Coastal Insulation Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 1, 2009

354 N.L.R.B. 495 (N.L.R.B. 2009)

354 NLRB No. 70
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.
Coastal Insulation Corporation, and Elmsford Insula-
tion Corporation, and Sealrite Insulation of New
York, a single employer and Sergio Santos. Case
22–CA–28439
August 31, 2009
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBER SCHAUMBER
On April 2, 2009, Administrative Law Judge Earl E.
Shamwell issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief and the General
Counsel filed an answering brief.1
The National Labor Relations Board2 has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings,3 and conclusions4 and to adopt the recommended
Order.

1 The Respondent has requested oral argument. The request is de-
nied as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues
and positions of the parties.
2 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act. See Snell Island SNF LLC v. NLRB, 568 F.3d
410 (2d Cir. 2009); New Process Steel v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 840 (7th Cir.
2009), petition for cert. filed 77 U.S.L.W. 3670 (U.S. May 22, 2009)
(No. 08-1457); Northeastern Land Services v. NLRB, 560 F.3d 36 (1st
Cir. 2009), rehearing denied No. 08-1878 (May 20, 2009). But see
Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 469
(D.C. Cir. 2009), petitions for rehearing denied Nos. 08-1162, 08-1214
(July 1, 2009).
3 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
While the judge at fn. 32 of his decision stated that employee Victor
Honoret had a phone conversation with employee Manuel Luna, the
record establishes that the conversation actually was with employee
Rober Luna. Unlike the judge, we find there was no later conversation
with Rober.
4 There are also no exceptions to the judge’s finding that Production
Manager Wilson Torres and Field Supervisor Richard Hebding were
supervisors and/or agents of the Respondent under Sec. 2(11) and (13)
of the Act.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Coastal Insulation Corpora-
tion, and Elmsford Insulation Corporation, and Sealrite
Insulation of New York, a single employer, East Win-
dsor, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 31, 2009
Wilma B. Liebman, Chairman
Peter C. Schaumber, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Saulo Santiago, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Richard P. Flaum (DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin,
Kunzman, Davis & Lehrer, P.C.), of Warren, New Jersey,
for the Respondent.
Sergio Santos, pro se, of Paterson, New Jersey, for the Charg-
ing Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EARL E. SHAMWELL, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was heard by me on November 24–25 and December 16–17,
2008, In Newark, New Jersey, pursuant to a charge filed by
Charging Party Sergio Santos against Coastal Insulation Corpo-
ration, and Elmsford Insulation Corporation, and Sealrite Insu-
lation of New York (collectively the Respondent), on July 3,
2006. Santos filed an amended charge on September 22, 2008.
On September 30, 2008, the Regional Director for Region 22
of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued a
complaint against the Respondent alleging that it violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). On
October 14, 2008, the Respondent filed its answer to the com-
plaint essentially denying the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
At the hearing, the parties were represented by counsel and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and introduce evidence. On the entire re-
cord, including my observation of the demeanor of the wit-
nesses and after considering the briefs1 filed by the General
Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following.

1 The Charging Party did not file a brief. Also, the General Counsel
filed a motion to correct transcript. Regrettably, the transcript con-
tained many errors which probably were due to the need to utilize an
interpreter for many of the witnesses who were not English speakers.
The General Counsel’s proposed transcript corrections correspond with
my notes and recollection of the testimony, and I would therefore grant
the motion. The Respondent does not oppose the motion.
DECISIONS OF THE NAITONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION—THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT, A SINGLE
EMPLOYER
Respondent Coastal Insulation Corporation is a New Jersey
corporation that maintains an office and place of business in
East Windsor, New Jersey, and has been engaged in the instal-
lation of insulation for residential and commercial entities and
properties located in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.
Respondent Sealrite Insulation of New York is a New York
corporation that maintains an office and place of business in
East Windsor, New Jersey, and has been engaged in the instal-
lation of insulation for residential and commercial entities and
properties located in New York and Connecticut.
Respondent Elmsford Insulation Corporation is a Delaware
corporation that maintains its principal office and place of busi-
ness in East Windsor, New Jersey, and another facility in Elms-
ford, New York, and has been engaged in the installation of the
insulation for residential and commercial entities and properties
in New York.
The three aforementioned corporations are admitted by the
Respondent to have been at all material times affiliated enter-
prises with common ownership, management, and supervision;
have formulated and administered a common labor policy, have
provided services to each other; have interchanged personnel
with each other; have shared common premises and facilities;
and have held themselves out to the public as a single-
integrated business enterprise; and as such constitute a single-
integrated business enterprise and a single employer within the
meaning of the Act.2
The Respondent admits that the three aforementioned corpo-
rations, during the preceding 12-month period in conducting
their respective business operations, individually purchased and
received at the West Windsor and/or Elmsford facilities goods
and materials located outside the States of New Jersey and New
York.
Accordingly, I would find and conclude that Coastal Insula-
tion Corporation, Elmsford Insulation Corporation, and Sealrite
Insulation of New York, in the conduct of their respective busi-
ness operations constitute a single-integrated business enter-
prise and a single employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. BACKGROUND AND OTHER PRELIMINARY MATTERS UNDISPUTED
ON THE RECORD
The Business of the Respondent
The Respondent is engaged in the installation of weather-
proofing insulation to residential and commercial applications
covering New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut (the Tristate
area). During the relevant period, the Respondent employed
about 120 installers. The instant litigation, however, relates

2 The Respondent, in its answer, initially denied that these corpora-
tions constituted a single-integrated business enterprise and single
employer. However, at the hearing the Respondent, through counsel,
agreed and stipulated that the three business entities were a single em-
ployer.
solely to about 22 installers who may be characterized as a
cadre of individuals hailing from the Dominican Republic and
who spoke English as their second language and seemingly
were closely connected to each other by family and friendship
ties as well as their common national heritage. For conven-
ience, I will sometimes call these installers the Dominican
group.3
The Respondent’s managerial hierarchy consists of Steven
Schwartz, president, and Bret Schwarz and John Achille, vice
presidents. Achille also serves at the Company’s operations
manager whose duties include supervision of the office and
sales staff. The Respondent’s field operations are administered
by individuals designated production managers and field super-
visors. The field supervisors are directly responsible for the
supervision of the installers working on any given installation
project such as a housing project. The field supervisors report
to the production managers who assign installers operating as
two or three men crews to various installation projects via e-
mail or fax machines provided by management to the crew
leader. Brothers Gene Hebding and Richard (Ricky) Hebding,
during the times relevant to this litigation, served respectively
as production manager and field supervisor for Coastal; Wilson
Torres served as production manager for the Sealrite and Elms-
ford installers until Hugo Tavarez was promoted to production
manager of the Elmsford installers in May 2008.
The Respondent’s insulation installers are not paid on an
hourly basis. Rather, they are compensated on a piecework
basis, generally by a certain amount multiplied by the number
of square feet of insulation installed in a given structure. Prior
to May 15, 2008, the Respondent paid its installers at the piece-
rate of 6 cents per square foot, plus an extra amount for jobs
requiring installations over a certain height, crawl space, caulk-
ing, site preparation, and extended travel; additionally, the 6-
cent rate covered not only the sheet insulation materials but
also certain insulation materials that provided ventilation called
baffles.
On or about May 15, 2008, the Respondent announced that
beginning June 1, 2008, the installers would no longer be paid
at the 6-cent rate plus extras, but at a flat piece-rate of 8 cents
per square foot, a 2-cent increase, but with no payment for any
of the aforementioned “extras.”
On July 2, 2008, at about 8 a.m., about 20 or more of the
aforementioned Dominican group of installers met at the home
of Coastal employee Eduardo Olivo in Paterson, New Jersey, to
discuss the new pay system and certain perceived problems
associated with its application and implementation. Olivo cre-
ated a sign-in sheet which was circulated to the attendees.4

3 The 22 installers who are the subject of this cause are listed in the
complaint as follows: Coastal employees Eduardo Olivo, Samuel Fi-
garo, Ramon Fermin, Dioni Gonzalez, Sandy Genao, Victor Nieves,
Frederico DeLeon, Odalis Gonzalez, Sergio R. Santos, Agelis J. Gon-
zalez, Anbiory R. Gonzales, Jairo Gonzalez, and Rafael Gonell; Seal-
rite employee Rafael Sanchez; and Elmsford employees Cesar
Cardenas, Jorge Jimenez, Fedham Gonzalez, Jose M. Bautista, Victor
Honoret, Epifanio Rosario, Rober Luna, and Manuel Luna. I note that
the spelling of the names of some of these persons in some of these
exhibits differed from the spelling in the complaint.
4 See GC Exh. 2, the sign-in sheet.
COASTAL INSULATION CORP. 3
Notably, July 2 was a day on which work had been sched-
uled by the Respondent for some of the gathered employees.5
Accordingly, sometime after 8 a.m., Field Supervisor Richard
Hebding (Ricky) telephoned Sergio Santos and queried him
about his not showing up for work. Santos informed Richard
that the employees were meeting at Olivo’s house to discuss
issues associated with the installers’ wages and the new pay
structure in particular. At about 9:30 a.m., Santos and Olivo
telephoned Gene Hebding (Gene) on the company issued
Nextel phone but were unsuccessful in reaching him. However,
after a number of attempts, Santos contacted Gene on another
employee’s (Sandy Genao) company issued cell phone. Santos
and Gene conversed initially with the cell phone on speaker so
that the gathered employees could hear the conversation. After
a time, Olivo and Gene conversed, again with the cell phone on
speaker. Notably, Santos and Olivo translated the conversa-
tions because the majority of the gathered employees were not
conversant in English.
After these conversations between Gene and essentially San-
tos and Olivo, the Respondent on July 3, 2008, by letters, dis-
charged all of the purported signers of the sign-in sheet, stating
essentially that each man was dissatisfied with the terms and
conditions of his employment and that he had deliberately
failed to report for his assigned work which constituted aban-
donment of the job, and therefore was no longer employed by
Coastal.6
The complaint alleges essentially that on July 2, 2008, the
employees gathered at Edward Olivo’s house, concertedly
complained to the Respondent about the Company’s failure to
pay them their correct wages, and were discharged by the Re-
spondent because of their complaints, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Thus, the central issue in this cause is whether the Respon-
dent discharged the affected employees on July 2, 2008, be-
cause they complained about what they considered problems
with the Respondent’s payment of wages for jobs performed by
them or, as the Respondent contends, because the employees
engaged in an unprotected work stoppage because of their dis-
satisfaction with the Respondent’s change in the wage struc-
ture.
III. THE PARTIES’ WITNESSES
A. The Interpreter Issue
The General Counsel called some but not all of the employ-
ees who attended the July 2, 2008 meeting. It should be noted
that all of the Respondent’s installer employees who testified
did so with the aid of an interpreter. During the trial, there

5 There is a serious question as to what work—by project—was as-
signed on July 2 to the individual installers who, according to John
Achille, were working on average only 3 days per week at the time;
some were working only 2 days per week and others were working only
1 day. There was a lack of work according to Achille, but the record
supports an inference that some of the installers were or had been as-
signed work on July 2.
6 See GC Exh. 3, a copy of the letter sent to each of the employees
who signed the sign-in list, with the exception of two installers. This
point will be discussed later herein.
were at various times questions raised by the witnesses about
the accuracy of their translations.7 In fact, one of the assigned
interpreters withdrew from the trial because of questions raised
by other Spanish speakers (including the Charging Party) re-
garding this interpreter’s translation of witness testimony. An-
ticipating this as a problem, I announced at the outset of the
trial that I would rely on the interpreter’s translation of testi-
mony from Spanish to English, that this translation would con-
stitute the transcribed record. I also extended to the Charging
Party the opportunity to challenge what he thought was an in-
accurate translation inasmuch as he claimed that the Spanish
spoken by Dominicans differed somewhat from the other Span-
ish speakers, such as Puerto Ricans and Columbians. In fact, I
was given to understand that the interpreter who withdrew was
Columbian.
All in all, the hearing proceeded with general agreement as
to accuracy of the interpretation by the assigned sworn inter-
preter. However, it is important to note that there were some
problems and, in my view, some of the questions posed to wit-
nesses and the answers thereto did not quite jibe. Be that as it
may, I listened carefully to the translation but paid particular
attention to the demeanor of the Spanish speakers to assist me
in determining credibility.
B. The General Counsel’s Witnesses
Charging Party Sergio Santos testified that he worked for the
Respondent (Coastal) for about 2-1/2 years as an insulation
installer whose main duties and responsibilities included install-
ing and repairing insulation for commercial and residential
buildings. Santos stated that his employment with the Respon-
dent ended on July 2, 2008. At the time of his termination,
Santos said that he was a crew leader who was assigned a com-
pany vehicle and a company issued fax machine through which
he received his work assignment.
By way of background, Santos described the procedures he
followed daily in the performance of his job. According to
Santos, his supervisor, Richard (Ricky) Hebding, would cus-
tomarily fax him his work assignment for the next day at
around 7:30–8 p.m. on the day before; the fax would constitute
the work order for the job and included the location of the job
and the materials needed to complete it. Santos said that as
crew leader he would then inform the members of his team of
the assignment, pick them up in the company truck, and trans-
port them to the worksite. According to Santos, a crew usually
is comprised of two workers, but the crew leader is in charge of
the job and is responsible for all reports to management, mainly
the field supervisor.
Santos stated that during his time with the Company he did
not have a fixed work schedule in the sense of regular report
time and ending time. According to Santos, the Company did
not require him to be on the job at 8, 8:30, or 9 a.m., and some-
times he reported to a jobsite as late as 10 a.m. Santos said that

7 While some of the witnesses in question testified with the assis-
tance of the interpreter, they evidently knew or understood some Eng-
lish. It seemed that while they were capable of understanding and
speaking English, they were more comfortable testifying in Spanish.
This point will become more obvious later in this decision.
DECISIONS OF THE NAITONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
sometimes if his crew finished a job early, he would be as-
signed another job in the afternoon. Santos stated that it was
only on the occasion of Ricky Hebding’s informing him of a
special circumstance—the contractor’s desires or the late arri-
val of materials—on a job that he reported on any type of
schedule. Accordingly, sometimes Ricky would leave a note
for him to get to a job early, for instance one in Pennsylvania.
Santos noted that if it were very cold, he would report to the
jobsite later in the morning (presumably when the temperatures
were higher). Basically, according to Santos, the operative rule
for the installers was to get the job done, and they were given
much discretion in terms of the times for reporting for and leav-
ing work. Santos stated that the installers’ main responsibility
was to report to the field supervisor the status of the job that
day, i.e., whether it was completed or not.
Santos stated that prior to May 15, 2008, the installers were
paid at the piece rate of 6 cents per square foot (of insulation
material), plus wages for extra labor for site preparation, instal-
lation of baffles,8 crawl space installation, and inordinate travel
time/distance. Around that time—May 15—the Company an-
nounced a change in the wage structure that included a flat 8
cents per square foot rate for all of the material installed on a
job; the change was to be effective on June 1, 2008.
Santos testified that, at the time, he questioned Ricky about
the preparation pay and Ricky said that site preparation was
going to be paid. However, Ricky did not say anything about
the baffles and, according to Santos, the Company never men-
tioned paying for crawl space, preparation, etc. According to
Santos, the transition to the new system was not smooth, and in
fact to him it was chaotic. Santos stated that installers were
being assigned work paying at both 6 cents and 8 cents. The
installers felt that if a job was to be paid at 6 cents, then they
should be paid for the extras; if not, then at the 8-cent rate.
Santos said that he queried Ricky about these problems on sev-
eral occasions. Santos said Ricky would tell him he was to be
paid at 8 cents. However, according to Santos, his check would
reflect a payment at 6 cents, but without the extra pay for baf-
fles, preparation, waiting time, or travel.
Santos stated that he continually complained to Ricky who
told him that he would refer his complaints to his brother,
Gene, because he did not have the authority to deal with the pay
issue. Santos recalled that on the occasion of one of his com-
plaints to Ricky, Ricky placed a call to Gene in his presence to
inform him of Santos’ concern about pay. Santos recalled fur-
thermore that beginning around May 15, he spoke to Gene per-

8 Santos described baffles as an insulation material (thermofoam)
that is often installed in the ceilings of a building between the ceiling
and the insulation—to keep the insulation fresh, to allow it to ventilate.
Santos said that this material is installed all around the house and is
often more difficult to install than the (sheet) insulation material. Ac-
cording to Santos, baffles are also measured like the ordinary foam
insulation material, that is in square footage. Santos noted that around
April 2007, the Respondent announced a new wage structure that in-
cluded an extra 3 cents per square foot for installations entailing heights
of 10–15 feet. The new scheme originally did not include extra pay for
crawl space installation but this matter was resolved and the installers
were paid for crawl space work at the rate of $15.
sonally, perhaps about twice a week about the matter.9
Santos described the problems he and other installers experi-
enced with the new pay structure. For example, Santos stated
that a work order would be faxed to him listing the amount of
material required for the job, and that amount as calculated by
the square footage would determine his pay. However, the
actual job might require more material than listed, resulting in
installation of additional material; this was the salesman’s mis-
take. However, according to Santos, his check would not re-
flect his having installed more insulation than that listed on the
work order. Santos said he spoke to Gene about this problem
“every day,” as he put it, because it clearly seemed to be a com-
puter-generated problem. However, after a time, according to
Santos, Gene stopped communicating with him by not answer-
ing his phone and he was forced to deal with Ricky about the
problem. Santos stated that he even showed Ricky the paper-
work reflecting the short payments problem.10
Santos stated that he communicated with his coworkers
about these problems to alert them to what was happening to
him,11 and these persons, crew leaders, also started to complain
to the Company. According to Santos, employees were com-
plaining to management practically every day after June 1,
2008, especially to Ricky, but also to Gene Hebding.
Santos noted that he clearly understood that any job coming
in after June 1, 2008, would be paid at the new 8-cent rate, and
any job coming in before that date would be paid at the old rate,
with the extras. However, according to Santos, this did not
happen. Moreover, his and his coworkers’ complaints were
being met with inaction and excuses, such as corporate
“glitches.” Because of the Company’s failure to address, let
alone redress, the pay issues and the discrepancies in pay in
particular, he and his coworker, Eduardo Olivo, decided not to
go to directly to work on July 2, 2008, but instead called a
meeting with the installers working for Coastal, Elmsford, and
Sealrite with a view towards drafting a statement (petition) to
present to the Company, resolve the issues, and thereafter go
back to work.12

