlier the Respondent had deemed
Downs-Haynes unworthy of an interview for the receiving
clerk position, the Respondent interviewed Downs-
Haynes the very next day, July 6. It selected her for the
position 5 days later and awarded her a 40-cent-per-hour
wage increase, based on her newfound “experience.”
The Respondent promoted Downs-Haynes while she
was gathering signatures on the petition to decertify the
Union. In fact, the record shows that while Downs-
Haynes had gathered the first signatures on June 28, just a
few weeks later (and less than 2 weeks after her promo-
tion), 142 employees had signed the petition.
II.
The majority agrees with the judge that the Respond-
ent’s promotion of Downs-Haynes to the receiving clerk
position violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The
judge found that the Respondent unlawfully awarded
Downs-Haynes the clerk position, and a wage increase
with it, as a “reward” for circulating the decertification pe-
tition. Applying the multifactor test established in Master
Slack, 271 NLRB 78 (1984), however, the judge found
that there was no causal relationship between the unlawful
promotion and the petition, and so he concluded that the
AIM AEROSPACE SUMNER, INC. 3
Respondent lawfully withdrew recognition of the Union.1
That result is simply wrong.
As the Board explained in SFO Good-Nite Inn, LLC,
357 NLRB 79, 80 (2011), enfd. 700 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.
2012), Master Slack applies only where “there is no
straight line between the employer’s unfair labor practices
and the decertification campaign, and the Master Slack
test must be used to draw one, if it exists.” By contrast,
where there is a straight line–for example, where the em-
ployer was “actively soliciting, encouraging, promoting,
or providing assistance” to the petition2–the Board pre-
sumes that the employer’s unlawful meddling tainted any
resulting expression of employee disaffection.3 In those
circumstances, the Board precludes the employer from re-
lying on that expressed disaffection to overcome the un-
ion's continuing presumption of majority support.4 The
present case plainly falls into the straight-line category,
notwithstanding the majority’s insistence to the contrary.5
The Respondent tainted the decertification petition by
unlawfully rewarding its principal employee backer for
gathering the signatures of her coworkers. This unfair la-
bor practice is “not merely coincident with the decertifi-
cation effort,” but rather “encourage[ed]” and “propel[led]
it.”6 Obviously, Downs-Haynes herself reasonably would
have been motivated to continue her decertification efforts
by the Respondent’s sudden change of heart on her appli-
cation for the receiving clerk position, as well as the ac-
companying wage increase she received.7 And, particu-
larly with a decertification margin as narrow as this one,8
it is a fair inference that a determinative number of her
coworkers also would have perceived, correctly, that the
Respondent would reward employees for ousting the Un-
ion. Indeed, after withdrawing recognition the

1 Under Master Slack, the Board considers the following factors to
determine whether a loss of support was caused by an employer’s unfair
labor practices:
(1) The length of time between the unfair labor practices and the with-
drawal of recognition; (2) the nature of the violations, including the pos-
sibility of a detrimental or lasting effect on employees; (3) any possible
tendency to cause employee disaffection from the union; and (4) the
effect of the unlawful conduct on employee morale, organizational ac-
tivities, and membership in the union.
271 NLRB 78, 84 (1984).
2 Wire Products Mfg. Co., 326 NLRB 625, 640 (1998) (emphasis
added), enfd. mem. sub nom. NLRB v. R.T. Blankenship & Associates.,
210 F.3d 375 (7th Cir. 2000).
3 See Hearst Corp. 281 NLRB 764 (1986), enfd. mem. 837 F.3d 1088
(5th Cir. 1988).
4 See SFO Good-Nite, above; Tyson Foods, Inc., 311 NLRB 552, 556
(1993); see also V&S ProGalv, Inc. v. NLRB, 168 F.3d 270, 281–282 (6th
Cir. 1999); Ron Tirapelli Ford v. NLRB, 987 F.2d 433, 442 (7th Cir.
1993).
5 The majority points out that neither the General Counsel nor the
Charging Party excepted to the judge’s application of Master Slack,
Respondent bestowed several benefits on employees, in-
cluding significant wage increases. Quite clearly, the Re-
spondent was willing to pay to have the Union ousted–but
that Act does not permit employers to buy their way out
of union representation.
The judge speculated that other employees would not
have questioned the legitimacy of Downs-Haynes’s pro-
motion because they were not privy to the details of the
selection process or the quality of the other applicants.
But this view fails to account for the Respondent’s unex-
plained about-face, having decided not to even interview
Downs-Haynes only weeks earlier because it had deemed
her unqualified for the position. Clearly, the Respondent
(correctly) believed that rewarding Downs-Haynes would
provide a crucial boost to the decertification effort. In any
event, no specific proof that an employer’s actions caused
disaffection is required to conclude that the employer’s
unlawful encouragement tainted a resulting decertification
petition. SFO Good-Nite, above, 357 NLRB at 80. Ra-
ther, the Board appropriately holds the employer “respon-
sible for the foreseeable consequence of its conduct.” Id.
(quoting Hearst, 281 NLRB at 765).
III.
In short, this should not be a difficult case. The Re-
spondent unlawfully rewarded the principal backer of a
decertification effort with a promotion and a raise. The
connection between the reward and the employee’s decer-
tification efforts would have been clear not just to the key
employee, but to her coworkers as well. And, in fact, just
weeks later a majority of employees had signed the peti-
tion to oust the Union. The Respondent, in turn, quickly
withdrew recognition and rewarded unit employees, just
rather than Hearst, to assess whether the Respondent’s promotion of
Downs-Haynes tainted the petition. But the Board, with court approval,
has repeatedly found violations for different reasons and on different the-
ories from those of administrative law judges or the General Counsel,
even in the absence of exceptions, where the unlawful conduct was al-
leged in the complaint. See, e.g., Electrical Workers IBEW Local 58, ,
365 NLRB No. 30, slip op. at 4 fn. 17 (2017); Pepsi America, Inc., 339
NLRB 986 (2003); Jefferson Electric Co., 274 NLRB 750, 750–751
(1985), enfd. 783 F.2d 679 (6th Cir. 1986). As the Board stated in W.E.
Carlson Corp., “It is well settled that even where the General Counsel
has not excepted to an administrative law judge's analysis, the Board ‘is
not compelled to act as a mere rubber stamp’ but rather is ‘free to use its
own reasoning.’” 346 NLRB 341, 434 (2006), quoting NLRB v. WTVJ,
Inc., 268 F.2d 346, 348 (5th Cir. 1959).
6 SFO Good-Nite, above, 357 NLRB at 80.
7 As described, Downs-Haynes had recently complained that her pre-
vious wage increase of 10-cents per hour was too low.
8 Only 142 of 272 employees (or 52%) signed the petition, 6 more
than necessary. NLRB v. AIM Aerospace Sumner, Inc., No. C17-6061
BHS, 2018 WL 838043, at *3 fn. 3 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 13, 2018).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
as it had rewarded the lead employee, with significant ben-
efits, including wage increases. In these circumstances,
Board law conclusively presumes that the Respondent’s
encouragement of the decertification effort tainted the re-
sulting petition. As a result, we should find that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by withdrawing
recognition based on that petition and subsequently
changing employees’ terms and conditions of employ-
ment.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 6, 2019
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
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 representative 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 ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT grant any employee a new position with
higher pay to reward or encourage their initiating or sup-
porting a movement to decertify the International Associ-
ation of Machinists, District 751 or any other labor organ-
ization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
AIM AEROSPACE SUMNER, INC.
The Board’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/19-
CA-203455 or by using the QR code below. Alternatively,
you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive

1 All dates are in 2017 unless otherwise indicated.
Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street,
S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
Ryan Connolly, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Charles P. Roberts, III, Esq. and W. Melvin Haas III, Esq., for
the Respondent.
Kathryn Sypher, Esq. and Spencer Nathan Thal, Esq.,
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ELEANOR LAWS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was
tried in Seattle, Washington on February 13–15, 2018. The In-
ternational Association of Machinists, District 751 (Charging
Party or Union) filed charges on August 1 and 2, 2017, and the
General Counsel issued the consolidated complaint on October
27, 2017.1
The complaint alleges that AIM Aerospace (the Respondent
or AIM) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations
Act (the Act) by engaging in various activity, detailed below,
aimed at interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in
the exercise of their Section 7 rights. The complaint also alleges
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act when
it promoted employee Lori-Ann Downs-Haynes (Downs-
Haynes) to discourage employees from exercising protected Sec-
tion 7 activities. Finally, the complaint alleges the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when it withdrew
recognition from the Union and granted wage increases to em-
ployees without giving the Union notice and opportunity to bar-
gain.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by
the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging Party, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a corporation, manufactures composites and
ducting for the aerospace industry at its facility in Sumner,
Washington. The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an em-
ployer 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.
