Salon/Spa at Boro, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 2010

356 N.L.R.B. 444 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 444
Salon/Spa At Boro, Inc. and Natalie Ann Lakes and
Elizabeth A. Frith. Cases 9–CA–45349, 9–CA–
45426, and 9–CA–45538
December 30, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS PEARCE
AND HAYES
On October 18, 2010, Administrative Law Judge Paul
Buxbaum issued the attached decision. The General
Counsel filed an exception and a supporting 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 exception and brief and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings and conclusions, and
to adopt the recommended Order as modified.1
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Sa-
lon/Spa at Boro, Inc., Springboro, Ohio, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Order, as modified by substituting the follow-
ing for paragraphs 2(e) and (f), relettering the subsequent
paragraphs accordingly.
“(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Springboro, Ohio facility copies of the notice in the
judge’s decision marked “Appendix.”48 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 9, 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
1 In accordance with our decision in Kentucky River Medical Center,
356 NLRB 6 (2010), we modify the judge’s recommended remedy by
requiring that backpay and other monetary awards shall be paid with
interest compounded on a daily basis.
The judge’s recommended Order includes a provision directing the
Respondent to post the notice electronically on its intranet system. The
Board recently modified its standard notice-posting language to require
a respondent that customarily communicates with its employees
through electronic means to additionally distribute the Board’s remedial
notice electronically in such a manner. J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB
11 (2010). We shall modify the recommended Order to provide for the
distribution of the notice in accord with J. Picini Flooring. For the
reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in J. Picini Flooring, Member
Hayes would not require electronic distribution of the notice.
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. In the event that, during
the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since October 17, 2009.”

Jamie L. Ireland, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Stephen A. Watring, Esq., of Dayton, Ohio, for the Respondent.
Natalie Ann Lakes, of Miamisburg, Ohio, and Elizabeth A.
Frith, of Liberty Township, Ohio, for the Charging Parties.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PAUL BUXBAUM, Administrative Law Judge. This case was
tried in Cincinnati, Ohio, on June 28–30, 2010. The initial
charge was filed December 18, 2009,1 and additional charges
were filed on February 2 and April 5, 2010. The consolidated
complaint was issued May 7, 2010.
The complaint alleges that the Employer, Salon/Spa at Boro,
Inc., engaged in a series of violations of the National Labor
Relations Act (the Act) consisting of unlawful interrogations of
employees, threats of reprisals directed toward employees, and
the unlawful discharge of two members of its work force, Na-
talie Ann Lakes and Elizabeth A. Frith. Each of these actions is
asserted to be in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The
Employer’s amended answer to the complaint denies all of the
material allegations and raises certain defenses, including the
contention that one of the charges alleging an unlawful threat of
reprisal was filed outside the time limit specified in Section
10(b) of the Act.
For the reasons described in detail in this decision, I find that
the Employer did engage in violations of the Act consisting of a
series of unlawful interrogations, the utterance of a threat of
reprisal against an employee, and most significantly, the unlaw-
ful discharge of its two employees, Lakes and Frith. I further
conclude that the Employer has established that the allegation
of an additional unlawful threat was untimely filed, lacks merit,
and should be dismissed.
On the entire record,2 including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the follow-
ing
1 All dates are in 2009, unless otherwise indicated.
2 The General Counsel has filed an unopposed motion to correct er-
rors in the transcript. Regarding the list of proposed corrections, I can-
not find the errors reported to be located at Tr. 191, L. 25 and Tr. 343,
L. 1. I grant the motion as to each of the remaining errors cited in the
motion. In addition, at Tr. 149, L. 14, “through” should be “throw.” At
Tr. 763, L. 20, “drop” should be “draw up.” Any remaining errors of
transcription are not significant or material.
356 NLRB No. 69

SALON/SPA AT BORO, INC. 445
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Employer, a corporation, operates a hair salon and day
spa at its facility in Springboro, Ohio, where it annually pur-
chases and receives at its Springboro, Ohio facility, goods val-
ued in excess of $10,000 directly from points outside the State
of Ohio and derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000. The
Company admits3 and I find that it is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Background
In 1992, Bobbie Hausfeld opened a hair salon and day spa at
Springboro, Ohio. She had prior experience operating other
hair salons and is also an owner of a second salon and spa in
Beavercreek, Ohio. Each salon is a separate corporate entity.
Hausfeld serves as the president of the Springboro salon in-
volved in this case. It provides “guests” with hair styling, mani-
cures, skin care, and massages.4

