Crystal Springs Water Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jun 4, 2003

12-CA-022466 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 4, 2003)

JD(ATL)—39—03
Orlando, FL

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE

SUNTORY WATER GROUP, INC.
d/b/a CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER CO.

and Case 12-CA-22468-1

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 385, AFL-CIO

Dallas L. Manuel II, Esq.,
for the Government.
John W. Campbell, Esq., and
David P. Steffen, Esq.,
for the Company.
Gary Brown Vice President/Business
Agent, for the Union.

BENCH DECISION

Statement of the Case

WILLIAM N. CATES, Administrative Law Judge: This is an interfering with
employee rights case. At the close of trial in Orlando, Florida on May 14, 2003, and after
hearing oral argument by Government, and Company Counsel, I issued a Bench Decision
pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(10) of the National Labor Relations Board’s (Board) Rules
and Regulations setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law.

For the reasons, specifically including credibility determinations, stated by me on
the record at the close of the trial, I found Suntory Water Group, Inc. d/b/a Crystal
Springs Water Co. (Company) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, (Act), on or about April 15, 2002, at its Orlando, Florida facility, acting
through its supervisor and agent District Sales Manager Vinnie Cusmano (District Sales
Manger Cusmano), by interrogating its employees about their membership in, activities
on behalf of, and sympathies for International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 385,
AFL-CIO (Union). I also concluded the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on
or about June 11, 2002, at its Orlando, Florida facility, acting through its supervisor and
agent District Sales Manager Duane Daniels, by interrogating its employees about their

JD(ATL)—39—03

membership in, activities on behalf of, and sympathies for the Union and by soliciting
employees to abandon their support for the Union.

I certify the accuracy of the portion of the transcript, as corrected,1 pages 144 to
160, containing my Bench Decision, and I attach a copy of that portion of the transcript,,
as corrected, as “Appendix A.”
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

Conclusions of Law

The Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act; that it violated the Act in the particulars and for the
reasons stated at trial and summarized above and that its violations have affected and,
unless permanently enjoined, will continue to affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

REMEDY

Having found that the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
find it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.

I recommend the Company be required, within 14 days after service by the
Region, to post at its Orlando, Florida, facility, an appropriate “Notice to Employees,”
copies of which are attached hereto as “Appendix B” for a period of 60 consecutive days
in order that employees may be apprised of their rights under the Act and the Company’s
obligation to remedy its unfair labor practices.

On these conclusions of law, and on the entire record, I issue the following
recommended:2

ORDER

The Company, Suntory Water Group, Inc. d/b/a Crystal Springs Water Co., its
officers, agents, successors and assigns shall:

1. Cease and desist from:

(a) Interrogating employees about their membership in, activities on
behalf of, and sympathies for the Union.

1 I have corrected the transcript pages containing my Bench Decision and the corrections are as
reflected in attached Appendix C.
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules,
be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
2

JD(ATL)—39—03

(b) Asking employees to solicit other employees to abandon their
support for the Union.

(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35

2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act:

(a) Within 14 days after service by the Regional Director of Region 12
of the National Labor Relations Board, post at its Orlando, Florida, facility copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix B”3 Copies of the Notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 12 after being signed by the Company’s authorized
representative shall be posted by the Company and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced
or covered by any other material. In the event that during the pendency of these
proceedings the Company has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Company shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the
Notice to Employees, to all employees employed at the facility in question by the
Company on or at any time since April 15, 2002.

(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional
Director for Region 12 of the National Labor Relations Board sworn certification of a
responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Company has taken to comply.

Dated at Washington D.C.

____________________________
William N. Cates
Associate Chief Judge

3 If this Order is enforced by a Judgement of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the
notice reading, “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD” shall read: “POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGEMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD”.
3

JD(ATL)—39—03
Orlando, FL

JD(ATL)—39—03

5

JD(ATL)—39—03

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
E V E N I N G S E S S I O N
JUDGE CATES: On the record.