AIM AEROSPACE SUMNER, INC. 5
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background on the Respondent and the Union
AIM Aerospace manufactures composites and ducting for the
aerospace industry. It has three facilities, in Auburn, Renton,
and Sumner, Washington. This case concerns the Respondent’s
Sumner facility.2
On August 5, 2013, the National Labor Relations Board
(Board) certified the Union as the exclusive collective-bargain-
ing representative of the following unit:
all full-time hourly and regular part-time hourly kit cutters,
team leaders, laminators, paint preppers, production control co-
ordinators, mold makers, painters, tool preppers, water striders,
assemblers, maintenance helpers, document control clerks, in-
ventory clerks, trimmers, quality administrators, quality in-
spectors, clerk 1, oven operators, core cutters, trainers, tool re-
pairers, autoclave operators, shipping and receiving clerks, in-
ventory leads, drivers, lab tech A, continuous improvement ad-
ministrators, tool coordinators, and maintenance employees.
Drivers and quality inspectors based in Sumner are considered
part of the bargaining unit even though they may be assigned
work away from the Sumner plant.
The Union and the Respondent entered into a collective-bar-
gaining agreement (CBA) effective April 25, 2014, through May
1, 2018. The contract provides that employees may choose
whether to join the Union and pay dues. If they join, they are
members for the length of the contract. (Jt. Exh. 2.)3
Liberty Hall, a private equity group, purchased AIM in Feb-
ruary 2016. Following the purchase, AIM hired consultants, and
the company moved toward having the Sumner, Auburn, and
Renton facilities function more as a single entity. The vice pres-
ident, general manager, and human resources (HR) manager in
Sumner were replaced in early 2017, and the wage scales in Ren-
ton and Auburn were increased in February. (Tr. 367–368.)
During the relevant time period, Pat Russell was AIM’s chief
operating officer (COO). Mike Pratt was vice president of oper-
ations. Leigh Booth was the vice president of human resources.4
Since May, Deborah Ruffcorn has been the human resources di-
rector at the Sumner facility.5
Employees work one of three work shifts. Start and end times
are somewhat variable, but the first shift, or dayshift, runs from
about 6:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., with breaks at 8:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m.,
and lunch at 11:30 a.m. Second shift runs from about 5 p.m. to
1:30 a.m. Finally, about eight employees work the third shift,
referred to as the graveyard or night shift.
Employees may come in before their shifts and talk to other

2 The references to “AIM” in this case concern only the Sumner fa-
cility unless otherwise indicated.
3 Abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “Tr.” for tran-
script; “R. Exh.” for Respondent’s exhibit; “GC Exh.” for General Coun-
sel’s exhibit;” “CP Exh.” for Charging Party’s exhibit; “Jt. Exh.” for joint
exhibit; “GC Br.” for the General Counsel’s brief; “R. Br.” for the Re-
spondent’s brief, and “CP Br.” for the Charging Party’s brief. Although
I have included several citations to the record to highlight particular tes-
timony or exhibits, I emphasize that my findings and conclusions are
based not solely on the evidence specifically cited but rather are based
on my review and consideration of the entire record.
employees in the break areas. Employees are instructed to take
their breaks in designated areas so they won’t disturb employees
who are working, but this instruction is sometimes disregarded.
(Tr. 50.) While performing their jobs, employees talk about top-
ics other than work. This is generally permitted as long as em-
ployees stay on task while conversing. (Tr. 250, 318.) At times,
supervisors and managers will interrupt employees’ conversa-
tions and instruct them to return to work. This is usually when
employees are spending excessive amounts of time talking and
not performing their work. Employees may use the restroom as
needed, without seeking permission.
B. Wages and Comments about the Union Contract
The CBA’s wage provision, article 7, provides a set scale for
wages and wage increases by job category. Section 7.05 gives
AIM discretion to pay above these rates for “legitimate business
reasons”, including “retention of needed skills, exceptional per-
formance, consistent demonstration of stills above expectations,
excellent dependability, quality of work, leadership, mentoring
and demonstrated collaborative behavior.” (Jt. Exh. 2.)
James Herness, who works as a layup mandrel assembler, is a
union member and shop steward. In 2014, Herness asked Rob
Anderson, the production manager, what he could do to set him-
self up for a future raise. Anderson said that if he gave Herness
a raise, he would need to give everyone a raise because of the
union contract. (Tr. 45.)
In or around 2016, Giuseppe Mercado, a lead in the paint prep
department, told Anderson he wanted to be a painter. Anderson
showed Mercado the pay scale in the CBA, and said if he took a
job as a painter, he would lose his extra pay for being a lead be-
cause pay was governed by the CBA. (Tr. 140.)
Sometime around March 2017, Anderson asked Mercado,
who had since become a union steward, why he no longer wanted
to paint, and Mercado responded that he was tired of doing extra
work for no extra pay.6 Anderson replied that AIM could not
pay more because the wages were set by the CBA. Mercado said
that was not true, and offered to show Anderson the provision in
the CBA that permits AIM to pay employees rates above the
wage scales. (Tr. 140–142; GC Exh. 7.) About 2 weeks later,
General Manager Bill Keilman7 asked Mercado why he was not
painting. Mercado gave the same answer, and Keilman said he
could not pay employees more due to the CBA. Mercado dis-
puted this, and mentioned another employee who had received a
pay bump. Keilman told Mercado to be patient because AIM
had new owners, and said he would mention him to the new vice
president. (Tr. 144–146; GC Exh. 8.) Mercado wanted to be
compensated more because of his extra effort, and was not
4 Booth’s main office is in Renton, but she visits the Sumner facility
on a regular basis.
5 She was previously director of human resources at the Auburn fa-
cility for several years.
6 At the time, Mercado had grown a beard, which prevented him from
wearing the respirator required to paint.
7 The complaint references Bill Kyleman, but the answer provides the
presumably correct spelling, Keilman. Keilman transferred to the Au-
burn facility and was replaced by Dave Blake.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
suggesting an across-the-board raise for all employees. (Tr. 148.)
In mid-June, employee Lori-Ann Downs-Haynes and Herness
had an exchange in the lunchroom. Downs-Haynes asked Her-
ness if the Union had fulfilled the promises they made to em-
ployees. Herness replied that he did not work at AIM during the
organizing drive, so he did not know. They exchanged some
more words, and Herness commented that Downs-Haynes
seemed angry at the Union. Downs-Haynes replied, “You have
no idea.” Herness said she was angry at the wrong person and
said the CBA permitted wage increases at any time. According
to Herness, Downs-Haynes said something like, “well, the Em-
ployer has already promised that we’d get a raise if we decerti-
fied so there’s your guarantee.” (Tr. 35–37.)
Around July 20, Herness dropped off a couple of pay discrep-
ancy grievances to Ruffcorn. She commented that there seemed
to be a lot of pay issues. Herness said employees were not mak-
ing much money, and when they asked for more wages, they
were denied. Ruffcorn said she thought AIM couldn’t give em-
ployees any more money because of the union contract. Herness
said the contract permitted raises at any time, and offered to show
her the provision, but Ruffcorn declined. (Tr. 46–47.)
Also sometime in July, Corrine Peterson had reworked a part
for Anderson. She said to him, “I guess . . . we will get our raise.”
Anderson responded that he doubted it. (Tr. 111–112.)
C. The Decertification Petition and Withdrawal of Recognition
Downs-Haynes began working for AIM in 2013. Downs-
Haynes joined the Union, thinking she was required to join in
order to remain employed at AIM. She later learned she had a
choice about whether or not to join the Union, which made her
upset.
Downs-Haynes and other employees, including coworker Re-
becca Cole, discussed decertification in early-mid June. (CP
Exh. 1 p. 4; Tr. 304.) Downs-Haynes was in favor of decertifi-
cation because the Union dues were going up and she could not
afford them. Downs-Haynes began talking with fellow employ-
ees and learned many were dissatisfied with the Union.
Downs-Haynes initially worked in autoclave as a laminator,
and was supervised by Brenda Sellers, the production supervisor.