During the period at issue,
three team leaders reported to Hausfeld: Michelle D’Amico,
Genny Dill, and Patricia Wilson Cordell. It is undisputed that
these team leaders were supervisors within the meaning of the
Act.5 During the events in controversy, approximately 40 per-
sons were employed by the salon, including more than a dozen
so-called “hair designers.” The employees have not been rep-
resented by any labor organization.
Among the salon’s hair designers were two persons who fig-
ure prominently in this case. Natalie Lakes was hired by the
salon in April 2005. She progressed from apprentice to hair
designer in February 2006. In November 2007, she received a
further promotion to a level-two designer. In 2009, Lakes took
maternity leave from April until July 1. Lakes testified that,
shortly after her return to work, she received yet another pro-
motion. Hausfeld disputed this claim, contending that the event
described by Lakes was merely an across-the-board rate in-
crease for the hair designers. Hausfeld indicated that she did not
recall whether Lakes received anything more than this general
rate increase. On rebuttal, Lakes insisted that she was promoted
and that Hausfeld announced her promotion at a staff meeting.
I credit Lakes’ account, finding it noteworthy that Hausfeld did
not deny Lakes’ contention but merely professed a lack of rec-
ollection. In addition, the Employer would certainly be ex-
pected to possess documentary evidence that could shed light
on the matter. It did not choose to present such documentation.
Another key figure in this case is Elizabeth Frith. Hausfeld
hired Frith as a hair designer in April 2007. She transferred to
the Springboro salon in the following September. In June
2009, Frith took a medical leave. She returned to work in mid-
August.
3 See amended answer to the consolidated complaint, at par. 2. (GC
Exh. 1(l).)
4 Customers are referred to as “guests.”
5 See, amended answer to the consolidated complaint, at par. 3. (GC
Exh. 1(l).)
At this juncture, it is appropriate to note that Hausfeld man-
ages her salon with a specific overall goal in mind. She testified
that she had been involved in other salon operations that had
failed to provide an acceptable degree of profitability. Before
founding the Springboro salon, she made a study of the crucial
issue of customer retention. Based on extensive interviews with
customers, she concluded that a key factor in the loss of exist-
ing clientele was a perception among those customers that the
atmosphere in the salon was negative. As she put it, her ulti-
mate conclusion was that, “negativity was one of the major
reasons that guests leave a salon.” (Tr. 610.) She resolved that
the Springboro salon would be operated in a manner that would
minimize the possibility of creating an atmosphere of negativity
by requiring all employees to avoid statements and behaviors
that could contribute to such an atmosphere or perception
among the customers. She characterized this policy against
negativity as her “philosophy” and “vision.” (Tr. 612.)
Numerous witnesses described the content of Hausfeld’s
negativity policy.6 Generally speaking, there was broad agree-
ment as to the parameters of the policy and the vigor with
which it was enforced by supervisors. To begin with, Hausfeld
defined the policy as follows:

Negativity is complaining. It is not being happy or grateful for
the situation that you have. It could be complaining about
your personal life. It could be complaining about having a
guest. It could be complaining about being busy, complaining
about not being busy. It could be complaining about another
employee. Whether just in general pulling people down . . . .

(Tr. 74.) Counsel for the General Counsel asked Hausfeld
whether the definition included, “[c]omplaining about how the
Company’s run,” and she replied, “that’s negativity.” (Tr. 74.)
Hausfeld also reported that an isolated instance of such nega-
tivity was not punishable because, “[e]verybody can have a bad
day.” (Tr. 76.) However, she acknowledged that she has fre-
quently imposed discipline on employees for statements and
behavior that she perceived as constituting negativity. As she
explained, “if it comes to a point where it affects the team and
it affects morale, and it affects the salon overall which, in turn,
affects the paying guest who comes in to have a wonderful
experience [t]hat is where the zero tolerance negativity policy
comes in.” (Tr. 77.) In such cases, employees face discipline,
up to and including termination from employment.7