9 Santos stated that the installers actually were not sure that the wage
change would be effective June 1, but, because of the announcement on
May 15, started looking for changes at that time.
10 Santos said that he showed Ricky the work orders which indicated
the number of square feet of material for the job and the corresponding
number of bags of material used on the job, resulting in a discrepancy
of perhaps a dozen square feet.
11 Santos testified that he specifically spoke to coworkers Victor
Nieves, Eduardo Olivo, and Sandy Genao about the problem with pay.
12 Santos believed this would be a viable approach to resolve the pay
issues because of his success in resolving a similar pay dispute on April
2007. According to Santos, at that time Coastal installers were also
experiencing problems with the then new pay (6 cents) system as well
as a number of other job related problems, including inadequate and
even dangerous job conditions and contractors’ demanding that they
install noncompany materials. The affected employees refused to work
on that particular jobsite and Gene Hebding, in response, told them to
leave the job. As a result, all of the crew teams left the job, but he and
three others were suspended by the Company. Later, Eduardo Olivo
and he asked to meet with Gene Hebding at the Company’s office.
Gene asked them to meet instead at a nearby Dunkin Donuts shop; and,
later, around 15–16 Coastal employees met with Gene and Field Super-
COASTAL INSULATION CORP. 5
Turning to the July 2, 2008 meeting, Santos testified that
about 22 employees of the three companies decided to meet at
Eduardo Olivo’s house with the purpose (as he put it) of “mak-
ing a document” to read to the Company to explain why they
were complaining about the pay issues they had experienced for
the whole month of June. According to Santos, the hope
among the employees was to arrive at a suitable agreement as
the Coastal employees had accomplished in April 2007. Santos
noted on this point that while the Elmsford and Sealrite em-
ployees had not participated in the April 2007 meeting, they
were aware of the problems of Coastal workers at that time.
Since they were now having the same problems in 2008, the
Sealrite and Elmsford wanted to join the common cause and
agreed to meet with the Coastal workers.
Santos testified that at around 7:30–8 a.m., ultimately about
21 workers attended the meeting at Olivo’s home on July 2.
Santos noted that another person, Manuel Luna, did not attend
but approved both placing his name and that of his brother,
Rober, on the sign-sheet he and Olivo devised.13 According to
Santos, the gathered installers discussed the pay issues, includ-
ing money missing from their checks because of the discrep-
ancy between the material installed by them and the work order
list and the preparation expenses. Santos said that these matters
were going to be put in a letter but because of later events that
morning, no letter was prepared. Santos explained what oc-
curred.
Santos testified that he first attempted to call Ricky at around
8:30 a.m., but Ricky did not answer; Santos left a message for
him. According to Santos, Ricky called him at about 9–9:30
a.m. asking why he had not shown up for work. Santos stated
that he told Ricky of the outstanding problems and that if the
Company and the installers at the meeting could come to an
agreement, they would return to work. According to Santos,
Ricky said that he was aware of the situation but he was power-
less to do anything; he would speak to Gene about the matter.
Santos said he also told Ricky in this conversation that the
workers were expressing their concerns and that Olivo was
taking notes to include their concerns in a document to be sub-
mitted to the Company, and Gene in particular.
Santos said that around 9:30–10 a.m. he spoke to Gene on a
cell phone of one of the other installers; the phone was put on
speaker so that all of the gathered employees could hear. Not-
ing that he and Olivo were standing next to each other and
translating Gene’s comments for those who did not understood

visors Ricky and Andy Eschele. According to Santos, at this meeting
the Coastal employees and management, inter alia, resolved some of
the outstanding pay issues, established a rotating work schedule so that
the installers could equitably receive work in the slow economy of the
time, and rescinded the suspensions for the employees who had refused
to work the dangerous jobsite. According to Santos, no one lost his job
or was disciplined for making the demands and engaging in the action
they took.
13 See GC Exh. 2. Santos identified by their numerical placement on
the list 13 Coastal employees, 8 Elmsford workers, and 1 Sealrite
worker. According to Santos, Manuel Luna had been telephoned by
another Elmsford installer, Victor Honoret, at the meeting and, as San-
tos understood, agreed to have his name and that of his brother, Rober,
placed on the sign-in sheet.
English, Santos stated that he told Gene that they were meeting
to deal with the problems and were going to draft a document
(setting out their concerns) and fax it to the Company.
According to Santos, Gene said that he did not want any
such document and not to send it to the Company. Gene then
went on to explain the reasons the Company was making the
changes. However, Santos said that he interrupted Gene, tell-
ing him that in order to communicate effectively, the workers
had to explain to him what their concerns were and then the
Company could give its reasons in response. According to
Santos, Gene continued to talk without letting him get a word
in, and then abruptly stated he no longer wanted to speak with
him and to put Olivo on the phone.14
In the end, Santos said that Gene told the group “if we did
not say what the company said, we were terminated” (Tr. 65).15
In spite of this sentiment from Gene, Santos said the employees
(he and Olivo) told him that they were not quitting, that they
wanted to return to work. According to Santos, Gene said that
if we were quitting, to bring the trucks back to the Company.
However, Santos said that he and/or Olivo told Gene that if he
was indeed firing the workers—they were not quitting—that he
should retrieve the company trucks himself.
Santos testified that the Company picked up the vehicles on
July 2 around 4:30 p.m., based on calls he received from the
New York (Elmsford) installers, and Gene himself retrieved
Santos’ truck from his house.16
Santos said that he received by certified mail his termination
letter (GC Exh. 3) from the Company on the following Monday
(July 7), having picked it up from the post office that day. San-
tos noted that he had received on July 1 a work assignment for
July 2; however, in spite of still having the company fax ma-
chine in his possession, he received no work orders for July 3.
Santos further noted that after receiving the termination letter,
he made no further contact with the Company; he believed that
he was fired on July 2 because at no time did Gene ask him to
come back to work the next day and discuss the outstanding
issues.17

14 Santos noted with amusement that Gene never let anyone talk and
the gathered employees actually were laughing while waiting for a
break in Gene’s monologue.
15 I would note that this is one such instance where the adage,
“something was lost in translation,” has meaning. Santos said later in
his testimony that Gene did not actually engage in a conversation with
the gathered employees. Rather, Gene engaged essentially in a mono-
logue and interrupted him and Olivo as they tried to speak. To Santos,
Gene clearly conveyed the threat, “Accept it (the Company’s methods)
or you are terminated.” (Tr. 73.)
16 Santos stated that he was not home at the time, but his mother in-
formed him that Gene was there to pick up the truck. Santos said he
spoke to Gene, telling him that his mother would provide the keys.
Santos said that he asked Gene if he were fired, and Gene said that he
thought so.
17 Santos said that on July 2, he complained to Gene specifically
about discrepancies in the paycheck he had received the previous Mon-
day. Santos stated that he compared his personnel records and the
check amount and determined that he had been underpaid. He noted
that in speaking for the group and their collective concerns, he covered
job-related matters such as crawl space, preparation, long trips, and the
like.
DECISIONS OF THE NAITONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
Santos admitted that he did not call Gene to tell him he was
not going to work on July 2, because he believed he had been
terminated, nor did he contest the Company’s claim that he had
abandoned his job. Santos testified that he did speak to Ricky
on many occasions after July 2, and told him that he wanted his
job back but wanted to be paid honestly—for example, to be
paid the 8-cent rate for all material used on a job, and to include
the baffles—a point he raised in the July 2 conversation with
Gene.
Eduardo “Eddie” Olivo testified that he has worked as an in-
sulation installer for Sealrite and Coastal for a combined 10
years, 9 of the 10 years having been spent in the employ of
Coastal. Olivo stated that in 1997, he was hired by Wilson
Torres, the Sealrite manager at the time. When he began work-
ing for Coastal, his immediate supervisor was Andy Eschele
and later Ricky. Olivo noted that he was a crew leader and, as
such, was provided a fax machine and a vehicle by the Com-
pany.
Olivo related the circumstances and issues surrounding the
Respondent’s change in the installers pay rate in 2008. Olivo
stated that he could not recall the actual day the Company an-
nounced the pay rate change from 6 cents per square foot to 8
cents per square foot, but recalled that he received such notice
early one morning in June 2008, while working on a job for
which he was to be paid at the 8-cent rate. However, Olivo
noted that he had heard sometime in May a rumor (his word) of
the change through Santos who claimed that Ricky told him of
the change. Olivo later learned of the change grapevine-
fashion from Ricky and another supervisor, Ritchie (last name
unknown).
Olivo stated that once the new rate was announced, the em-
ployees thought the new rate covered all of the (insulation)
materials used on a job as stated on the worksheet which listed
all the materials—for example, the baffles. Olivo said that it
was also his assumption then that everything for which em-
ployees were paid at 6 cents were now to be paid at 8 cents,
including the baffles.
However, according to Olivo, problems arose and, on one
occasion, he received a check reflecting payment at 8 cents for
some materials and 6 cents for other materials; this check re-
flected no payment for the baffles, but payment for waiting
time. Olivo testified that he reported this to Ricky who said he
would speak to Gene about the problem. Olivo stated that he
spoke to Ricky nearly every day until he tired of the exercise.
Olivo said that he also spoke to Gene about his concerns about
the new wage rate—all to no avail. Olivo said that after a time,
Ricky merely laughed when he made his complaints. In any
case, Olivo said that his complaints were all to no avail, but he
continued complaining just to make himself feel better.
Olivo testified because the pay situation was not being ad-
dressed, let alone resolved, he and some other installers,
namely Jorge Jimenez and Victor Honoret—Elmsford in-
stallers—discussed the wage-related problems they were all
experiencing. So on or about July 1 they decided to convene a
meeting of the Coastal, Elmsford, and Sealrite installers at his
house on July 2.
By way of background, Olivo related that in April 2007, the
Coastal installers were not only experiencing problems with
their pay but also were not working full time; they registered
their complaints with their supervisors (Eschele and Ricky) and
Gene. One day, the Coastal installers decided to have a meet-
ing about the outstanding issues with Gene, who initially de-
clined to meet with them. Nonetheless, the workers all met at
Eddie’s house and then proceeded to the Company's offices to
force the issue. On the day in question, the workers did not
report for their assignments but, at about 8 a.m., descended on
the office. According to Olivo, Gene was forced to meet with
them and requested that instead of meeting at the office to as-
semble at a local Dunkin Donuts shop.18 At about 9 a.m., the
employees and Gene met, and discussed the employees’ con-
cerns which included short payments and less than full-time
work.
As a result of the meeting, Olivo stated that Gene and the
workers arrived at a satisfactory resolution of the issues. Olivo
noted that with the exception of one installer, Victor Nieves,
none of the protesting installers went to work that day; how-
ever, no one was disciplined as a result. According to Olivo, it
was with this positive and successful experience in mind that
the installers decided to meet on July 2, 2008, to resolve with
management the ongoing problems with pay.
Olivo testified that the installers for the three companies met
at his house on July 2 at around 8 a.m., at which time they ex-
pressed to him their problems and complaints. Olivo noted
that a majority of the workers did not speak English although
some understood the language. Accordingly, as originally
planned, he was chosen to deliver the complaint to Gene by
way of a letter (petition), which was to include complaints
about the wage shortages and nonpayment for the materials
used on a job. According to Olivo, the employees planned to
go to work that day, thinking that Gene, who was viewed by all
the workers as a conscientious person, would resolve the out-
standing issues.19 According to Olivo, the workers were simply
hoping that Gene at a minimum would tell them that all of the
issues would be resolved, and would have gone to work with
that assurance.
Olivo stated that before the meeting commenced he called
Ricky to inform him of the meeting, but Ricky would not an-
swer his phone. Olivo also noted that his brother-in-law, in-

18 Olivo intimated that in April 2007, the Elmsford and Sealrite em-
ployees did not participate in the Dunkin Donuts meeting because while
they were experiencing the same or similar problems, they did not trust
the Coastal installers. The successful negotiation in April 2007
changed their minds in July 2008.
19 Olivo insisted that in spite of company claims to the contrary, the
installers did not have a scheduled time to report for work. According
to Olivo, the Company’s policy and practice was to finish the job in 1
day, and how this was accomplished was left to the installer; that an
installer made his own schedule; and some installers commenced work
as late as 10 a.m. Olivo noted that installers are not paid by the hour
but by the square foot, so the speed at which one worked governed the
job. He stated that most installers went to work early in the hope of
finishing the job early or to get another work assignment. Olivo stated
that it was his custom to start early at 8 a.m. and because of his experi-
ence he was not required to check in with the supervisor nor they with
him, unless there was a problem. Olivo said as his regular practice, he
called Ricky in the morning to provide a status check for the job or
sometimes simply to exchange jokes.
COASTAL INSULATION CORP. 7
staller Ramon Fermin, had also tried to call Ricky at around 6
a.m. that day, but again Ricky did not answer. At about 8:30
a.m., Olivo said that Santos placed a call to Ricky and reached
him; the phone was put on speaker so that the workers could
hear the conversation. Santos told Ricky that a message had
been previously left for him about the meeting and that the
employees wanted to speak with Gene. According to Olivo,
Ricky said that he would call Gene, inform him of the meeting,
and have him call back.
Olivo testified that he continued to try contacting Gene but
to no avail. However, installer Sandy Genao reached Gene on
his cell phone at around 9–9:30 a.m. Genao gave the phone to
Santos who put the phone on speaker and a conversation with
Gene ensued, initially with Santos.
According to Olivo, the conversation was not productive in
that Gene would not let Santos speak to explain fully what was
going on, the reasons for the meeting and the complaints. Ac-
cording to Olivo, Gene continued to overtalk Santos and ulti-
mately told Santos that he no longer wanted to speak with him;
Santos handed the phone over to Olivo.
According to Olivo, Gene beratedly said that Olivo was in a
meeting and not reporting for work over some miserable baf-
fles. Olivo said he told Gene that the meeting was not solely
about baffles but everything that is going on with the Company
and its treatment of the installers. Then, according to Olivo,
Gene said, “Eddie, that’s what we got, if you don’t like it, you
know what to do; if you don’t take it, you’re out.” Olivo testi-
fied that he then told Gene that “we were not quitting,” where-
upon Gene said, “[I]f you guys are not going to work, then
bring me the trucks.” Olivo stated that he responded, “[I]f you
are firing us, to come and get your own trucks.”20
Olivo stated that the Company started the vehicle retrieval on
July 2 at around 4:30–5 p.m. based on a call he received from
Genao who told him his truck was then being picked up and
inquired what he should do; Olivo told him to release the truck.
Olivo noted that other installers’ trucks, including his own,
were picked up by management around 5 p.m. and, in fact,
Wilson Torres and Gene picked up his truck.
Olivo said that he later received a letter from his health in-
surance carrier informing him that his coverage was canceled as
he was no longer employed by the Company;21 he did not re-
ceive an official termination letter from the Respondent.
Olivo insisted that Gene never told the workers in the July 2
call that if they called by 5 p.m., they could come back to work.
Olivo testified that Gene said in terms very clear to him that by
10 a.m. everyone at the meeting was fired. In fact, according to
Olivo, Supervisor Wilson Torres later said that everyone who
signed the letter (GC Exh. 2) and everyone who talked to Gene
was fired.22

20 Olivo noted that he and Santos were translating Gene’s part of the
conversation simultaneously to the employees, all of whom wanted to
know what was happening.
21 Olivo identified GC Exh. 3(d) as a copy of the Respondent’s ter-
mination letter signed by Gene Hebding that he received from his in-
surance carrier.
22 Olivo admitted that he did not tell Gene who precisely was in at-
tendance at the meeting because Gene’s domination of the discussion
did not give him a chance to tell him. He noted that Wilson Torres, the
Olivo noted that as crew leader, he received his work as-
signments by fax. Olivo stated that his last day of work was
July 1, 2008, and that he had not received a fax assigning him
work for July 2. Olivo also stated that he still possessed the
company fax machine and he never received a work assignment
for July 3.23 Olivo steadfastly denied ever telling Gene that he
would not go back to work unless the Company paid him 8
cents plus all materials used; nor did he tell Gene he would not
return to work if they continued to pay him as they were in July
2008. Olivo volunteered that he thought the 8-cent rate was a
good deal for him and was a raise; however, he thought the
raise applied to all material used in a job but in practice this
was not the case.
Olivo also denied that Gene ever told him (or the employees)
that he could come back to work. He admitted that Gene told
the group on July 2 words to the effect that the Company was
paying what it was, and that could not be changed;”[I]f you
want to come back to work, come back to work.”24
Victor Nieves testified25 he had worked for Coastal for 6
years as an installer, and his last immediate supervisor was
Ricky Hebding. Nieves said that he was a crew leader.
Nieves stated that he recalled attending the meeting of the
Respondent’s installers on July 2, especially since it was the
date he considered himself fired by the Company.26
According to Nieves, the meeting started around 8 a.m. and
he recalled that about 20–22 persons attended with a view to
deal with and discuss the problems employees experienced for
several months with Coastal about pay—specifically the raise
from 6 to 8 cents and the failure of the Company to pay them
for material used on the job. While Nieves did not elaborate,
he insisted that the problems were longstanding.