On June 19, Supervisor Donna Shaw requested help in layup area
1, sometimes referred to as duct 1, which was located on the
other side of the facility. Sellers responded that she would send
Downs-Haynes. (R. Exh. 6.) Even though Downs-Haynes went
to work in layup 1, she remained on Sellers’ payroll. Sellers also
sent Kelli Clough to assist Shaw during this same time period.
(Tr. 339–340.)
In mid-June, Downs-Haynes went to Ruffcorn’s office to
complain that she had only received a 10-cent raise. She

8 The template for R. Exh. 4 and the verbatim language in R. Exh. 3
appear at https://www.unionfacts.com/downloads/unionDecertification-
Petition.pdf.
9 In 1989, the company Cole worked for went through a decertifica-
tion process.
10 I agree with the General Counsel that Booth was evasive about this
training. (GC Br. 12, fn. 6; Tr. 389–90.)
11 The General Counsel and Charging Party contend that this explana-
tion serves to discredit Cole’s testimony that she learned about decertifi-
cation petitions on her own. The evidence shows, however, that Cole
complained about her union dues, and said she wanted to get rid
of the Union. Ruffcorn said she could not comment on that.
Ruffcorn let Booth know about the meeting, and they planned
some training for the supervisors. (Tr. 400–401.)
During the third week in June, employee Rebecca Cole drafted
a petition to decertify the Union along with an accompanying
cover letter. (R Exhs. 3–4; Tr. 259.) She obtained the template
from a website called, “Union Facts.” 8 She drafted the document
because she and some other employees were tired of paying dues
and not getting anything in return. Cole did some research on
decertification and learned that decertification could take place
in the fourth year of a contract. She had wanted to get rid of the
Union since they came in and had been waiting. Cole was not
willing to circulate the petition, but Downs-Haynes said she
would.9
Downs-Haynes took leave under the Family and Medical
Leave Act (FMLA) on June 26 and 27. (Tr. 446.) She began
circulating the petition and secured the first signatures on June
28. She enlisted help from employees on the second and third
shifts. When Downs-Haynes had a page full of signatures, she
gave the petition to Cole, who would then give her another blank
petition. After someone complained that Downs-Haynes was
discussing the Union during worktime, Shaw told her she could
only talk with employees before and after work, as well as on
breaks and lunch. (Tr. 281.)
On or around June 27, the Respondent held a meeting for su-
pervisors and managers about the decertification petition. The
supervisors learned that Downs-Haynes was collecting signa-
tures. They were instructed to remain neutral. (Tr. 238, 319,
344.) Any questions were to be presented to HR.10 (Tr. 402.)
The morning of June 30, Downs-Haynes went to a scheduled
meeting at HR. Pratt was present in Ruffcorn’s office, and he
stayed for the meeting. She had specific questions concerning the
decertification process. She also mentioned that employees in
Sumner wanted to be on the same wage progression scale as em-
ployees in Renton and Auburn. Ruffcorn and Pratt told Downs-
Haynes they could not answer most of her questions. Downs-
Haynes had a question about the time frame for submitting sig-
natures on a decertification petition. Pratt explained the differ-
ences of the time frame difference between a 3-year contract and
4-year contract.11 Downs-Haynes expressed concern about be-
ing threatened. Ruffcorn told her to come to HR if she received
threats. Downs-Haynes reported that Herness had been telling
employees AIM was not honoring the contract regarding pay.
Ruffcorn and Pratt told Downs-Haynes they needed to remain
neutral and could not offer her advice. (R. Exh. 11; Tr. 405–
406.)
That same day, Downs-Haynes met with Ruffcorn and Booth
drew up and began circulating the petition prior to this meeting between
Downs-Haynes and Ruffcorn and Pratt. Cole therefore could not have
gained her knowledge regarding timing from the meeting Downs-Haynes
attended. The Charging Party contends that Cole was evasive in her tes-
timony. (CP Br. 4–7.) Cole, an older employee, had obvious trouble with
her hearing. (Tr. 260.) I did not find her to be evasive at all. I found her
to be very credible, particularly in her testimony about her feelings about
the Union. She struck me as a straight-forward, no-nonsense person.
AIM AEROSPACE SUMNER, INC. 7
later in the afternoon. She reported that an employee named
Cookie interrupted her when she was in the lunchroom discuss-
ing decertification. Herness then approached and said that with-
out the Union, their 15-minute breaks would be 10-minute
breaks. A heated discussion ensued and employees were uncom-
fortable with Herness. Downs-Haynes asked if she had the right
to tell Herness to go away. Booth responded that the break
rooms are open to all employees, but Downs-Haynes could ask
Herness not to interrupt her. They also told Downs-Haynes she
could not bother second and third-shift employees during their
shifts. They instructed her not to come back to HR unless it was
work-related. (R. Exh. 11; Tr. 408–409.)
Downs-Haynes met with Ruffcorn and Pratt the afternoon of
July 5.12 She complained that Herness threatened employees.
Ruffcorn told Downs-Haynes that any employees who felt
threatened should come to HR. According to Ruffcorn’s notes,
Downs-Haynes also reported the NLRB told her she needed sig-
natures from 80 percent of employees for decertification.13 Ruff-
corn gave her the National Right to Work website address.
Downs-Haynes said she had put together some flyers, and Pratt
told her she needed to hand them out, not post them. Downs-
Haynes asked for a list of union dues-paying employees. Ruff-
corn said she would not furnish this information because she had
to remain neutral. (R. Exh. 11; Tr. 409–411.)
At some later point, Cole and Downs-Haynes met with HR in
an attempt to determine the number of employees in the unit.14
Booth recalled Ruffcorn saying she could not provide this infor-
mation. (Tr. 392) Ruffcorn eventually provided Cole and
Downs-Haynes with the number of employees in the bargaining
unit. (Tr. 462.)
Darlene Goff works at AIM in the paint prep department.
Downs-Haynes approached her in the cafeteria and asked her
about the Union. She mentioned a petition and mentioned some-
thing about a pay raise as a reason for the petition. (Tr. 203–204.)
Katy Pine worked as a bagger and laminator in the same work
area as Downs-Haynes. One week, toward the end of June, Pine
observed that Downs-Haynes was away from the work area for
a few hours about two or three times. She also observed, “Some
employees would have to go and layup what we call domes and
they would have to go down to the other building. Or not the
other building, but the other side of the building and they would
be gone for hours.” (Tr. 230.)
On June 29, Downs-Haynes approached Mercado and painter
Merrick James while they were working and asked if they
wanted to sign the petition. They both declined. (Tr. 132; GC
Exh. 6.) There were no supervisors in the area.
Corrine Peterson has worked at AIM for nearly 10 years.
Around June 30, Peterson saw Sellers talking to Downs-Haynes
in layup room 1, but she could not hear their conversation. Even
so, when Shaw came by, Peterson told her that Sellers and
Downs-Haynes were discussing getting rid of the Union.

12 Downs-Haynes also met with human resources for reasons unre-
lated to the decertification petition, but the time frames for these meet-
ings have not been established.
13 In her January 12, 2018, affidavit in connection with a Federal court
proceeding, Downs-Haynes said that she did not get through to the
According to Peterson, Shaw replied that she did not care what
they were talking about and she could not stop employees from
talking. (Tr. 118–119; GC Exh. 4.) Around this same time, Pe-
terson asked Kendrick James if he knew Downs-Haynes was col-
lecting signatures for the decertification petition. James said
there was nothing he could do to stop her. (Tr. 110.)
Rodney Christian has worked for AIM as an oven operator for
over 5 years. He works the graveyard shift with approximately
seven other employees. In June or July, Downs-Haynes ap-
proached Christian during his work shift and asked him how he
felt about the Union. Downs-Haynes said she thought she paid
too much in union dues. Christian stated his support for the Un-
ion. No supervisor was present.
Adaire Noonan works as a laminator in the same area as
Downs-Haynes. In early to mid-July, Downs-Haynes ap-
proached Noonan during her lunchbreak and asked if she sup-
ported the Union. Noonan replied that she did. Noonan ob-
served that Downs-Haynes was away from Duct 1 more than
other employees. One time, Noonan saw Downs-Haynes leave
the work area to talk to Shaw. About once per week, Sellers
pulled Downs-Haynes off the workroom floor.