6 It should be noted that the Employer maintains an employee hand-
book. While that document does not contain a written description of the
negativity policy, it does exhort employees to “have a positive mental
attitude” and “[a]void gossip between guests and/or teammates.” (GC
Exh. 2(a), pp. 2, 3.) Hausfeld testified that, “throughout the manual, we
do focus on positive attitude.” (Tr. 73.)
7 The Company’s disciplinary records confirm the accuracy of this
testimony. For example, in the year prior to the terminations that are at
the heart of this case, Tanisha Bates and Kaley Orth were issued warn-
ings for negativity. (GC Exh. 20, p. 1 and GC Exh. 12, p. 1.) Tiffany
Mason was sent home early and Christal Graham was placed on proba-
tion for violations of the negativity policy. (GC Exh. 5, p. 9 and GC
Exh. 5, p. 7.) Most importantly, Tanisha Bates, Kokka Manson, Katie
Hay, Christal Graham, and Jessica Frazier were all fired for such in-
fractions. (R. Exhs. 2, 8, 6, 5; GC Exh. 5, p. 2.) These records clearly
confirm Hausfeld’s observation that violations of the negativity policy

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 446
Other witnesses provided enlightening testimony regarding
the content and breadth of the negativity policy as applied at the
salon. Jessica Eubank has been employed as a hair stylist at the
salon for the past 7 years. Her description of the negativity
policy was:

If I’m going to talk behind somebody’s back, like a manager’s
back, and say bad stuff about them, that’s negativity. And,
you know, [the person] who I’m talking to is going to under-
stand that, or maybe not understand it, but it’s going to put
that little bug in their head. And they’re going to start talking
to the next person about, you know, how management’s doing
something wrong, or Bobbie [Hausfeld’s] doing something
wrong, or something, besides going to the source and just tak-
ing care of it.

(Tr. 344.) In the same vein, Team Leader Dill reported that
negativity is “talking about a coworker, talking about a member
of management.” (Tr. 591.)
Perhaps the ultimate illustration of the breath and scope of
the policy was provided by Colleen Brewster, an assistant team
leader at the salon. She recounted an incident when she report-
ed to work during a snowstorm and fell in the parking lot. Up-
on entering the building, she went into the area between the
employees’ breakroom and the office and commented that, “I
just hate the snow.” (Tr. 773.) Upon hearing this remark,
Hausfeld took her into the office and warned her that such a
complaint could be seen as “[the] start of negativity.” (Tr. 773.)
In sum, the uniform and consistent descriptions of the nega-
tivity policy as applied by this Employer confirm the accuracy
of counsel for the Respondent’s characterization of the policy
in his opening statement. As he put it, “it’s a broad policy say-
ing we don’t want negativity.” (Tr. 489.) He went on to observe
that, “we apply this policy to any kind of negativity, including
negativity towards management.” (Tr. 491.)
B. The Events in Controversy
The General Counsel contends that the Employer’s efforts to
enforce its negativity policy in the fall of 2009 included the
commission of a number of unfair labor practices. Before eval-
uating this claim, it is necessary to describe the pertinent
events.
There was widespread agreement among the witnesses that,
as the autumn season began, there was increasing friction be-
tween management and employees at the salon. The first salient
manifestation of this situation described by the parties occurred
in late September or early October.8 On that day, Team Leader
Cordell was scheduled to work, but her assigned apprentice was
not on duty. Realizing this, Cordell directed the apprentice
assigned to hair designer Jessica Bays Williams to work for her
instead. Lakes reported that the manner in which Cordell made
this reassignment was abrasive and “real short tempered.” (Tr.
138.) Another designer, Laura Call, corroborated this descrip-
tion of Cordell’s manner, testifying that it was, “very kind of
blunt and short to the point.” (Tr. 421.)
were “probably one of our most common reasons for discipline.” (Tr.
623.)
8 Lakes indicated that it took place on September 22. Frith reported
that it happened on October 3. The precise date is immaterial.
Bays Williams testified that she learned about Cordell’s ap-
propriation of the apprentice that had been assigned to her from
Lakes. Not surprisingly, the news aroused an angry reaction. As
Bays Williams explained:

I was really mad, because she was a manager and I felt like I
needed an assistant, too, and I was super busy, and she should
have understood, you know, that I needed one, too.