This is my decision in the mater of Suntory Water Group,
Inc., d/b/a Crystal Springs Water Co., herein Company, Case
12-CA-22468-1.
First, I wish to thank the parties for the presentation of
the witnesses, exhibits and other evidence. Each of you are a
credit to the party you represent and I thank you.
May I also state that it has been a pleasure being in
Orlando, Florida.

This is an unfair labor practice case prosecuted by the
National Labor Relations Board’s, herein Board, General Counsel,
herein Government Counsel, acting through the Regional Director
for Region 12 of the Board following an investigation by Region
Twelve's staff.
The Regional Director for Region 12 of the Board
issued a
Complaint and Notice of Hearing, herein Complaint, on November
25, 2002, based upon an unfair labor practice charge filed by
144

JD(ATL)—39—03

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 385, AFL-CIO, 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
herein union, on September 3, 2002 and amended on November 12,
2002. Certain facts are admitted, stipulated or undisputed.
It is essential that I set forth certain of those facts at
this point in my bench decision, which I shall now do.
It is admitted the company is a Delaware corporation with
an office and place of business located in Orlando, Florida
where it is engaged in the production, sale and distribution of
bottled water.
During the twelve-month period ending November 25, 2002, a
representative period, the company purchased and received at its
above referenced location goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly from suppliers located outside the State of Florida.
The parties admit the evidence establishes and I find, the
company has been at all times material here in and continues to
be an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act as
amended, herein Act.
The parties admit and I find the union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
The parties admit and I find that District Sales Managers
Vinnie Cusmano, herein District Sales Manager Cusmano and
District Sales Manager Duane Daniels, herein District Sales
Manager Daniels are supervisors and agents of the company within
the meaning of Section 2(11) and (13) of the Act.
145

JD(ATL)—39—03

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The specific contested complaint allegations are that on or
about April 15, 2002, District Manager Cusmano at the company's
facility interrogated employees about their membership in,
activities on behalf of and sympathies for the union. It is
also alleged that on or about June 11, 2002, at the company's
facility District Sales Manager Daniels interrogated employees
about their membership in, activities on behalf of, and
sympathies for the union and asked employees to solicit
employees to abandon their support for the union.
It is alleged the company's conduct as I have just
described violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The company, in its answer, admits certain allegations of
the Complaint but denies having violated the Act in any manner
alleged in the Complaint.
This company, which engages in the production, sale and
distribution of bottled water, employs employees in each of
those categories. That is, they employ individuals in the
production, sale and distribution of bottled water.
This case, however, centers around the hiring interviews of
two employees for employment into the route sales associate and
route sales driver positions. Route sales associates do not
have a specifically assigned or bid for route, whereas route
sales drivers do. All regular, full-time and part-time drivers
and route salesmen are represented by the union.
The Board in representation case 12-RC-8707, certified the
146

JD(ATL)—39—03

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
union as the collective bargaining representative on November 8,
2001.
The parties negotiated for a collective bargaining
agreement and in late November 2002 the union ratified a
collective bargaining agreement with the company for the drivers
and route sales persons, which collective bargaining agreement
was executed by the parties in February 2003. There is
currently a de-certification petition, Case 12-RD-934, pending
which is blocked by the unfair labor practice proceeding herein.
The company from time to time finds itself in need of, and
after following certain long maintained interviewing procedures,
hires new route sales associates and route sales drivers. It
appears the company requires new applicants to attend or
participate in a ride along with a route sales driver before an
applicant can be interviewed.
Route Sales Driver Angelo Battaglia explained the ride
along as giving the applicant an opportunity to see if the
applicant liked the job and the work and for the company to see
if the applicant could perform or do the work required. The
ride along is where the applicant rides in the delivery truck
with a route sales driver for a full day of work. It is only
after the ride along that applicants are actually interviewed
for a job with the company.
Route Sales Driver Battaglia testified he filed an
application for employment with the company and thereafter was
147