Christy Westover worked at AIM from April 2016–October
2017 as a quality assurance inspector. In July 2017, before work
one morning in the parking lot, Downs-Haynes asked her if she
would sign the decertification petition. Downs-Haynes later ap-
proached Westover at her workstation on two occasions and
asked if she had signed the petition.15 During their last conversa-
tion, Westover told Downs-Haynes the petition was in her po-
dium but when she went to look for it, it was no longer there.
On July 13, the Respondent posted decertification information
at the timeclock. That day, Mercado and Herness spoke to man-
ager Dave Blake about this, and Blake referred them to HR. (Tr.
135–136.) Mercado and Herness spoke to Ruffcorn and Booth
on July 14 and asked if they were promoting the poster about
decertification. Ruffcorn and Booth said it was just factual and
neutral. Herness said the decertification poster was being read
on company time, and Ruffcorn said that it should not be, and
she had not witnessed employees reading it on company time.
Ruffcorn then informed Mercado and Herness that she had re-
ceived a report they had left their work area the prior day to speak
to Blake. Booth said the rules about leaving their work area also
applied to them. Mercado then asked if they were aware of the
petition. Booth responded that she did not need to answer that
question. Mercado said the petitions were being passed around
during work time, and Booth said she was not aware of this, but
would speak to management. Herness said Downs-Haynes was
promising wage increases and other perks if the petition was suc-
cessful. Ruffcorn informed him that AIM was not making prom-
ises. Herness asked if he could post prounion literature next to
the decertification information, and Booth replied that he could
not because the Union had its own boards in the break rooms.
NLRB, but Cole did, and was informed they needed 51 percent of em-
ployees to sign the decertification petition. (CP Exh. 1, p. 4.)
14 Downs-Haynes did not recall talking about the number of employ-
ees with HR. (Tr. 306.)
15 Employee Dann Derrow observed Downs-Haynes approach
Westover at her workstation.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
Booth said they had not seen or heard about supervisors or man-
agers assisting with the petition. They discussed a few other top-
ics, and the meeting concluded. (Tr. 375, 412–414; R. Exh. 12.)
In late July 2017, Peterson saw Downs-Haynes approach a
group of employees in the lunchroom and she heard her promise
them a raise if they signed the petition. Peterson told the em-
ployees not to sign the petition because it was to vote the Union
out. Downs-Haynes picked up the petition and walked away.
(Tr. 101–104.)
Also in July, Downs-Haynes came to Peterson’s work area
and approached an employee named Dave with a piece of paper
in her hand that Peterson believed was the decertification peti-
tion. She then approached another employee, who pushed his
hand up and shook his head. (Tr. 104–105.)
Craig Beder works at AIM as the maintenance/janitorial em-
ployee, second shift. On January 28, 2014, Beder received a
warning for not completing assigned tasks and talking to fellow
employees. Beder responded to the discipline, stating “I am
guilty of some of the situations that are mentioned, but some re-
late to the job.” (R. Exh. 1.)
During the time period the decertification petition was circu-
lating, Herness and others passed out pro-union literature to em-
ployees before and after work and on breaks. (Tr. 64.) Herness
discussed the decertification petition with other employees dur-
ing working time. (Tr. 53.) Herness’ supervisor routinely asked
him to go to the other end of the building to help trim when they
got behind. (Tr. 52.)
James never saw Downs-Haynes walking around with a peti-
tion, but he heard rumors about the petition prior to the supervi-
sor training. (Tr. 316, 320–321.) Sellers never saw the petition
and she did not speak with Downs-Haynes about it. (Tr. 342–
343.)
On July 20, Downs-Haynes and Cole came to Ruffcorn’s of-
fice and asked if they could present the decertification petition.
Ruffcorn said she would check with their legal department and
get back to them. After doing so, Ruffcorn informed Downs-
Haynes she could accept the petition. On July 21, Cole handed
the decertification petition, with 142 signatures collected be-
tween June 28 and July 20, to Booth and Ruffcorn. Downs-
Haynes had been in the room earlier, but she was not present
when Cole handed over the petition.16 (Tr. 376, 416.)
On July 24, AIM’s president, John Feutz, sent a letter to Jon
Holden, the Union’s district president, and Patrick Bertucci, the
Union’s business representative, notifying them that the Re-
spondent had received proof the Union no longer had support of
a majority of employees, and informing them that AIM was with-
drawing recognition of the Union. (R. Exh. 15.)
On July 25, the Respondent held an all-hands meeting. COO
Russell and Pratt announced that AIM had received a decertifi-
cation petition signed by the majority of the unit. Pratt read the
following statement:

16 Downs-Haynes testified she was not at HR that morning, but the
weight of the evidence establishes she was present prior to the time Cole
presented the petition.
17 The General Counsel contends that Ruffcorn is not a credible wit-
ness because she initially testified that employees were permitted to ask
questions at this meeting, but later changed her testimony. (Tr. 425,
Recently, the Company was presented a petition signed by a
majority of employees stating that they no longer wished for
the IAM Union to continue to represent them, The Company
validated the signatures and determined that they are genuine,
and that the petition is in fact signed by a majority of unit em-
ployees. Under federal labor law, the Company cannot con-
tinue to recognize a union that it knows is not supported by a
majority of employees. Accordingly, the Company notified the
Union last night that it was withdrawing recognition from the
Union and would not deal with the Union on an ongoing basis.
This means that the collective bargaining agreement will cease
to have any future effect. The Company is still evaluating its
legal rights and will provide additional information soon. We
are not able to provide additional information at this time.
However, if you have individual questions that you feel cannot
wait, please contact HR.17
(R. Exh. 16; Tr. 425.)
As employees were exiting the meeting, Mercado saw Downs-
Haynes give a thumbs-up sign to Ruffcorn, Leigh Booth, and
Sellers, and say, “Hey we did it.” He testified that they all gave
the thumbs up signal back to Downs-Haynes (though he initially
said only Sellers did so), and Ruffcorn went over and patted
Downs-Haynes on the back. (Tr. 133–134, 152.)
Downs-Haynes said she was talking to a friend next to her.
She did not see a thumbs-up sign and said nobody patted her on
the back. (Tr. 292.) Sellers did not recall seeing Booth or Ruff-
corn at the meeting and she did not walk out with them. She did
not make a gesture or see anyone make a gesture (Tr. 345.)
Booth said she was standing by door 143 on the left side. She
could not recall who was near her. Booth does not believe she
made a gesture or any statements indicating happiness. (Tr. 377–
379.) Ruffcorn said she was standing up front with Pratt and
Russell. She went back to her office after the meeting, and did
not make any kind of gesture or statement. She did not see Booth
or Sellers make any gesture or statement, she was not near
Downs-Haynes as she exited the meeting, nor did she pat her on
the back. (Tr. 426–427.)
D. Meetings After Decertification and Wage Increase
On July 27, AIM held quarterly all-hands meetings with each
shift.18 Beder asked if the Company was going to keep its prom-
ise to give employees a raise if the Union was decertified. Pratt
said the company made no promises and could not be responsible
for what employees might have said on the floor. Russell said
they would review the financials and determine raise eligibility
on an individual basis. (Tr. 41–42, 65; R. Exh. 17.) An employee
on second shift also asked about a wage increase, and Russell
said they were evaluating things, and it would take some time.
When asked why the Auburn employees made more money than
the Sumner employees, Russell responded that AIM stayed
within the wage scale in the CBA.
426.) Ruffcorn initially responded that AIM always takes employee
questions, but very quickly corrected herself, recalling that this was a
very short meeting with no questions. I do not find this one error colors
her entire testimony.
18 Ruffcorn attended the first and second shift meetings and took
notes. (R. Exh. 17; Tr. 428.)
AIM AEROSPACE SUMNER, INC. 9
Another all-hands meeting took place in early August. Pratt
said that now that the Company was no longer unionized, they
could change perks for the better. Pratt announced an additional
2 days for bereavement leave, a 5-minute wash-up period at the
end of the day, and 15-minute breaks. He also announced pay
raises to match the wages at Auburn and Renton plants for em-
ployees who had been with the Company 4 years or less, and an
across-the-board 5-percent wage increase for employees who
had been there longer. Herness asked why they were getting
raises now, when employees had been asking for the last 3 years.
Pratt said they had been locked into the Union contract. Herness
disputed this.