(Tr. 381.) Frith testified that the incident provoked further
discussion among the hair designers. She observed Lakes and
Call complaining that Cordell had yelled at Call. Joining the
conversation, Frith observed that it was not fair that Cordell
was “allowed to treat us that way.” (Tr. 190–191.) She told
her coworkers that, “we needed to say something, because it
wasn’t fair.” (Tr. 191.)
At approximately the same time, the Employer conducted
one of its routine monthly staff meetings. The meeting was held
at a local Doubletree Hotel. As I will discuss in the legal anal-
ysis portion of this decision, the precise date of this meeting is
fraught with significance. Unfortunately, determination of that
date requires that I grapple with the vagaries and frailties of
human memory, particular the recollection of an event that
appeared routine at the time it occurred but has assumed im-
portance during the course of subsequent litigation.
In the presentation of her case, counsel for the General
Counsel asked several witnesses about the date of this staff
meeting. Responding to counsel’s question as to whether she
attended a staff meeting in October, Lakes indicated that she
felt “pretty sure” that it was held in October. (Tr. 136.) Frith
was asked if she attended, “a monthly meeting in October of
2009.” (Tr. 188.) She responded affirmatively. When asked the
same question, Hair Designer Carrie Aiello replied, “I think so.
Yes.” (Tr. 245.) However, moments later she informed counsel
that she did not know the “specific date” of the meeting. (Tr.
245.) Similarly, responding to counsel’s inquiry as to whether
she attended a meeting in October, Hair Designer Eubank testi-
fied that she had done so. However, under examination by
counsel for the Employer, Eubank readily conceded that she did
not recall whether the meeting was held in September or Octo-
ber. The same situation was repeated in the account of Bays
Williams. On direct, when asked if she was present at a staff
meeting in October, she affirmed that she was. Not long after-
wards, she reported her impression that the actual date of the
meeting was “blurry” and that “I can’t remember exactly when
that meeting was held.” (Tr. 375.) On examination by counsel
for the Employer, Bays Williams added that she did not know
the month of the meeting.9

It is easy to understand why the
testimony of these witnesses developed in the confusing and
unsatisfactory manner that it did. By asking each witness
whether she attended a staff meeting held in October, counsel
indulged in the use of leading questions. The vice in this prac-
tice is well summarized by McCormick, Evidence § 6 (6th ed.
2006), “A leading question is one that suggests to the witness
the answer desired by the examiner.” Having been offered the
suggestion that the meeting was held during the month of Oc-
9 In fact, she seemed to be under the impression that the meeting was
held after the month of October.

SALON/SPA AT BORO, INC. 447
tober, the witnesses readily accepted the suggestion.10 Closer
examination of the totality of their accounts demonstrates that
their assent to this date was not based on any specific recollec-
tion. When asked to consider the matter further, they readily
backed away from any such attempt at precision. Indeed, it is
both obvious and understandable that the witnesses did not
actually know whether the meeting took place in September or
October.
On the state of this record, how is one to determine the date
of this staff meeting? As is so often true in litigation, the defin-
itive answer is provided by reference to an otherwise routine
and uninteresting piece of paper that was generated contempo-
raneously with the event. In this instance, the document is a
receipt from the Doubletree Hotel for payment of $261.08 for
the rental of the Ohio Room by the Employer. The receipt
shows that the room was rented for a meeting on September 24,
2009. (R. Exh. 10.) While I cannot have any confidence in the
testimony about the date, I readily conclude that this routine
business document provides the key piece of information. For
that reason, I find that the staff meeting that I am about to de-
scribe took place on September 24. I will evaluate the signifi-
cance of this finding later in this decision.
The witnesses all agree that at the September 24

staff meeting, Hausfeld addressed the immensely popular sub-
ject of social networking.11 Hausfeld reported that she told the
staff, that they needed to be kind and positive . . . there are a
lot of other people reading their information, reading them
that they may not even be aware that was reading what they
were posting . . . . So it’s public.

