Denton County Electric Cooperative, Inc. d/b/a Coserv Electric

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jun 28, 2016

16-CA-149330 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

JD−59−16
Corinth, TX
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
DENTON COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
D/B/A COSERV ELECTRIC
and Case 16–CA–149330
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 220,
AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
David Foley and Jonathan M. Elifson, Esqs., for the General Counsel.
Ronald M. Gaswirth and Carrie B. Hoffman, Esqs. (Gardere, Wynne, Sewell, LLP),
for the Respondent.
Michael A. Murphy, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. RINGLER, Administrative Law Judge. This case was heard in Fort Worth,
Texas from February 1 to 3, 2016. The complaint alleged that the Denton County Electric
Cooperative, Inc. d/b/a CoServ Electric (CoServ or the Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by: maintaining unlawful employee handbook
provisions; withdrawing recognition from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local 220, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (the Union);
unilaterally granting pay raises; and failing to provide requested information to the Union.
On the entire record,1 including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the parties’ post-hearing briefs and reply briefs, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT2
I. JURISDICTION
CoServ, a corporation, is a utility provider in Corinth, Texas (the facility). During the

1 GC Exh. 22 and R. Exhs. 12–16 were admitted after the hearing.
2 Unless otherwise stated, factual findings arise from joint exhibits, stipulations and undisputed evidence.
JD−59−16
2
12-month period ending September 30, 2015, it derived gross revenue that exceeded $250,000,
and purchased and received at its facility goods that exceeded $5,000 directly from points
outside of Texas. It, thus, admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce, within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. It further admits and I find that the Union is
a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.5
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction3
10
On July 27, 2012, Region 16 of the National Labor Relations Board (Region 16) held an
election in the following collective-bargaining unit (the unit), which the Union won:
INCLUDED: All Linemen - Class Al, Class A2, Class B1, Class B2, Class Cl,
Linemen Class C2, Class G1, Class G2, Groundmen, Journeymen, Servicemen; 15
Power Quality Technicians, System Operators and Senior System Operators
employed by … [CoServ] at our facility in Corinth, Texas.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including office clericals, managers, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.20
See also (GC Exh. 12). On October 28, 2013, after the Union’s certification year elapsed,
Region 16 held a decertification vote that the Union survived. On November 26, 2014,4 after
receiving a petition from the unit, CoServ withdrew Union recognition. (R. Exhs. 8, 11).
25
At all relevant times between the Union’s initial certification and loss of recognition, the
parties bargained for an initial contract over approximately 15 sessions. The Union’s bargaining
team included: Business Manager Alan Cutler; and International Representative Laurence
Chamberlain. CoServ’s bargaining team included: attorneys Ronald Gaswirth and Carrie
Hoffman; and Vice President of Employee Relations Denise Smithers. Clint Hart, an F.M.C.S.30
mediator, assisted the last few negotiating sessions.5
B. Prior Unfair Labor Practice Charges (ULPs) and Settlement
Between April and September, the Union filed ULPs against CoServ alleging violations 35
of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) (the prior ULPs). (R. Exhs. 4–7). On November 4, CoServ entered
into an Informal Settlement Agreement (the Settlement) concerning the prior ULPs, which
covered: its unilateral decision in 2014 to withhold a raise from unit employees; telling unit
employees that they would not receive a raise because of the Union; and its failure to promote
unit employee, Derek Wolzen. (GC Exh. 12; R. Exhs. 4–7). The Settlement contained a non-40
admissions clause, which stated that, “the Charged Party does not admit that it has violated the
… Act,” and provided wage increases and backpay, and a 60-day notice posting. (GC Exh. 12).

3 Judicial notice is taken of the representation case records. Metro Demolition Co., 348 NLRB 272 (2006).
4 All dates hereinafter refer to 2014, unless otherwise stated.
5 The F.M.C.S., a Federal agency, provides collective-bargaining mediation.
JD−59−16
3
Region 16 approved the Settlement on November 21. (GC Exhs. 1, 12).
1. General Counsel’s Theory Regarding the Settlement
Beyond useful context, the Settlement is crucial to the General Counsel’s litigation 5
theory, inasmuch as he avers that the Settlement and conduct underlying it precluded the
withdrawal of recognition. First, he contends that CoServ could not withdraw recognition
because the underlying ULPs that were eventually settled were un-remedied when the petition
was signed, and created the disaffection that prompted the petition. Second, he asserts that the
Settlement required CoServ to recognize and bargain with the Union for a reasonable duration, 10
which had not yet transpired when it withdrew recognition.
2. Prior ULPs Covered by the Settlement and Related Evidence
The parties, as a result, presented substantial evidence about the prior ULPs covered by15
the Settlement. Such evidence is detailed below.
a. Supervisor Kevin Vincent’s Comments About the Union
In late-January, employee Robert Shelby met with Supervisor Vincent for an annual 20
performance review. (GC Exh. 7). He said that Vincent told him that, “there will not be a raise
… because … CoServ … was waiting for the union.” (Tr. 118). He testified that Vincent added
that, “if people had not … signed … union cards … we …. could get raises.” (Id.). On April 16,
Wolzen met with Vincent for a performance review; he testified that he was told that he would
not receive a raise or promotion “because it’s tied up in union and CoServ negotiations,” and 25
because the Union had, “rejected a contract offer that would have enabled us to get more
money.” (Tr. 44-45). Chad Beck testified that, on April 16, Vincent told him that, “the reason
you’re not going to get a raise is because of the union.” (Tr. 329).
Vincent testified that he solely told employees that raises had not been approved by 30
CoServ. He denied stating that benefits were being withheld because of the Union.
Given that Shelby, Beck and Wolzen stated that Vincent blamed the Union for the lack of
raises and promotions, and Vincent denied such commentary, a credibility resolution is needed.
Shelby, Beck and Wolzen have been credited; they were consistent and cooperative, and had 35
strong recollections, and solid demeanors. Vincent was a less than candid witness, who mostly
appeared motivated to aid CoServ and its leadership, and escape culpability.
b. Withholding 2014 Raises
40
The facts underlying these allegations are undisputed. In 2014, unit employees were
either placed in the Employee Development Program (EDP) or outside of it (non-EDP).6 EDP
employees moved to higher pay range steps under a pay grid system, as they satisfactorily

