Communications Workers of America Local 13000

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 1, 2012

358 N.L.R.B. 408 (N.L.R.B. 2012)

408 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

358 NLRB No. 50
Communications Workers of America, Local 13000,
AFL–CIO and Pamela Tronsor. Case 04–CA–
038123
June 1, 2012
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS HAYES, GRIFFIN, AND BLOCK
On December 16, 2011, Administrative Law Judge Jo-
el P. Biblowitz issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The
Acting General Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set
forth in full below.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Communications Workers of America, Lo-

1 The Respondent argues that the Charging Party, employee Pamela
Tronsor, was not engaged in concerted activity when she sought news-
paper coverage of a separate Board proceeding against the Respond-
ent—a proceeding based on a charge filed by the CWA Staff Union, of
which Tronsor was both a member and an officer. We find no merit to
this argument. Tronsor was attempting to assist her union, and thus by
definition she was engaged in concerted activity. See Tradesmen In-
ternational, 332 NLRB 1158, 1159 (2000), enf. denied on other
grounds 275 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2002). In any event, the April 5,
2011 letter and the May 4, 2011 email sent by James Gardler, the Re-
spondent’s president, make plain that the Respondent believed that
Tronsor was assisting the CWA Staff Union at the expense of the Re-
spondent. On that basis alone, the Respondent’s resulting actions taken
against Tronsor were unlawful. See Earthgrains Co., 351 NLRB 733,
738 (2007) (the Act is violated where the respondent acts on the belief
that the employee has engaged in union activity, even if the employee
has not done so).
The judge mistakenly suggested that all the recipients of Gardler’s
May 4 email were employees or officers of the Respondent or other
local unions. In fact, some of the recipients were employed by Com-
munications Workers of America, District 13 (now District 2-13). We
correct this error, which does not affect our analysis.
Member Hayes agrees with his colleagues that the Respondent vio-
lated Sec. 8(a)(1) by sending an email on May 4, 2011, notifying em-
ployees that it was attempting to have the Charging Party terminated.
Member Hayes finds it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s finding that
the Respondent also violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by sending a letter requesting
the Charging Party be terminated on April 5, 2011, inasmuch as he
believes that such a finding would be cumulative and would not materi-
ally affect the remedy.
2 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order and substitute a
new notice to conform to the Board’s standard remedial language and
to provide for the posting of the notice in accord with J. Picini Floor-
ing, 356 NLRB 11 (2010). For the reasons stated in his dissenting
opinion in J. Picini Flooring, Member Hayes would not require elec-
tronic distribution of the notice.
cal 13000, AFL–CIO, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Attempting to cause District 2–13, Communica-
tions Workers of America, AFL–CIO, or any other em-
ployer, to discharge or otherwise discriminate against
Pamela Tronsor, or any other employee, in retaliation for
their protected concerted activities.
(b) Notifying other employees that it attempted to
cause Tronsor’s discharge, or any other employee’s dis-
charge, because of their protected concerted activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Notify District 2–13, and each recipient of James
Gardler’s May 4, 2011 email, in writing, that it has no
objection to Tronsor’s continued employment with Dis-
trict 2–13 or to Tronsor working on projects involving
the Respondent.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post in
its facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 4, after being signed by the Respondent’s author-
ized 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. In addition to physical posting of
paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent
customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. If the Respondent has
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since April 5, 2011.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, mail
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix,” at its
own expense, to each recipient of Gardler’s May 4 email.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 4 a sworn certifi-

3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
409
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS LOCAL 13000

cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO

Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT attempt to cause District 2–13, Commu-
nications Workers of America, AFL–CIO, or any other
employer, to discharge or otherwise discriminate against
employees because they appear at a Board proceeding to
testify in response to a subpoena, attempt to publicize a
Board proceeding, or engage in any other protected con-
certed activities.
WE WILL NOT notify you that we are attempting to have
another employee discharged, or otherwise discriminated
against, because he appeared at a Board proceeding to
testify in response to a subpoena, attempted to publicize
a Board proceeding, or engaged in any other protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL notify District 2–13, and each recipient of
James Gardler’s May 4, 2011 email, that we have no
objection to Pamela Tronsor’s continued employment
with District 2–13 or to Tronsor working on our projects.