JD(ATL)—39—03

called to the company for a ride along. He stated his ride 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
along was conducted by District Sales Manager Cusmano because
Cusmano was filling in for an absent route sales driver.
Battaglia testified that after his ride along he was
required to take a drug test, a stress test and to undergo a
background investigation. Battaglia was interviewed by District
Sales Manager Cusmano on or about April 15, 2002. The interview
took place in the company conference room near the customer
service area. No one else was present for the interview other
than Cusmano and Battaglia. District Sales Manager Cusmano had
a notebook with him in which he had Battaglia's application for
employment along with a multi-page company interview guide
document.
According to Battaglia, Cusmano from time to time referred
to the interview guide and took notes during the interview.
Although Battaglia had difficulty recalling all that was said in
the approximately thirty minute interview, he recalled his past
work experience was discussed and that District Sales Manager
Cusmano asked him to explain how he would handle an upset
customer situation. Battaglia stated Cusmano did not ask him
all of the questions in the company's interview guide because he
said it wasn’t necessary because Cusmano and he had been
together all day on a ride along.
According to Battaglia, Cusmano stated "There is a union
trying to come in here," but did not explain himself. Battaglia
148

JD(ATL)—39—03

testified Cusmano asked him, "How do you feel about that?" 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Battaglia said that put him on the spot. Battaglia asked why
the union was trying to come in and what benefits they wanted.
Battaglia testified Cusmano stated they wanted about $5,000 in
benefits. Battaglia said he perked up his eyebrows when he
heard $5,000 in benefits but he could not recall whatever
Cusmano told him the drivers wanted. But he remembered
specifically telling District Sales Manager Cusmano it sounded
like the drivers were crying.
Battaglia testified he was at that point offered a job with
the company. Battaglia first worked as a route sales associate
and thereafter became a route sales driver, a position he
currently holds with the company.
District Sales Manager Cusmano testified he did, in fact,
interview Battaglia for employment with the company immediately
following a ride along he conducted with Battaglia. Cusmano
explained that the ride along with Battaglia went very well.
That Battaglia pitched in from the start, helping him out with
the delivery of water and that Battaglia was good dealing with
people.
District Sales Manager Cusmano explained that at the
conclusion of the ride along he knew he wanted to hire Battaglia
because he wanted a fellow like Battaglia working for him.
Cusmano explained he conducted an interview with Battaglia but
that it was just a formality because he already knew he wanted
149

JD(ATL)—39—03

to hire Battaglia. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
District Sales Manager Cusmano explained his interview with
Battaglia was somewhat different from the normal procedure he
followed because he had been with Battaglia all day long on a
ride along. Cusmano testified that, in the 35 to 40 minute
interview in the conference room, he only had the interview
guide and the employment application but no notebook or other
papers. Cusmano explained he asked five or six questions from
the interview guide and told Battaglia about the position and
the responsibilities that went along with it.
According to District Sales Manager Cusmano, mention was
made early in the day that the company was involved with the
union. Cusmano also told Battaglia in the interview that there
was a union at the company. Cusmano said he informed Battaglia
as a courtesy to him. Cusmano stated he said the union was the
Teamsters and that Battaglia would fall under the umbrella of
the union as a route sales driver. Cusmano said he told
Battaglia that Battaglia's decision to join or not join the
union was Battaglia's and that it made no difference to him.
According to Cusmano, Battaglia said, it didn't make any
difference to him either, that he just wanted to make money for
his family. Cusmano specifically denied asking Battaglia any
questions about the union.
Before I go any further, this case ,as in most cases,
requires credibility resolutions. In arriving at my credibility
150

JD(ATL)—39—03

resolutions I carefully observed the two witnesses as they 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
testified and have utilized such in arriving at the facts
herein. That is the two witnesses from both sides of the issue.
I have also considered each witness' testimony in relation
to other witnesses' testimony and in light of the exhibits
presented herein. If there is any evidence that might seem to
contradict the credited facts I shall set forth, I have not
ignored such evidence but rather had discredited or rejected it
as not reliable or trustworthy. I have considered the entire
record in arriving at the facts herein.
This is a hard credibility determination for the two
individuals involved in this particular credibility resolution,
namely District Sales Manager Cusmano and Route Sales Driver
Battaglia, are admittedly good friends and it appears they still
are today. Yet I am required to determine which of these two
friends spoke the truth.
I am not fully persuaded that either of them came to court
to deliberately misstate the truth. I am, however, persuaded it
is a matter of a failure to fully recall the crucial facts
herein.
Taking in the overall context of this case, I am persuaded,
based in part on demeanor, that Battaglia's recollection is more
accurate than that of Cusmano's. I am persuaded that when
Cusmano was admittedly advising Battaglia about the presence of
Teamsters at the company and their attempts to get in at the
151