6 Linemen were placed in the EDP, while journeymen, system operators, and power quality technicians were not.
JD−59−16
4
completed training and testing.7 Non-EDP positions were not offered salary steps; their
positions solely held a pay range, and raises were given within the parameters of their pay range.
Annually, CoServ reviewed its EDP and non-EDP pay ranges, and applied a percentage increase
to EDP and non-EDP pay ranges, in accordance with the Mercer Study.8 For at least the 5 years
prior to 2014, CoServ increased its pay ranges for EDP and non-EDP slots as dictated by the 5
Mercer study. In 2014, although the Mercer study recommended a 2.3% increase in unit pay
ranges, CoServ froze their pay ranges. This resulted in some EDP employees still receiving
raises, as they moved along their current salary schedule to higher pay steps, but, resulted in non-
EDP employees’ wages effectively being frozen.9 See also (GC Exh. 11; R. Exh. 3; tr. 701-702
(Gaswirth testimony)). CoServ failed to provide advance notice to the Union of its decision to 10
not apply the Mercer Study in 2014, and implemented this decision without bargaining.
C. November 19 – Second Decertification Petition
On November 19, another decertification petition was filed. (R. Exh. 11). Region 16 15
took no action, inasmuch as the Settlement’s compliance period had yet to expire. Williamson, a
lineman, testified that he prepared the petition,10 disseminated it during non-working time, and
collected signatures.11 He stated that it continuously remained in his possession, until he
delivered it to the Human Resources department. CoServ elicited testimony from several
employees who signed the petition; they consistently testified that they wanted to oust the Union 20
solely because its help was no longer wanted, and denied that the prior ULPs had relevance.
D. November 25 – Final Bargaining Session
The General Counsel and the Union contend that the parties agreed to a final contract at 25
this session, which precluded the withdrawal of Union recognition. CoServ asserts that the
parties never finalized wages, and its withdrawal of recognition was appropriate. Several facts
connected to this session are undisputed. First, the parties had resolved all outstanding proposals
before the November 25 session, with the exception of duration and wages. (GC Exhs. 4-6, 13).
Second, before November 25, when the parties agreed to a proposal, they consistently signified 30
mutual assent by: marking the relevant article “TA” (i.e. tentative agreement); and signing and
dating it. Finally, on November 25, they agreed to a 1-year contract term, and signed and dated
a TA on contract duration, but, have not, to date, executed or created a wage TA.

7 Each step had a pay range.
8 The Mercer Study, an annual compensation study, was prepared by a human resources consulting outfit. It
analyzed CoServ’s competiveness in the labor market, and recommended annual wage adjustments.
9 Smithers testified that every non-unit hourly employee received a raise in 2014, and that unit employees did not
receive raises in 2014 because the parties were negotiating. She conceded that, prior to 2014, raises were given in
January (tr. 350), and that, “we did not give them because we were negotiating.” (Tr. 351); see also (tr. 363). She
confirmed that the decision to provide raises is based upon the Mercer Study, and that they made a recommendation
to increase wage rates in 2014 by approximately 2.3 percent.
10 He stated that he learned how to phrase the petition from the Internet research.
11 Williamson was, admittedly, a less-than-stellar witness with a selective memory and crafty demeanor, whose
testimony periodically conflicted with his affidavit. This circumstance is, however, in isolation, insufficient to find
that his testimony, which is almost entirely unrebutted, meant that CoServ helped him prepare the decertification
petition and aided its distribution, as contended by the General Counsel.
JD−59−16
5
1. General Counsel’s and Union’s Position
Union negotiator Cutler contended that the parties reached a final agreement on wages on
November 25, after the Union accepted, without reservation, Company 78. He testified that,
when he voiced his assent, Gaswirth cautioned him that he could not finalize Company 78, until 5
he first verified the underlying wage data and confirmed that they were not inadvertently
reducing someone’s wages. (GC Exh. 17). He said that Gaswirth pledged to verify the
underlying data on the following Monday (i.e., after Thanksgiving), and recalled this exchange:
We … asked if there w[ere]… any other issues outstanding … and we both … 10
said, no, … this is complete … because we expected to get the wages on Monday.
I'd already agreed to the 78 language, as far as job descriptions and job wages ....
[and] Ron said, I guess we have a contract.
15
(Tr. 226). He said that mediator Hart congratulated everyone. He claimed that he would have
accepted whatever Gaswirth later presented, even if it meant cutting someone’s wages.
Chamberlain essentially corroborated Cutler.