(Tr. 56.) She suggested that they confine their remarks to “posi-
tive” comments.12 (Tr. 56.)
Various employees also described Hausfeld’s comments at
this meeting. Lakes reported that Hausfeld warned the staff not
to respond to former employees. She testified that Hausfeld told
them, “to be careful what [we] say on that, that it could hurt our
business.” (Tr. 136.) Frith reported that Hausfeld’s remarks on
the subject were brief. According to her, the comments consist-
ed of an admonition that:

10 I do not mean to imply any criticism of the witnesses. I doubt
they were aware that the date held legal significance due to the Act’s
limitation period. Nor am I implying that counsel for the General Coun-
sel did anything improper. Federal Rule of Evidence 611(c) permits the
use of leading questions when “necessary to develop the witness’ testi-
mony.” The questions were not subjected to any objection and I do not
doubt that counsel felt they were necessary. Nevertheless, the entire
episode illustrates the pitfalls of reliance on leading questions.
11 It is likely that social networking issues will become a feature of
labor law cases. For instance, see General Counsel’s Advice Memo in
Sears Holdings, Case 18–CA–19081, 2009 WL 5593880 (Dec. 4,
2009).
12 Hausfeld testified that she chose to address this subject because
disgruntled former employees were posting negative comments about
the salon and current employees were adding comments, “that said,
yeah, or love you, or lots of love or laughs, or whatever.” (Tr. 672.) She
reported that Lakes and Frith were two of the employees involved in
this behavior.
if you put bad things on there, then there were people that
could see that. And then if you put good things on there that,
you know, that there were people that could also see that. So
. . . it could make or break your career. Like it could make you
look good or make you look bad, depending on what your
wrote on your page.

(Tr. 189.) Interestingly, counsel for the General Counsel asked
Frith if she thought Hausfeld was referring to work or to life in
general. Frith replied that, “I assume just in general.” (Tr. 189.)
Aiello testified that Hausfeld told the employees that, when
using Facebook, “we need to, you know, like watch our lan-
guage, and how we conduct ourselves.” (Tr. 245.) She also
noted that Hausfeld expressed puzzlement as to why current
employees would want to be friendly to former employees who
made negative comments about the salon. Eubank also report-
ed that Hausfeld made reference to negative postings from for-
mer employees who were hoping that the salon would close and
posed a rhetorical question to the staff: “But then how can they
be our friends, if they would be happy if we were jobless?” (Tr.
308.)
In addition to holding general staff meetings, the Employer
also had a regular practice of holding meetings of the manage-
ment team. At one such meeting held on October 8, the subject
of negativity in the workplace was addressed. Both Cordell and
Hausfeld reported that employees had spoken to them regarding
their concerns about the negative behaviors of others. Hausfeld
testified that she told the assembled managers that she had
some ideas and planned to address the issue after returning
from her upcoming vacation.
Team Leader Dill testified in more detail. Under cross-
examination, she reported that Frith, Lakes, and Aiello were
named as the causes of the negativity under discussion. Dill
also testified that:

We decided that at that time, because it had been such an is-
sue before, that it would be best [to terminate Lakes]. But,
Bobbie [Hausfeld] wanted to speak to all three of them first
and then handle Natalie’s termination herself. [Tr. 599.]

On October 12, a nail technician at the salon, Kaley Orth,
had a private meeting with Hausfeld.13 Orth testified that she
sought this meeting in order to inform Hausfeld that, “a lot of
negativity was going around.” (Tr. 226.) In particular, Orth
reported that she told Hausfeld that, “the managers were just
getting a little power hungry and crazy, and it was upsetting the
employees.” (Tr. 226.) Hausfeld asked for specific names and
Orth declined to provide them but observed that, “all around,
13 Orth testified that this meeting occurred prior to the staff meeting
held on October 16. As to the precise date, counsel for the General
Counsel introduced a portion of the Employer’s position statement
representing that the date was October 12. (Tr. 745.) While I recognize
that the position statement was not written by a person with direct
knowledge, I deem it to be the best available indicator of the actual
date. In relying on the information provided in the Respondent’s posi-
tion statement, I note that the Board places evidentiary weight on such
admissions by a charged party. See Roman, Inc., 338 NLRB 234
(2002), and the interesting discussion by the trial judge in Evergreen
America Corp., 348 NLRB 178, 187 (2006), enf. 531 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.
2008).

