BENTLEY UNIVERSITY

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 2014

361 N.L.R.B. 1038 (N.L.R.B. 2014)

1038 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bentley University and Bentley University Public
Safety Association. Case 01–CA–111570
December 10, 2014
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS HIROZAWA, JOHNSON, AND SCHIFFER
On March 25, 2014, Administrative Law Judge Joel P.
Biblowitz issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order as modified.1
We adopt the judge’s finding that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by denying employee
Maria Canino union representation at an investigatory
meeting where the Respondent prohibited her representa-
tive from speaking.2 In affirming the judge’s decision,
we agree, for the reasons set forth therein, that Canino
would have reasonably believed that the meeting could
result in discipline. We also agree that the meeting was
investigatory for the purposes of the Weingarten analy-
sis.
On June 28, 2013,3 campus security guard Canino had
a confrontation with her shift supervisor, Sergeant Car-
melo Echevarria, about Canino’s work assignment. Af-
terward, Echevarria complained to his superior officers,
Lieutenants Williams and Flint, about his exchange with
Canino, asserting, among other things, that Canino had
been insubordinate. On July 10, Canino was called to the
station to speak to Lieutenant Williams, who asked her
about the “fight” that she had had with Echevarria. After
Canino told Williams that she thought it was a misunder-
standing, Williams requested that she tell Echevarria that
she and Williams had discussed the matter.
Thereafter, Canino and Echevarria exchanged emails
on July 11 and 14, but rather than settling the matter,
these exchanges reignited their disagreement. Echevar-
ria’s email to Canino suggested, in part, that she needed
1 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to provide for the
posting of the notice in accordance with J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB
606 (2010), enfd. 656 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 2011), and we shall substitute
a new notice in accordance with Durham School Services, 360 NLRB
694 (2014).
2 Under Sec.7 of the Act, a union-represented employee has the right
to the presence and active assistance of a union representative at an
investigatory interview that the employee reasonably believes may
result in discipline. NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1971).
3 All dates are in 2013.
to “understand how to address [her] supervisor” and that
he was glad that they had “addressed the issue.” In re-
sponse, Canino disputed Echevarria’s statement about
her “understanding on how to address a supervisor” and
expressed confusion over the “addressed the issue”
comment, asking, “What issue are you referring to?” At
that point, in an email copied to Flint and Williams,
Echevarria wrote to Canino that “there are obvious issues
that need to be addressed,” and that they would need to
have a meeting with both lieutenants. Having never pre-
viously been called before both lieutenants, and knowing
that Echevarria was upset with her, Canino would have
reasonably believed that Echevarria sought to make a
case against her.
The meeting took place on August 15 and included
Canino, Echevarria, Williams, Flint, and employee and
Union President Kevin McDonnell, who was present as
Canino’s Weingarten representative. Echevarria and
Canino spent most of the meeting giving the lieutenants
their respective versions of their confrontation. This was
the first time that Canino told the lieutenants her side of
the story; in her first discussion with Williams about the
confrontation, as described above, she stated that it had
been a misunderstanding and did not go into any detail
about the incident. Echevarria complained about Cani-
no’s attitude, and asserted that Canino had yelled at him
and that it was frustrating working with her because she
made decisions that she was not supposed to make.
When McDonnell asked what those decisions were, Wil-
liams told him that he was not allowed to speak, cutting
off McDonnell’s effort to assist Canino by clarifying
facts underlying the accusation against her. After hear-
ing the accounts from Echevarria and Canino, Williams
admonished Canino, telling her that if a superior tells her
to do something, “you need to do it.” Canino was not
disciplined as a result of the meeting.
The Board has consistently found that an interview is
investigatory for Weingarten purposes where, as here, an
employee is summoned in front of management to ex-
plain his or her version of a disputed event. 4 In addition,
4 See Titanium Metals Corp., 340 NLRB 766, 774 (2003) (a meeting
to administer predetermined discipline became an investigatory inter-
view when the employer interrogated and searched the employee to
obtain evidence in support of its disciplinary decision), rev. granted in
part on other grounds 392 F.3d 439 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Storer Communi-
cations, 292 NLRB 894, 897 (1989) (finding meeting investigatory
where its purpose “was to give the employees an opportunity to tell
their side of the story”); Price Pfister, a Division of Norris Industries,
256 NLRB 87, 89 (1981) (a meeting to mete out predetermined disci-
pline was transformed into an investigatory interview when the em-
ployer’s broad opening comment—“I understand you had some trouble
in the department this morning”—elicited an admission of wrongdo-
ing); Texaco, Inc., 251 NLRB 633, 634 fn. 8, 636 (1980) (although
employee was initially summoned to receive discipline, a meeting
361 NLRB No. 125