2. CoServ’s Position20
Attorney Gaswirth testified that wages were never finalized on November 25 because
some research remained regarding the accuracy of CoServ’s proposed rates. He recalled telling
Cutler to contact him after Thanksgiving. He denied announcing a deal, and insisted that he
solely stated that a resolution seemed closer. He added that, because the parties had a consistent 25
practice of signing TAs, the Union could not have rationally concluded that a deal was struck,
given the undisputed absence of a wage TA. Smithers essentially corroborated Gaswirth.
3. Credibility Analysis
30
Although the issue of whether there was a meeting of the minds on a final contract will
be analyzed later, Cutler’s claim that he would accept any wage package presented after
Thanksgiving raises a key credibility issue. This claim is incredible; it is implausible that, if
Gaswirth eventually told him that Company 78 represented a pay decrease for certain workers,
the Union would have accepted. It is just unbelievable that a newly-minted Union, whose 35
election platform involved higher wages, would accept pay cuts in a first contract, and accepted
Company 78 without reservation. Given that the Union’s support was tenuous, as evidenced by
repeated decertification efforts, it is improbable that Cutler would have contributed to this
erosion by voluntarily cutting wages. His testimony on this point is, thus, implausible.
40
E. November 26 – Withdrawal of Recognition
On this date, CoServ announced that it was withdrawing the Union’s recognition, after
receiving a petition signed by 28 of 32 unit members seeking its ouster. (GC Exh. 15). It is
noteworthy that, 23 out of the 28 employees signed before November 4 (i.e., when CoServ 45
signed the Settlement), and that everyone signed before November 21 (i.e., when Region 16
JD−59−16
6
approved the Settlement). The payment of backpay, provision of wage increases, notice posting
and other relief under the Settlement, thus, occurred after the petition was signed.
F. November 27 – Union Response and Information Request
5
On this date, Cutler rejected CoServ’s withdrawal of recognition. (GC Exh. 16). He
requested an Excelsior list with the unit’s current wages, which has, to date, not been provided.
G. 2015 Wage Increases
10
Unit employees received raises in 2015. CoServ provided raises, as dictated by the
Mercer study.
H. Handbook Policies
15
The General Counsel avers that the following Handbook policies are invalid. (R. Exh 2).
1. Professionalism
All employees [must act] … professionally …. Failure to observe the expected standards 20
of …behavior may result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Below
is a [non-exhaustive] list of … [prohibited] conduct ….
6. Unauthorized or improper use or disclosure of … employee data ….
25
13. Failure to cooperate in any investigation by CoServ.
14. Lack of loyalty to CoServ ….
18. [D]isrespectful attitude toward a supervisor ….30
20. [E]ngaging in … conduct which could damage [CoServ’s] … image….
22. Failure to enhance the public image of CoServ while participating in non-
work activities, while off duty or while wearing CoServ logo apparel ….35
24. Using the CoServ name or its related trademarks and/or logos, in
association with any … personal use, without written permission ….
2. Confidential Information40
We use confidential information only for the business purpose for which it was
developed or given. We respect the confidentiality of information about CoServ,
its … employees, … and partners…. [It] will not be used for personal benefit….
45
JD−59−16
7
3. Conflicts of Interest
We avoid conflicts, or the appearance of conflicts, between personal interests and
official responsibilities …. [E]mployees are under a continuing obligation to
disclose …the possibility of a conflict ….. Disclosure of any potential conflict is 5
the key to remaining in full compliance with this policy ….
4. Protecting Assets
We [must] …protect the … assets entrusted to us from … misuse …. [A]ssets, 10
such as … equipment … or Communication Systems, may only be used for
business purposes and other purposes approved by management ….
III. ANALYSIS
15
A. Handbook Policies
The contested Handbook rules violated the Act.12 The Board has held that:
If the rule explicitly restricts Section 7 rights, it is unlawful. If it does not, “the 20
violation is dependent upon a showing of one of the following: (1) employees
would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule
was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to
restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.”
25
Costco Wholesale Corp., 358 NLRB 1100 (2012) (citations omitted).
1. Professionalism
The Professionalism policy is unlawful for several reasons. First, Rule 6’s ban on30
discussing “financial … [and] employee data” without authorization is unlawful, inasmuch as it
can be reasonably construed to bar wage discussions with coworkers or a union. Costco, supra
(“[s]ensitive information such as … payroll may not be shared … without prior management
approval”). Second, Rule 13’s imposition of discipline for a “failure to cooperate in any
[CoServ] investigation” is unlawful. Beverly Health, 332 NLRB 347 (2000), enfd., 297 F.3d 468 35
(DC Cir. 2002) (rule prohibiting “[r]efusing to cooperate in … investigation of … alleged
violation of company rules, laws, or government regulations.”). Third, Rule 14’s ban of a “[l]ack
of loyalty to CoServ” is unlawful, inasmuch as it could be reasonably construed to restrict
protected concerted activity. Claremont Resort & Spa, 344 NLRB 832, 832 (2005) (rule
prohibited negative conversations about associates or managers). Fourth, Rule 18’s ban of a 40
“disrespectful attitude” towards a supervisor is unlawful. Casino San Pablo, 361 NLRB No. 148
(2014) (“insubordination or other disrespectful conduct”). Fifth, Rule 20’s ban of “engaging in
… conduct which could damage the image … of CoServ” is unlawful. Costco, supra, 358
NLRB No. 106 (“statements … that damage Costco.”). Finally, Rule 22’s ban on the “[f]ailure

12 These allegations are listed under paras. 5–8 and 24 of the complaint.
JD−59−16
8
to enhance the public image of CoServ while participating in non-work activities, … while
wearing CoServ logo apparel,” and 24’s ban on “[u]sing the CoServ name or its … logos, in
association with any… personal use, without written permission …” are unlawful, inasmuch as
such rules might be reasonably construed to ban “union activity in a uniform bearing a product
identification.” Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., 301 NLRB 1008, 1020 (1991). 5
2. Confidential Information
This policy unlawfully banned sharing confidential employee data. It could reasonably
be construed to ban wage discussions amongst employees or with their union. Costco, supra. 10
3. Conflicts of Interest
This policy, which prohibits conflicts and apparent conflicts, and has an ongoing
disclosure requirement, is unlawful. It can be reasonably construed to bar protected Section 7 15
activities, which may conflict with CoServ’s interests. Sheraton Anchorage, 362 NLRB No.
123, slip op. at 1 fn. 4 (2015) (“conflict of interest with the … company is not permitted”).
4. Protecting Assets
20
This policy, which bans the non-business usage of CoServ equipment, is unlawful. It can
be construed to bar all unauthorized solicitation from CoServ’s facilities, and ban email during
non-working time for Section 7 activities. Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793
(1945); Purple Communications, 361 NLRB No. 126, slip op. at 17 (2014) (using email for
protected communications on nonworking time); Stoddard-Quirk, 138 NLRB 615 (1962)25
(prohibition on unauthorized distribution of literature on company premises is unlawful).
B. Withdrawal of Union Recognition
The Complaint alleged that the parties finalized a contract on November 25, which 30
precluded withdrawal of recognition during its term.13 It also alleged that CoServ’s committed
ULPs, which tainted the petition.14 The latter argument is persuasive.
1. Contract Bar
35
The contract bar rule is inapplicable, given that the parties never finalized a deal on
November 25. The existence of a contract requires a “meeting of the minds” on all substantive
issues. Polycon Industries, 363 NLRB No. 31 (2015). A contract need not be reduced to
writing, when a “meeting of the minds” transpires. Carpenters Local 405, 328 NLRB 788, 793
(1999). The General Counsel retains the burden of proof on this issue. 40