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA
LOCAL 13000, AFL–CIO
Patricia Garber, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Richard Markowitz, Esq. (Markowitz & Richman), counsel for
the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOEL P. BIBLOWITZ, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was heard by me in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on October 24,
2011.1 The complaint herein, which issued on August 31, and
was based on an unfair labor practice charge that was filed by
Pamela Tronsor, an individual, on May 11, alleges that by letter
dated April 5, and by email dated May 4, James Gardler, the
president of Communications Workers of America, Local
13000, AFL–CIO (Respondent), attempted to cause Communi-
cations Workers of America, District 13 (District 13), Tronsor’s
employer, to discharge or otherwise discriminate against her
because she was participating in a Board proceeding involving
the Respondent, and because Respondent believed that she was
seeking to publicize the proceeding, and told the recipients of
the email, including some employees of the union, that it was
attempting to do so. Respondent defends that Tronsor is not
employed by the Respondent, and that while Gardler did write
the letter and email in question, they did not contain any re-
quest that District 13 take any action against Tronsor.2
I. COMMERCE ALLEGATION
The Respondent is a labor organization representing employ-
ees in bargaining with employers, and has been an unincorpo-
rated association with its principal office and place of business
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. During the past year, it received
gross revenues in excess of $500,000 from Communications
Workers of America, AFL–CIO, in Washington, D.C., which
revenues are derived from membership dues collected by em-
ployers employing members of the Respondent and these dues
were remitted by these employers to the Communications
Workers of America. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE FACTS
A. Background
Tronsor has been employed as an organizing coordinator for
8 years by District 13 (which became District 2–13 in July),
encompassing approximately 70 CWA locals, including the
Respondent, within the States of Pennsylvania and Delaware.
The staff representatives of District 13 service these constituent
locals of District 13. As the organizing coordinator for District
13, Tronsor reports to the vice president, Ed Mooney, assistant
to the vice president, Jim Byrne, the administrative director,

1 Unless indicated otherwise, all dates referred to herein relate to the
year 2011.
2 Counsel for the General Counsel’s unopposed motion to correct
transcript is hereby granted.
410
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Marge Krueger and the international staff representatives. Her
principal responsibility relates to organizing the unorganized,
and evaluating leads to determine if they can be developed into
a successful organizing campaign. This includes drawing up the
plans as well as the campaign budget and the campaign materi-
als, and training organizing committees and volunteers to work
on the campaigns. She has frequently performed work for the
Respondent, which is the largest local of District 13, planning
and working on organizing campaigns. There is a CWA Staff
Union, which represents the CWA staff employees as well as
the staff of the Pennsylvania AFL–CIO, and she was an officer
of the union for a year and a half, ending in August.
B. Harry Arnold’s NLRB Case
In October 2010, the CWA Staff Union filed an unfair labor
practice charge against the Respondent alleging that Harry
Arnold, a local organizer for the Respondent, was terminated
unlawfully, and Tronsor was subpoenaed to testify at the hear-
ing by counsel for the General Counsel.3 At the conclusion of
the first day of hearing on February 28, prior to Tronsor testify-
ing, the judge spoke to the parties and encouraged them to set-
tle the matter rather than going ahead with the hearing, and the
parties agreed that they would attempt to settle the case prior to
the resumption of the hearing the following day. The parties
did settle the case on the following day, and Tronsor did not
have to testify.
C. Tronsor’s Telephone Call to William Ross
On the evening of February 28, after the day’s conclusion of
the hearing, Tronsor called William Ross, executive director of
Local 38010, the Newspaper Guild Division of the CWA. She
testified that she told him that she had been subpoenaed to ap-
pear at the hearing by the NLRB and “was concerned about
how it might be reported in the press . . . and that it might . . .
damage the labor movement in general and CWA in particu-
lar.” She told him that the case involved Arnold’s discharge by
the Respondent and that she was fearful for her job based on
the outcome of the case. She also said that Arnold had said that
he had contacted the press, and Tronsor was concerned that
members of the press would be at the hearing. Ross said that
he didn’t work at the papers and didn’t think that there was
anything that he could do. She repeated that she was concerned