BENTLEY UNIVERSITY 1039
Echevarria made clear that he scheduled the meeting
because he was not satisfied with Canino’s refusal to
accept that there was a problem with her conduct. In
these circumstances, we agree with the judge that Canino
reasonably believed that discipline might result from the
meeting.5 As the judge found, because Canino would
have reasonably feared discipline, she had a right to the
active assistance of her union representative.6 By deny-
ing her that assistance, the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Bentley
University, Waltham, Massachusetts, 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 Waltham, Massachusetts facility copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
1, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous plac-
es, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of
paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent
customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. If the Respondent has
became an investigatory interview when the employer asked the em-
ployee for his side of the story and obtained an admission), enfd. 659
F.2d 124 (9th Cir. 1981); Potter Electric Signal Co., 237 NLRB 1289,
1290–1291 (1978) (obtaining employees’ stories regarding their physi-
cal altercation was investigatory), enfd. in relevant part 600 F.2d 120
(8th Cir. 1979).
5 Although, in the circumstances of this case, Echevarria’s schedul-
ing of the followup meeting with Canino and upper management to
address “obvious issues” contributed to the reasonableness of Canino’s
fear of discipline, a one-on-one followup meeting between an employee
and her supervisor (without upper management) could also support
such a belief.
6 Member Johnson notes that, because Canino’s belief that the meet-
ing could have resulted in discipline was reasonable at the time that the
Respondent prevented McDonnell from speaking, it was the Respond-
ent’s burden to explain that it was not allowing McDonnell to speak
because there was no threat of discipline to Canino resulting from the
meeting. Because the Respondent failed to explain this, it does not
matter that by the end of the meeting it may no longer have been rea-
sonable for Canino to have expected that discipline might result.
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 cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since August 15, 2013.”
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.
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 deny to any of our bargaining-unit em-
ployees the right to be represented on request by Bentley
University Public Safety Association at any investigatory
interview that the employee reasonably believes might
result in disciplinary action.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
BENTLEY UNIVERSITY

The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/01–CA–111570 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor
Relations Board, 1099 14th St. N.W., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1040

Karen Hickey, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Arthur Telegen, Esq. and Jean Wilson, Esq. (Seyfarth Shaw
LLP), for the Respondent.
Thomas Horgan, Esq. (Law Offices of Michael Hanely, LLC),
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOEL P. BIBLOWITZ, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was heard by me on February 19, 2014, in Boston, Massachu-
setts. The complaint, which issued on November 29, 2013,1 and
was based upon an unfair labor practice charge that was filed
on August 20 by Bentley University Public Safety Association
(the Union), alleges that Bentley University (the Respondent),
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by conducting an investiga-
tory interview with employee Maria Canino after she requested
to have a representative of the Union present with her, and
continued the interview while requiring the union representa-
tive to be silent during the interview, although Canino had a
reasonable cause to believe that the interview could result in
disciplinary action being taken against her.
I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
The Respondent admits, and I find that it has been engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act and that the Union has been a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE FACTS
Canino was employed as a police officer by the Respond-
ent’s public safety department from January 2010 to November.
The Union began representing the police officers in about June,
at which time she became a member of the Union. She worked
from 3 to 11 p.m., 4 days on and 2 days off. At the time, there
were 18 patrolmen reporting to 9 sergeants, who reported to the
2 lieutenants, William Williams and Panashe Flint. In addition
to their regular assignments of patrolling the campus, the Re-
spondent’s officers are occasionally assigned to details, which
usually involved construction or party events on the Respond-
ent’s campus, where it was determined that there might be safe-
ty issues. Canino was assigned to such a detail from 7 a.m. to 3
p.m. on June 28, where some construction was scheduled at the
entrance to the campus. She attended roll call that day and then
went to the detail location. When nobody appeared she returned
to the station and reported to the shift sergeant, Sergeant Eche-
varria that the detail was canceled, but that she had some online
training to perform, as well as another case that she could com-
plete; he did not respond. At about 10:30 that morning Echevar-
ria called her back to the station and when she returned he
asked her if she thought that she was just going to remain at
work all day and work, and she said that after her detail was
canceled she did her online work and followed up on one of her
cases. He replied that she couldn’t stay if her detail had been
canceled: “You just can’t do whatever you want.” She was
1 Unless indicated otherwise, all dates referred to here relate to the
year 2013.
surprised because in the past, when details were canceled, she
was permitted to remain at work, and she told him that she
would take a vacation day, but he said that he would not allow
her to take a vacation day. She said that she was being treated
unfairly because in the past she had been permitted to remain at
work when her detail was canceled, and he responded that he
treats everybody fairly. At that point, she went home and re-
turned to work at 3 a.m. for her regular shift. She testified that
during this meeting with Echevarria she may have raised her
voice and may have used vulgarities.
The next time that she heard of the incident was on July 10,
when she was called to the station to speak to Lieutenant Wil-
liams, Echevarria’s supervisor, and he asked her what happened
with the “fight” that she had with Echevarria. He said that he
had spoken to Echevarria about the argument that they had and
Echevarria was upset and frustrated about it. He also said that it
sounded like she was on the defense because he was yelling and
she was attempting to defend herself. She responded that she
thought that it was just a misunderstanding between them and
he told her that Echevarria was working the following day and
that she should tell him that they spoke about it, and she said
that she would do so. On the following morning, she saw Eche-
varria, told him that she had spoken with Williams and said,
“I’m okay with everything, are we okay?” and he responded,
“Yeah, we’re fine, it was just frustrating,” and she returned to
work. Later that day Echevarria sent her an email stating:

I thank you for meeting with Lieutenant Williams and myself
regarding the conversation that you and I had last week,
where I became concerned at the way you were answering my
questions and therefore, I wanted to follow up on this to make
sure that, not only we are understanding each other, but that
you also understand how to address your supervisor. I am sat-
isfied now that we have addressed the issue and I want to re-
mind you not to hesitate to approach me with any issues,
question, concerns that you may have. Thank you, Maria.

Canino testified that she did not agree with the statement in his
email that now she knows how to address her supervisor and
was fearful that it might be used against her in a future situa-
tion, so she sent Echevarria an email on July 14 in response:

I am confused and surprised at your statement about my un-
derstanding on how to address a supervisor. Not once in my
meeting with Lt. Williams or you was that subject ever dis-
cussed. My understanding was that the meeting was to clarify
consistency with the way supervisors handled situations of
canceled details and whether an officer will be paid or not for
the full detail time period. I apologize for your concern with
my answers to your questions, but I felt I was only reacting to
the way you were speaking and questioning me. When I met
with Lt. Williams, I never brought up your comments to me
because I was under the impression that after 13 days had
passed since the date in question, that this was no longer an is-
sue between you and I. I think there is some confusion that we
have addressed the issue. What issue are you referring to?

Later that day, Echevarria responded: “Ok, we need to meet
again. You me and the lieutenants. I’ll be more clear next time,
because there are obvious issues that need to be addressed and I