At either this meeting or another meeting that occurred a cou-
ple weeks after July 25, Westover was about 5 or 6 feet away
from Ruffcorn and Downs-Haynes. She testified, “All I heard
was Debbie turned–or Lori-Ann and say, don’t worry, I got your
back. Everything will be okay. And then Lori-Ann turned
around and sat down.” (Tr. 84–85.)
E. The Receiving Clerk Position
On May 21, the Respondent posted a job opening for a receiv-
ing clerk.19 (R. Exh. 19; GC Exhs. 12–14; Tr. 431.) The Re-
spondent followed its regular practice of posting this position
both internally and externally. (Tr. 467; CP Exh. 3.) The follow-
ing individuals applied on the corresponding dates:
Ervin Taylor, May 19
Leslie Potter, May 19
Gabrielle Ardnt, May 19
Alexander McHellon, May 19
William Critzer, May 19
George Goins, May 19
Chris Bickley, May 20
Lacey Cash, May 20
Pat Hubenthal, May 21
Laura Hobbick, May 21
Corey Andreas, May 21
Stephen Smith, May 22
Nick Mosher, May 22
Rob Guasis, May 22
Steven Morales, May 23
Cynthia Timlin, May 24
Denise Wildman, May 24
Raul De Jesus Lumboy, May 24
Ken Somerville, May 25
Sawyer LeiLani, May 25
Clifford Tedeton, May 27
Michelle LaRue, May 27
Linda Vacca, May 28
Amy Gayle, May 28
Michael Lepule, May 31
Lori-Ann Downs-Haynes, June 4
(Tr. 450; GC Exh. 13.)
Hobbick, an internal candidate who works autoclave layup,

19 Though the posting was on May 21, an application from May 19
was received.
20 Ruffcorn gave conflicting testimony regarding Taylor’s hire date.
She said the job was “awarded” to Taylor on June 12 in her affidavit in
applied for the position using an application (app) called
BirdDog. (R Exhs. 7, 20; Tr. 358, 434.) She told Downs-Haynes
about the job opening. Hobbick had no experience in shipping
and receiving. On June 4, Downs-Haynes applied for the position
using BirdDog. (Tr. 302; R. Exh. 21.) She filled out a paper
application on June 6. (R. Exh. 5.) Hobbick and Downs-Haynes
were the only internal candidates.
On June 6 or 12, the Respondent hired Taylor to fill the posi-
tion.20 (Tr. 452.) Taylor was chosen based on his experience as
a logistics technician with warehouse responsibilities. (Tr. 453.)
He abandoned the job after 2 weeks, on June 26.
According to Ruffcorn, Downs-Haynes’ application was
brought to her attention on June 6, after she had already offered
the position to Taylor. (Tr. 433.)
On June 29, the position was reposted internally and on
BirdDog. (GC Exh. 14; CP Exh. 5; Tr. 470.) Ruffcorn initially
testified that it was only posted internally, stating, “We posted it
back internally. We did not post it externally because we had
such a bad response initially. So we posted it internally.” (Tr.
432.) The following 20 external candidates applied between
June 29 and July 11:
Erica Lee Heath, June 29
Elayne Ballard, June 29
Alexandria Zurbano, June 29
Tara Ewert, June 29
Mary Marquart, June 29
David Plummer, June 29
Amanda Sheetz, June 29
Rachel Smith, June 30
Lorraine Stevens, June 30
Nick Richie, June 29, 2017
Sean Whitehouse, July 3
Joe Johnson, July 3
Anthony Parisi, July 5
Marquelle Gaddy, July 9
Dennis Martin, July 8
Jessica Gillespie, July 8
David Schulz, July 10
Keith Piper, July 11
Christie O’Farrell, July 11
Daniel Driscoll, July 11
(Tr. 455.)
Ruffcorn decided only to consider internal candidates, so she
interviewed Hobbick and Downs-Haynes. Hobbick’s interview
was on June 30, and Downs-Haynes’ was on July 6. (R Exhs.
20, 22; Tr. 434–437.)
Downs-Haynes had prior experience with stock counting, in-
ventory, packing and unpacking, and using the computer, which
Ruffcorn found to be important for the position. (R. Exh. 22; Tr.
437–438.) She was given 1.5 years of credit for filling-in in the
shipping and receiving department at AIM, even though she had
connection with the 10(j) proceedings. She testified at the hearing that
she offered the job to Taylor on June 6.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
only filled-in once. (CP Exh. 2; Tr. 307.) She was also given a
year of credit for 7 months of work as a warehouse associate, a
year of credit for 6 months of work as a customer care specialist,
and 2 years of credit for a little less than 2 years of work in cus-
tomer service at Loews. (CP Exh. 2; Tr. 472.)
Downs-Haynes was awarded the position on July 11, with a
retroactive pay date to July 3. (CP Exh. 1; Tr. 471.) According
to Ruffcorn, supervisor Aurelio chose Downs-Haynes for the po-
sition because of her experience, and she had proven herself to
the supervisor when she filled-in. (Tr. 439.)
The transfer to the receiving clerk position resulted in a wage
increase of 40 cents per hour for Downs-Haynes. According to
Ruffcorn, the pay bump was based on Downs-Haynes’ experi-
ence. (Tr. 441.) Supervisor Aurelio told Downs-Haynes the pay
bump was because the job required more responsibility. (CP
Exh. 1.)
III. DECISION AND ANALYSIS
A. Credibility
Some of the disputes at issue can be resolved only by as-
sessing witness credibility. A credibility determination may rest
on various factors, including “the context of the witness’ testi-
mony, the witness’ demeanor, the weight of the respective evi-
dence, established or admitted facts, inherent probabilities and
reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the record as a
whole.” Hills & Dales General Hospital, 360 NLRB 611, 617
(2014), citing Double D Construction Group, Inc., 339 NLRB
303, 305 (2003); Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB 622, 623 (2001). In
making credibility resolutions, it is well established that the trier
of fact may believe some, but not all, of a witness’ testimony.
NLRB v. Universal Camera Corp., 179 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1950).
Testimony from current employees tends to be particularly re-
liable because it goes against their pecuniary interests. Gold
Standard Enterprises, Inc., 234 NLRB 618, 619 (1978); Georgia
Rug Mill, 131 NLRB 1304, 1304 fn. 2 (1961); Gateway Trans-
portation Co., 193 NLRB 47, 48 (1971); Federal Stainless Sink
Div. of Unarco, 197 NLRB 489, 491 (1972).
It is impossible to reconcile all of the different recollections
of the witnesses for both sides. In evaluating the various differ-
ent versions of events, I have fully reviewed the entire record and
carefully observed the demeanor of all the witnesses. I have con-
sidered the apparent interests of the witnesses; the inherent prob-
abilities in light of other events; corroboration or the lack of it;
consistencies or inconsistencies within the testimony of each
witness and between witnesses with similar apparent interests.
See, e.g. NLRB v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404, 408 (1962).
Testimony in contradiction to my factual findings has been care-
fully considered but discredited. Where there is inconsistent ev-
idence on a relevant point, my credibility findings are incorpo-
rated into my legal analysis below.

21 The General Counsel argues that the Respondent refused to apply
its written and previously-enforced no-solicitation policy. There is no
complaint allegation that the Respondent violated such policy. What is
material here is whether the Respondent permitted Downs-Haynes
greater access to employees, whether by granting her preferential treat-
ment in permitting her to solicit employees, or otherwise.
B. Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations
Complaint paragraphs 6–10 and 14 allege that the Respondent
has been interfering with, restraining and coercing employees in
the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act, in violation
of Section 8(a)(1).
Under Section 8(a)(1), it is an unfair labor practice for an em-
ployer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The rights
guaranteed in Section 7 include the right “to form, join or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted ac-
tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection . . .”
The basic test for a violation of Section 8(a)(1) is whether un-
der all the circumstances the employer’s conduct reasonably
tended to restrain, coerce, or interfere with employees’ Section 7
rights. Mediplex of Danbury, 314 NLRB 470, 472, (1994);
Sunnyside Home Care Project, 308 NLRB 346, 346 fn. 1 (1992),
citing American Freightways Co., 124 NLRB 146, 147(1959).
1. Greater access
Complaint paragraph 6 alleges the Respondent gave its em-
ployees gathering signatures greater access to employees in the
shop at the facility. For the reasons discussed below, I find the
General Counsel has not met his burden to prove this allegation.