3 There was a conflict in the testimony of Tronsor, Gardler, and Jeff
Reamer, Respondent’s executive vice president, about a meeting that
they attended on February 14, where Gardler asked Tronsor if she was
subpoenaed by counsel for the General Counsel to testify at the hearing.
Tronsor testified that she told him that she was not sure that was some-
thing she could talk to him about; Gardler and Reamer testified that she
said that she had not been subpoenaed. There was also a conflict in the
testimony of Tronsor and Ross involving their February 28 telephone
call. Ross testified that Tronsor asked him about his relationship with
Mooney, and that she had heard that they did not get along. Tronsor
testified that this subject was not discussed in that conversation. As I
find the testimony regarding the February 14 discussion about the
Board subpoena, and the February 28 conversations regarding Ross’
relationship with Mooney irrelevant to the ultimate issue herein, it will
not be discussed further.
about her job based on the outcome of the hearing and did not
want the press to show up at the hearing, as it could do damage
to the CWA and the labor movement in general.
Ross testified that he received a telephone call from Tronsor
on the evening of February 28. She asked if he was aware of
the case involving Arnold, and he said that he wasn’t aware of
it. She told him briefly about the case and that she had been
subpoenaed to testify by the Labor Board. She then asked him
if he knew whether Jane VonBergen, a reporter for the Phila-
delphia Inquirer, would be covering the hearing and he said that
he did not know one way or the other. He testified: “She then
asked if I could have Jane cover the hearing. And I said I did
not handle the editorial decisions at the newspaper, I represent
the reporters.” He ended the call by telling her that if she testi-
fied, to just tell the truth, wished her luck and hung up. A few
days later he wrote a letter to Mooney regarding the call. The
letter, dated March 4, states, inter alia:

Just wanted to recap the disturbing phone call I received on
Monday evening February 28th from Pam Tronsor.

Pam called to ask if I was aware of the firing of an organizer
and NLRB complaint filed against Local 13000. I said I was
not aware. She asked if I knew if one of my members Jane
VonBergen a business reporter at the Philadelphia Inquirer
was going to cover the story. I said I didn’t know, and I don’t
get into any news coverage decisions. . . . She told me she was
subpoenaed to testify on Tuesday, and I wished her luck.

Gardler testified that in about mid-March Mooney told him
about the letter that he received from Ross and Gardler ar-
ranged to meet with Ross to learn more about the February 28
telephone call. Ross told Gardler that Tronsor first asked him if
he was aware of the Board hearing relating to Arnold that was
taking place and he said that he didn’t know anything about it.
She then asked him if he knew VonBergen and could he have
someone cover the Labor Board hearing. He replied that he did
not assign reporters to cover particular cases, that was not his
responsibility, and he didn’t understand why she was contacting
him in that regard. Gardler told Ross that he was shocked that
Tronsor would attempt to have someone cover a hearing that
could embarrass the union and hamper it in organizing drives.
D. Gardler’s Response
On April 5, Gardler wrote to Mooney:

This letter is being sent on behalf of CWA Local 13000 per-
taining to the conduct of the District 13 Organizer, Pam Tron-
sor. Our local has always been one of the strongest supporters
and participants in all facets of organizing in the CWA, but
we cannot in good conscience allow this staff member’s ac-
tions pertaining to recent Labor Board charges filed against
our local to go unaddressed. It was quite disturbing on the
day of the hearing to see your organizer appear on behalf of
the charging party since it is crystal clear that our local had
not violated the law. It is also disturbing when you put it in
perspective what the ramifications this charge would have had
if by some small chance this charge was upheld. The organiz-
ing program of not only Local 13000 and District 13, but of
411
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS LOCAL 13000

the entire CWA as a whole would have been damaged. But as
you may be aware her actions following the first day of hear-
ings on the evening of February 28th are what are most appal-
ling regarding this charge and cannot be tolerated.