Elmsford supervisor, knew the New York installers were there and
Gene and Torres share adjacent office space. Olivo emphasized that
Gene did not say the workers will be fired; rather, he said they are
fired. Olivo stated he had the impression Gene knew about the sign-in
sheet because Victor Honoret told him that the “paper”—the sign-in
sheet—and a letter was going to be prepared; that Gene asked Victor
who had signed, and Victor told him at least the names of the five New
York installers.
23 It should be noted at this juncture that the Respondent produced no
work assignment documentation for July 3 for any of the affected em-
ployees.
24 Olivo was at this point under cross-examination and was con-
fronted by transcript records of his testimony at the 10(j) hearing before
Federal District Court Judge Thompson. Olivo complained that he was
confused by the judge’s question and her insistence on a yes or no
answer; in his view, the judge would not permit an explanation. (Tr.
226.) He confessed that he did not know what he meant by his tran-
script answer. Here, again, the 10(j) proceeding to my understanding
was conducted at least in part with the assistance of an interpreter. I
know firsthand there are, as earlier stated, problems associated with
translations. I also note that I do not know the total context of the
examination of Olivo in Federal Court. Accordingly, I will instead rely
on my own impression of the testimony of witnesses at the Board hear-
ing.
25 As with all of the General Counsel’s employee witnesses, Nieves
testified in Spanish.
26 Nieves identified his signature on the sign-in sheet (GC Exh. 2).
He recalled that he saw other individuals sign as the sheet was passed
around the group.
DECISIONS OF THE NAITONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
Nieves stated that the pay raise was announced in May 2008
by the Company not as a proposed, but established fact. Nieves
testified that he found out about the change through another
supervisor (Ritchie), not his immediate supervisor, Ricky Heb-
ding. According to Nieves, “Ritchie told me that there was to
be a raise in 30 days from 6 to 8 cents, that everything was
going to be paid at 8 cents per square foot.” Nieves conceded
that Ritchie did not say the baffles were going to be included in
the new rate.
Nieves said that after the announcement, problems arose in
terms of the amounts he believed he was entitled for a job and
that which he received on his check; essentially, he was missing
money. Nieves stated that he was sure he was being shorted
because as crew leader he kept track of the materials he used on
his jobs, and in his end of day reports to the Company he re-
corded the numbers for all the materials used. At the end of the
week, however, he noticed that his check amount did not match
the material numbers. In such cases, Nieves said that he would
call the office on the following Monday to complain. Nieves
testified that during the first month of the change he com-
plained weekly, usually to his immediate supervisor (Ricky).
After a time, Nieves said that he made his complaints directly
to Gene Hebding.
Nieves noted that because his English was not good (and
Gene spoke no Spanish) he was given permission by Gene to
speak to his secretary, Sharon Perez, about his concerns.
Nieves stated that he mainly spoke to her weekly and com-
plained about money missing from his check. According to
Nieves, Perez would usually give him an answer on Monday
afternoon saying that the amount would be made up on the next
check; or there was some clerical error; or the computerized
pay system had experienced some problem or the other; or even
that a new secretary was handling payroll. According to
Nieves, while there was always some excuse given for the dis-
crepancies in his pay, he never received his corrected pay.
Nieves said that the July 2 meeting was called by the em-
ployees to deal with this type of problem, which was experi-
enced by both the Elmsford and Sealrite installers. Nieves
noted that the employees actually were pleased with the raise
from 6 to 8 cents per square foot, even with the proposed re-
moval of pay for extra labor. However, according to Nieves, in
practice, while the Company claimed to be paying 8 cents, they
were only paying 6 cents for some of the material used on the
job. So along with “missing money,” the employees were con-
cerned about the way the new system was being implemented;
for instance, baffles were insulation material but the workers
were not paid at 8 cents for all material as they were led to
believe would be the case.27
Nieves testified that the installer meeting commenced at
around 8 a.m., and calls were placed to Gene immediately;
however, he did not answer his cell phone. So the calls were
placed through Gene’s walkie-talkie. According to Nieves,

27 Nieves testified at the 10(j) hearing in Federal District Court and
was questioned by the Respondent’s counsel about his testimony there
regarding the pay issues. Nieves said he answered questions as best he
could that were put to him by the interpreters and as he understood
them.
Gene was reached at about 9–9:30 a.m. Nieves stated while
trying to reach Gene, Santos, who did the calling, reached
Ricky around 8:30 a.m. and explained over the speaker phone
to him what the group was meeting for. According to Nieves,
Ricky said that he was aware of what was going on and so was
Gene.28
Nieves testified that Santos explained to Gene what was go-
ing on with the employees, but the conversation was very “dif-
ficult” (his word) because Gene would not let Santos speak;
Gene spoke a lot and adopted the position that he did not want
to hear any “reasons” from them. Ultimately, according to
Nieves, Gene said that he no longer wanted to speak with San-
tos but only to Eddie (Olivo).
Nieves said that Gene told Eddie to return to work, as well as
whoever was in the meeting. According to Nieves, Olivo told
Gene that we were never going to quit; that we want to fix the
situation, whereupon Gene then responded that’s what it is,
“accept or we’re fired.” Gene then said that he wanted the men
to return the vehicles. Nieves said that Olivo then told Gene “if
we are fired, the Company should come and retrieve the vans.”
According to Nieves, his coworker, Frederico DeLeon, called
him to say that Gene and Wilson Torres were picking up the
trucks by around 4:30–5 p.m. Nieves stated that DeLeon told
him that Torres had told him that “we, including DeLeon, were
fired.”
Nieves stated that he had no scheduled work for July 2 and
even called the night before and spoke to Ricky about work for
the next day, as well as the morning of July 2. So he and
Frederico DeLeon did not have any work assigned to them for
July 2.29
Nieves stated that he never received an official termination
letter from the Company, but received a notice about 15 days
after the meeting informing him that he was covered by Cobra
(insurance).
Victor Honoret testified that he has worked for Elmsford In-
sulation since about July 10, 2001, as an insulation installer
working in projects in Connecticut, New York, and New Jer-
sey. Honoret stated that during the time he was employed, he
acted as a defacto crew leader, essentially working a two-man
crew comprised of himself and coworker Cesar Cardenas.30
Honoret described Wilson Torres as the supervisor to whom he
reported and provided all paperwork to each assignment. Hon-
oret also volunteered that he had submitted his application for
employment to and was hired by Wilson Torres.
Honoret recalled that the Company instituted a change in the
installers’ wage rate around May 2008 (about 2-1/2 months
before July 2, 2008), but he was not officially informed of the

28 Nieves stated that while he did not speak English very well, he did
understand English after a fashion.
29 DeLeon did not testify at the hearing. It seems that DeLeon was a
member of Nieves’ crew. As crew leader, Nieves possessed the com-
pany fax machines and received his assignments through that medium;
Nieves also stated that his assignments arrived through e-mails. Nieves
said that his assignment usually came from Gene, or from Gene through
Ricky.
30 Honoret said that he actually was not an official crew leader, but
he was assigned and drove the company van, handled all the paperwork
for jobs, and received at his home the faxes assigning his crew work.
COASTAL INSULATION CORP. 9
change in the Company. According to Honoret, he became
aware of the change by virtue of his paycheck, which indicated
a change in his pay. Honoret said that at the time he consulted
with Torres about the matter. According to Honoret, Wilson
simply laughed about the issue and did not explain what had
transpired with his pay. Honoret stated he spoke to Torres
personally on several occasions during this time about the pay
situation but Wilson would merely say the new pay structure
was better for the employees and was otherwise evasive and
broke off the conversation.
Honoret testified that he disagreed with Torres’ assessment
because the Company under the new wage structure ceased
paying for the extras, that at 8 cents the installers, in his view,
were performing the extra labor—for caulking, heights, baf-
fles—for free and these items made for a big difference in his
pay.
Honoret said these issues were discussed by the installers,
especially the nonpayment for extras, the “inconvenience” (his
word) of the way the new system was working.31
Honoret recalled July 2, 2008, as “the day we’re taken out of
the Company” (Tr. 114) and the employees met at Eduardo
Olivo’s house. Honoret volunteered that while he did not tell
Torres about the specific meeting on July 2, he did tell him that
employees were gathering so that there could be more “force”
(influence) with management. Honoret believed that Torres
knew of the planned meeting.
Honoret stated that his coworker, Jorge Jimenez, had con-
tacted the Coastal employees about the meeting and later told
him that the Elmsford workers were going to meet at Olivo’s
house. According to Honoret, Jimenez told him the plan was to
meet and deal with the pay issue (“the points not in our favor”).
In the end, about 20 some installers attended the meeting on
July 2.32
Honoret testified that the change in pay from 6 to 8 cents
was discussed among the attendees, and the concern among
some was the nonpayment for the extra labor items which in
effect reduced their pay.
According to Honoret, while Santos led the meeting which
started at about 8 a.m., he did not regard him as the head or
leader of the group because the problems the employees were
experiencing were common to all.33 Honoret said that when

31 Honoret stated that on occasion two crews may be assigned to a
project and on these occasions installers like Jorge Jimenez, Rafael
Sanchez, Batista, and Rosario would discuss the pay situation. It
should be noted that each of these persons’ names appear on the sign-in
sheet for July 2.
32 Honoret noted that Manuel Luna and Rober Luna did not attend
the meeting, but in a telephone conversation he had with Manuel, he
was instructed by Manuel to put his name and that of his brother Rober
on the sign-list. Honoret said he later spoke to Rober who, in the con-
versation, agreed to have his name on the list because he was concerned
that installer pay had been reduced.
33 On cross-examination, Honoret said that the “proposal at Eddie’s
house was about the pay, we were working the same but earning less.”
Honoret stated the employees were willing to work for 8 cents and get
paid for extras. (Tr. 226.) Honoret stated that the purpose of the em-
ployees was to get an agreement by talking to management. In his
view, the employees wanted to get paid for the baffles, height, and
caulking at the 8-cent rate.
Santos contacted a man named Gene by phone, he put the
phone on speaker, and he and Eduardo translated for those like
himself who could not speak English.
According to Honoret, Gene said that everybody who signed
the paper was out of the Company. Honoret also noted that
Wilson Torres told him the same thing. According to Honoret,
after the meeting he called Torres around 9:30 on July 2 on the
company phone and told him the employees were meeting at
the time and were going to send him a list of the employee
proposals. According to Honoret, Torres then told him,
“You’re out.” According to Honoret, Torres also asked him
who was at the meeting, but Honoret refused to divulge the
names. Honoret said that Torres then ended the conversation
by saying that we were all out. (Tr. 121.)
Honoret noted that on July 3, management employee Hugo
Tavarez picked up his company vehicle sometime after 5:45
p.m. and left a message at his residence saying that the Com-
pany had instructed him to pick up the truck.
Honoret testified that he has not worked for the Company
since July 2. Honoret acknowledged that he did have a work
assignment for July 2 and he was planning to go to the job
around noon that day. Honoret went on to say, however, he
was not given any work assignment for July 3.
Samuel Ramon Fermin testified that he has worked for
Coastal for about 8 years as an installer and was part of the
Olivo crew along with a coworker, Samuel Figaro.
Fermin said that he attended the July 2, 2008 meeting34 of
the installers at Eddie Olivo’s house but the problems the em-
ployees were experiencing preceded the meeting. Fermin ex-
plained, stating that the Company instituted the wage rate
change to 8 cents and his understanding was that the move was
designed to improve their pay. However, Fermin said the
Company in reality was not paying 8 cents because there was
no pay for all the material, especially the baffles used on a job.
Fermin stated that his understanding was that under the new
system, installers were going to be paid for baffles and prepara-
tion work. Fermin also cited the example of his having been
paid 6 cents for a job that called for the 8-cent rate; he believed
that the Company in practice was paying installers what it
chose to pay and they certainly did not pay for any extra labor;
this was essentially a backpay issue to Fermin.
Fermin said that these problems were discussed among the
workers prior to July 2 and they decided to meet to resolve
these problems and try to get an agreement from Gene.35 Ac-
cording to Fermin, he and the other workers clearly knew what
the meeting was about—for instance to correct the backpay
issue—and having communicated their common concern to one
and the other, they decided to meet and hopefully reach some
agreement to resolve the problems as they had done in 2007.

34 Fermin identified his signature on the sign-sheet (#7) and noted
that he saw others sign it in his presence.
35 On cross-examination, Fermin stated (paraphrased) that for his
part, he would gladly take the 8 cents per square foot because this was
“just.” But the “problem” was that the Company promised to pay for
all of the square feet of material at the 8-cent rate—but the situation got
worse. Fermin said the employees were happy to make more money.
(Tr. 258.)
DECISIONS OF THE NAITONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
Fermin emphasized that the employees did not meet to stop
work, but only to get an agreement about the problems from
management.
Fermin testified that the meeting in Olivo’s backyard started
around 8 a.m. and perhaps 22–24 workers attended. At around
8:30 a.m., Fermin said he placed a call in to Ricky but he did
not pick up; Fermin left him a message. About the same time,
but on a different phone, Fermin noted that Olivo was trying to
reach Ricky, but was only successful at around 9:30–10 a.m.
Fermin stated that he understands some English36 and could
therefore hear and follow Olivo’s conversation with Ricky over
the speaker phone. According to Fermin, Olivo told Ricky that
in case he spoke to his brother, Gene, the workers were then
gathering as a group discussing the problems. He noted that
both Olivo and Santos were translating Ricky’s part of the con-
versation to the group. Fermin said that either Olivo or Santos
told Ricky that “we wanted to speak to your brother so he could
help us resolve the problem—the Company’s agreement to pay
us 8 cents but actually not paying us; we want to be paid for the
baffles (material) as well as for height and preparation—we are
here as a group to clear up the problem.” In the end, Fermin
said that Santos told the group that Ricky was going to speak
with Gene.
Fermin testified that at around 10:30 a.m. Santos was able to
reach Gene on Sandy Genao’s cell phone and, with the phone
on speaker, began a conversation with him; Olivo translated for
the group. According to Fermin, Sergio related to Gene the
employees’ problems. Then Gene told Sergio to put Olivo on
the phone, whereupon “Olivo took up the conversation and
asked Gene to pay us 8 cents, to include the baffles, and to
reinstate preparation pay.” According to Fermin, Gene said,
“Well Eddie, this is what it is and if you don’t like it, bring me
the vans.” Then Eddie asked, “Gene, are you firing me; if you
are, come and look for the trucks.” Fermin noted that although
Sergio was translating the conversation, the employees under-
stood what was being said as he himself did.
Fermin testified that at no time in the conversation did he
hear Gene say exactly or words to the effect, “if you come back
by 5 p.m., you can come back to the Company.” Fermin said
that he understood Gene to say that was what it was and “if you
don’t want it, leave.”37 Fermin recalled that Olivo (the head of
his group) told Gene, “I don’t want to leave the job in New
York, and if you are firing me, come and look for [get] the
truck.”
Fermin testified that the Company started picking up the
trucks at around 4:30 p.m. and picked up Olivo’s at truck
around 6 p.m. Fermin stated that he was saddened by the turn
of events; he thought that the Company would come to an

36 I would note that Fermin’s testimony in places on the record re-
flects either a translation problem or transcription problem. I am not
sure if he was comprehending the questions posed to him in English by
counsel and me, and then responded in Spanish based on that under-
standing, and that response was provided by the interpreter in English.
This did not reflect adversely on his credibility in my view, but should
be noted.
37 In answer to my query, Fermin stated that he understood what
Gene was saying at the time and did not have to rely on Olivo’s or
Santo’s translation.
agreement over the outstanding issues “like what happened in
2007” (his words, Tr. 248) when the Company and the workers
came to an agreement—problems were fixed and “we all went
to work.” Fermin stated that he firmly believed that Gene fired
the group on July 2, a fact in his mind confirmed when the
trucks were retrieved. He asked rhetorically, “How could we
work without the trucks and the machines we used for work.”
(Tr. 258–259.)
Fermin noted that he did not receive a work assignment for
July 3 from Coastal on July 2. However, he did reapply for his
employment with Coastal on August 8, 2008, at which time he
filled out a new application and even left a blank check with the
secretary to begin automatic deposit. Fermin stated that he,
however, never actually was rehired and has never called the
Company about the job.38
Fermin noted in passing that while employed by the Com-
pany, he had taken leave time beyond 1 week of paid vacation
allowed by the Company, but had never had to reapply for his
job. Fermin said that Gene did not explain why he was re-
quired to fill out a new application on August 8.
Epifanio Rosario testified at the hearing. Rosario stated that
he worked for Elmsford Insulation as an insulation installer
assigned to the crew of Jorge Jimenez, his crew leader. Rosario
identified his immediate supervisor as Wilson Torres.
Rosario stated that he attended the July 2, 2008 meeting of
employees from Coastal. Rosario said that prior to the meeting,
sometime in May (2008), Wilson Torres told him the Company
was going to change the installers’ pay rate from 6 to 8 cents
per square foot of material, effective after May 30.
According to Rosario, the employees met on July 2 to deal
with certain issues associated with their receiving incorrect pay
and to file a complaint with the Company. Rosario stated that
Jimenez told him that he did not have work assigned to his
crew that day so the men were going to meet to deal with pay
issues at Eddie Olivo’s house. Rosario said that Honoret, Cesar
Cardenas, Fedham Gonzalez, and he all drove to the meeting in
the same car. He noted that other installers, Rafael Sanchez
and Tony Batista, Sealrite and Elmsford installers respectively,
also attended the meeting. According to Rosario, these in-
stallers all knew what the meeting was for and about because
they had discussed the meeting and the issues previously.39