To support this allegation, the General Counsel asserts that
Downs-Haynes was transferred from autoclave to layup area 1
to assist her with gathering signatures for the petition. This ar-
gument fails, as the transfer occurred before Downs-Haynes be-
gan collecting signatures. In addition, given that Downs-Haynes
was permitted to gather signatures before and after work and dur-
ing breaks, she already had access to employees outside her work
area. The evidence further shows that she sought assistance from
other employees in gathering signatures.
The General Counsel also provided employee accounts, set
forth above, regarding Downs-Haynes approaching them and ei-
ther talking about decertification or circulating the petition,
sometimes while the employees were working.21 The employee
accounts demonstrate that Downs-Haynes did at times discuss
the decertification petition with employees who were working,
and on a couple of occasions she attempted to collect signatures.
Many times, there was no supervisor present, nor was there evi-
dence a supervisor was notified about the incident. The prepon-
derant evidence shows that when such occurrences were reported
to management, Downs-Haynes was verbally counseled, as were
other employees who engaged in discussions distracting from
work.22
Employee Peterson testified that Shaw told her there was
nothing she could do about Downs-Haynes discussing the decer-
tification petition with employees in the layup area during work
time. Shaw did, however, counsel Downs-Haynes that she could
22 The only exception to verbal counseling the General Counsel pro-
vided was employee Craig Beder’s written warning for not completing
assigned tasks and talking to fellow employees. The warning was issued
in January 2014, by supervisor Cindy Keller-Kuzmer, after multiple in-
cidents. I do not infer from this one attenuated discipline of an employee
in a different job and on a different shift that the Respondent went easy
on Downs-Haynes by verbally counseling her.
AIM AEROSPACE SUMNER, INC. 11
only talk with employees before and after work or during breaks.
Peterson also testified that James said there was nothing he could
do about Downs-Haynes collecting signatures for the decertifi-
cation petition. Her testimony, however, simply does not pro-
vide sufficient context surrounding this purported conversation
for me to determine what, exactly, Peterson reported to James.
Without evidence that James was told Downs-Haynes was col-
lecting signatures from employees while they were working, this
conversation falls short of proving James condoned improper so-
licitation.
The General Counsel also provided evidence from employees
who observed that Downs-Haynes was away from her work area
more often than most employees. I find these employee accounts
are not sufficiently persuasive to show either that Downs-Haynes
was away from her work area more than most employees, or that
the Respondent permitted Downs-Haynes greater access to the
facility than most employees. Pine, who observed that Downs-
Haynes was away from the work area for a few hours two or
three times, testified that other employees were also away from
their work areas for hours. Even Herness was admittedly rou-
tinely sent to another work area to assist. The evidence shows
that on a couple of occasions in June and July, Downs-Haynes
was away from her work area because she had scheduled meet-
ings with HR.23 In addition, she took leave under the FMLA on
June 26 and 27.
Noonan observed that about once per week, Sellers pulled
Downs-Haynes off the workroom floor. Downs-Haynes, how-
ever, was still on Sellers’ payroll, so to assume they were talking
about the decertification is pure speculation. On one occasion,
Sellers instructed Downs-Haynes to return from breaks and
lunches on time after Shaw raised an incident to her attention.
(Tr. 343.)
The General Counsel cites to Ernst Home Centers, Inc., 308
NLRB 848, 849–850 (1992), where the Board held that the em-
ployer violated § 8(a)(1) by granting a decertification petitioner
greater access to employees, including access to employees at
facilities other than where she worked, while restricting access
previously enjoyed by the union representatives. The evidence
here does not show that Downs-Haynes was given greater per-
mission to move about the facility than union representatives.
In sum, I find there is insufficient evidence for the General
Counsel to prove that Downs-Haynes was permitted greater ac-
cess to the facility in order to collect signatures for the decertifi-
cation petition. Accordingly, I recommend dismissal of com-
plaint paragraph 6.
2. July 25 comments and gestures
Complaint paragraphs 7(a), 8, and 9 concern alleged conduct
that occurred while employees were exiting the July 25, 2017
meeting where the Respondent announced it was withdrawing
recognition of the Union. Paragraph 7(a) alleges Ruffcorn gave
Downs-Haynes a pat on the back after she remarked excitedly on

23 Employees were free to make appointments with HR, as long as
they received permission from their supervisors if the appointment was
during work time.
24 The Respondent argues that after-the-fact indication that a manager
supported Downs-Haynes’ does not rise to the level of an unfair labor
practice and is protected by Sec. 8(c). (R. Br. 42.) Because I find the
the successful campaign to decertify/obtain withdrawal of recog-
nition of the Union; Paragraph 8 alleges that Sellers remarked
excitedly on the successful campaign to decertify/obtain with-
drawal of recognition of the Union; and paragraph 9 alleges that
Booth gave Downs-Haynes a “thumbs up” sign after she re-
marked excitedly on the successful campaign to decertify/obtain
withdrawal of recognition of the Union.
The evidence regarding these related allegations comes from
employee and union steward Mercado. Notably, his testimony is
inconsistent regarding a key aspect of the interaction he re-
counted. He initially testified that after Downs-Haynes re-
marked, “We did it,” Booth, Ruffcorn, and Sellers all gave
Downs-Haynes the thumbs-up sign. (Tr. 133–135.) In his affi-
davit, Mercado stated that only Sellers gave two thumbs up back
to Downs-Haynes, and Ruffcorn patted her on the back. (Tr.
152.) He never testified that only Booth gave Downs-Haynes
the thumbs up sign, or that Sellers made an excited remark. In
light of Mercado’s shaky recollection of the incident, the lack of
any corroborating evidence despite the fact that the alleged con-
duct occurred as employees were exiting an all-hands meeting,
and the denials by Ruffcorn, Sellers, and Downs-Haynes that the
incident occurred as alleged, I find the General Counsel has not
met his burden of proof.24 I therefore recommend dismissal of
complaint paragraphs 7(a), 8, and 9.
3. July 27 comment
Complaint paragraph 7(b) alleges that on or about July 27,
2017, Ruffcorn told Downs-Haynes that she “had her back” in
reference to the decertification/withdrawal of recognition of the
Union.
The evidence regarding this incident comes from Westover’s
testimony that at an all-hands meeting a couple weeks after the
Respondent announced its withdrawal of recognition, Ruffcorn
told Downs-Haynes she “had her back” and everything would be
okay. Ruffcorn denied making such a statement to Downs-
Haynes. I credit Westover that she overheard the comment as
alleged, based on her forthcoming demeanor, and the fact that as
a current employee testifying against her pecuniary interests, her
testimony is considered particularly reliable.
Westover admittedly did not know the context of this com-
ment. She did not hear any other part of their conversation and
had no knowledge of what Ruffcorn and Downs-Haynes were
discussing. By this point, Downs-Haynes’ efforts regarding de-
certification had ceased, and the Respondent had already with-
drawn recognition of the Union a couple of weeks prior. Under
these circumstances, I do not find this comment violates Section
8(a)(1). I therefore recommend dismissal of complaint para-
graph 7(b).25
4. Comments about the Union and wages
Complaint paragraph 10 alleges that the following individuals
told employees the Union was to blame for employees not
General Counsel did not prove the incident occurred as alleged, I do not
reach this argument.
25 As with the July 25 allegations, I need not address the Respondent’s
arguments that this comment made after the withdrawal of recognition is
protected by Sec. 8(c).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
receiving wage increases:
 Bill Keilman in February or March 2017
 Rob Anderson in February or March 2017, and June 2017
 Deborah Ruffcorn on June 22, 201726
a. Keilman
The conversation between Keilman, then the general manager,
and Mercado, an employee and union steward, about a wage in-
crease in the spring of 2017 is detailed above, and is unrefuted.
The only question is whether Keilman’s statement that he could
not pay employees more because the CBA set the wage scale was
coercive. Under the circumstances, I find that it was not.
The context of this conversation came on the heels of wage
increases in Auburn and Renton in February 2017, following
AIM’s purchase by Liberty Hall in 2016. The supervisors and
managers knew that there were across-the-board wage increases
at AIM’s other facilities that were not possible at the Sumner
facility without a change to the CBA. Keilman’s comment that
the CBA pay scales govern employee wages is generally true.
Though Mercado was seeking additional compensation for his
individual efforts, I do not find Keilman’s statements about the
pay scales in the union contract to be coercive.