13 See North Bros. Ford, 220 NLRB 1021, 1022 (1975).
14 The Complaint also alleged that the withdrawal of recognition was unlawful because the Settlement required
recognition and bargaining for a reasonable period, which never occurred. This argument will not be analyzed,
inasmuch as the withdrawal has been found unlawful on other grounds and a finding on this additional issue will not
affect the remedy.
JD−59−16
9
The parties did not reach a “meeting of the minds” because wages were never finalized.
They maintained a uniform practice of writing “TA” and signing off on each closed issue, and
never finalized a wage TA. They only agreed to meet to finalize wages after Thanksgiving.
Although Cutler claimed that he would have agreed to anything after Thanksgiving, such
testimony was not credited. Under these circumstances, wages remained open, absent a final TA 5
and knowing understanding of its contents; a “meeting of the minds” was, therefore, not reached.
2. Un-remedied ULPs
Un-remedied ULPs tainted the petition and precluded withdrawal of recognition. An 10
employer can generally withdraw recognition, where it can prove a loss of majority status.
Levitz, 333 NLRB 717, 717 (2001). This doctrine is, however, limited “to cases where an
employer has committed no unfair labor practices tending to undermine employees’ support for
unions.” Id. The Board has, thus, held that, “an employer may not withdraw recognition from a
union, while there are un-remedied unfair labor practices tending to cause employees to become 15
disaffected from the union. Olson Bodies, 206 NLRB 779, 780 (1973).
a. ULPs at the Time of the Petition
When the petition was signed (i.e., between November 3 and 18), CoServ had committed 20
several ULPs, which were then un-remedied. This includes repeated Handbook violations, and
the several serious ULPs, 15 which were later settled.16
i. Failure to Provide Annual Wage Increases in 2014
25
The most significant un-remedied violation involved CoServ unilaterally changing in
2014 its past practice of increasing wage ranges for EDP and non-EDP unit positions, as dictated
by the Mercer study. The relevant facts are undisputed, and are as follows: for at least the 5
years prior to 2014, CoServ increased its wage ranges for EDP and non-EDP slots, as dictated by
the Mercer study; in 2014, the Mercer study recommended an increase in unit pay ranges of 30
2.3%; in 2014, CoServ froze pay ranges at their current levels, which resulted in some EDP
employees still receiving raises, as they moved up a salary step, but, froze non-EDP employees
at their current rate; CoServ gave a wage increase to non-unit hourly employees in 2014, as
dictated by the Mercer study; and CoServ failed to notify the Union in advance of its decision to
not use the Mercer study’s 2014 recommendations, and implemented this decision without good 35
faith, pre-implementation bargaining.
The Board has held as follows:
[W]here parties are engaged in negotiations for a collective-bargaining agreement, 40