38 Fermin explained the circumstances surrounding his attempt to
hire back with the Company. According to Fermin, he and Sandy
Genao met with Gene pursuant to Genao’s conversation with Gene
from Santo Domingo after the July meeting; Genao told Gene that both
he and Fermin wanted to return to their jobs. Fermin said that Gene
asked the two to meet with him and to bring document such as pass-
ports, social security cards, and licenses. Fermin said that he and
Genao met with Gene on August 8 and Gene promised him that he
would be working the following Wednesday. This did not come to
pass.
39 Rosario provided some background to the employees’ concerns
about pay. As I understood him, Rosario noted that under the 6-cent
per square foot pay option, the workers did not always receive the
correct amount. The workers waited for corrections, but the situation
was not corrected completely as he put it, that is, the corrections were
made for some installers but not for others. He also cited as an exam-
ple that in June (2008) the installers’ pay was 6 cents and 8 cents, but
baffles and caulking were not being paid in either case. Rosario also
COASTAL INSULATION CORP. 11
Rosario testified that the meeting started at 8 a.m. and about
21–22 employees attended.40 Rosario stated that while he did
not personally participate in the conversations ongoing among
the workers, the central topic was about pay, that is, the in-
stallers were supposed to make 8 cents per foot, which in his
and their view should have included baffles and caulking. Ac-
cordingly, Rosario said that he attended the meeting to support
his coworkers to “reclaim” their rights. Santos and Olivo were
chosen to relay the workers’ concerns to management.
Rosario stated that Ricky and Gene were called by Santos
and Olivo between 8–10 a.m. According to Rosario, Santos
and Olivo spoke first to Ricky over the speaker phone, and later
they conversed with Gene. Rosario admitted that he could not
recall the substance of what Gene said over the speaker
phone.41
However, Rosario testified that later after the meeting, Vic-
tor Honoret told him that Torres had told Honoret that all of
those who signed at the meeting were all fired. Rosario noted
that he knew that Honoret had told Torres about the meeting
beforehand and that the employees were meeting about pay.
On cross-examination, Rosario stated he did not recall San-
tos or Olivo, or anyone for that matter, telling him (or the
group) that the workers could come back to work but that Gene
could not change the pay. However, Rosario volunteered that
the workers did not oppose the 8-cent rate, in fact they were
happy about this; the change was okay with them. According
to Rosario, the issue for the workers was that the pay was not
“correct.”42
Rosario identified the termination letter he received on about
July 4 or 5 from the Company (GC Exh. 3), but noted that he
understood from having the letter read to him that he was fired
for abandonment of his job. Rosario, however, stated that
Jimenez had told him that there was no work assigned his crew
for July 2 and, in part, that was why he and they attended the
meeting.
Odalis Gonzalez testified that he has worked for Coastal
since August 6, 2006, as an insulation installer; he submitted
his original employment application to Gene Hebding through
his brother and fellow installer, Anbiory Gonzalez, who was his
crew leader.
Gonzalez stated that he had injured himself at home in late

stated that for some jobs in June, the workers were paid for baffles.
(Tr. 303–304,)
40 Rosario identified his signature on the sign-in list (GC Exh. 2) and
noted that he observed other employees sign.
41 Rosario stated that at the time he really did not know Gene and
had only met him for the first time at a meeting the week before the
hearing in Trenton, New Jersey. Rosario said that he does not speak
English and could not have conversed with him. Rosario further volun-
teered that Santos and Olivo were explaining (translating) the many
matters brought up in the conversation with Gene, who after a time did
not want to speak with Santos.
42 In response to my question, Rosario, as I understood his translated
testimony, said that the 8-cent rate was okay with the workers but the
baffles and caulking were not reflected in the rate. According to
Rosario, Santos and Olivo were under the previous impression gained
from Gene that the baffles and caulking were to be included in the 8-
cent rate. However, they were not being included and in the July 2
conversation, Santos asked Gene to include them in the materials rate.
June 2008 and was not able to work. However, Odalis said that
he did attend the July 2, 2008 meeting of the installers as did
several of his other relatives.43
Gonzalez testified that the July 2 meeting started between 7
and 8 a.m. and he signed the sign-in sheet as did his relatives.
Gonzalez noted that the meeting was called basically by Santos
and Olivo to attempt to reach an agreement with management
over pay issues. The installers knew what the meeting was
about that day. Gonzalez explained that the Company had pro-
posed an increase in pay for the amount of material used on a
job, but in point of fact management did not “comply” (his
word)44 with what they were offering. Gonzalez stated that he
knew that the increase was to 8 cents per square foot, but ad-
mitted that he did not know if the rate included baffles. Ac-
cordingly, Olivo and Santos told him that they were going to
get together to reach an agreement with the Company because
of its noncompliance with the promised increase.
Gonzalez testified that the installers discussed the agreement,
which they wanted to include payment for the baffles at the
new rate.
Gonzalez stated that he recalled that Olivo and Gene con-
versed around 9 a.m. on July 2. Gonzalez recalled that Olivo
told Gene that he was firing the group because Gene had said
that is what he had and either “we [the installers] wanted it or
not.”45 According to Gonzalez, Olivo said, “[I]f Gene was
firing us, then to come and look for the truck.”
Gonzalez testified that he understands a little English and
heard the conversation over the speaker phone; however, Olivo
and Santos were translating for the benefit of the group. Ac-
cordingly, while he only understood some of what Gene said,
he completely understood Olivo’s part of the conversation indi-
cating to him that the installers were fired. Gonzalez volun-
teered that personally the 8-cent rate was okay, but he thought
he should be paid for the baffles, preparation, and heights.
Gonzalez stated that he did not receive a discharge letter
from the Company. According to Gonzalez, he discovered that

43 Odalis Gonzalez stated a number of his relatives work for the Re-
spondent to include Jairo, a cousin, and two other brothers, Dioni and
Agelis. He identified Jairo, Anbiory, and Dioni as attendees. Agelis
was also a member of Anbiory’s crew. According to Odalis, he pro-
vided a letter from the treating hospital to his brother, Dioni, to give to
the Company informing management of his injury and his incapacita-
tion for an anticipated 6 weeks from June 25. Odalis was not sure that
Dioni gave the letter to management, but he himself called to inform
the Company of his injury.
44 Gonzalez explained that what he meant by the Company’s non-
compliance was that management stated that it was going to pay the
increased rate, but it appeared that in some jobs they paid at different
rates. According to Odalis, there were discrepancies in not only differ-
ent jobs but on the same job.
45 On cross-examination, Gonzalez conceded that Gene was told by
Olivo (or Santos) that the employees wanted to get paid at the 8-cent
per square foot rate for the baffles, plus preparation and height, and that
Gene responded, “This is what I have.” Gonzalez took this to mean do
you want it or not, do you want to come to work for that rate or not.
Gonzalez, however, noted that neither Santos nor Olivo told Gene that
he should (as a condition of their returning to work) pay them 8 cents
per square foot, plus baffles, plus preparation and height. (Tr. 323–
324.)
DECISIONS OF THE NAITONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
he was no longer employed by the Company when he called
Sharon Perez, the company secretary, around July 25, 2008,
seeking information for his medical insurance claim and was
told by her that he no longer worked for the Company. Accord-
ing to Gonzalez, Perez would not provide him the information
he sought.
C. The Respondent’s Witnesses
Gene Hebding testified that he has been employed by
Coastal Insulation for about 32 years and currently serves as an
account manager; however, during year 2008, he was a produc-
tion manager. Gene stated that as production manager he was
in charge of all field supervisors and the insulation installers
performing work for Coastal. As to the installers, his duties
included scheduling their jobs and ensuring that all work was
completed timely and well. Gene stated he possessed hire/fire
authority with respect to the installers as well.46
Gene said that the duties and responsibilities of the installers
included reporting for work by 8 a.m. daily and reporting to
their supervisors—the field supervisor—by 3:30 p.m. daily
regarding the status of their jobs, which the Company expected
as a general matter to be completed within 1 day. Gene noted
that generally he scheduled the installers’ next work assignment
based on the 3:30 p.m. status call and if the job was completed
he would e-mail or fax the next day’s work schedule to the
crew leader by around 6–6:30 p.m.
Gene noted that not all installers reported for their assign-
ments by 8 a.m. because on occasion there were traffic issues,
oversleeping, and ill installers, and other matters that prompted
a later start. He also noted that on occasion a job might be
completed on the second day and an installer might be assigned
a second assignment on that day and report at noon. He stated
that the Company’s expectation was generally that all installers
were to report for their assignments by 8 a.m. Gene added that
as long as the installer called in to his field supervisor and ad-
vised him that he was sick, going to be late, or otherwise held
up, the Company viewed the failure to report at 8 a.m. as ac-
ceptable.47
Gene stated that (in 2008) installers were organized into
crews, with one installer assigned as crew leader who was pro-
vided a company vehicle, tools, and a Nextel (walkie-talkie) as
well as a company issued fax machine. He noted that all in-
stallers were not paid by the hour but essentially by the square
foot of insulation used on the job. Gene stated that prior to
June 2008, installers were paid 6 cents per square foot of insu-

46 The Respondent admits that during all material times Gene Heb-
ding was in his capacity as production manager a supervisor and/or
agent within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) and (13), respectively, of the
Act. Hebding’s own description of his duties and responsibilities, as
well as the record evidence as a whole, fully establishes his statutory
role as a supervisor and/or agent, and I would so find and conclude. In
2008, according to Gene, there were two Coastal production managers,
he and Jorge Clayton.
47 I note at this juncture that the Respondent did not produce any
documentation of discipline of any installers for lateness, and the re-
cord is otherwise devoid of any discipline issued to any of the affected
employees for lateness. It would seem that there was considerable
flexibility in the installers’ work schedule.
lation material as well as the baffles, along with extra pay for
preparation work for the site and heights over 9 feet; occasion-
ally, but not often where the job required an extremely long
distance, Gene said he in his discretion would pay the installers
extra pay.
In the spring of 2008, Gene testified that Coastal’s upper
management, including John Achille, decided to implement a
change in the installers’ pay rate with a view toward giving
them a fairer compensation scheme. Accordingly, the manag-
ers decided to increase the piece-rate from 6 to 8 cents per
square foot but the installers would no longer be paid for height
and baffles; however, they would continue to be paid for extra
site preparation. According to Gene, the change was to take
place on June 1. However, management at the time agreed that
any job entered on the books before June 1 would be paid at the
old rate and with the associated extras; any job after June 1
would be paid at the new rate. Gene stated that the changes
were communicated to the employees through their respective
field supervisors.
Gene admitted that he and his brother, Field Supervisor
Ricky Hebding, received several complaints about the new pay
system from Santos and Olivo; that Ricky also received com-
plaints from the other installers.48 Gene stated that some of the
complaints related to the Company’s nonpayment for the baf-
fles; other complaints related to payments at 6 cents for some
jobs and at 8 cents for other jobs.
Gene stated that he took some of the complaints directly
from the workers, most notably Santos whose main complaint
centered on the baffles and the Company’s decision not to pay
for them. Gene testified that he told Santos that the 2 cents
extra was designed to offset this in attempt to make the pay
system less subjective regarding the extra labor issue. Gene
explained that extra labor was often determined by the account
manager (as opposed to the production manager) who surveyed
the job in question and decided, for instance, that extra labor
would be paid for installation of insulation in a home with a
cathedral ceiling. According to Gene, the new scheme sought
to eliminate this type of subjective assignment of the material
and labor costs for a given job.
Gene also recalled receiving complaints from Olivo who told
him that he had received only 6 cents with no extra labor for a
couple of jobs that took place after June 1. According to Gene,
he told Olivo that the job was booked before June 1, so was
paid at 6 cents. Gene conceded that Olivo was not pleased with
his explanation.49
Turning to July 2, Gene testified that Ricky informed him
about 9 a.m. that two installers, Santos and Rafael Sanchez,

48 I note that the Respondent evidently did not reduce either its old or
certainly the new pay scheme to writing, either in English or Spanish,
and distribute it in written form to the installers The Respondent did
not produce any such written documentation at the hearing.
It is further noteworthy that neither Gene nor Ricky Hebding spoke
Spanish with any degree of fluency. Also, on cross-examination, Gene
could only say that he believed the “message” about the new pay
scheme went out to the installers; he could not be sure. (Tr. 468–469.)
49 Gene did not explain how, if at all, he dealt with or resolved
Olivo’s complaint that he had received no pay for extra labor while
being paid at the 6-cent rate.
COASTAL INSULATION CORP. 13
assigned to a job in Franklin Township did not show up for
work, that Ricky had tried to reach them but was unsuccessful.
Gene stated that he also tried unsuccessfully to reach them on
his Nextel.50 Then, another field supervisor in South Jersey
called and informed him that the assigned crew there had not
shown up either. According to Gene, in both cases Ricky
apologized to the job superintendent; and at least for the South
Jersey job, he was able to get a replacement crew in place.
Gene said that he received a call from Santos at about 11
a.m., but only briefly spoke to him before speaking with Olivo
more at length. Gene admitted that at this time he was kind of
aggravated because three or four customers were irate over the
no-show of the crews, and the Company’s own account manag-
ers were equally upset.51 Gene conceded that both he and San-
tos were upset and angry and raised their voices while arguing
back and forth. Gene candidly stated that in this emotional
state, he questioned Santos’ decision not to go to work and why
he did not call to say he was not reporting to the job. Accord-
ing to Gene, Santos was trying to explain, but raising his voice
also. Gene stated that he and Santos were getting nowhere,52 so
he asked to speak to Olivo.
According to Gene, Olivo told him that he was speaking for
everyone at the meeting and there were perhaps 20 employees,
some from Sealrite, some from Elmsford, and quite a few from
Coastal. Gene testified that Olivo said the employees were not
happy with the new pay rate. Gene stated he tried to explain
how the new rate operated but he had no authority to change it.
Gene stated that he also told Olivo that he was not happy about
their not showing up for work that day, but they were still wel-
come to work that day. Gene said that the workers could have
reported at 11 a.m., 12 noon, or as late as 1 p.m., and that this
would have been acceptable to him. Gene said he even told
Olivo that the employees could come back to work the next
day—July 3—but he needed to know what their decision was
by 5 p.m. on July 2. Gene emphasized to Olivo (and the
group), however, that he could not change the rate.
According to Gene, Olivo responded by saying, “You’re fir-
ing me in that case, you’re firing us.” Gene testified that he
told Olivo that he was not firing anyone, that they could come
back to work, but he could not change the rate. According to
Gene, since Olivo claimed to be speaking for the group, he
asked Olivo to put the guys on the phone so he could speak to
them individually and each could make his own decision, or
they could call him personally if they were willing to continue
working.

50 According to Hebding, one cannot leave messages on Nextel
phones.
51 Gene added that at this time the economy was slowing and build-
ers were themselves under great pressure to complete their projects.
52 Gene volunteered that he and the installers, very good and long-
term employees in his estimate, on prior occasions discussed work
issues like gentlemen; problems were raised and employees were in-
vited to the office to resolve them. According to Gene, even when an
employee did not come to work, the employee would explain his ab-
sence, apologize for not calling, and all would be well. Gene stated that
he could recall no occasion before the July 2 meeting when an em-
ployee, let alone a group of employees, did not show up or not contact
him because they just did not want to work.
Gene testified he was not sure if Olivo communicated his of-
fer to the employees.53 Gene stated that the conversation lasted
about 10–15 minutes and at the end he told Olivo if he (they)
no longer wanted work, it was Olivo’s responsibility to return
the trucks. However, according to Gene, Olivo told him, “If
you are firing me, then you pick up the trucks,” to which Gene
said once more that he was not firing them, but he needed an
answer from them by 5 p.m. that day so he could schedule work
for the next day.
Gene testified that after about 5 p.m. on July 2, John Achille
convened a meeting of the managers to deal with the retrieval
of the company vehicles since the installers had not responded
to Gene’s offer. According to Gene, Achille was concerned
about the July 4 holiday coming up and did not want the trucks
unattended; so a group of managers, including him, rode to-
gether around 5:30—6 p.m. in the vehicle of the Elmsford pro-
duction manager, Wilson Torres, to begin the retrieval of the
company vehicles which were all located in Paterson within a
few blocks of each other.
Gene stated that he, along with Torres, personally picked up
Frederico DeLeon’s vehicle. According to Gene, Torres told
DeLeon (in Spanish) why they were picking up his truck, that is
none (of the installers) had called about returning to work, so it
was assumed no one wanted to work for the Company.54 Gene
also recalled that installer Sandy Genao was present at the time
and Genao reminded him that he was going on vacation the
next day and was planning to return his truck that afternoon.55
Gene stated that he told Genao that he was there to pick up all
the trucks so he would take his as well. However, Gene testi-
fied that he could not recall whether Genao was fired and stated
that he did not send a termination letter to him.
Gene testified that while he received about three to four calls
from employees regarding the pay issues, he could not recall if
Sharon Perez had received complaints from the Spanish-
speaking employees as she did not advise him. Gene stated that
he also could not recall how many complaint calls Ricky may
have received. Moreover, Gene said that he did not alert the
Company’s accounting department (John Achille) about the
specific pay issues, and actually did not speak to anyone in
upper management about the complaints with the possible ex-
ception of conversations with Achille about the pay rate change
itself. Gene noted that he was in charge of the installer payroll
and essentially felt no need to consult with other managers

53 Gene admitted that he then knew the people gathered at the meet-
ing could not speak English. Gene stated that in the past, under such
circumstances, he would have had them call Sharon Perez whom he had
employed to deal with the language issues with installers who might
need help, such as directions to a worksite.
54 It should be noted that neither Torres nor DeLeon testified at the
hearing. Gene acknowledged that DeLeon spoke only Spanish. Gene
said that Torres told him what he told DeLeon.
55 Gene stated that Genao told him that although he told Ricky about
the meeting at around 8 a.m. on July 2, he had no knowledge of the
purpose of the July 2 meeting and he had spoken to Ricky weeks before
about his vacation plans. Gene said that he told Genao that he knew of
his vacation plans. Gene noted that Genao did not work on July 2, but
returned to work in about mid-August 2008. Gene admitted that Genao
filled out a new application upon his return.
DECISIONS OF THE NAITONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
about the specific issues. Gene noted on cross-examination that
the pay issues were discussed in his conversations with Santos
and Olivo on July 2.
Gene testified that on July 2, after being informed by Ricky
that the employees had not shown up for work, he called
Achille (and other managers as well) after 8 a.m., sometime
after Ricky had called, and met with him later and the other
managers at around 5 p.m.56 Gene could not recall meeting
with Achille, fellow production manager Jorge Clayton, another
executive, John Herring, Wilson Torres, or other Coastal execu-
tives at 1 p.m.
Gene testified that the fact that the employees met on July 2
had nothing to do with their separation from the Company. As
far as he was concerned, by not responding to his offer to return
to work by 5 p.m. on July 2, he considered the installers as
having abandoned their jobs and were voluntarily quitting. In
short, they no longer wanted to work for the Company.57
Richard “Ricky” Hebding testified that he has been em-
ployed by Coastal for about 27 years. In July 2008, he held the
position of field supervisor whose main duties were to check on
the various insulation installation jobs to ensure a problem-free
completion. Ricky stated that as field supervisor he possessed
hire/fire authority regarding the installers assigned to him, and
part of his duties included assigning—usually by fax—work
assignments to crew leaders such as Santos, Olivo, and
Nieves.58
Ricky testified that in the spring of 2008, the Company paid
installers 6 cents per square foot (of material) and extra money
for height work, site preparation, and baffles. However, during
this time, the Company decided to do away with payments for
extra labor as well as baffle installation, but increase the
amount paid for material to 8 cents per square foot.
Ricky stated that he (verbally) conveyed the wage change to
Santos, Olivo, Anbiory Gonzalez, and Nieves, the installers
who were more fluent in English, and they were to tell the other
non-English speaking installers about the change.
Ricky noted that he was told by management that new jobs