The General Counsel relies on First Student, Inc., 359 NLRB
208 (2012), a case involving contract negotiations between the
union and the employer, a school bus service provider. In that
case, a supervisor told every driver that there would be no pay
increases until the contract negotiations were done. The Board
affirmed the administrative law judge’s determination that such
a statement, in the context of contract negotiations, was unlawful
as a threat to change the status quo. In the instant case, the con-
tract was in place. The reasoning in First Student is therefore
inapplicable. For the same reason, the General Counsel’s reli-
ance on Laidlaw Waste Systems, 307 NLRB 52, 54 (1992), is
misplaced.
The General Counsel also cites to Parkview Furniture Mfg.
Co., 284 NLRB 947, 971 (1987). In that case, the employer de-
ducted strike assessments from employees’ paychecks in a lump
sum instead of making weekly deductions as the Union re-
quested. It then blamed the Union for the lump sum deductions,
and said that if the employees no longer wanted the Union, the
employers could do something about it. Here, the Respondent
took no unilateral action against the Union’s wishes with regard
to wage increases, and I therefore find the instant case is mean-
ingfully distinguishable from Parkview Furniture.
Finally, the General Counsel relies on Equipment Trucking
Co., 336 NLRB 277 (2001). In that case, however, the employer
authorized employee agents to circulate a decertification petition
with promises of a specific wage increase and additional benefits
if the union was voted out. Here, there is no allegation that any
employee acted as the Respondent’s agent, and the petition did
not specify a wage increase or other benefits.27
b. Anderson
The conversation between Anderson and Mercado about a

26 Herness testified that this conversation took place in July, not June.
27 While there is evidence that Downs-Haynes may have told some
employees decertification would result in a wage increase, it is clear that
wage increase in the spring of 2017 is detailed above and is un-
refuted. For the same reasons set forth above with respect to
Mercado’s conversation with Keilman, I find the evidence is in-
sufficient to support a violation of Section 8(a)(1).
On an unidentified date in July, Peterson had reworked a part
for Anderson. She said to him, “I guess . . . we will get our raise.”
Anderson responded that he doubted it. This comment is not tied
to the Union or the CBA in any way. I therefore find Anderson
did not tell Peterson the Union was to blame for employees not
receiving wage increases.
c. Ruffcorn
The conversation between Ruffcorn and Herness in or around
July 22 is detailed above and is unrefuted. During this conver-
sation, Herness was not asking for an individual raise for himself
but was instead saying that employees in general were dissatis-
fied because they were not making much money. Ruffcorn’s
comment that she did not think the CBA permitted the Respond-
ent to give wage increases outside the set wage scales, in the con-
text of Herness making a generalized statement about employ-
ees’ dissatisfaction with their wages, cannot be reasonably per-
ceived as coercive.
Based on the foregoing, I recommend dismissal of complaint
paragraph 10.
C. Alleged 8(a)(3) and (1) Violation
Complaint paragraphs 11 and 15 alleged the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by promoting Downs-Haynes and
thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization.
I find preponderant evidence proves Downs-Haynes was of-
fered the receiving clerk position, with its attendant wage in-
crease, as a reward for her circulation of the decertification peti-
tion.
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st
Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), governs mixed-mo-
tive cases where discriminatory intent is alleged. Though gener-
ally implicated in the context of disciplining or terminating an
employee for his union support, Wright Line’s reasoning is ap-
plicable here. See Miramar Hotel Corp., 336 NLRB 1203, 1211
(2001). The General Counsel’s threshold burden is to establish
by a preponderance of the credible evidence that Downs-
Haynes’ antiunion views and/or activities were motivating fac-
tors in the Respondent’s decision to promote her. The elements
commonly required to support this showing employer
knowledge of the employee’s activity and antiunion animus by
the employer. Briar Crest Nursing Home, 333 NLRB 935, 936
(2001). If this is accomplished, the burden shifts to the employer
“to demonstrate that the same action would have taken place
even in the absence of the protected conduct.” Id. The employer
cannot carry this burden merely by showing that it also had a
legitimate reason for the action, but must persuade, by a prepon-
derance of the evidence, that the action would have taken place
absent the protected activity. Dentech Corp., 294 NLRB 924,
956 (1989).
I find the General Counsel has met the initial Wright Line
supervisor and managers consistently told employees the Respondent
was not making any promises regarding wages.
AIM AEROSPACE SUMNER, INC. 13
burden. As noted above, the Respondent was well aware of
Downs-Haynes’ decertification activities, and her promotion oc-
curred while these activities were in full swing.
Unlawful employer motivation may be established by circum-
stantial evidence, including among other things: (1) the timing
of the employer’s action in relationship to the employee’s pro-
tected activity; (2) the presence of other unfair labor practices,
(3) statements and actions showing the employer’s general and
specific animus; (4) the disparate treatment of the discrimi-
natees; (5) departure from past practice; and (6) evidence that an
employer’s proffered explanation for the adverse action is a pre-
text. See Golden Day Schools v. NLRB, 644 F.2d 834, 838 (9th
Cir. 1981); NLRB v. Rain-Ware, Inc., 732 F.2d 1349, 1354 (7th
Cir. 1984) (timing); Mid-Mountain Foods, Inc., 332 NLRB 251,
260 (2000), enfd. mem. 169 LRRM 2448 (4th Cir. 2001); Rich-
ardson Bros. South, 312 NLRB 534 (1993) (other unfair labor
practices); NLRB v. Vemco, Inc., 989 F.2d 1468, 1473–1474 (6th
Cir. 1993); Affiliated Foods, Inc., 328 NLRB 1107 (1999) (state-
ments); Naomi Knitting Plant, 328 NLRB 1279, 1283 (1999)
(disparate treatment); JAMCO, 294 NLRB 896, 905 (1989), affd.
mem. 927 F.2d 614 (11th Cir. 1991), cert. denied 502 U.S. 814
(1991) (departure from past practice); Wright Line, 251 NLRB
at 1089; Roadway Express, 327 NLRB 25, 26 (1998) (disparate
treatment).
The timing of events is highly suspicious. Downs-Haynes met
with Ruffcorn and Pratt on July 5, asking extensive questions
regarding the decertification petition process. During that meet-
ing, Ruffcorn provided her with the National Right to Work web-
site. The very next day, Ruffcorn interviewed Downs-Haynes.
When Downs-Haynes originally applied for the receiving
clerk position in early June, she was not even interviewed, nor
was the other internal candidate, Laura Hobbick. I do not credit
Ruffcorn’s explanation that Downs-Haynes’ application was not
brought to her attention until June 6, after she had already offered
the position to Ervin Taylor. Downs-Hayne’s electronic applica-
tion was completed on June 4. The Respondent had therefore
received her application by the time Taylor was offered the po-
sition, even crediting Ruffcorn’s testimony that she made a ver-
bal offer to him on June 6. The more plausible explanation for
the Respondent’s failure to consider Downs-Haynes for the po-
sition is that she had less experience than Taylor, and as of early
June, Downs-Haynes had not yet openly begun her activities in
support of decertification.
By the time Taylor abandoned the job, and it was reposted on
June 29, Downs-Haynes was actively circulating the decertifica-
tion petition, a fact known to management. The circumstances
surrounding the re-posting do not add up if the goal was to secure
the most qualified candidate, and only make sense if the Re-
spondent was acting out of motivation to hire Downs-Haynes.
First, Ruffcorn initially testified that the position was not posted
internally, stating, “We posted it back internally. We did not post
it externally because we had such a bad response initially. So we
posted it internally.” Neither statement holds up, as the initial
posting resulted in 24 external applicants and the re-posting

28 These applications are in the record at GC Exhs. 15–16. Plummer’s
job at the time of the application, which he had held since 2011, involved
shipping and receiving aircraft parts for Horizon Air.
resulted in 20 external applicants.
Next, Ruffcorn chose to only consider internal candidates
even though neither was considered qualified enough to secure
an interview following the initial posting. The stated rationale
for this was the fact that Taylor had abandoned his job. Some-
how, one bad apple rendered the entire pool of external appli-
cants unworthy of consideration. This raises a red flag, particu-
larly in light of the Respondent’s practice of giving internal and
external candidates equal consideration. This justification is par-
ticularly suspect considering some external candidates had sig-
nificantly more experience than Downs-Haynes. As the General
Counsel correctly points out, applicants Ballard and Plummer
each had years of recent receiving, inventory control, and ware-
house experience.28 As noted by the Charging Party, Downs-
Haynes’ experience was greatly inflated, and her single instance
of working in the shipping and receiving department was relied
upon to credit her with 1.5 years of experience and serve as a
primary justification for awarding her the position.