JD(ATL)—39—03

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
company that he asked Battaglia as Battaglia credibly testified,
how he felt about that. That is just a logical follow-up
question.
Battaglia's testimony, how that he was offered employment
immediately after he stated it appeared the drivers were just
crying in their demands, has a certain ring of believability
about it. The fact that Battaglia is still employed by the
company and that both he and Cusmano find themselves to be still
friends lends credence to Battaglia's testimony regarding the
question I find Cusmano asked about the union.
Does the question constitute unlawful interrogation?
Interrogation is not by itself a per se violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The test for determining the
legality of employee interrogation regarding union sympathies is
whether under all the circumstances the interrogation reasonably
tends to restrain or interfere with employees in the exercise of
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
their statutory rights. Mathews Readymix, Inc., 324 NLRB 1005
at 1007 (1997).
Under this totality of circumstance approach such factors
as whether the interrogated employee is an open or active
supporter of the union, the background surrounding the
interrogation, the nature and purpose of the information sought,
the identity of the questioner and the place and/or method of
the interrogation, are examined. See Rossmore House Hotel, 269 24
NLRB 1176 (1984), enforced sub nom., Hotel Employees and 25
26
152

JD(ATL)—39—03

Restaurant Employees Union v. NLRB, 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1
2 1985) and Bourne Co. v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47 (2nd Cir. 1994). See
also MedCare Associates, Inc., 330 NLRB 935, 939 (2000). 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

The factors that are referred to as the Bourne factors are,
one, the background. That is, is there a history of employer
hostility. Two, the nature of the information sought. For
example, did the interrogator appear to be seeking information
on which to base taking action against individual employees?
Three, the identity of the questioner. That is, how high was
he in the company hierarchy. Four, the place and method of the
interrogation. For example, was the employee called from work
to the boss' office? And five, the truthfulness of the reply.
These Bourne factors are not to be mechanically applied but
rather to be useful indicia that serve as a starting point for
assessing the totality of the circumstances. That the
interrogation may be courteous and low keyed instead of
boisterous, rude or profane, does not alter the case.
I am persuaded for the following reasons that the
interrogation of Battaglia by Cusmano violates the Act. First,
it does not appear that Battaglia had revealed his sympathies
toward union representation. Second, the question arose at a
time when the parties were still negotiating toward a collective
bargaining agreement. Third, no valid reason was advanced for
the questioning. Fourth, the questioning took place in the
153

JD(ATL)—39—03

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
conference room where it appears all hiring interviews and
actual hiring takes place. Fifth, Cusmano is the second level
of management at this location and it takes place during a
specific hiring interview.
Thus, I find District Manager Cusmano unlawfully and
coercively interrogated Battaglia about his union sympathies in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Former Route Sales Driver Corey Merritt testified he made
application for employment at the company while he was in the
area of the company making application for employment at still
another employer. After providing his resume and later filling
out an application for employment he was invited by the company
to come in for a ride along.
After being initially spoke to by two other management
persons, Merritt testified he was interviewed by District Sales
Manager Daniels. Daniels had worked that day and the mid June
2002 interview did not commence until around six p.m. in the
evening.
According to Merritt, Daniels had to wash up from his day's
work and then settled in to conducting the interview. Merritt
testified Daniels had a copy of the company's interview guide
and his, Merritt's, employment application.
Merritt testified they first got to know a little about
each other and then discussed Merritt's prior work experience.
Merritt testified District Sales Manager Daniels explained
154