56 I queried Gene about his contacts with management about the July
2 incident. Gene, noting the installers’ failure to report caused a lot of
upset with management, recalled possibly speaking with Achille be-
tween 9 and 11 a.m. about the issue. Gene was sure he spoke to Achille
around 11:15 or 11:30 a.m., after his conversation with Olivo ended,
because Achille is his supervisor who needed to know what was hap-
pening. (Tr. 469–470.)
57 Gene acknowledged that he had worked out a resolution of job-
related issues with basically the same group of Coastal installers in
2007. However, in that case, he noted that there was no disruption to
the Company’s operations or service to the customers because he knew
of the installers’ concerns ahead of time and, thusly, all the job assign-
ments were covered.
58 Gene testified that field supervisors possessed hire/fire authority,
could suspend workers, or issue (disciplinary) warnings and basically
were authorized to do whatever kind of action they felt necessary (Tr.
441) without consulting him. (Tr. 450.) Gene added that pay discrep-
ancies were usually first brought to the attention of the field supervi-
sors.
Ricky added that Santos’ crew member was Rafael Sanchez; Olivo’s
was Samuel Figaro, and Ramon Fermin; and Nieves’ was Frederico
DeLeon.
would be entered into the computer system under the revised
pay system; jobs that were entered under the old pay scale
would be paid at the 6-cent rate with extra labor until such jobs
were completed. According to Ricky, the installers were told
of this at the time the new pay system was implemented. Ricky
acknowledged that the installers complained to him about the
new system, claiming that they were being paid less under the
new system because of the exclusion of pay for the baffles.
According to Ricky, their complaints centered on the exclusion
of the baffles. He stated that Santos, Olivo, and Nieves com-
plained to him, stating that the straight 8-cent rate produced less
money for them because it did not account for (crawl) space
installations, straight footage on the walls, and heights over the
8-foot standard wall. Ricky said he tried to explain to them that
the new rate more than balanced out the exclusion for those
items. However, the three responded that his explanation was
unacceptable—ridiculous in fact; the installers believed they
were being “screwed.” Ricky said that he continued to try to
convince the installers that over the next few months they
would see that they made out better under the new wage plan.
Ricky acknowledged that he knew of a few on-the-job inci-
dents where pay errors were detected but these were handled by
Gene. He noted that Santos and Olivo had complained to him
that they were getting paid at both the 6-cent and 8-cent rates
on certain projects. Ricky believed that Gene spoke to them
about this after he advised his brother of the problem. Ricky
noted that he could recall only two problems of this type prior
to July 2, and believed they were resolved. Ricky denied that
he put the employees’ complaints off with excuses such as
computer glitches or other explanations. Ricky stated he told
the workers that he would investigate their complaints, usually
through Gene.
Turning to July 2, Ricky testified that he went to a jobsite to
meet with Santos and Rafael Sanchez and discovered that they
were not there. Ricky said that he tried to call them and Olivo
as well, but was unsuccessful; he was finally able to reach
Genao.
According to Ricky, Genao told him that he had been called
that morning and told that the installers were meeting at Olivo’s
house but that he did not know precisely what the meeting was
about, and that he intended to come to work after the meeting.59
Genao also told him that all of the guys at Olivo’s house were
probably not working that day.
Ricky testified that he called his brother, Gene, and told him
that all of the guys were meeting at Olivo’s house. According
to Ricky, Gene asked how many installers were there and he
told him at least all of his (Coastal) guys; because no one had
shown up for his jobs.60
Gene also asked what the meeting was about, and Ricky
stated he told him that it probably had something to do with the

59 Ricky stated that Genao also reminded him that he was scheduled
for vacation to commence that weekend.
60 On cross-examination, Ricky acknowledged that Olivo, Sanchez,
Nieves, DeLeon, Anbiory and Odalis Gonzalez, Santos, and of course
Olivo, pretty much his whole crew, were at the meeting. Ricky stated
that he told Gene the Sealrite crew members were there also.
COASTAL INSULATION CORP. 15
pay; the installers were not happy about the pay rates.61
According to Ricky, Gene told him that he (Ricky) had to get
the jobs covered and he did. Ricky said that the next thing he
knew, Gene called later to say the Company was going to pick
up the trucks later in the evening.
Ricky testified that he spoke to Santos (and possibly Olivo)
after the meeting, around noon that day, and asked him out of
curiosity what was going on and were the installers coming to
work. According to Ricky, Santos told him he was not sure,
but would be consulting the Board.
Ricky noted that Santos did not say that he had been termi-
nated by Gene but said that he was not sure he had been fired.
Ricky testified that he told Santos that he did not know for sure,
but did not believe he had been terminated.
Ricky noted that Santos said that all of the Sealrite and all of
Ricky’s crew met because they were not happy with the pay,
they felt they were being shorted—and specifically disliked not
getting paid for the baffles. Ricky said that he spoke to Gene
after this conversation and told him what the installers’ com-
plaints were about.
Ricky acknowledged that after July 2, neither he nor Gene
sent work to the installers; Ricky stated that in particular he was
given no work to assign his installers.
Manuel Luna (Manuel) testified that he currently works for
Elmsford and was working for the Company during May and
June 2008. Luna stated that he, however, was visiting his home
country, Santo Domingo, from June 27 through July 14, 2008.
Manuel noted that his brother is Rober Luna, whom he trusts
“100% because he is in charge of everything of mine.” (Tr.
543.)
Manuel testified that he did not know of a meeting at Olivo’s
house on July 2, 2008, and only found out about it after his
return to the United States.62 Manuel also stated that he did not
speak with his brother either before leaving for Santo Domingo
or while he was there.
Juan Rober Luna (Rober) testified that he is Manuel’s
brother and, like him, is currently employed by Elmsford.
Rober stated that he was employed at Elmsford on July 2, 2008,
but did not attend the meeting at Olivo’s house.
According to Rober, Honoret called him on July 2 and in-
formed him that they (a group of installers) were going to meet
and make some “demanding” (his word) about the baffles.
Rober stated that the installers were getting paid 6 cents and
they were going to pay 8 cents (for the material).63 According

61 On cross-examination, Ricky said that between June 1 and July 2,
crew leaders Santos, Anbiory Gonzalez, Olivo, and Nieves complained
“5 nights a week” about not getting paid enough for the work they
performed under the new pay system.
62 Manuel was shown (GC Exh. 2) the sign-in sheet and testified that
the signature there was not his, nor did he authorize anyone to put his
name on the list. It should be noted that Manuel was not issued a ter-
mination letter.
63 I am not entirely clear as to what Rober was saying here, based on
his translated testimony. I think he was trying to say that the installers
had been paid 6 cents for the baffles under the old system and were on
July 2 seeking 8 cents, as they were “material” like the sheet insulation.
to Rober, Honoret asked him if he could add his name to the
sign-in list. Rober testified that he told him no, that he was not
“in that problem” and did not want to be included. (Tr. 552.)64
For his part, Rober stated that he understood that the 8-cent rate
did not include the baffles.
Rober said that he spoke to Honoret before the meeting and
that Honoret told him the group was meeting to talk about the
baffles. Rober said that Honoret, a friend, told him not to at-
tend the meeting because Rober was trying to bring his wife to
the United States. Rober admitted that in that light he was fear-
ful of the consequences of attending the meeting.65
Rober also said that he spoke to Honoret later on July 2 and,
while he could not recall the results of the meeting, he noted
that Honoret did not say that he had been fired.
Fedham Gonzalez testified that he currently works for Elms-
ford Insulation and was employed there on July 2, 2008, but did
not actually work that day.
Fedham explained that on July 2, he had made plans to go to
work in New York on a Brooklyn job with his father, with
whom he regularly works and who drives the company vehicle.
Fedham said that on that day his father picked him up but in-
stead drove to New Jersey and on the way he discovered that
his coworkers were concerned about not being paid properly
under the new wage system. Fedham stated that his party met
at a Coastal worker’s home—he could not recall his name—and
recalled seeing a number of installers.66
Fedham related that at the meeting, points were raised to fix
the method by which installers were paid; he recalled that the
wage rate changed from 6 to 8 cents—6 cents with extras and 8
cents without extras. However, according to Fedham, the Com-
pany was paying 6 cents without paying for the extras and noth-
ing for the baffles.
Fedham recalled that Santos called Coastal management and
was speaking aloud to the assembled group to someone on the
other end. Fedham noted that he could hear what Santos was
saying (interpreting) but not what the other person was saying.
Fedham stated that Santos told the other about the pay issues,
but then they got “hyper” (his word) and the next thing the
other person said to bring the vans back to the Company or they
were going to pick them up. Fedham testified that he under-
stood the person speaking with Santos to say because we were
worried about the pay, then in conclusion they (the installers)

On cross-examination, Rober stated that employees believed basi-
cally the Company’s 8-cent rate, including the exclusion of the baffles,
resulted in a pay cut.
64 Shown GC Exh. 2, Rober stated that he did not ask (or permit)
anyone to sign his name. Notably, Rober was not issued a termination
letter.
65 I would note that Rober’s credibility was placed in doubt by his
testimony regarding his concerns that perhaps his family’s ability to
come to this country would be compromised by testifying in support of
the installers. I am not inclined to credit his testimony, especially in
terms of his disavowal of giving Honoret permission to add his name to
the list. It seems both Rober and Manuel worked out their own deal to
keep their jobs.
66 Gonzalez recalled that he specifically saw Jorge Luis (Jimenez),
Epifanio Rosario, Victor (Honoret), and Cesar Cardenas at the July 2
meeting; he could not recall the names of the others.
DECISIONS OF THE NAITONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD16
were not going to work, and they (the Company) were going to
take the vans. (Tr. 559). According to Fedham, the installers
did not want to work for the pay rate Coastal was paying.67
Fedham recalled that Victor Honoret spoke by phone to Wil-
son Torres, and Torres asked who was on the list (sign-in) from
Elmsford and then said everyone on the list is not going to
work. (Tr. 561.)
On cross-examination, Fedham disclosed that he returned to
work at Elmsford about 2 months after the July 2 meeting,
working once more on his father’s crew.68 He noted, however,
that between July 2 and his return to work, he received no work
orders from the Company.
Sandy Genao testified that he currently works for Coastal as
an installer of insulation. Genao stated that although he was
scheduled to work on July 2, he attended the meeting of the
installers. Accordingly, he did not report at 7 or 8 a.m. as re-
quired for his assignment that day.69 According to Genao, the
purpose of the meeting at Olivo’s house was to discuss jobs for
which we were not getting paid or not being paid as the Com-
pany promised, and that he was told more or less about these
purposes before attending the meeting.
Genao stated that he planned to go to work after the meeting
and actually called Ricky to tell him he would be late. Genao
recalled being at the meeting when Gene and Olivo were talk-
ing, but could not recall whether the conversation was broad-
cast on the speakerphone and could not recall what Gene said.
Moreover, Genao could not recall hearing the conversation
because they were the ones representing everybody.70
Genao acknowledged that he dialed up Gene on his cell
phone since he had Gene's number and that Santos’ conversa-
tion with Gene was made on his phone. Genao said that while
he understands English a little, Olivo and Santos translated

67 Actually, Fedham’s response here was to a leading question posed
by the Respondent’s counsel, and Fedham’s response was, “Exactly.
Because the work until that point was fixed.” (Tr. 559.) In my view,
this answer was not responsive to counsel’s question and no follow-up
question was posed by counsel. Therefore, I will not credit this re-
sponse to the extent that the witness was saying that the installers as a
group or individually did not want to work at the 8-cent rate.
68 Fedham acknowledged that when he returned to work, he was not
required to fill out a new employment application or submit additional
immigration or other documentation. Fedham also volunteered that
during the nearly 2-month hiatus, his father was visiting Santo Do-
mingo. I note that while Fedham signed the sign-list, he did not receive
a termination letter from the Respondent.
69 Genao testified that the installers were supposed to start working
at 7 or 8 a.m. because the builders were anxious for them to start; they
did not want to be held up or wait for the installers. Genao did not say
where he was scheduled to work on July 2. The Respondent also ad-
duced no documentation of his work assignment for July 2. On cross-
examination, Genao stated that, ultimately, he did not work on July 2
because the meeting took up the day. Genao also noted he was going to
go on vacation the next day and planned to return the van to the Com-
pany later that day.
70 Genao’s testimony in this regard was not only unresponsive, but
practically incomprehensible. Asked by the Respondent’s counsel
whether he heard anything that Gene said, Genao answered “I don’t
recall.” Asked by the Respondent’s counsel, “Did you ever hear Gene
say that anyone was fired?” Genao answered, “I don't know. I think
that he left that message with Sergio [Santos].” (Tr. 417.)
Gene’s conversation and they told the group that “we had lost
our jobs.”
Genao could recall that at some point Gene said return the
vans and Gene later did pick up his vehicle at around 7 p.m.
However, according to Genao, he told Gene that when he re-
turned from his vacation, he wanted the van returned to him.
Genao also volunteered that he told Gene at that time there
were many employees like him who wanted their jobs back.
(Tr. 421.)
Genao stated he did not believe he was terminated on July 2
and, in fact, believed all of the installers were coming back to
work based on Gene’s asking him who was returning to work.
Genao also stated that he could not recall any employee attend-
ing the July 2 meeting say that he was quitting; they simply did
not go to work that day.
Genao noted that when he returned from vacation in August
he had to fill out a new application, as did his cousin, Ramon
Fermin, who also wanted to return to work. Genao stated that
at the time he met with Gene and told him that he was not part
of the work stoppage. However, according to Genao, Gene told
him that his name appeared on the Board’s complaint and that
he should remove himself from the list. Genao stated that he
told Gene that he was already out (of favor) with the installers
because he was working. However, Genao stated he later
called the Board agent and asked to be removed (from the suit)
because he believed the employees lost their right to be em-
ployed by the Company.71
Hugo Tavarez testified that he was currently employed by
Elmsford Insulation which included Coastal, and as he de-
scribed the Respondent’s business, “the whole corporate.”
Tavarez stated that he has worked for Elmsford since around
late 1998, starting first as an installer for about 3–4 years, then
to field supervisor, and now production manager—the position
he also held in July 2008.
Tavarez stated that he knew Wilson Torres from years past
because Torres was a production manager to whom he reported
when he was a field supervisor. However, in July 2008, he and
Torres were both production managers. Tavarez recalled that
Torres supervised installers Rafael Sanchez and Jose Batista.
Tavarez stated that he was told by the Company about the
wage change, but was not exactly sure of the time frame for its
implementation.72 However, Tavarez believed it occurred in
the summer of 2008 and was sure that he spoke individually to
every one of the 28 installers under his supervision about the
change. Tavarez noted that the installers actually asked him to
explain the change because admittedly some workers were
confused about the matter. Tavarez volunteered that there were

71 I did not find Genao’s testimony to be particularly persuasive. It
seems clear that he worked out a separate handling of the protest for his
own protection and continued employment. I note that even he, in spite
of his testimony, was sent a termination letter by Gene who testified
earlier that this was a mistake.
72 Tavarez also could not recall the exact date he was promoted to
production manager but believed this occurred in the context of his
return to the Company from a short stint at another company in Buf-
falo, New York, in April 2008. Tavarez noted that upon his rehire with
the Respondent, he did not have to fill out a new application or submit
other documentation such as W-4s.
COASTAL INSULATION CORP. 17
complaints and constant questions from some installers, but he
continued trying to explain the new system.
Tavarez stated that all installers should be on the job by no
later than 8 a.m. because the builders and company account
managers will complain to upper management. Accordingly,
installers are supposed to contact their field supervisor in the
morning and in the afternoon; and failing that, the field supervi-
sor would call them. For instance, he noted that the morning
calls were required to forestall or deal with access to the job
issues or work ticket problems; the afternoon call was basically
a status check to determine if the job was completed so that the
work schedule for the next day could be made.
Tavarez recalled that on July 2, Torres called him and asked
him to pick up the Company’s trucks assigned to Honoret and
Jimenez. Tavarez stated that he picked up Honoret’s truck on
July 2 in the Bronx. However, Jimenez’ truck was not returned
until July 3 because the parking lot attendant would not release
it to them on July 2; Rafael Sanchez’ truck also was picked up a
few days after July 2.73
On cross-examination, Tavarez testified that he asked Torres
why the trucks were being picked up, but Torres did not explain
at the time; Torres did not give him much information. How-
ever, Tavarez said that probably the next day Torres told him
the guys were fired. (Tr. 536.)
Tavarez noted in passing that in spite of the complaints and
questions, “no one on his side”74 ever threatened to quit be-
cause of the wage change.
John Achille, an admitted supervisor/agent, testified and
stated that he serves as a vice president of Coastal whose duties
and responsibilities include managing the office clerical staff,
the accounts, production, and warehouse departments of the
Company; Achille said he reports to Steven Schwartz, the
president. Achille stated he essentially oversees daily the func-
tions and operations of these departments and assists in making
decisions regarding same, but had no direct role in terms of
assigning work to the installers. According to Achille, this
latter function was assigned to the production manager.75
Achille stated the next level of supervisors for the installers are
the field supervisors.76
Achille, however, stated that he is responsible for and famil-
iar with accounting for the numbers associated with Coastal’s
work force—the installer in particular. Along theses lines,
Achille testified that Sandy Genao is currently employed as an