Finally, the Respondent offered conflicting reasons for giving
Downs-Haynes a pay raise. Ruffcorn testified the pay raise was
based on her prior experience. Supervisor Aurelio told Downs-
Haynes the pay raise was based on the greater responsibilities of
the receiving clerk position.
There are simply too many irregularities surrounding the re-
posting and hiring for the receiving clerk position, especially
considering the timing of events, for me to conclude that it was
conducted based on legitimate motives. The preponderant evi-
dence shows the consideration only of two internal candidates
following the internal and external re-posting was a pretext to
award the position to Downs-Haynes. Accordingly, I find the
General Counsel has met his burden to prove complaint allega-
tions 11 and 15.
D. Alleged 8(a)(5) and (1) Violations
1. Withdrawal of recognition
Complaint paragraphs 12 and 16 allege the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when, on July 24, 2017,
the Respondent withdrew its recognition of the Union as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of the Unit, and has since re-
fused to bargain with the Union.
Following its first year of certification, a union enjoys a rebut-
table presumption of majority status. One way an employer may
rebut this presumption is to show that on the date it withdrew
recognition, the union did not in fact enjoy majority support.
Guerdon Industries, 218 NLRB 658, 659 (1975). An employer,
however, may not withdraw recognition and avoid its duty to
bargain by relying on loss of majority status attributable to its
own unfair labor practices. Pittsburgh & New England Trucking,
249 NLRB 833, 836 (1980).
To determine whether a loss of support was caused by an em-
ployer’s unfair labor practices, the Board considers:
(1) The length of time between the unfair labor practices and
the withdrawal of recognition; (2) the nature of the viola-
tions, including the possibility of a detrimental or lasting
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
effect on employees; (3) any possible tendency to cause
employee disaffection from the union; and (4) the effect
of the unlawful conduct on employee morale, organiza-
tional activities, and membership in the union.
Master Slack Corp., 271 NLRB 78 (1984); see also In Re Miller
Waste Mills, Inc., 334 NLRB 466, 468 (2001), enfd. 315 F.3d
951 (8th Cir. 2003). This is an objective standard. Saint Gobain
Abrasives, Inc., 342 NLRB 434, 434 fn. 2 (2004).
“Not every unfair labor practice will taint evidence of a un-
ion’s subsequent loss of majority support; in cases involving un-
fair labor practices other than a general refusal to recognize and
bargain, there must be specific proof of a causal relationship be-
tween the unfair labor practice and the ensuing events indicating
a loss of support.” Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp., 322
NLRB 175, 177 (1996) (footnote omitted). The record does not
contain specific proof of a causal relationship between Downs-
Haynes’ promotion and the loss of support among employees for
the Union. I will nonetheless consider the Master Slack factors
in the event a reviewing authority disagrees with me.
As set forth above, the only alleged unfair labor practice I find
the General Counsel proved was the promotion of Downs-
Haynes on July 11, 2017. Downs-Haynes was promoted as she
was actively gathering signatures in support of the decertifica-
tion petition, and less than two weeks before AIM withdrew
recognition of the Union. The first Master Slack factor therefore
weighs in the General Counsel’s favor.
Turning to the nature of the violation, including the possibility
of a detrimental or lasting effect on employees, I find this factor
weighs in the Respondent’s favor. Downs-Haynes’ promotion
was not akin a general refusal to recognize and bargain with the
Union. It was a single personnel action, the details of which
would be unknown to most employees.
With regard to the third factor, I find the selection of Downs-
Haynes for the receiving clerk position was not likely to cause
employee disaffection from the Union. While I find it was un-
lawfully motivated, it is difficult to see how this one personnel
action would cause employees disaffection from the Union, par-
ticularly considering only two internal employees applied for the
position. The other employees are not privy to the quantity or
quality of other applicants, so they would have no basis for as-
sessing whether or not Downs-Haynes was legitimately selected.
For similar reasons, I find the fourth factor, the effect of the
unlawful conduct on employee morale, organizational activities,
and membership in the union, weighs in the Respondent’s favor.
While employees were likely generally aware that Downs-
Haynes received the position, the only other internal employee
who applied also signed the decertification petition. Accord-
ingly, considering the Master Slack factors, I find the General
Counsel has not established that the Respondent’s unfair labor
practices tainted the decertification petition.
The Union contends that the Respondent’s acts of providing
Downs-Haynes and/or Cole with: (1) the information regarding
the time period to submit a petition; (2) information about the
number of employees in the Unit; and (3) the National Right to
Work website, tainted the petition.
An employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by “actively
soliciting, encouraging, promoting, or providing assistance in the
initiation, signing, or filing of an employee petition seeking to
decertify the bargaining representative.” Wire Products Mfg.
Co., 326 NLRB 625, 640 (1998), enfd. sub nom. mem. NLRB v
R.T. Blankenship & Associates, Inc., 210 F.3d 375 (7th Cir.
2000). The appropriate inquiry is “whether the Respondent's
conduct constitutes more than ministerial aid.” Times Herald,
253 NLRB 524 (1980). The Board considers the circumstances
to determine whether “the preparation, circulation, and signing
of the petition constituted the free and uncoerced act of the em-
ployees concerned.” Eastern States Optical Co., 275 NLRB 371,
372 (1985) (citing KONO-TV-Mission Telecasting, 163 NLRB
1005, 1006 (1967)); see also Hall Industries, 293 NLRB 785,
791 (1989), enfd. mem. 914 F.2d 244 (3d Cir. 1990).
With regard to Pratt informing Downs Haynes about the tim-
ing of when the Union could be decertified, the Board has held
that an employer does not violate the Act by providing accurate
information about the decertification process in response to em-
ployee questions without threats or promises. See Amer-Cal In-
dus., 274 NLRB 1046, 1051 (1985) and cases cited therein.
Referring Downs-Haynes to the National Right to Work web-
site and providing her with the number of employees in the Unit
in response to Downs-Haynes’ questions regarding how many
signatures she needed to decertify the Union likewise constitutes
ministerial aid, not unlawful assistance. See Eastern States Op-
tical Co., supra (Employer provided only ministerial aid when
its attorney provided employee with the unit description, the
number of signatures sufficient for a decertification petition, and
assistance with its wording); Ernst Home Centers, supra (Em-
ployer provided only ministerial aid to employees’ decertifica-
tion efforts when it provided decertification language in response
to an employee’s request for some “verbiage” for a decertifica-
tion petition n)
In sum, I find the preparation, circulation, and signing of the
petition constituted the free and uncoerced act of the employees
concerned. Based on the foregoing, I find the Respondent’s
withdrawal of recognition of the Union was lawful, and I there-
fore recommend dismissal of complaint paragraph 12.
2. The wage increase
Complaint paragraph 13 alleges that the Respondent granted
a wage in increase to employees without first providing notice
and an opportunity to bargain. Because I find the withdrawal of
recognition was lawful, I find there was no duty to provide notice
or an opportunity to bargain prior to granting the wage increase.
I therefore recommend dismissal of complaint paragraph 13.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By promoting employee Lori-Ann Downs-Haynes, the Re-
spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
The Respondent did not otherwise engage in any other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint.
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
AIM AEROSPACE SUMNER, INC. 15
policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent rewarded employee Lori-
Ann Downs-Haynes for her decertification by granting her a new
position with higher pay, I shall order the Respondent to cease
and desist from promoting employees who encourage decertifi-
cation.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended29
ORDER
The Respondent, AIM Aerospace, Sumner, Washington, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Granting employee Lori-Ann Downs-Haynes or any other
employee a new position with higher pay to reward or encourage
their initiating or supporting a movement to decertify the Inter-
national Association of Machinists, District 751, or any other la-
bor organization
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act:
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Sumner, Washington copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”30 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspic-
uous places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper no-
tices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by
email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other elec-
tronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with
its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during
the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out
of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings,
the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former employ-
ees employed by the Respondent at any time since July 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 the
Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar
as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 16, 2018
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE

29 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Or-
der shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
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 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 do anything to prevent you from exercising
these rights.
WE WILL NOT grant any employee a new position with higher
pay to reward or encourage their initiating or supporting a move-
ment to decertify the International Association of Machinists,
District 751, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you
by Section 7 of the Act.
AIM AEROSPACE SUMNER, INC.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-203455 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.
30 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.”