15 Although the General Counsel also alleged that the failure to promote Wolzen violated Sec. 8(a)(5), there is
insufficient record evidence showing a uniform practice of automatically promoting trainees, who met performance
expectations after a year of service. Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence to find a unilateral change. The
settlement of this subject, which contains a non-admissions clause, is insufficient to establish a violation.
16 These ULPs were fully litigated. CoServ was notified in the Complaint, at conferences, and during opening
statements. It examined the General Counsel’s witnesses, and exhaustively presented its own testimony.
JD−59−16
10
the employer must maintain the status quo of all mandatory bargaining subjects
absent overall impasse …. However,… the Board … set forth an exception to the
general rule. Under this exception, if a term or condition of employment concerns
a discrete recurring event, such as an annually scheduled wage review, and that
event is scheduled to occur during negotiations for an initial contract, the 5
employer may lawfully implement a change in that term or condition if it provides
the union with reasonable advance notice and an opportunity to bargain about the
intended change in past practice….
Neighborhood House Assn., 347 NLRB 553, 554 (2006). 10
Although the Mercer study increases were a discrete recurring event that would have
constituted a Neighborhood House exception, CoServ nevertheless breached 8(a)(5) by
unilaterally changing its past practice in 2014 of providing Mercer study raises, by failing to
afford the Union pre-implementation notice and an opportunity to bargain about this topic. 15
Regarding this point, Gaswirth clearly stated that:
It became 2014 [and] the company had made the decision that they were not
going to increase wages while they were negotiating wages …. And so there was
no 2014 increase…. 20
(Tr. 701). However, neither Gaswirth, nor any other CoServ witness, testified that the Union
was given pre-implementation notification of this decision. Gaswirth solely testified that Cutler
first raised this matter in February or March (tr. 701), which was 1 to 2 months after
implementation, and occurred when this subject was a fait accompli. Moreover, Cutler credibly 25
related that pre-implementation notice was never offered. Given that wage increases are
mandatory bargaining topics, this unilateral change was unlawful. Neighborhood House, supra.
ii. Blaming the Union for Lack of Raises
30
Another serious un-remedied violation involved Vincent repeatedly blaming the Union
for pay freezes. In late-January, he told Shelby that he would not receive a raise because,
“CoServ … was waiting for the Union,” and that, “if people had not … petitioned to get the
union … we …. could get raises.” (Tr. 118). In mid-April, he told Wolzen that he would not
receive a raise “because it’s tied up in union … negotiations,” and the Union had, “rejected a 35
contract offer that would have enabled us to get more money.” (Tr. 44–45). The Board has held
that an employer violates 8(a)(1), when it blames a union for a lack of raises. Atlantic Forest
Products, 282 NLRB 855 (1987); Truss-Span Co., 236 NLRB 50 (1978).
b. ULPs Were Un-remedied When the Petition was Signed40
The petition was signed between November 3 and 18, which was before the Regional
Director approved the Settlement on November 21. The settled ULPs were, therefore, not
remedied when the petition was signed. The Handbook issues were similarly un-remedied.
45
JD−59−16
11
c. Un-remedied ULPs Caused Disaffection and Prompted the Petition
Several factors reveal whether there is a causal relationship between un-remedied ULPs
and employee disaffection. These factors are: (1) duration between ULPs and withdrawal of
recognition; (2) nature of the violation, including the possibility of a lasting impact; (3) tendency 5
to cause disaffection; and (4) effect of the unlawful conduct on morale, organizational activities,
and union membership. Master Slack Corp., 271 NLRB 78, 84 (1984).
i. Duration
10
The duration between the ULPs and the petition demonstrate causation. First, blaming
the Union for wage freezes occurred 7 to 11 months before the petition.17 Second, the unilateral
elimination of the 2014 Mercer study raises occurred 10 months from the petition, but, was
implemented throughout the year. Third, the Handbook violations were ongoing. Under these
circumstances, the duration between the ULPs and petition, which ranged from 0 to 11 months, 15
was insufficient to dissipate the ULPs’ ill effects. Mesker Door, Inc., 357 NLRB 591 (2011)
(7 months supports taint); Beverly Health & Rehabilitation Services, 346 NLRB 1319, 1328-
1329 (2006) (6 to 8 months); AT Systems West, Inc., 341 NLRB 57, 60 (2004) (9 months).
ii. Nature of Violations20
The nature, tendency and extent of the ULPs demonstrate causation. The ULPs involved
core matters such as wages and threats to withhold raises. The Board has held that, “wage
increases and higher bonuses involve ‘bread and butter’ issues that lead employees to seek union
representation, and threats to withhold them, ‘particularly where the Union is bargaining for its25
first contract, can have a lasting effect on employees.’” Mesker Door, supra, 357 NLRB at 597;
RTP Co., 334 NLRB 466 (2001) (blaming the absence of raise on the union).
iii. Effect of Unlawful Conduct
30
There is mixed evidence of effect, which moderately supports causation. On the one
hand, several employees testified that they were unaware of the ULPs, which weighs against
causation. On the other hand, the Union went from winning a decertification election and
receiving majority support on October 28, 2013 to almost unanimously losing support in the
petition only a short year later. This dramatic swing in support occurred alongside the ULPs, 35
which is circumstantial, but very strong, evidence of effect; this is afforded controlling weight.
iv. The Settlement did not Sanction the Withdrawal of Recognition
CoServ’s later settlement of the ULPs did not remove the petition’s taint, and sanction a 40
withdrawal of recognition. The notice posting period, backpay, restoration of the status quo ante,
and other remedial relief connected to the settled ULPs had not yet occurred when the petition

17 For several reasons, I find that these statements were disseminated amongst the unit. First, they were made to
multiple employees in a small workplace. Second, they were made in tandem with the actual cessation of Mercer
study raises. Finally, they concerned core issues (i.e., the Union and money), and were likely to be repeated.
JD−59−16
12
was signed. The Board held in Wyndham Palmas Del Mar Resort and Villas, 334 NLRB 514
(2001) that the Master Slack causation analysis is applicable to settled unfair labor practice
conduct, as well as adjudicated un-remedied unfair labor practices.18 Therefore, given that the
Master Slack analysis demonstrated that the petition was tainted by ULPs that were later settled,
the existence of the Settlement itself does not cleanse such taint. 5
d. Conclusion
CoServ’s pervasive ULPs bred the disenchantment, which prompted the petition. Under
such circumstances, it could not lawfully challenge the Union’s majority status on the basis of a 10
petition emanating from its own wrongdoing. Thus, it violated 8(a)(5).19 Mesker Door, supra.
C. Other 8(a)(5) Violations
1. Information Request 15
CoServ violated 8(a)(5), when it ignored the Union’s request for an Excelsior list
describing current wages.20 An employer must provide requested information to a union
representing its employees, when there is a probability that the information is necessary and
relevant to its representational duties. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). This 20
duty includes the provision of relevant bargaining information. Postal Service, 337 NLRB 820,
822 (2002). Information, which concerns unit terms and conditions of employment, is “so
intrinsic to the core of the employer-employee relationship” that it is presumptively relevant.
U.S. Information Services, 341 NLRB 988 (2004). The Union’s request for unit names and
wages was fundamentally relevant, and CoServ’s recalcitrance in replying was unlawful. 25
2. Unilateral Wage Increase
CoServ violated 8(a)(5) by unilaterally increasing unit wages, after its unlawful
withdrawal of recognition. Its unilateral return in 2015 to its past practice of providing Mercer 30
study raises was invalid. In Mesker Door, the Board held that:
[B]ecause the Respondent … [could not] withdraw recognition from the Union, it
could not lawfully change … terms and conditions of employment without …
notice and bargaining to impasse or agreement. By disregarding this obligation 35
and unilaterally … chang[ing] … wage[s, it]… violated Section 8(a)(5) ….