Following a conditionally approved withdrawal of the charge
that absolved the local of any wrongdoing, we became aware
of a phone call that was placed after the initial day of hearings
to Bill Ross, Executive Director of TNG-CWA Local 10.
Apparently District Organizer Tronsor contacted Mr. Ross in
an attempt to get this hearing publicized through the local
media. She asked Mr. Ross if he had heard about the Labor
Board hearing against Local 13000 and that she was testifying
in a hearing against Local 13000. Mr. Ross explained that
District Organizer Tronsor advised him that she felt they
should have someone covering this story for the media. Mr.
Ross said that he advised District Organizer Tronsor that he
does not assign reporters to stories. Mr. Ross and I went on to
discuss the mutual respect both of our locals have for one an-
other and the commitment we have to support each other’s is-
sues, which is why he was so surprised to be receiving this
call from District Organizer Tronsor.

. . . .

It is beyond comprehension to think that this person is not on-
ly on staff for District 13 but responsible for the same organiz-
ing activities she sought to jeopardize. Her actions demon-
strate contempt for the Local that provides more man hours
and voluntary support for organizing than any other local
within District 13. This local assisted in performing her job
responsibilities even when she was nowhere to be found.
There is no place for this type of behavior in District 13 or an-
ywhere in the CWA.

As you can clearly understand this Local has no interest in
working with someone that would put the CWA and more
specifically this Local in harm’s way. We would appreciate
any and all steps necessary to remove this person from any
dealings with the members of this union. She clearly cannot
be trusted and without a doubt she is not deserving of a posi-
tion on staff at District 13 or anywhere else within the CWA.

On May 2, Tronsor sent an email to Gardler, with a copy to
Mooney, asking for information to assist the union in an organ-
izing drive. In a response dated May 4, by email to Tronsor,
Mooney, and Krueger, as well as about 16 other individuals4
employed by the Respondent or other locals of the Communica-
tions Workers of America within District 13, with the April 5
letter attached, Gardler wrote:

Pam, maybe you misunderstood the letter that Local 13000
provided to VP Mooney concerning your blatant attack on
Local 13000. As I stated in that letter, you are not deserving
of a staff position or any position within the CWA. This Lo-

4 These individuals include union presidents, vice presidents, execu-
tive vice presidents, assistant to the vice president, secretary treasurer,
executive secretary treasurer, administrative director, staff representa-
tives, and an organizer.
cal and our members will not work with you on any level.
You have no respect for organizing, no respect for the posi-
tion you hold within the District and no respect for the CWA.
The fact that you still hold a staff position at the District is dis-
turbing. Attached as an FYI is the letter that was sent to VP
Mooney to remind you of your stupidity. I have also CC sev-
eral others pertaining to the issue so they can understand and
protect themselves from future attacks. This Local is commit-
ted to organizing and will do any and everything necessary to
succeed. It just WILL NOT be with YOU.