73 Tavarez stated he was not instructed to pick up the vehicle as-
signed to installer Jose Batista on July 2. According to Tavarez, Batista
worked for a time after July 2, but quit. Tavarez said he picked up
Batista’s truck about 2 months later. Tavarez said that Sanchez also
worked after July 2, but also quit at some point.
74 I interpreted this to mean, none of the 28 installers Tavarez said he
supervised.
75 Achille identified Wilson Torres, Hugo Tavarez, Jorge Clayton,
and Gene Hebding as the production managers employed by the Com-
pany during the summer of 2008.
76 Achille identified the field supervisors employed as such in the
summer of 2008 as follows: Ricky Hebding, Ritchie Le Cant, Dave
Carter (Coastal); Keith Corrine (Sealrite); and Pete Tenierny, Jose
Fuentes (Elmsford). Achille stated that the field supervisors report to
the production managers.
installer and was not terminated on July 2, 2008; Rober Luna
and Manuel Luna are currently employed as installers; Fedham
Gonzalez is also currently employed; however, Odalis Gon-
zalez quit his job on July 7, 2008. Achille also noted that Jose
Batista continued to work for the Company after July 2, but
quit on July 11, 2008. Likewise, according to Achille, Rafael
Sanchez worked after July 2 for Elmsford but refused to work
on or about July 14, 2008.77
Achille stated that he was familiar with the events of July 2,
2008. According to Achille, Gene told him that a number of
installers had not shown up for work on that day, and he dis-
cussed the issue with Gene and attempted to identify those
workers who had not reported to work in order to service the
affected customers and (in his words) try to salvage the balance
of the day. Achille stated that he also spoke with Ricky about
the matter since a majority of those not reporting were his men.
Achille noted that at the time of these discussions, he was
not in the office so, upon his arrival there, he convened a meet-
ing around 1 p.m. with his managers to discuss the situation and
ascertain which jobs in particular were affected; the meeting
was attended by Jorge Clayton, Gene Hebding, John Herring,
and Wilson Torres.
On cross-examination, Achille testified that Gene had told
him around 11 a.m. on July 2 that a group of almost 20 in-
stallers had not shown up for work and were having a meeting.
Achille stated that he could not recall whether Gene mentioned
anything about the substance of the employee meeting. Ac-
cording to Achille, Gene told him that Ricky had informed him
just that there were some guys meeting. (Tr. 381.) Achille
stated he received all of the information about the meeting from
Gene who did not tell him precisely or specifically why the 20
workers were not reporting to work, and he did not ask him.
Achille noted, however, he was upset because the customers
were not served and the customers were also upset. (Tr. 405.)
Achille stated that basically whatever happened at the meeting
happened with Gene and he merely reacted to Gene’s telling
him that the workers did not show up, leaving customers un-
served, his main concern.78
Achille stated that the management meeting lasted about 15–
20 minutes, and Gene said that he had spoken with Santos and
Olivo and that Ricky had also spoken to some of the installers.
However, Achille said that he could not recall what Gene (or
Ricky) might have said to the employees regarding their com-

77 Achille identified the employment status of these individuals by
referring to GC Exh. 2, the sign-in sheet, and GC Exh. 13(c), Odalis
Gonzalez’ personnel action sheet, and evidently from his memory.
78 I am not persuaded by Achille’s denial here and later in his testi-
mony regarding what he was or was not told by Gene about the em-
ployees’ reasons for meeting, and particularly not showing up for work.
Achille impressed me as very intelligent and dutiful. It is hard for me
to imagine a man of his position and maturity not at least asking Gene
why 20 of the 120 installers employed by the Respondent did not report
for work on July 2. It also was difficult for me to credit Gene’s testi-
mony that he at no time told Achille of the ongoing pay issues with the
Dominican group. Both of these men did not appear to me to be in-
clined to such remissness in the conduct of the Respondent’s business.
In short, I do not believe that Achille was totally honest in this aspect of
his testimony.
DECISIONS OF THE NAITONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD18
plaints. Achille noted that the managers were waiting for the
employees to contact the Company, and further noted that Gene
had not told him that he had fired the workers.
Achille stated that the installers were unresponsive to Gene’s
attempt to reach out to the workers, and he began to feel un-
comfortable about the security of the company vehicles as-
signed to these workers. Achille testified that he made the
decision to pick up the trucks—later in the day—but could not
recall the time except that he had not made the decision by 3
p.m. (Tr. 388.) He noted that his concerns centered on security
over the July 4 holiday for the company vehicles located at two
locations in Paterson, New Jersey, and in (the Bronx) New
York. According to Achille, the vehicles were picked up
around 6 p.m. on July 2, and that it was important to retrieve
them at that time because the cut-off time for scheduling of jobs
for the next day is 5 p.m., as schedules are made after 6 p.m.
the day before. According to Achille, it took a few hours to
retrieve the vehicles but all of the vehicles were back at com-
pany headquarters by about 9 p.m. on July 2.
Achille testified that he assisted with the retrieval of the ve-
hicles, along with Tavarez, Herring, Torres, Gene, Clayton, and
Chris Unitus, another manager. Achille stated that he and Gene
went to Genao’s residence to pick up his truck and Gene spoke
with Genao at the time. Achille said while he did not speak
Spanish (according to Achille, of the managers, only Torres
spoke Spanish) he could tell by Genao’s body language that he
was concerned about his job. Achille noted that Genao did not
work on July 2 or 3, and he was not assigned work on either
July 2 or 3.79
Achille stated that by his having hire/fire authority, he au-
thorized the letters of termination for the affected installers and
sent them out on July 3 in the late afternoon. However, Achille
said that while he did not author the letters, he did review them
prior to sending them out.80
IV. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. The General Counsel’s Position
The General Counsel contends that it is undisputed that the
installers met at Olivo’s home on July 2 to discuss essentially
the Respondent’s failure, as they viewed things, to fairly and
properly compensate them under its newly instituted flat-rate
pay system.
The General Counsel argues that is equally undisputed that
during the course of the meeting, Santos and Olivo telephoned
both Gene and Ricky Hebding to inform them on behalf of the
gathered installers of the meeting, and its general purpose to
correct pay irregularities and receive proper compensation un-
der the Respondent’s pay scheme. The General Counsel sub-

79 Achille identified GC Exh. 14, Genao’s employee set up, change,
and termination authorization form, that Gene filled out which indi-
cated that Genao was terminated for abandonment of his job and that
his last day of work was July 2, 2008. Achille also recalled that Genao
applied for unemployment benefits and that upon his return from vaca-
tion, he filled out a new employment application.
80 Achille stated that Carol La Belle and Rich Fall at headquarters
coauthored the letter, but that perhaps Gene and Torres both read it.
Notably, Gene and Torres actually signed off on the letters.
mits that under applicable Board law, the employees’ July 2
meeting was protected under the Act.
The General Counsel further asserts that the installers gath-
ered at the meeting—whose identities were known by man-
agement, namely, Gene and Ricky and another supervisor, Wil-
son Torres—were terminated by the Respondent because they
had engaged in protected concerted activity. The General
Counsel submits that Santos and Olivo, speaking and translat-
ing for the concerns of the group, at no time stated that they
were quitting and fully intended to go to work that day, assum-
ing, of course, they were scheduled to do so. The General
Counsel notes that not only does the text of the Respondent’s
termination letter establish a discriminatory nexus between the
discharge and the installers’ protected activity, but so does the
abrupt and swift discharge of a fairly substantial portion of the
Respondent’s work force establish both a nexus and a discrimi-
natory motive. Essentially, the General Counsel submits that
within hours of the meeting at which the installers expressed
their concerns to both Hebdings and Gene’s angry take-it or
leave-it response, the Respondent took the first step to dis-
charge the installers; that is, they picked up the company trucks
and equipment. The discharge letters followed within a day’s
time on July 3. The General Counsel submits that there can be
no doubt that the Respondent, under these circumstances, dis-
charged the installers because they engaged in statutorily guar-
anteed protected activity.
Regarding the Respondent’s asserted reasons for terminating
the installers, the General Counsel submits that they are mere
pretext and not supported by Board law. The General Counsel
notes that employees seeking to assert their statutorily guaran-
teed rights—here a work stoppage to draft a petition protesting
what they perceived were problems with the new system—do
not have to obtain the permission of the employer before assert-
ing them. The Act and Board law, the General Counsel notes,
protects workers faced with perceived threats to their rights as
employees. Accordingly, that the installers did not provide
advance notice on July 2 does not remove them from the pro-
tection of the Act.
The General Counsel also contends by way of anticipation of
the Respondent’s defense that employees’ protesting work con-
ditions can protest by any legitimate means to include a strike,
even if other lesser means could have been used to address their
concerns.
Regarding the Respondent’s defense (as stated in the termi-
nation letters) that the installers were fired because they aban-
doned, and wrongfully so, their jobs, the General Counsel as-
serts that the Respondent presented no evidence they had in-
deed abandoned any (assigned) jobs. Merely failing to appear
at a jobsite that morning, the General Counsel contends, basi-
cally does not support a claim of job abandonment for all of the
installers, especially considering the testimony that the in-
stallers had considerable discretion regarding report time and
some had no work scheduled for either July 2 or 3. Moreover,
based on the credible testimony of the installers, and even
Gene, the workers in the July 2 conversation never threatened
to quit or said that they were quitting. The General Counsel
submits that the installers at no time abandoned their jobs and
the Respondent’s termination letter, stating that they had, was a
COASTAL INSULATION CORP. 19
mere pretext and cover for the unlawful discharge.
The General Counsel also contends that the installers did not
engage in a partial or intermittent strike in order to cause pur-
posefully irreparable damage to the Respondent’s business, or
to dictate their own terms of employment. Moreover, the Re-
spondent presented no evidence to support such a claim. The
General Counsel notes that the 22 installers here had no estab-
lished grievance procedure to utilize for redress of their griev-
ances, let alone any representatives to act on their behalf, save
several outspoken crew leaders like Santos, Olivo, and Nieves.
The General Counsel argues the employees had no other choice
but to speak up for themselves as best they could, and in fact
did so in the least damaging way to the Respondent’s busi-
ness—early in the morning of July 2 when the day’s work
could have been performed after the meeting. The General
Counsel implies the Respondent’s intemperate response to the
installers’ complaints caused whatever damage there was to the
business.
The General Counsel notes on this score that it should be
kept in mind that in spite of the many and repeated complaints
from installers such as Santos, Olivo, and others about the ir-
regularities in their pay and what clearly was their lack of un-
derstanding of its implementation and operation, the Respon-
dent remained unresponsive. The General Counsel, in essence,
asserts that the Respondent’s unresponsive behavior forced the
installers to stop work, such as they had in April 2007, to at-
tempt to resolve the issues, to gain an audience with Gene, and
come to some acceptable resolution of the pay issues, particu-
larly the operation, application, and implementation of the new
pay system.
The General Counsel finally notes that the Respondent,
based on the termination letters, discharged workers participat-
ing in the meeting but who were not even scheduled to work
that day, raising the specter that its defense is mere pretext and
coverup for the real reason they were discharged—engaging in
protected activity.
B. The Respondent’s Position
The Respondent essentially argues that the installers, at-will
employees all on July 2, 2008, engaged in a premeditated, ma-
licious, and unlawful strike in a calculating attempt to dictate to
the Company basic terms and conditions of employment and
cause damage—causing customer dissatisfaction—to its busi-
ness. The Respondent further contends that in spite of the in-
stallers’ unlawful action, the Company offered them uncondi-
tionally the opportunity to return to their jobs either on the af-
ternoon of July 2 or by July 3, 2008. However, this offer was
certainly rejected by Olivo and Santos who essentially told the
Company to pick up its vehicles, as well as the remaining in-
stallers who failed to respond to the Company’s overtures.
The Respondent asserts that the General Counsel failed in his
burden to demonstrate engagement in protected activity by the
installers, and that the Respondent engaged in retaliatory be-
havior prohibited by the Act. The Respondent, conceding that
the facts associated with this matter are hotly contested, con-
tends, nonetheless, that the General Counsel’s main witness
(Santos) is not only incredible but was willfully false in contra-
vention of his oath to tell the truth.
The Respondent argues that the most vocal of the company
installers including the principal spokesmen, Olivo and Santos,
were not willing to work for the Respondent’s rate of pay and
were not going to return to work unless there was an agreement
between the parties, making this demand in spite of the undis-
puted fact that there was no contract of employment between
them.
In short, the Respondent submits that the installers engaged
in an economic strike; but the Respondent made an uncondi-
tional offer to them of immediate return to work without pen-
alty; and the installers refused this offer. The Respondent con-
tends given this scenario, it did not engage in unfair labor prac-
tices or retaliatory behavior on July 2 or at anytime thereafter
by discharging the installers.
The Respondent notes that Santos, in a later conversation
with Ricky Hebding, did not state that he had been fired but
was going to the Board to discuss the matter. The Respondent
also notes that it did not send out the termination letters until
July 3, thus evidencing its conciliatory purpose of giving the
installers every opportunity to come back to work.
On balance, the Respondent asserts that the installers were
at-will employees who attempted to mandate and dictate the
terms and conditions of their employment with Coastal. The
installers had no basic right under Board law to take the actions
they did on July 2. Accordingly, the Respondent contends the
charges here should be dismissed.
V. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Section 7 of the Act (in pertinent part) provides that
“[e]mployees shall have the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist any labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the
right to refrain from any or all such activities.” Thus, in short,
employees have the statutory right, in concert, to take action for
better job conditions.
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act provides: “It shall be an unfair la-
bor practice for an employer (1) to interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7.”81
As noted, Section 8(a)(1) also entitles employees to engage
in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection. In
NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9 (1962), the
Supreme Court affirmed that employees with no bargaining
representative or established procedure for presenting their
grievances may, nonetheless, take collective and concerted
action to air their grievances regarding terms and conditions of
employment. Employees are not required to give advance no-
tice of their intention to take collective action where the failure
to report to work was a concerted action for mutual aid and

81 In CGLM, Inc., 350 NLRB 974, 979, (2008), the administrative
law judge noted that the Act is concerned with concerted activity, not
concerted thought. Accordingly, all participants in a group activity
need not have identical reasons for engaging in the activity in question.
Such differences in employee concerns do not render the activity indi-
vidual as opposed to concerted. See also Advance Cleaning Service,
274 NLRB 942 (1985).
DECISIONS OF THE NAITONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD20
protection. Lisanti Foods, Inc., 227 NLRB 898 (1977).
In this regard, the Board has determined that employees who
discuss their wage rates engage in protected activity. Freder-
icksburg Glass & Mirror, 323 NLRB 165 (1997). More re-
cently, the Board has held that employees who complained
about favoritism, wages, and bonuses engaged in protected
activity. North Carolina License Plate Agency # 118, 346
NLRB 293 (2006).
However, it is axiomatic under Board law that an employer
is entitled to set the terms and conditions of employment of its
work force. Consolidated Diesel Co. v. NLRB, 263 F.3d 345
(4th Cir. 2001); TNT Logistics of America, Inc. v. NLRB, 413
F.3d 402 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the Board has long and
consistently held that partial and intermittent strikes (work
stoppages) are denied the protection of the Act. Vencare Ancil-
lary Services v. NLRB, 352 F.3d 318 (6th Cir. 2003).82
The Board has defined concerted activity. When an em-
ployee acts with or on the authority of other employees, the
employee is engaged in concerted activity. Meyers Industries,
268 NLRB 493, 497 (1984) (Meyers I), remanded sub nom.
Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985), 281 NLRB 888
(1986) (Meyers II), cert. denied 487 U.S. 1205 (1988).
As noted in the recent case, Ashville School, Inc., 83 in which
the administrative law judge was upheld, the following sum-
mary of the Board’s interpretation of concerted activity (taken
from Diva Ltd., 325 NLRB 822 (1998)) is instructive:
Since Meyers [Meyers Industries (Meyers I], 268 NLRB 493
(1984), and Meyers Industries (Meyers II), 281 NLRB 882
(1986), the Board has found an individual employee’s activi-
ties to be concerted when they grew out of prior group activ-
ity, when the employee acts formally or informal, on behalf of
the group, or when an individual employee solicits other em-
ployees to engage in group action, even where such solicita-
tions are rejected. However, the Board has long held that for
conversations between employees to be found protected con-
certed activity, they must look toward group actions and that
mere “griping” is not protected. See Mushroom Transporta-
tion Co. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 683 (3rd Cir. 1964), and its prog-
eny. Id. at 830.
As the Board stated in Holling Press, Inc., 343 NLRB 301
(2004):
In order for employee conduct to fall within the ambit
of Section 7, it must be both concerted and engaged in for
the purpose of “mutual aid or protection.” These are re-
lated but separate elements that the General Counsel must
establish in order to show a violation of Section 8(a)(1).