BENTLEY UNIVERSITY 1041
want to do this in person.” Flint and Williams were ccd on this
email. On August 5, Echevarria again wrote to Canino stating
that because of vacations and weekends, it was difficult to ar-
range a meeting, but that he, Flint and Canino would all be
working on August 15, “so let’s meet and put any and all issues
on the table then.” On the following day, Canino sent an email
to Echevarria, Williams, Flint, and Kevin McDonnell, a pa-
trolman employed by the Respondent, and the president of the
Union, stating that she would be able to attend the meeting and
had “. . . reached out to my union representatives and Officer
McDonnell has agreed to attend as well.” She testified that she
asked McDonnell to attend the meeting with her because she
had never previously attended a meeting by herself with two
lieutenants and a sergeant and, based upon Echevarria’s email,
she was fearful that discipline would result from the meeting.
The meeting took place on August 15 at a table in the rollcall
room, an open area where other officers walk through on a
regular basis. Lt. Williams began the meeting by asking Eche-
varria to speak first, and he spoke of what occurred on June 28
and said that Canino yelled at him on that day, and that it was
frustrating working with her because she made decisions that
she was not supposed to make. At that point, Officer McDon-
nell asked: “What decisions is she making that she’s not sup-
posed to make?” and Williams cut him off and informed him
that he wasn’t allowed to speak. McDonnell said that he was
allowed to participate and offered to show him the case law
which he had with him, but Williams refused to accept it.
McDonnell then said, “Are you ordering me not to speak?” and
Williams said that he was. After that, Canino gave her side of
the story and Evchevarria did the same. After about 30 minutes,
Canino said that they should “agree to disagree. Nothing’s be-
ing accomplished.” Williams then told her that if a superior
tells her to do something, “you need to do it.” Canino then
asked if she could defend herself if she felt that she was being
disrespected and he said that she could. McDonnell then asked
if the meeting was over and was again told that he wasn’t al-
lowed to speak, and the meeting ended. She testified that as
best as she can recollect, none of the participants took notes at
the meeting. Canino also testified that at no time prior to, or
during the meeting was she told that there was no chance that
she would be disciplined as a result of the meeting.
McDonnell testified that Canino called him in early August
and asked him to attend the August 15 meeting with her. She
told him about the June 28 incident and sent him a copy of the
above emails, and told him that she did not agree with what he
said and thought that the issue had previously been resolved. At
the meeting, Williams asked Canino and Echevarria to speak
and Echevarria spoke of the June 28 incident and he said that
he felt that Canino was making decisions that only sergeants
should make. When he said that, McDonnell asked for clarifica-
tion and Williams told him, “Kevin, you’re not here to speak,
you’re only a witness.” He asked Williams if he was ordering
him not to actively participate in the meeting, and Williams
said that he was. McDonnell offered to show him case law to
prove that he could participate, but Williams refused the offer.
The conversation between Echevarria and Canino continued for
about another 15 minutes and Williams asked Echevarria if he
felt that the situation had been resolved, and he said that he did.
At that point, McDonnell asked if that was the end of the dis-
cussions of the incident and was again ordered him not to
speak, that his role was to sit and not actively participate. That
concluded the meeting. During this meeting, Williams had a
notebook and pen, but he is not certain whether he took notes at
the meeting.
Williams testified that on the afternoon of June 28 he re-
ceived a call from Echevarria telling him of the incident that
morning, and Williams told him to send him an email explain-
ing what occurred in detail. The email referred to some issues
of “insubordination” that he was experiencing with Canino, that
she “gave him an attitude” during that discussion and that she
was making decisions on her own that should be made by su-
pervisors. Echevarria also said in the email that it was often
difficult for him to approach her because she always gives an
attitude right off the bat and often talks in an accusatory tone.
Shortly thereafter, Williams saw Canino and asked her to come
into his office to talk. He asked if she knew what he wanted to
discuss, and she said that she had an idea that it involved the
June 28 incident with Echevarria. He asked her to tell him what
happened because Echevarria was upset and frustrated with
their interactions. She said that they were both frustrated and he
suggested that it would be a good idea if she spoke to Echevar-
ria and cleared it up, and she agreed. Shortly thereafter, Wil-
liams saw the emails between Echevarria and Canino and de-
termined: “That there was still confusion. And that there need-
ed to be a clarification because there seemed to be a communi-
cation issue.” August 15 was chosen for the date of the meeting
because that was the first day that all the participants would be
at work at the same time, and the meeting was held in the roll-
call room where they conduct meetings, job interviews and
training. Neither Williams, Flint, nor Echevarria took notes at
this meeting. He did not consider the meeting to be investigato-
ry or a disciplinary meeting and, as far as he understood, no
facts were in dispute; discipline was never even considered. At
some point in the meeting, McDonnell attempted to say some-
thing and he told McDonnell: “Kevin. You’re here as an ob-
server. You’re not here to participate in the meeting.” McDon-
nell said that he had case law to support his participation, and
that he would file an unfair labor practice.
III. ANALYSIS
Obviously, this case is controlled by NLRB v. J. Weingarten,
420 U.S. 251 (1975), where the Court found that Section 7 of
the Act creates a statutory right for an employee to refuse to
participate in an investigatory interview with the employer
without union representation, when he/she reasonably fears that
the meeting may result in disciplinary action being taken
against him/her. Those “reasonable fears” are to be measured
by objective standards considering all the facts of the case.
Weingarten, supra, fn. 5. The issue therefore is whether Canino,
objectively, had a reasonable fear, based upon her conversa-
tions with Echevarria and Williams as well as emails from
Echevarria, that the meeting on August 15 could result in disci-
plinary action.
The incident that created the instant situation occurred on
June 28, when Canino’s detail was canceled. When she at-
tempted to remain on duty performing other work until her
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1042
regular shift began, Echevarria called her back to the station
and asked her whether she thought that she could remain at
work and she told him that her detail was canceled and she was
performing other work. He replied, “You can’t just do whatever
you want.” The next that she heard of the incident was on July
10, when Williams asked her what happened with the “fight”
that she had with Echevarria, and that Echevarria was upset and
frustrated about it. She told him that she thought that it was just
a misunderstanding, and he told her to discuss it with Echevar-
ria on the following day. On the following day, she told Eche-
varria that she was okay with everything and he responded that
he was fine, but “it was just frustrating.” Although that should
settled the matter, Echevarria sent her an email on the following
day stating that he was concerned “at the way you were answer-
ing my questions” and wanted to follow up and to “make sure
that . . . you also understand how to address your supervisor,”
although he concluded the email by saying that he was satisfied
that they had addressed the issue. Canino, however, was not
satisfied with this message and she responded saying that she
was confused and surprised by his statement that she did not
understand how to address a supervisor. Echevarria responded
later that day, with Williams and Flint copied, saying that they
needed to meet again, with the Lieutenants and that he would
be clearer the next time as “there are obvious issues to be ad-
dressed and I want to do this in person.” In his email scheduling
the meeting for August 15 he said that they would put “any and
all issues on the table.”
I find that Canino could reasonably have believed that this
August 15 meeting might result in some form of discipline and
therefore she was entitled to union representation at the meet-
ing. Echevarria questioned whether she knew the proper man-
ner of speaking to her supervisor and after the back and forth of
emails he said that they “need” to meet again, with the lieuten-
ants because of “obvious issues that need to be addressed.” He
scheduled the meeting for August 15, saying that they need to
meet again and that Williams and Flint would also be present at
the meeting. If he wanted to have a meeting simply to address
obvious issues, the appropriate manner of doing so would be
for the two of them to meet again. Adding Williams and Flint to
the meeting gave Canino reasonable cause to believe that it
could result in discipline. Although Williams credibly testified
that the August 15 meeting was just for clarification of the
communication issue, and that discipline was never considered,
that is not dispositive because the issue is whether Canino
could reasonably believe that discipline was a possibility, and I
find that considering all the facts here, she could. As the Board
stated in Consolidated Edison Co., 323 NLRB 910 (1997):