Gardler testified that he has no supervisory authority over
Tronsor and has no authority or control over her employment,
nor does he have any vote in determining whether her employ-
ment with District 13 should be continued. He testified further
that he didn’t intend the April 5 letter to cause her discharge.
Rather, he was expressing that although the Respondent would
continue its organizing campaigns, because of her actions, they
would not do so with her.
III. ANALYSIS
The only credibility determination relevant to the ultimate
determination herein is the conflict in the testimony of Tronsor
and Ross relating to Tronsor’s telephone call to him on the
evening of February 28. Tronsor testified that she told Ross
that she was fearful that publicity about the Board hearing
could damage the CWA and the union movement generally,
and she told Ross that she “did not want anyone to show up at
the hearing.” Ross testified that Tronsor asked him if he could
have VonBergen cover the hearing, and he told her that he
could not control the assignment of reporters. This is a difficult
credibility determination because both Tronsor and Ross ap-
peared to be testifying in an honest and truthful manner. How-
ever, I note that the letter that Ross wrote to Mooney 4 days
later, telling him about the conversation with Tronsor, does not
specifically mention her request to have VonBergen cover the
hearing, stating only: “She asked if I knew if one of my mem-
bers Jane VonBergen a business reporter at the Philadelphia
Inquirer was going to cover the story. I said I didn’t know.”
That statement could be interpreted both ways: “Could you ask
her to cover it?” or “Could you ask her not to cover it?” On the
other hand, there was no clear reason for Tronsor to call Ross.
As neither VonBergen nor any other reporter was at the Board
office for the opening of the hearing on February 28, there was
no reason to expect that anybody would be there the following
day. Therefore, there appeared to be no reason for Tronsor to
call Ross to tell VonBergen not to come to the hearing. I there-
fore credit Ross’ testimony that Tronsor called him and asked
him if he could have VonBergen cover the hearing.
There are two separate violations alleged herein: that Gard-
ler, by his April 5 letter to Mooney, attempted to cause District
13 to discharge or otherwise discriminate against Tronsor be-
cause of her protected concerted activity of appearing at, and
attempting to publicize, the Board proceeding, and that the May
4 email to Tronsor, Mooney, Krueger, and numerous executives
and employees of the Respondent and other locals of the inter-
national union told them that the Respondent was attempting to
412
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

cause District 13 to discharge or otherwise discriminate against
her because of these protected concerted activities. It is obvi-
ous that an attempt to publicize a Board proceeding constitutes
protected concerted activity, even when it could cause harm to
the employer’s or the union’s reputation, and that threats
against an employee in retaliation for assisting the Board in an
unfair labor practice or a representation case violates Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. In Bill Johnson’s Restaurants v. NLRB, 461
U.S. 731, 740 (1983), the Court stated that the rights secured by
Section 7 of the Act include “the right to utilize the Board’s
processes—without fear of restraint, coercion, discrimination,
or interference from their employer.” See also Allied Aviation
Service Co. of New Jersey, 248 NLRB 229, 231 (1980); An-
heuser-Busch, Inc., 337 NLRB 3, 15 (2001); and Management
Consulting, Inc. (Mancon), 349 NLRB 249 (2007). I therefore
find that Tronsor was engaged in protected concerted activities
by appearing at the Board hearing on behalf of Arnold on Feb-
ruary 28, and by calling Ross on February 28 and asking him to
have VonBergen cover the Board hearing. The issues herein are
whether Gardler’s letter and email attempted to cause District
13, Tronsor’s employer, “to discharge or otherwise discriminate
against” her, or whether it was simply a letter and email from
Gardler “venting” his anger toward Tronsor and requesting that
she not be assigned to work for the Respondent, and whether
his May 4 email sent to numerous union employees, with the
April 5 letter attached, tended to chill their Section 7 rights, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Initially, I note that the Respondent was not Tronsor’s em-
ployer, there is no allegation that the Respondent is a joint em-
ployer with District 13 as Tronsor’s employer, nor is there any
evidence that Gardler or the Respondent has any authority to
affect Tronsor’s employment. In fact, 6 months after Gardler
wrote his letter to Mooney, Tronsor was still employed by Dis-
trict 13. However, that does not dispose of this matter. The
principal allegation is that the Respondent attempted to cause
District 13 to discharge, or otherwise discriminate against,
Tronsor. This allegation does not require that the alleged
wrongdoer, herein the Respondent, have an employer-employee
relationship with Tronsor, and neither does the Act, which, in
defining the term “employee,” states that it “shall not be limited
to the employees of a particular employer, unless the Act ex-
plicitly states otherwise.” The Board, in discussing this issue in
New York New York Hotel & Casino, 356 NLRB 907, 911
(2011), stated:

The precise terms of the Act’s prohibitions also make clear
that an employer’s action toward the employees of other em-
ployers can constitute an unfair labor practice. The prohibi-
tion at issue in this case, contained in Section 8(a)(1), provides
that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7.” The prohibition is not limited
to interference with the rights of his employees.

. . . .

[T]he Board as well as the courts have held in a wide variety
of contexts that “an employer under Section 2(3) of the Act
may violate Section 8(a) not only with respect to its own em-
ployees but also by actions affecting employees who do not
stand in such an immediate employer/employee relationship.”

See also Hacienda de Salud-Espanola, 317 NLRB 962 (1995),
where the Board found that an employer violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act when it told another employer that it could
not employ an employee, whom it had discharged for engaging
in protected concerted activities, to work on its premises.
The first paragraph of Gardler’s April 5 letter to Mooney
says that it was “quite disturbing” to see Tronsor appearing on
behalf of Arnold at the Board hearing and ends by saying that
Tronsor’s telephone call to Ross on the evening of February 28,
asking him to have VonBergen publicize the hearing, “cannot
be tolerated.” The last two paragraphs contain the strongest
statements:

It is beyond comprehension to think that this person is not on-
ly on staff for District 13 but responsible for the same organiz-
ing activities she sought to jeopardize. Her actions demon-
strate contempt for the Local that provides more man hours
and voluntary support for organizing than any other local
within District 13. This local assisted in performing her job
responsibilities even when he was nowhere to be found.
There is no place for this type of behavior in District 13 or an-
ywhere in the CWA.

As you can clearly understand this Local has no interest in
working with someone that would put the CWA and more
specifically this Local in harm’s way. We would appreciate
any and all steps necessary to remove this person from any
dealings with the members of this union. She clearly cannot
be trusted and without a doubt she is not deserving of a posi-
tion on staff at District 13 or anywhere else within the CWA.

Further, in his May 4 email to Tronsor, with copies to Mooney,
Krueger, and about 15 others in the Union, some executives,
some employees, he again stated, inter alia: “you are not de-
serving of a staff position or any position within the CWA.
This local and our members will not work with you on any
level. . . . The fact that you still hold a staff position at the Dis-
trict is disturbing.”
The letter and email clearly constitute an attempt by Gardler
to have District 13 discharge Tronsor. This is established by
his statements that “there is no place for this type of behavior
(her protected concerted activities) in District 13 or anywhere
in the CWA” and “you are not deserving of a staff position or
any position within the CWA.” I therefore find that by writing
this April 5 letter to Mooney the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. I further find that this letter and email could
clearly chill the employees who received the email in the exer-
cise of their Section 7 rights, and that by sending the letter and
email to employees of the union, the Respondent further violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
413
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS LOCAL 13000

2. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
sending a letter dated April 5 to District 13 attempting to cause
District 13, Tronsor’s employer, to discharge or otherwise dis-
criminate against her, and by sending that letter, together with a
May 4 email, to union employees, reiterating its desire that
Tronsor be discharged, Respondent further violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease
and desist therefrom and that it be ordered to take certain af-
firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
With respect to the latter, I order that Gardler write a letter to
District 13, with copies to all those who received his May 4
email, stating that he has no objection to Tronsor’s continued
employment with District 13, nor does he object to Tronsor
working on projects with the Respondent. In addition to post-
ing the traditional Board notice at its facilities, the Respondent
shall mail a copy of the notice to all those who received Gard-
ler’s letter and email dated April 5 and May 4.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]