82 A partial strike is a concerted attempt by employees, while re-
maining at work, to bring economic pressure to bear on their employer,
as by refusing to work overtime, engaging in a slowdown, or accepting
some tasks and refusing to perform others. An intermittent strike is a
series of concerted refusals to work during a short interval, followed by
a resumption of work. See, The Developing Labor Law, Fourth Edi-
tion, Chapter 6, III, C, 2. Notably, Sec. 13 of the Act provides that
nothing in the Act shall be construed so as to either interfere with or
impede or diminish in any way the right to strike.
83 347 NLRB 877 (2006).
Accordingly, employees who simply pursue a personal
claim, even with the assistance of other employees, may not be
extended the protection of the Act under Holling Press, Inc.,
supra. In short, the employee must be shown to be seeking a
collective goal and may not simply advance his or her personal
claim.84
When the alleged 8(a)(1) violation turns, as in the instant
case, on the employer’s motive in taking an adverse action
against an employee, the Board requires that the charge be ana-
lyzed under the framework set out in Wright Line, 251 NLRB
1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied
455 U.S. 989 (1982).
Under Wright Line, the General Counsel must initially estab-
lish (1) that the employees engaged in protected concerted ac-
tivity; (2) the employer has knowledge of that activity; (3) ani-
mus or hostility toward this activity was a motivating factor in
the employer’s decision to take the adverse action in question
against the employee.85
However, it should be noted that the Board has held that the
existence of or lack of unlawful animus is not material when
the very conduct for which employees are disciplined is itself
protected concerted activity. Burnup & Sims, Inc. 256 NLRB
965, 975 (1981).
Once the General Counsel establishes initially that the em-
ployee’s protected activity was a motivating factor in the em-
ployer’s decision, the burden of persuasion shifts to the em-
ployer to show that it would have taken the same action even in
the absence of the protected activity. Transportation Manage-
ment Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983).
It is also well settled, however, that when an employer’s
stated motives for its actions are found to be false, the circum-
stances may warrant an inference that the true motive is one
that the employer desires to conceal. The motive may be in-
ferred from the total circumstances provided. Moreover, under
certain circumstances, the Board will infer animus in the ab-
sence of direct evidence. That finding may be inferred from the
record as a whole. Fluor Daniel, Inc., 304 NLRB 970 (1991).
Inferences of animus and discriminatory motivation may be
warranted under all the circumstances of a case, as noted even
without direct evidence. Evidence of suspicious timing, false
reasons given in defense, failure to adequately investigate al-
leged misconduct,86 departures from past practices, tolerance of
behavior for which the alleged discriminatee was fired, dispa-
rate treatment of the discharged employees, and reassignments

84 See Gartner-Harf Co., 308 NLRB 531 fn. 1 (1992), where the
Board noted that an employee’s personal complaints about his own lack
of work hours were deemed not protected.
85 On occasion, the Board and the Circuit Courts of Appeals have
added as an independent fourth element the necessity for there to be a
causal nexus between the (union/concerted activity) animus and the
employer’s adverse action. Blue Diamond Growers, 353 NLRB No. 6
fn. 4 (2008).
86 The Board advises that the investigation should be full and fair.
The Board has also noted, however, that while an employer’s failure to
conduct a full and fair investigation into alleged misconduct of an em-
ployee may constitute evidence of discriminatory intent, such failure
will not always constitute evidence of such intent. Hewlett Packard
Co., 341 NLRB 492 (2004).
COASTAL INSULATION CORP. 21
of union supporter from former duties isolating the employee,
all support inferences of animus and discriminatory motivation.
Adco Electric, 307 NLRB 1113, 1123 (1992), enfg. 6 F.3d 1110
(5th Cir. 1993); Electronic Data Systems Corp., 305 NLRB 219
(1991); Bryant & Cooper Steakhouse, 304 NLRB 750 (1991);
Bourne Manor Extended Health Care Facility, 332 NLRB 72
(2000); Visador Co., 303 NLRB 1039, 1044 (1991); In-
Terminal Service Corp., 309 NLRB 23 (1992); Nortech Waste,
336 NLRB 554 (2001); Banta Catalog Group, 342 1311
(2004); and L.S.F. Transportation, Inc., 330 NLRB 1054
(2000); and Medic One, Inc., 331 NLRB 464 (2000).
The employer’s burden under Wright Line requires it “to es-
tablish its Wright Line defense only by a preponderance of
evidence.” The respondent’s defense does not fail simply be-
cause not all of the evidence supports it, or even because some
evidence tends to negate it. Merillat Industries, 307 NLRB
1301, 1303 (1992).
To establish an affirmative defense, “[a]n employer cannot
simply present a legitimate reason for its action but must per-
suade by a preponderance of the evidence that the same action
would have taken place even in the absence of the protected
activity.” W. F. Bolin Co., 311 NLRB 1118, 1119 (1993), enfd.
99 F.3d 1139 (6th Cir. 1996).
Notably, the test applies regardless of whether the case in-
volves pretextual reasons or dual motivation. Frank Black
Mechanical Services, 271 NLRB 1302 fn. 2 (1984). The Board
has held that, “[A] finding of pretext necessarily means that the
reasons advanced by the employer either did not exist or were
not, in fact, relied on, thereby leaving intact the inference of
wrongful motive.” Limestone Apparel Corp., 255 NLRB 722
(1981), enfd. 705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1982). In short, a finding
of pretext defeats any attempt by the employer to show that it
would have discharged the discriminatee absent his union ac-
tivities. Golden State Foods Corp., 340 NLRB 382 (2003).
The Board has determined that decisions affecting an em-
ployee’s condition of employment may be based on its exercise
of business judgment and that judges should not substitute their
business judgment for that of an employer. Lamar Advertising
of Hartsford, 343 NLRB 261 (2004); Yellow Ambulance Ser-
vice, 342 NLRB 804 (2004).
Moreover, the Board has emphasized that the crucial factor
is not whether the business reason was good or bad, but
whether it was honestly invoked and was in fact the cause of
the action. Framan Mechanical, Inc., 343 NLRB 408 (2004).
Discussion and Conclusions
A. The Supervisory/Agency Status of Wilson Torres and Ricky
Hebding
Before launching into a discussion of the substantive issues,
a preliminary matter remains outstanding. The Respondent
denied in its answer the supervisory/agency status of two of its
employees who, as the record discloses, played a significant
role in this cause—Richard “Ricky” Hebding and Wilson Tor-
res, allegedly a field and a production manager, respectively, in
the Respondent’s management scheme.
Notably, throughout the hearing, the Respondent objected to
the admission of any statements attributable to these persons
essentially on grounds of hearsay because of its denial that they
met the statutory definitions of “supervisor” or “agent” within
the meaning of the Act.
The Respondent, it would appear, seems to have conceded
Ricky’s and Torres’ supervisory/agency status.87 However, the
party alleging supervisory status has the burden of proving not
only that a given employee possesses at least one of the super-
visory authorities enumerated in Section 2(11) of the Act, but
also that the putative supervisor uses independent judgment in
the exercise of that authority. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348
NLRB 686, 687 (2006). To prove independent judgment, the
Board advises,
[I]t must be shown that, when the putative supervisor makes a
decision exercising supervisory authority, that decision is
“free of the control of others” and “not . . . dictated or con-
trolled by detailed instructions,” including the “verbal instruc-
tions of a higher authority.” . . . Where the putative supervisor
serves as a conduit relaying assignments from management to
the employees, the independent judgment standard is not met.
PPG Aerospace Industries, Inc., 353 NLRB No. 23, slip op.
at 1 (2008).
The General Counsel argues that Torres is not only a statu-
tory supervisor under Section 2(11) but also a statutory agent
under Section 2(13) of the Act. The General Counsel submits
on this record that he, to a certainty, proved that Torres, as a
production manager in the Respondent’s administrative hierar-
chy, possessed the authority to hire, fire, discipline, transfer,
and assign work to employees, mainly, the so-called New York
installers including crew leaders like Victor Honoret and Epi-
fanio Rosario. The General Counsel also asserts that Torres
interviewed and hired employees—like Olivo—without first
obtaining the approval of upper managers, i.e., Steve Schwartz
and Achille, and toward that end collected necessary applica-
tions and documentation—e.g., immigration and internal reve-
nue forms—for all such new hires. The General Counsel notes
that according to Achille, production managers reported to the
Respondent’s vice president and operations manager, namely
himself and Schwartz, respectively. The General Counsel con-
tends that the record clearly demonstrates that during the mate-
rial time frame—May through July 2, 2008, Torres, as produc-
tion manager, exercised independent judgment in terms of de-
termining daily what jobs were assigned and reassigned to the
crews under his supervision. Notably, the General Counsel
submits that Torres was sought out by the Elmsford and Seal-
rite employees (e.g., Rosario and Honoret) about work-related
issues and particularly the wage issues pertinent herein, as well
as getting his approval for vacation, sick, and other leave time.
The General Counsel aptly notes that Torres was in fact Gene
Hebding’s counterpart in the Respondent’s administrative hier-
archy and performed essentially the same duties for Elmsford
as Hebding did for Coastal. The General Counsel notes further

87 In its brief, the Respondent does not treat at all with the complaint
allegations that Ricky Hebding and Wilson Torres were supervisors and
agents. This is quite contrary to the stance the Respondent asserted at
the hearing, at which the Respondent’s counsel interposed as a standing
objection to the admission of any statements attributed to either man.
DECISIONS OF THE NAITONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD22
that by dint of his duties and responsibilities that Gene Hebding
was a statutory supervisor at all material times, and the Re-
spondent has even in its answer admitted as much. Torres,
occupying the same position. possessed the identical authority
as Gene and performed the same functions. Accordingly, Tor-
res’ supervisory status is well established on this record.
The General Counsel also contends that Torres was also a
statutory agent of the Respondent under Section 2(13) of the
Act.88
The General Counsel essentially submits that the Elmsford
and Sealrite installers viewed Torres as their “boss,” the point
person to whom they would turn to deal with employment-
related issues such as wages, vacation, and leave requests; Tor-
res also was the person known by the installers to make hiring
decisions and through whom interviews were arranged and
conducted. The General Counsel submits under the circum-
stances, as testified to by the installer witnesses in this case, the
employees reasonably believed that Torres was authorized to
speak for and represent the Respondent regarding issues associ-
ated with the terms and conditions of their employment.
Regarding the supervisor and/or agency status of Ricky Heb-
ding, the General Counsel submits that he, too, on the undis-
puted record herein, clearly meets the statutory definitions. The
General Counsel asserts that Ricky himself admitted that he
was the supervisor of the Coastal crews working under his su-
pervision, in that he possessed the independent authority to
hire, fire, and otherwise discipline the installers under his su-
pervision such as Santos and Olivo, as well as assign and trans-
fer employees. Ricky’s supervisor, Gene, also testified that
Ricky was a supervisor of the installers and could independ-
ently hire and fire employees. The General Counsel also notes
that the Coastal installers who served directly under Ricky’s
supervision testified at the hearing to a man that it was Ricky
who served as the installers’ immediate supervisor and to
whom they reported all workplace problems such as getting the
company truck repaired or serviced, whose approval was
sought for vacation and sick leave, and from whom regularly
they received their work assignments. All in all, the General
Counsel submits that not only on the undisputed testimony of
the workers he managed, but that of his own supervisors and
upper level managers, Ricky Hebding met the statutory defini-
tion of supervisor as interpreted and defined by applicable deci-
sions of the Board.
The General Counsel submits that Ricky’s duties and re-
sponsibilities and his relationship with the installers also meet
the statutory definition of agent under the Act.
As noted, in spite of its answer and objections at trial, the
Respondent has not seriously if at all contested the supervisory
(and/or agency) status of Ricky Hebding and Torres. In my
view, the record clearly establishes that both of these persons
were supervisors and/or agents of the Respondent during the
relevant period. Not only did each possess at least 1 of the 12
statutory indicia of supervisor, but each man exercised that

88 Sec. 2(13) provides: “In determining whether any person is acting
as an “agent” of another person so as to make such person responsible
for his acts, the question of whether the specific acts performed were
actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be controlling.”
authority independently. Also both persons at the least were
statutory agents as they were both imbued with the actual and
apparent authority to represent and act for the Respondent in
the performance of their duties. It is beyond dispute that the
installers under their respective administrative commands rea-
sonably could and did view them as persons authorized to
speak and act for the Respondent’s management in the course
of their employment. West Bay Maintenance, 291 NLRB 82
(1988); Allegheny Aggregates, Inc., 311 NLRB 1165 (1993).89
I would find and conclude that the General Counsel has clearly
and overwhelmingly established the supervisory and/or agency
status of Ricky Hebding and Wilson Torres.
B. The Substantive Issues
Turning to the substantive issues, the Respondent, as I view
its position, attempts to portray the actions of the installers on
July 2, as a singular act, an economic strike, the purpose of
which was to force the Company to change the installers’ wage
rate and other terms and conditions associated with their em-
ployment. The Respondent argues that in this context the in-
stallers, at-will employees, engaged in unprotected conduct
which permitted the Company to terminate them, especially
since they rejected the Company’s unconditional and penalty-
free offer to allow them to return to their jobs. In short, the
installers abandoned their jobs in pursuit of an unprotected job
action and the Company did not violate the Act in such circum-
stances.
The Respondent’s position, however, overlooks first the con-
text of the installers' protest as well what I perceived as their
objectives in staging the work stoppage on July 2.
Notably, the Respondent submits that the installers who testi-
fied at the hearing, especially the main protagonists—crew
leaders, Santos, Olivo, Nieves, and Honoret—were not credi-
ble. By contrast, the Respondent asserts that its primary wit-
nesses, Achille and the brothers Hebding, were eminently
credible regarding their respective parts in the matter.
As noted previously, the General Counsel’s witnesses were
immigrants and not native English speakers; and I am not a
Spanish speaker. I relied, of course, on the interpreter’s version
of the proffered testimony of the installers. As noted, I also
paid particular attention to the installers’ demeanor, their body
language as it were, to discern not only the meaning of what
they were saying but also their sincerity and straightforward-
ness in their presentations. My goal was to assess the in-
stallers’ testimony in order to obtain an honest statement of
what they viewed as the facts and circumstances that governed
their decision to meet at Olivo’s house on July 2.
On balance, contrary to the assertion of the Respondent, I
found the General Counsel’s witnesses to be very credible. The
Respondent claims that certain witnesses, namely Santos, Hon-
oret, and Olivo, in several instances were not credible and fa-
tally so. I do not agree. As I heard them and have considered
their testimony as a whole, there is no cause to discredit them,

89 It also seems apparent that the installers also viewed Ricky as a
proper conduit for the expression of their complaints to upper manage-
ment, namely his brother, Gene, who testified that he in turn reported to
upper level company executives like Achille and Steve Schwartz.
COASTAL INSULATION CORP. 23
especially for what I consider minor even negligible inconsis-
tencies in their respective testimonies which I would attribute to
understandable lapses in memory, the ever-present language,
issue and, in the cases of Olivo and Honoret, victimization in
my view by witnesses who later may have changed their minds
about the decision they had reached on July 2.
Based on what I consider the credible evidence of record, I
would find and conclude the following.
On or about May 15, 2008, the Respondent decided to
change the wage structure or scheme applicable to the installers
in an attempt to make the system more objective or uniform;
the change was to take effect on June 1, 2008. The change,
essentially to a flat rate of 8 cents per square foot of installation
material to be utilized on a given work project, eliminated pay-
ment for certain “extra labor” under the old payment structure.
The Respondent verbally (as opposed to publishing a written
notice) communicated the proposed change to the affected in-
stallers through certain production managers and field supervi-
sors; namely, Gene Hebding, Wilson Torres, Hugo Tavarez,
and Ricky Hebding, respectively. Notably, the Hebdings were
not fluent in Spanish. Because the wage change was communi-
cated by them verbally to the Dominican group, it is reasonable
to infer that the installers did not clearly understand the opera-
tion, application, and implementation of the new wage struc-
ture. Administrative problems within the Company in imple-
menting the new system may have also occurred.
During the period covering approximately May 15 through
July 2, 2008—the transitional period for the wage change—
crew leaders, in particular Olivo, Santos, Honoret, and Nieves,
repeatedly complained to management, more particularly to the
Hebdings, Tavarez, and Torres, that there were problems and
issues associated with the pay change. The problems included
matters such as the installers being paid at both the old and new
rates for the same projects; not being paid for all of the insula-
tion material (the baffles) used on a job; inconsistencies be-
tween the material actually used on the job and that appearing
on the job work order; and not being paid for all material used
on a site preparation, height, caulking, and crawl spaces.90 The
Respondent’s managers, namely, the aforementioned Hebdings,
Tavarez, and Torres, were aware of these complaints and to
their credit attempted to explain again verbally on various occa-
sions the operation and implementation of the new wage
scheme as well as the transition from the old to the new system
to the complaining installers.91

90 Even Fedham Gonzalez, currently employed by Elmsford and
called by the Respondent, testified that among the points raised by the
gathered installers was the “method” by which the installers were being
paid; he cited by way of example being paid at the old rate of 6 cents,
but without the extras along with no payment for baffles, all of which
were ordinarily included in the old system. (Tr. 558.)
91 Notably, it seems clear that on occasion the crew leaders, for in-
stance Nieves, who did not speak fluent English, communicated com-
plaints to Gene Hebding through an office worker, Sanchez. On this
point, the Respondent certainly must have recognized that non-English
speaking installers required someone to speak for them to communicate
their concerns. Along these lines, I believe that Santos and Olivo hon-
estly and accurately translated Gene’s comments to the assembled
installers on July 2.
Sometime in April 2007, Olivo and Santos assembled a
group of Coastal installers and demanded a meeting with Gene
Hebding in an effort to resolve certain wage and other work-
related issues. As a result of that meeting, the parties reached a
satisfactory resolution of the outstanding issues. With this
successful resolution in mind, Olivo and Santos again assem-
bled in July 2008 not only a group of Coastal installers, but also
the Elmsford and Sealrite installers to meet at Olivo’s home
and prepare a list of grievances consistent with their current
complaints to submit to management because these complaints
in their collective minds had not been adequately addressed. In
this regard, based on the credible testimony of Olivo, Santos,
Nieves, and Honoret, the prime actors, I would find and con-
clude that the meeting of the 20 or more installers was not in-
tended to protest the Respondent’s new wage rate or to demand
any change in it. The installers met to discuss their common
grievances about the operation, application, and implementa-
tion—in short, the methodology of the new pay system and the
discrepancies and inconsistencies they had experienced with its
implementation. Therefore, in my view, the July 2 meeting of
the installers clearly was for the mutual aid and protection of
the assembled installers.92 Contrary to the Respondent, the
meeting was not intended to pressure the Respondent to change
the wage rate by disrupting its business.
I would also find and conclude that while some of the as-
sembled workers may have had work assignments scheduled
for July 2, it was not their intention to not work at all that day.
Rather, consistent with what I believe is the Company’s ac-
cepted practice of allowing workers fairly broad discretion in
terms of their report time, these installers would have gone to
their assignments for July 2 had not other events intervened.93
In my view, the installers—those who had assignments—did
not intend to strike to demand wage concessions or other
changes in their terms and conditions of employment. Rather,
they met to air grievances and ultimately prepare a petition of
their concerns and present it to management.
I would also find and conclude that while the installers did
not notify management in advance of their intention to meet on
July 2, they (through Santos and Olivo) attempted to inform the
Hebdings before reporting to work the morning of the meeting
and its purpose, as well as their intention to report for their job
assignments at the conclusion of the meeting.94