Consequently, it is no answer to this allegation of a
Weingarten violation that the Respondent’s supervisors were
only engaged in fact finding, or that they had no intention of
imposing discipline on Hunter at the time of the interview.
Neither of those conditions is inconsistent with Hunter’s rea-
sonable belief that discipline could result from the interview.

Finally, although McDonnell was present at the August 15
meeting, he was not allowed to speak or participate. The law is
clear that employees are entitled to the advice and active assis-
tance of their representatives, who “cannot be made to sit si-
lently like a mere observer.” Talsol Corp., 317 NLRB 290,
331–332 (1995); Barnard College, 340 NLRB 934 (2003);
Washoe Medical Center, Inc., 348 NLRB 361 (2006). By
denying Canino active representation at the August 15 meeting,
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent has been engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union has been a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By denying Maria Canino union representation at an in-
vestigatory meeting conducted on August 15, at which time she
could reasonably believe that discipline could result from the
meeting, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it shall be ordered 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 recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, Bentley University, Waltham, Massachu-
setts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Denying to any bargaining unit employee the right to be
represented on request by Bentley University Public Safety
Association (the Union) at an investigatory interview that the
employee reasonably believes might result in disciplinary ac-
tion.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
campus in Waltham, Massachusetts, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
3 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.”

BENTLEY UNIVERSITY 1043
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since August 15, 2013.
(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.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this 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 deny to any of our bargaining unit employees
the right to be represented on request by Bentley University
Public Safety Association at any investigatory interview that
the employee reasonably believes might result in disciplinary
action.
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.
BENTLEY UNIVERSITY