18 Although on review, the D.C. Circuit criticized the Board for finding that settled ULPs caused the loss of
employee support for a union and noted that, “find[ing] a violation of the Act in the absence of substantial evidence”
was inappropriate, this case in distinguishable because the record in this case clearly demonstrates by substantial
evidence, without resort to or reliance upon the Settlement Agreement itself, that CoServ violated the Act. BPH &
Co. v. NLRB, 333 F.3d 213, 222 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The prior ULPs were comprehensively litigated.
19 Although the Complaint also alleges that CoServ could not withdraw recognition on the basis of 2 other reasons
(i.e., that a reasonable time period had not yet passed between entering into the Settlement and withdrawal of
recognition, and that CoServ was required under the Settlement to bargain for a reasonable duration), these theories
have not been analyzed, inasmuch as their resolution will not affect the ultimate remedy.
20 North Macon Health Care Facility, 315 NLRB 359, 361 (1994).
JD−59−16
13
357 NLRB at 598.
Conclusions of Law
1. CoServ is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), 5
(6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. CoServ violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining an overbroad Professionalism 10
policy, which subjected employees to discipline for violating these rules:
a. Rule 6–“Unauthorized … use or disclosure of … employee data”;
b. Rule 13–“Failure to cooperate in any investigation by CoServ”;
c. Rule 14–“Lack of loyalty to CoServ”; 15
d. Rule 18–“[D]isrespectful attitude towards a supervisor”;
e. Rule 20–“[C]onduct which could damage the image …. CoServ”;
f. Rule 22–“Failure to enhance the public image of CoServ while
participating in non–work activities, while off duty or while wearing
CoServ logo apparel”; and 20
g. Rule 24–“Using the CoServ name or its related trademarks and/or logos,
in association with any personal advertisement, online profile, or personal
use, without written permission.”
4. CoServ violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining an overbroad Confidential 25
Information policy, which subjected employees to discipline for using confidential information
for any non-business purpose.
5. CoServ violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining an overbroad Conflicts of Interest
policy, which subjected employees to discipline for “conflicts” or “the appearance of conflicts” 30
with CoServ, and mandated “a continuing obligation to disclose any situation that presents the
possibility of a conflict.”
6. CoServ violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining an overbroad Protecting CoServ
Assets policy that subjected employees to discipline for all non-business usage of its assets and 35
equipment.
7. CoServ violated Section 8(a)(5) by withdrawing recognition from, and failing and
refusing to bargain with, the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees for collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act in the following appropriate bargaining 40
unit:
INCLUDED: All Linemen - Class Al, Class A2, Class B1, Class B2, Class Cl,
Linemen Class C2, Class G1, Class G2, Groundmen, Journeymen, Servicemen;
Power Quality Technicians, System Operators and Senior System Operators 45
employed by … [CoServ] at our facility in Corinth, Texas.
JD−59−16
14
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including office clericals, managers, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
8. CoServ violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing and refusing to by failing and refusing 5
to provide information requested by the Union, which was relevant to its representational duties.
9. CoServ violated Section 8(a)(5) by unilaterally increasing the unit’s wages, after
withdrawing recognition from the Union.
10
10. The unfair labor practice set forth above affects commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Remedy
15
Having found that CoServ violated the Act, it is ordered to cease and desist and to take
certain affirmative action. It must rescind the overbroad Handbook rules, and furnish all current
employees with inserts for their current Handbooks that (1) advise that the unlawful rule has
been rescinded, or (2) provide a lawfully worded rule on adhesive backing that will cover the
unlawful rule; or publish and distribute to all current employees revised Handbooks that (1) do 20
not contain the unlawful rule, or (2) provide a lawfully worded rule.
In light of its withdrawal of recognition and refusal to bargain with the Union, it must
recognize and bargain with the Union for a reasonable period of time as the bargaining
representative of unit employees. An affirmative bargaining order is a reasonable exercise of the 25
Board's broad discretionary remedial authority. Caterair International, 322 NLRB 64, 64-
68 (1996). As the Board stated in Anderson Lumber, 360 NLRB No. 67 (2014), “We adhere to
the view that an affirmative bargaining order is ‘the traditional, appropriate remedy for an 8(a)(5)
refusal to bargain with the lawful collective-bargaining representative of an appropriate unit of
employees.”’ Id., slip op. at 1, quoting Caterair, supra, 322 NLRB at 68. Noting its30
disagreement with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
regarding a requirement to justify imposition of a bargaining order in each case, the Board
nevertheless found a bargaining order was justified in Anderson Lumber pursuant to the District
of Columbia Circuit balancing test as set out in Vincent Industrial Plastics v. NLRB, 209 F.3d
727, 738 (D.C. Cir. 2000). On virtually the identical facts, the same result occurs here.35
Vincent Industrial Plastics requires balancing of three considerations. These
considerations are (1) employee Section 7 rights, (2) whether other purposes of the Act override
the rights of employees to choose their representative, and (3) whether alternative remedies are
adequate to remedy the violations of the Act. Id. Because the violation found here is identical to 40
the violation found in Anderson Lumber, the Board's balancing rationale is quoted in full and
adopted:
(1) An affirmative bargaining order vindicates the Section 7 rights of the unit
employees who were denied the benefits of collective bargaining by the 45
Respondent's withdrawal of recognition and resulting refusal to bargain with the
JD−59−16
15
Union for a[n] …. [initial] collective-bargaining agreement. At the same time, an
affirmative bargaining order, with its attendant bar to raising a question
concerning the Union's continuing majority status for a reasonable time, does not
unduly prejudice the Section 7 rights of employees who may oppose continued
union representation because the duration of the order is no longer than is 5
reasonably necessary to remedy the ill effects of the violation. To the extent such
opposition exists, moreover, it may be at least in part the product of the
Respondent's unfair labor practices.
(2) An affirmative bargaining order also serves the policies of the Act by fostering 10
meaningful collective bargaining and industrial peace. That is, it removes the
Respondent's incentive to delay bargaining in the hope of further discouraging
support for the Union. It also ensures that the Union will not be pressured by the
Respondent's withdrawal of recognition to achieve immediate results at the
bargaining table following the Board's resolution of its unfair labor practice 15
charges and issuance of a cease-and-desist order.
(3) A cease-and-desist order, alone, would be inadequate to remedy the
Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union in these circumstances, because it
would permit another challenge to the Union's majority status before the taint of 20
the Respondent's unlawful withdrawal of recognition has dissipated, and before
the employees have had a reasonable time to regroup and bargain through their
representative in an effort to reach a successor collective-bargaining
agreement. Such a result would be particularly unjust in circumstances such as
those here, where the Respondent's withdrawal of recognition would likely have a 25
continuing effect, thereby tainting any employee disaffection from the Union
arising during that period or immediately thereafter. We find that these
circumstances outweigh the temporary impact the affirmative bargaining order
will have on the rights of employees who oppose continued union representation.
30
For all the foregoing reasons, we find that an affirmative bargaining order with its
temporary decertification bar is necessary to fully remedy the allegations in this
case.
Anderson Lumber, 360 NLRB at slip op. 1-2. Based on this rationale, the same determination is 35
warranted here and an affirmative bargaining order is necessary and justified in order to remedy
the allegations in this case pursuant to the balancing test of Vincent Industrial Plastics.
It must commence bargaining, upon request, with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, and embody any40
understanding reached in a signed agreement. It shall furnish the Union with the information
requested in its November 27, 2014 letter. It shall, if requested by the Union, rescind the
unilateral wage increases implemented in 2015 after the unlawful withdrawal of recognition. To
the extent that these changes have improved unit terms and conditions of employment, the
recommended Order set forth below shall not be construed as requiring rescission of such 45
improvements, unless requested to do so by the Union.
JD−59−16
16
In addition to the traditional remedies for the violations found herein, Donnie Clary or
Denise Smithers will read the notice marked “Appendix” to unit employees, during work time, in
the presence of a Board agent. A notice reading will counteract the coercive impact of the
instant ULPs, which were substantial and pervasive. See McAllister Towing & Transportation 5
Co., 341 NLRB 394, 400 (2004). It shall also distribute remedial notices electronically via
email, intranet, internet, or other appropriate electronic means to its employees, in addition to the
traditional physical posting of paper notices, if it customarily communicates with workers in this
manner. See J Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB 11 (2010).
10
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended21
ORDER
15
The Respondent, Denton County Electric Cooperative, Inc. d/b/a CoServ Electric,
Corinth, Texas, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
20
a. Maintaining an overbroad Professionalism policy, which subjected employees to
discipline for violating these rules:
i. Rule 6 – “Unauthorized … use or disclosure of … employee data”;
ii. Rule 13 – “Failure to cooperate in any investigation by CoServ”;25
iii. Rule 14 – “Lack of loyalty to CoServ”;
iv. Rule 18 – “[D]isrespectful attitude towards a supervisor”;
v. Rule 20 – “[E]ngaging in … conduct which could damage the image
… of CoServ”;
vi. Rule 22 – “Failure to enhance the public image of CoServ while 30
participating in non- work activities, while off duty or while wearing
CoServ logo apparel”; and
vii. Rule 24 – “Using the CoServ name or its related trademarks and/or
logos, in association with any personal advertisement, online profile,
or personal use, without written permission.”35
b. Maintaining an overbroad Confidential Information policy, which subjected
employees to discipline for using confidential information for any non-business
purpose.
40
c. Maintaining an overbroad Conflicts of Interest policy, which subjected employees
to discipline for “conflicts” or “the appearance of conflicts” with CoServ, and