JD(ATL)—39—03

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
that the company was going to a new tracking system by Oracle
that would make the driver's job easier with less paperwork.
Merritt testified Daniels asked him to name an occasion when he,
Merritt, went out of his way to satisfy a customer.
Merritt recalled a time when he was delivering a heavy
package to a customer and that the customer wanted the package
placed in the customer's attic because it was a surprise gift.
Merritt explained he placed the heavy item in the customer's
attic to the customer's satisfaction.
According to Merritt, District Sales Manager Daniels was
very pleased with his response and then only asked a couple of
questions from the company's interview guide. Merritt testified
District Sales Manager Daniels continually returned to the
subject matter of the company changing the way it was doing
things and going to an Oracle computer-related method of
tracking and accounting for products and product delivery.
According to Merritt, District Sales Manager Daniels
lowered his voice and stated the company had a lot of changes
and said, "The Teamsters was trying to come in at the company."
Merritt testified Daniels flipped through his application
for employment and noted he had worked for United Parcel
Services. Merritt acknowledged he had worked for UPS and
Daniels asked if that was a Teamsters job. Merritt responded it
was and District Sales Manager Daniels asked how he felt about
the Teamsters. Merritt testified he told District Sales Manager
155

JD(ATL)—39—03

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Daniels that the Teamsters had done nothing for him. That when
the Teamsters struck UPS in 1997, he was to have been given $75
strike benefit payments but was only given $25 strike benefit
payments.
Merritt said he told District Sales Manager Daniels that
the Teamsters took his $40 per month union dues but that the
Teamsters did nothing for him.
Merritt testified he told Daniels the Teamsters promised
job security but that he got his own job security by doing a
good job. Merritt testified District Sales Manager Daniels then
told him welcome aboard and told him to talk with the other
drivers and tell them the Teamsters is not the way to go and to
tell the drivers about the Teamsters 1997 strike.
District Sales Manager Daniels testified he interviewed
Merritt mainly because he, Daniels, was the late supervisor on
duty the day that Merritt was to be interviewed. Daniels
testified the interview started at the end of the workday at
approximately six p.m.
The interview was just between the two of them in the
conference room at the company. Daniels testified he only had
Merritt's employment application and the company's interview
guide with him at the time of the interview.
Daniels explained he sat down with Merritt, went through
the history of the company and where the company was headed.
Daniels explained the company was going to a new computer
156

JD(ATL)—39—03

assisted program with Oracle and explained how that would 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
benefit or aid the route sales drivers by making their jobs
easier, better and would eliminate paperwork on the part of the
drivers. Daniels testified he only mentioned Oracle once and
did not thereafter repeat himself on that subject matter.
District Sales Manager Daniels testified he noted to
Merritt that his application reflected he had worked for United
Parcel Service which was also a customer service driver
business. Daniels specifically denied the subject matter of a
union strike, union dues or the like ever came up in the job
interview.
Daniels testified he asked Merritt what he ever did to go
over and above what was expected for a customer. Daniels
explained that Merritt's answer convinced him Merritt was top
notch and would make a great employee for the company.
District Sales Manager Daniels testified he let Merritt
know during the interview that there was a union at the company
and that they were working toward a contract. Daniels
specifically denied asking Merritt if there was a union at UPS
or anywhere else and stated there was no talk about a 1997
strike by the Teamsters at UPS, nor was any mention made of a
strike fund.
Daniels testified he explained the company's pay structure
to Merritt and then extended an offer of employment to Merritt.
Daniels then obtained a copy of Merritt's social security card
157

JD(ATL)—39—03

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
and driver's license and provided Merritt forms for Merritt to
obtain a physical examination, a stress test and a background
check.
Daniels denied any other questions arose about the union
and specifically denied he asked Merritt how he felt about the
union or that he directed Merritt to tell other employees about
his experiences with the union.
Again, a credibility resolution is necessary. This time
it's not as much so a misrecollection as it is that one person
is simply not telling the full truth. Here is a situation where
one witness testifies statements were made while the other
witness, the only other witness to the alleged conversation,
categorically states no such comments were made.
Based on demeanor, the detail in his testimony and the
probabilities, I credit the testimony of Route Sales Driver
Merritt. Merritt impressed me as a careful, thoughtful and
somewhat articulate witness who recalled events with believable
detail.
I am persuaded that at least two of the four district sales
managers have an interest in advising applicants that there is a
union at the company and that it is the Teamsters. That is the
union at that facility and that they have an interest in knowing
how applicants feel about the Teamsters. I am persuaded Daniels
asked Merritt if his UPS job was a Teamsters job and when
Merritt said it was, that District Sales Manager Daniels asked
158