92 In terms of the attendees at the July 2 meeting, I will in the main
rely on GC Exh. 2, the sign-in sheet. I acknowledge that there is some
controversy regarding two persons whose names appear thereon.
93 It is important to note that the Respondent did not produce a single
document indicating that the installers had actual work assigned to
them on July 2 or 3. I note that Santos and Olivo said they had work
that day and the Hebdings and Achille testified that they received com-
plaints from customers about the no-show workers. Accordingly, I
assume some of the installers had work on July 2. However, the undis-
puted testimony of management and the installers is that their assign-
ments were given by fax or perhaps e-mail. It is a mystery to me why
the Respondent did not produce job assignment faxes, especially since
the claim is that the installers did not report to their assignments and
abandoned their jobs.
94 In this regard, I have credited the testimony of Olivo and Santos
that they tried to reach Ricky and Gene but were unsuccessful. It seems
DECISIONS OF THE NAITONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD24
Given the context of the parties’ prior work relationship,
given the fact of the installers’ repeated unaddressed and unre-
solved complaints during the transition from one wage system
to another, and given the installers’ gathering to discuss and air
their grievances with management, I would find and conclude
the installers engaged in concerted protected activity on July 2.
Moreover, they did not meet and stop work with the intention
of forcing or pressuring the Respondent to accede to any de-
mands or otherwise to change their terms and conditions of
employment.
I note in this regard that the installers—at least those who
testified at the hearing—did not object to the 8-cent pay rate.
By contrast, it seems they were pleased with the change, view-
ing it as a raise. The problems arose in the implementation and
application of the new rate. Also, contrary to the Respondent, I
did not discern from their testimony that the installers were
seeking an “agreement” in the collective-bargaining contractual
sense. Rather, the” agreement” they sought, as I have observed
and heard them (as translated), was more in the nature of a
clarification or resolution of the new wage rate’s component
parts and applications, similar to the approach they took in
April 2007. In that light, in my view, the installers on July 2
desired some meaningful attention paid to their collective is-
sues and hoped for as satisfactory response from Gene Hebding
as they had received in April 2007; after receiving such assur-
ance, the installers would then go to work that day or when they
next received a work assignment.
In my view, Santos and Olivo tried to contact first Ricky and
later Gene Hebding early in the morning of July 2 to notify
them about the purpose of the meeting, and that they would be
reporting for work after the meeting.95
Turning to the telephone conversation between Gene and
Santos and Olivo at around 9:30–10:30 a.m., it should first be
noted that Santos and Olivo were translating Gene’s conversa-
tion to the group over the speaker phone. Therefore, as a prac-
tical matter, the vast majority of the installers was merely audit-
ing the conversation and relying on the translations of first
Olivo, and then Santos. Of course, the Respondent in practice
utilized at various times its bilingual employees to communi-
cate with the non-English speakers. Notably, for example,
crew leader Nieves voiced his concerns about pay deficiencies
and inconsistencies to the Respondent’s office secretary, and
Tavarez and Torres were enlisted to communicate with the
installers about the new wage rate. With this practice in mind,
there is no reason to think that either Santos or Olivo did not
communicate accurately Gene’s comments to the group.
It is undisputed by Santos, Olivo, and Gene Hebding that the
conversation turned acrimonious and contentious, with Santos

Ricky did not as a practice turn his phone on before a certain time, but
in any case, neither of the Hebdings answered their phones until later in
the morning.
95 I might add that, consistent with the Board authorities on this
point, I would deem the arguably short notice given by the installers an
immaterial omission considering that the Respondent was aware of the
installers’ complaints and problems long before July 2 and failed to
adequately address them. In all likelihood, if the installers had given
more notice of their intentions, the response of the Respondent’s man-
agers may not have been different.
and Gene heatedly breaking off their conversation. Matters did
not fare much better when Olivo took up the conversation with
Gene, who also admitted he was upset and angry with the in-
stallers for not showing up for work.
Santos and Olivo testified that they tried to explain to Gene
the purpose of the meeting and the installers’ continuing com-
plaints about the discrepancies and irregularities in their checks.
Hebding admits discussing the wages but insisted that the in-
stallers wanted him to change the wage rate, something he said
he was powerless to do. It seems that the parties may well have
been talking past one another.
As noted earlier, I have found herein that Santos and Olivo
in particular were highly credible, and I do not believe that they
insisted that Gene change the wage rate. I believe that, consis-
tent with their testimony, they sought from Gene resolutions for
their complaints and other issues, but did not seek any changes
in the wage rate with which, in point of fact, they had no issue.
In likewise, I would credit Olivo and Santos’s statement that
in response to their concerns, Gene Hebding told them in so
many words that they could take it (the Company’s way of
paying) or leave it (quit), and to return the vans to the Company
that day. In my view, Olivo and Santos could rightly and rea-
sonably conclude that they were terminated at that point inas-
much as the issues complained of were not addressed, let alone
resolved.
Moreover, I cannot credit Gene Hebding’s testimony that he
did not terminate the installers in the July 2 conversation, but
rather gave them the opportunity to return to work by telling
him of their intentions to do so by 5 p.m. that day. In that re-
gard, I have credited Olivo’s testimony that he received word
that the Company was commencing the vehicle retrieval as
early as 4–4:30 p.m.96 on July 2.
In my view, the Respondent’s decision to pick up the in-
stallers’ assigned vehicles as well as their tools within a few
hours of the telephone conversation—at the 1 p.m. meeting
convened by Achille—further supports the allegation that the
installers were terminated and that this decision was inextrica-
bly tied to their stated complaints about the new wage system’s
operation and application and implementation.
Then, too, there is the statement attributed to Torres, which I
might note, that the Respondent did not discuss in its brief. In
my view, Honoret, another credible installer witness, who par-
ticipated in the meeting and at the hearing attested to the in-
stallers’ concerns and their efforts to resolve them prior to July
2, testified that Torres told him that all of those at the meet-
ing—on the list—were fired. Of course, Torres did not testify
at the hearing and, aside from the Respondent’s claim that he
was not a supervisor, his absence was not explained. In any
event, Torres’ statement remains not only unrebutted, but

96 I have taken cognizance of the Respondent’s evidence—
testimonial and documentary—which tended to show that some of the
vehicles may have been picked up after 5 p.m. and even later in the
evening of July 2. (See R. Exh. 2(a)–(g), EZ pass documentation).
However, in my view, it is not so much when the vehicles were re-
trieved but when the decision to retrieve them was made. I believe the
decision was made at about 1 p.m. at the Respondent’s (Achille’s)
meeting of managers where the matter was discussed and the Respon-
dent resolved to pick up the vehicles.
COASTAL INSULATION CORP. 25
nearly everyone whose name appears on the sign-in sheet in-
deed was sent an identical termination letter.97
It should be noted that the termination letters themselves are
all identical in terms of the message conveyed, essentially, that
the installer in question failed to appear at a jobsite on July 3
because he was dissatisfied with the terms and conditions of his
employment and that as an “at will” employee he had no right
to his position; that his deliberate failure to appear for the as-
signed job constituted abandonment of his job and that he was
terminated; that his company vehicle (if assigned to him) would
be retrieved and any other company-owned equipment should
be returned to the Company as soon as possible.98
I have considered these letters in the context of the evidence
of record and the Respondent’s stated position in defense of its
actions, both at trial and in its brief, and in agreement with the
General Counsel, I would deem the letters to be pretextual and
frankly a cover-up for the Company’s actual reasons for dis-
charging the installers attending the July 2 meeting.
Notably, the letters make abundantly clear that the Respon-
dent was aware that each individual installer was dissatisfied
with the terms and conditions of his employment. Knowledge
of their so-described “dissatisfaction” could only come from
the installers themselves and/or the brothers Hebding, espe-
cially Gene who engaged in a fairly lengthy conversation with
Santos and Olivo. While the letter associates the installers’
dissatisfaction with their (overall) terms and conditions of em-
ployment, the Respondent (through Gene) insisted at trial that
the installers were protesting only the Company’s wage rate
and refused to work at that rate. If this were indeed the case,
the question arises as to why this point was not included in the
letter. In this regard, in my view, the Respondent has offered a
“shifting defense” which undercuts the legitimacy of its as-
serted reasons for the termination of the installers.
The Respondent’s position is further undercut by the claim in
the letter that each installer deliberately failed to appear at his
assigned job for July 3, and thereby abandoned his job. As I
have noted, the Respondent did not adduce any work assign-
ment documentation for any of the installers, some of whom
testified that they were not scheduled to work on July 3. Even
the Respondent’s witness, Sandy Genao, received a similar
letter when it was clear that he was scheduled for vacation the
next day and presumably had no work for July 3. Notable also
was the claim by the Respondent that work was slow during the
relevant time frame and the installers at the time were not
working a full week. The unanswered question, thus, is pre-

97 I note that installer Epifanio Rosario corroborated Honoret, whom
he testified told him that Torres was told about the meeting and its
purpose—about the pay—and that Honoret told him that Torres said
that all who signed were fired. (Tr. 300.) In my view, Rosario was a
credible witness although his memory was not particularly sharp. Nev-
ertheless, he appeared to be straightforward and honest, and did not
overstate or exaggerate. Notably, according to Rosario, Honoret told
him of Torres’ comment at the July 2 meeting.
98 The termination letters are identified in GC Exh. 3(a)–(p). Nota-
bly, Gene Hebding and Wilson Torres were the signatories on these
letters. I should note that Torres’ signature on these separation letters
further erodes any argument that he was not one of the Respondent’s
supervisors.
cisely what job did the installers individually abandon on July
3?
Finally, I would note that the letters, by their very terms, tie
the Respondent’s discharge decision to the installers’ purported
dissatisfaction with the terms and conditions of their employ-
ment, thereby providing a discriminatory nexus and an unlaw-
ful motive to the Employer’s action.99
In any case, I would find and conclude that the termination
letters were issued as a cover-up for the unlawful action the
Respondent undertook on July 2 against the installers who at-
tended the protest meeting on July 2.
With the foregoing discussion and conclusions in mind, I
would find and conclude consistent with the Wright Line test,
that the General Counsel has fully and overwhelmingly met his
burden to establish that on July 2, 2008, the installers here were
engaged in protected activity; that the Respondent knew of the
activity; and that the Respondent’s action—here termination—
was motivated by its hostility to the installers’ action; and
therefore that there was a causal connection between the Re-
spondent’s hostility and the adverse action it took against the
installers.
The Respondent has failed to prove by the preponderance
standard that it would have taken the action it took against the
installers irrespective of their protected activity. Moreover, the
Respondent’s stated reasons were, in my view, pretextual and a
mere cover-up for its illegal action. Rochelle Waste Disposal,
LLC, 353 NLRB No. 38 (2008); Blue Diamond Growers, 353
NLRB No. 6 (2008).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Coastal Insulation Corporation, and
Elmsford Insulation Corporation, and Sealrite Insulation of
New York, a single employer, is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)) of the
Act.
2. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
discharging the following employees on July 2, 2008:
Eduardo Olivo, Samuel Figaro, Ramon Fermin, Dioni Gon-
zalez, Sandy Genao, Victor Nieves, Frederico DeLeon, Odalis
Gonzalez, Sergio R. Santos, Agelis J. Gonzalez, Anbiory R.
Gonzalez, Jairo Gonzalez, Rafael Gonell, Rafael Sanchez,
Cesar Cardenas, Jorge Jimenez, Fedham Gonzalez, Jose M.
Bautista, Victor Honoret, and Epifanio Rosario.100

99 The letters are troubling in another respect, especially since the
employees here are immigrants. As noted, the Respondent informed
each installer that because he was an at-will employee, he had no legal
right to his “position,” which could mean the job itself or a failure to
report for work because of his dissatisfaction with the terms and condi-
tions of his employment. If the Respondent was suggesting that the
installers had no right to stop work, this is not only misleading, it is
incorrect as a matter of law as employees have a statutory right to strike
or otherwise protest the Employer’s action to vindicate rights guaran-
teed them under the Act. The letters here could conceivably constitute
a separate 8(a)(1) interference charge.
100 I have determined that these persons were signatories on the sign-
in sheet (GC Exh. 2) with the exception of Rober and Manuel Luna
who disavowed any statements attributed to them by installer Honoret,
who testified that he secured Rober and Manuel’s authorization to
DECISIONS OF THE NAITONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD26
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Respondent has not violated the Act in any other
manner.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in an unfair
labor practice, I find it must be ordered to cease and desist and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act. Specifically, the Respondent’s having dis-
criminatorily discharged its employees Eduardo Olivo, Samuel
Figaro, Ramon Fermin, Dioni Gonzalez, Sandy Genao, Victor
Nieves, Frederico DeLeon, Odalis Gonzalez, Sergio R. Santos,
Agelis J. Gonzalez, Anbiory R. Gonzalez, Jairo Gonzalez,
Rafael Gonell, Rafael Sanchez, Cesar Cardenas, Jorge Jimenez,
Fedham Gonzalez, Jose M. Bautista, Victor Honoret, and Epi-
fanio Rosario, it must offer them immediate reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if their former jobs no longer exist, to sub-
stantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their senior-
ity or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss of wages and benefits. Backpay shall
be computed as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New Horizons for the
Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
I also recommend that within 14 days after service the Re-
spondent be ordered to post by Region 22 at its East Windsor,
New Jersey facility copies of an appropriate “Notice to Em-
ployees,” a copy of which is attached hereto as “Appendix,” for
a period of 60 consecutive days in order that employees may be
apprised of their rights under the Act and the Respondent’s
obligation to remedy its unfair labor practices.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended101
ORDER
The Respondent, Coastal Insulation Corporation, and Elms-
ford Insulation Corporation, and Sealrite Insulation of New
York, a single employer, East Windsor, New Jersey, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging employees because they engage in protected
concerted activities.
(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-

include their names on the list. In his brief, the General Counsel with-
drew the complaint allegation pertaining to these two installers based
on their testimony. I note that neither Rober nor Manuel was issued a
termination letter. I leave to the compliance stage of this proceeding to
determine whether any of the named dischargees who did not testify at
the trial resumed their employment with the Respondent at any time
after July 2, 2008.
101
If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from this Order, offer Eduardo Olivo,
Samuel Figaro, Ramon Fermin, Dioni Gonzalez, Sandy Genao,
Victor Nieves, Frederico DeLeon, Odalis Gonzalez, Sergio R.
Santos, Agelis J. Gonzalez, Anbiory R. Gonzalez, Jairo Gon-
zalez, Rafael Gonell, Rafael Sanchez, Cesar Cardenas, Jorge
Jimenez, Fedham Gonzalez, Jose M. Bautista, Victor Honoret,
and Epifanio Rosario full reinstatement to their former jobs or,
if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Eduardo Olivo, Samuel Figaro, Ramon Fermin,
Dioni Gonzalez, Sandy Genao, Victor Nieves, Frederico
DeLeon, Odalis Gonzalez, Sergio R. Santos, Agelis J. Gon-
zalez, Anbiory R. Gonzalez, Jairo Gonzalez, Rafael Gonell,
Rafael Sanchez, Cesar Cardenas, Jorge Jimenez, Fedham Gon-
zalez, Jose M. Bautista, Victor Honoret, and Epifanio Rosario
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits as a result of
the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the
Remedy section of the decision.
(c) Within 14 days from this Order, remove from its files any
reference to the unlawful layoff and, within 3 days thereafter,
notify Eduardo Olivo, Samuel Figaro, Ramon Fermin, Dioni
Gonzalez, Sandy Genao, Victor Nieves, Frederico DeLeon,
Odalis Gonzalez, Sergio R. Santos, Agelis J. Gonzalez, An-
biory R. Gonzalez, Jairo Gonzalez, Rafael Gonell, Rafael San-
chez, Cesar Cardenas, Jorge Jimenez, Fedham Gonzalez, Jose
M. Bautista, Victor Honoret, and Epifanio Rosario in writing
that this has been done and that the discharges will not be used
against them in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment re-
cords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in East Windsor, New Jersey, copies of the attached no-
tice marked “Appendix.”102 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, 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.103 Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event

102
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.”
103 Because the record indicates that many of the Respondent’s em-
ployees do not speak English fluently, I recommend that this notice be
posted in both English and Spanish. North Hills Office Services, 346
NLRB 1099 fn. 4 (2006).
COASTAL INSULATION CORP. 27
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 Employees” to all cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since July 2, 2008.
(f) 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.
Dated, Washington, D.C. April 2, 2009
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them by the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Eduardo Olivo, Samuel Figaro, Ramon Fermin, Dioni Gon-
zalez, Sandy Genao, Victor Nieves, Frederico DeLeon, Odalis
Gonzalez, Sergio R. Santos, Agelis J. Gonzalez, Anbiory R.
Gonzalez, Jairo Gonzalez, Rafael Gonell, Rafael Sanchez, Ce-
sar Cardenas, Jorge Jimenez, Fedham Gonzalez, Jose M.
Bautista, Victor Honoret, and Epifanio Rosario full reinstate-
ment to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Eduardo Olivo, Samuel Figaro, Ramon Fer-
min, Dioni Gonzalez, Sandy Genao, Victor Nieves, Frederico
DeLeon, Odalis Gonzalez, Sergio R. Santos, Agelis J. Gon-
zalez, Anbiory R. Gonzalez, Jairo Gonzalez, Rafael Gonell,
Rafael Sanchez, Cesar Cardenas, Jorge Jimenez, Fedham Gon-
zalez, Jose M. Bautista, Victor Honoret, and Epifanio Rosario
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from
their discharges, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from our files any reference to the unlawful discharges of Edu-
ardo Olivo, Samuel Figaro, Ramon Fermin, Dioni Gonzalez,
Sandy Genao, Victor Nieves, Frederico DeLeon, Odalis Gon-
zalez, Sergio R. Santos, Agelis J. Gonzalez, Anbiory R. Gon-
zalez, Jairo Gonzalez, Rafael Gonell, Rafael Sanchez, Cesar
Cardenas, Jorge Jimenez, Fedham Gonzalez, Jose M. Bautista,
Victor Honoret, and Epifanio Rosario, and WE WILL, within 3
days thereafter, notify them in writing that this has been done
and that the layoffs will not be used against them in any way.
COASTAL INSULATION CORPORATION, AND ELMSFORD
INSULATION CORPORATION, AND SEALRITE INSULATION OF NEW
YORK, A SINGLE EMPLOYER