21 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all
objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD−59−16
17
mandated “a continuing obligation to disclose any situation that presents the
possibility of a conflict.”
d. Maintaining an overbroad Protecting CoServ Assets policy, which subjected
employees to discipline for all non-business usage of its assets and equipment.5
e. Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of employees in this appropriate unit:
INCLUDED: All Linemen - Class Al, Class A2, Class B1, Class B2, Class 10
Cl, Linemen Class C2, Class G1, Class G2, Groundmen, Journeymen,
Servicemen; Power Quality Technicians, System Operators and Senior
System Operators employed by … [CoServ] at our facility in Corinth,
Texas.
15
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including office clericals, managers,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
f. Failing and refusing to provide the Union with requested information that is
relevant and necessary to its performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-20
bargaining representative of unit employees.
g. Unilaterally changing wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of
employment, without first notifying and bargaining with the Union.
25
h. In any like or related manner 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 effectuate the policies of the
Act30
a. Rescind or modify the language in the following provisions of the
Professionalism policy
i. Rule 6 to the extent that it prohibited the “[u]nauthorized … use or 35
disclosure of … employee data”;
ii. Rule 13 to the extent that it prohibited the “[f]ailure to cooperate in
any investigation by CoServ”;
iii. Rule 14 to the extent that it prohibited a “[l]ack of loyalty to CoServ”;
iv. Rule 18 to the extent that it prohibited having a “disrespectful attitude 40
towards a supervisor”;
v. Rule 20 to the extent that it banned “engaging in … conduct which
could damage the image or reputation of CoServ”;
vi. Rule 22 to the extent that it prohibited the “[f]ailure to enhance the
public image of CoServ while participating in non- work activities, 45
while off duty or while wearing CoServ logo apparel”; and
JD−59−16
18
vii. Rule 24 to the extent that it prohibited “[u]sing the CoServ name or its
related trademarks and/or logos, in association with any personal
advertisement, online profile, or personal use, without written
permission.”
5
b. Rescind or modify the language in the Confidential Information policy to the
extent that it barred using confidential information for any non-business purpose.
c. Rescind or modify the language in the Conflicts of Interest policy to the extent
that it banned “conflicts” or “the appearance of conflicts” with CoServ, and 10
legislated “a continuing obligation to disclose any situation that presents the
possibility of a conflict.”
d. Rescind or modify the language in the Protecting CoServ Assets policy to the
extent that it banned all non-business usage of its assets and equipment.15
e. Furnish all current employees with inserts for the Employee Handbook that
i. Advise that the unlawful rules have been rescinded, or
ii. Provide the language of lawful rules or publish and distribute a revised
Employee Handbook that20
1. Does not contain the unlawful rules, or
2. Provides the language of lawful rules.
f. Recognize the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
bargaining unit employees.25
g. Upon request, meet and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of employees and embody any understanding reached in
a signed Agreement.
30
h. Before implementing any changes in wages, hours, or other terms and conditions
of employment of unit employees, notify and, on request, bargain with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of employees.
i. Upon the Union’s request, rescind any or all of the unilaterally implemented 35
changes made in the terms and conditions of employment of employees since
November 26, 2014.
j. Provide the Union with the information requested in its November 27, 2014 letter.
40
k. Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility copies of the
attached notice, marked “Appendix.”22 Copies of the notice, on forms provided