JD(ATL)—39—03

him how he felt about the Teamsters. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I am likewise persuaded that when Merritt expressed his
displeasure with the Teamsters, Daniels offered him employment
and asked him to talk with the other drivers and tell them the
Teamsters was not the way to go and to tell the other drivers
about the Teamsters' 1997 strike at UPS.
Does District Sales Manager Daniels statements to Merritt
that I find were made violate the Act? I am fully persuaded
they do.
No valid purpose was expressed to Merritt as to why he,
District Sales Manager Daniels or for that matter the company,
needed to know how Merritt felt about the Teamsters Union. The
questioning about the Teamsters came in Merritt's job interview
and took place in the conference room where hiring decisions are
made by the company. It was after Merritt expressed
dissatisfaction for the Teamsters that he was immediately
offered employment.
I find Daniels' questioning Merritt about the Teamsters
Union, as just described, was coercive and violated the Act. It
is also clear from the credited testimony that the company
through District Sales Manager Daniels unlawfully solicited or
asked Merritt to tell other route sales drivers about his
unfavorable experience with the Teamsters and for him to solicit
that they abandon their support for the union.
Such conduct on the part of the company through its Sales
159

JD(ATL)—39—03

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Manager Daniels violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and I so
find.
After the court reporter provides me, within approximately
ten days, a copy of the transcript of this proceeding, I will
certify to the Board those pages of the transcript that
constitute my decision.
I will make any corrections that are necessary there on and
make an attachment as to specifically what, if any, those
corrections are. I will also attach to the certification an
appropriate notice that I will direct that the company post to
correct or remedy the unfair labor practices that I find have
been committed.
After I have certified my bench decision to the Board, I
invite your attention to the Board's rules and regulations for
the procedure to take exceptions if any party cares to file
exceptions thereto.
It is only after I file my certified bench decision with
the Board that it is my understanding that the time for
appealing or taking exceptions to the decision runs. However, I
specifically direct your attention to the Board's rules and
regulations with respect to taking exceptions to the decision if
any need be taken.
Let me state again that I thank the parties for their
presentation of the evidence and it has been a pleasure being in
Orlando, Florida. And this trial is closed.

160

JD(ATL)—39—03
Orlando, FL

JD(ATL)—39—03

APPENDIX B

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by the 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 behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.

WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their membership in, activities
on behalf of and sympathies for the International Brotherhood of Teamster, Local 385,
AFL-CIO.

WE WILL NOT ask our employees to solicit other employees to abandon their
support for the Union.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.

SUNTORY WATER GROUP, INC.
d/b/a CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER CO.
(Employer)

Dated: ______ By: ______
(Representative) (Title)

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal Agency created in 1935 to
enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine
whether employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair
labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the
Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any
agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain
information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov

201 East Kennedy Boulevard, South Trust Plaza, Suite 530, Tampa, FL 33602-5824
(813) 228-2641, Hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

162

JD(ATL)—39—03

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM
THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR
COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE
ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S,
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (813) 228-2662
163

JD(ATL)—39—03

APPENDIX C JD(ATL)—39—03

PAGE(S) LINE(S) DELETE INSERT
144 3-8 lines 3-8
144 10 Company Co.
144 17 DECISION
144 19 Board Board’s
144 19 “,” after Board
145 2 6 3
153 3 Westwood Health Care
Center
MedCare Associates, Inc.
153 3 No., 141 at slip op. 935, 939 (2002).
153 4 p. 5 (March 20, 2000)
160 7 correction corrections

164