22 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading
“Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.”
JD−59−16
19
by the Regional Director for Region 16, 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. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an 5
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 Respondent 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, it shall duplicate and 10
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed it at any time since November 26, 2014.
l. 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 15
attesting to the steps that it has taken to comply.
Dated Washington, D.C. June 28, 2016
20
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 behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT maintain disciplinary provisions in our Employee Handbook, which prohibit
you from using or disclosing employee data without authorization.
WE WILL NOT maintain disciplinary provisions in our Employee Handbook require you to
cooperate with any investigation.
WE WILL NOT maintain disciplinary provisions in our Employee Handbook, which prohibit a
“[l]ack of loyalty to CoServ.”
WE WILL NOT maintain disciplinary provisions in our Employee Handbook, which ban you
from having a “disrespectful attitude towards a supervisor.”
WE WILL NOT maintain disciplinary provisions in our Employee Handbook, which bar you
from “engaging in … conduct which could damage the image or reputation of CoServ.”
WE WILL NOT maintain provisions in our Employee Handbook, which subject you to
disciplinary action for the “[f]ailure to enhance the public image of CoServ while participating in
non–work activities, while off duty or while wearing CoServ logo apparel.”
WE WILL NOT maintain disciplinary provisions in our Employee Handbook, which prohibit
you from “[u]sing the CoServ name or its related trademarks and/or logos, in association with
any personal advertisement, online profile, or personal use, without written permission.”
WE WILL NOT maintain disciplinary provisions in our Employee Handbook, which ban you
from using confidential information for any non-business purpose.
WE WILL NOT maintain provisions in our Employee Handbook, which subject you to
discipline for “conflicts” or “the appearance of conflicts” with CoServ, and mandate “a
continuing obligation to disclose any situation that presents the possibility of a conflict.”
WE WILL NOT maintain disciplinary provisions in our Employee Handbook, which subject
you to discipline for all non-business usage of our assets and equipment.
WE WILL NOT withdraw recognition from, and fail and refuse to bargain with, the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 220, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (the Union) as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of our employees in the following unit:
INCLUDED: All Linemen - Class Al, Class A2, Class B1, Class B2, Class Cl,
Linemen Class C2, Class G1, Class G2, Groundmen, Journeymen, Servicemen;
Power Quality Technicians, System Operators and Senior System Operators
employed by … [CoServ] at our facility in Corinth, Texas.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including office clericals, managers, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to provide the Union with requested information that is relevant
and necessary to its performance of its duties.
WE WILL NOT change your wages, benefits, or other terms and conditions of employment,
without first notifying and bargaining with the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights set forth above.
WE WILL rescind or modify these provisions of our Employee Handbook:
1. The Professionalism policy to the extent that it prohibits you from:
a. Disclosing employee data without authorization under Rule 6;
b. Failing to cooperate in any investigation by us under Rule 13;
c. Having a lack of loyalty to us under Rule 14;
d. Maintaining a “disrespectful attitude towards a supervisor” under Rule 18;
e. “[E]ngaging in … conduct which could damage … [our] image or
reputation” under Rule 20;
f. “Fail[ing] … to enhance the public image of CoServ while participating in
non–work activities, while off duty or while wearing CoServ logo
apparel” under Rule 22; and
g. “Using the CoServ name or its related trademarks and/or logos, in
association with any personal advertisement, online profile, or personal
use, without written permission” under Rule 24.
2. The Confidential Information policy to the extent that it prohibits you from using
confidential information for any non-business purpose.
3. The Conflicts of Interest policy to the extent that it bars “conflicts” or “the
appearance of conflicts” with us, and mandates “a continuing obligation to
disclose any situation that presents the possibility of a conflict.”
4. The Protecting CoServ Assets policy to the extent that it prohibits all non-business
usage of our assets and equipment.
WE WILL furnish all of you with inserts for the current Employee Handbook that:
1. Advise that the unlawful provisions, above have been rescinded, or
2. Provide the language of lawful provisions, or publish and distribute revised
Employee Handbooks that:
a. Do not contain the unlawful provisions, or
b. Provide the language of lawful provisions.
WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of our unit employees concerning terms and conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed
agreement.
WE WILL, upon the Union’s request, rescind any or all of the unilaterally implemented changes
that we made in the terms and conditions of employment of employees since November 26,
2014.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information requested in its November 27, 2014 letter.
WE WILL hold a meeting or meetings during working hours and have this notice read to you
and your fellow workers by either President and Chief Executive Officer Donnie Clary or Senior
Vice President of Employee Relations Denise Smithers, in the presence of an agent of the
National Labor Relations Board.
DENTON COUNTY ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, INC. D/B/A COSERV
ELECTRIC
(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.
819 Taylor Street, Room 8A24, Fort Worth, TX 76102-6178
(817) 978-2921, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/16-CA-149330 or by
using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive
Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by
calling (202) 273-1940.
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, (817) 978-2925.