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 448
the managers were just bitches.” (Tr. 226.) Hausfeld directed
the conversation from managers to employees and brought up
several specific names including Frith and Lakes. Albeit reluc-
tantly, Orth did testify that she told Hausfeld that they had been
“talking” and that she had heard “some negativity” from them.
(Tr. 228.)
Hausfeld also described this private meeting with Orth. In-
deed, she testified that it was what she heard in this meeting
that eventually led to the discharges of Lakes and Frith. She
reached this conclusion after Orth told her that, “she was think-
ing about leaving, quitting, because of all the negativity that
was going on, especially in the break room.” (Tr. 677.)
Hausfeld testified that, when pressed, Orth named Lakes, Frith,
and Aiello as the persons to whom she was referring. As to
details, she informed Hausfeld that Frith had “called the front
desk employees stupid,” and characterized the managers as
“bitches.” (Tr. 122.)
I note the presence of some contradictions between the ac-
counts of this meeting given by the two persons involved. To
the extent that their versions differ, I credit that of Orth. It was
clear to me that Orth intended to lodge a complaint about man-
agement’s behavior but found herself in the unfortunate posi-
tion of being interrogated about the behavior of her coworkers.
Based on her obvious discomfort and embarrassment about
what transpired as reflected in her demeanor and presentation
on the witness stand, I conclude that it was Hausfeld who redi-
rected the conversation away from the behavior of management
and into an investigation of negativity among the employees
with specific emphasis on the conduct of Lakes and Frith.
Not long after Hausfeld’s meeting with Orth, she departed on
her vacation.14 She testified that this was interrupted by “nu-
merous” calls from her staff expressing concern about negative
postings on Facebook authored by former employees. (Tr. 681.)
She reported that the callers were particularly upset that current
employees had responded to those comments. Hausfeld indi-
cated that the callers told her that the employees who had post-
ed comments were Lakes and Frith.
On October 16, while Hausfeld was out of town, events
reached a crisis point. Matters began at approximately 11 a.m.
in the employees’ breakroom. Lakes and Call were present in
the room when Team Leader Dill entered. Lakes testified that,
upon observing that there was soiled laundry in the breakroom,
Dill demanded that the two employees wash the laundry and do
the dishes.15 She proceeded to slam the dryer door and also
slam some bowls into the sink. After this display of anger, she
“stormed out.” (Tr. 139.)
Dill’s own account of this incident largely corroborates
Lakes’ testimony. She stated that she came to work and saw
that the salon was a “mess.” (Tr. 581.) In the breakroom, she
14 Hausfeld testified that she left for her vacation on October 9.
Counsel for the General Counsel introduced another portion of the
Employer’s position statement representing that her vacation began on
October 15. (Tr. 745.) I do not find the exact timing of the start of her
trip to be of significance. Suffice it to say that she was away from the
salon during the events about to be described.
15 Hair designers were required to perform such chores as part of
their so-called “shop duties.”
encountered Lakes and Call and asked them to do the laundry.
Dill conceded that:

I was upset. I was frustrated, just to what I had walked into
with the salon being such a mess and nothing being done.
And out of my frustration, when I shut the dryer door, it was
loud.

(Tr. 581–582.) Dill’s angry demeanor on that day was also
observed by another employee, Aiello. She testified that, upon
arriving for work, she addressed Dill and Dill gave her “a short
answer.” (Tr. 254.)
Dill’s behavior provoked discussion among the employees.
Lakes testified that she told Call, “I can’t take this anymore.
Management can’t keep treating me like this. I’ve got to tell
somebody.”16 (Tr. 139.) Call replied that this was a good thing
since someone needed to do it. Lakes proceeded to send a text
message to Frith seeking her advice as to which manager to
approach with her complaint about Dill’s behavior. Frith re-
sponded by suggesting Darby Snider, Hausfeld’s executive
assistant.17 Taking this suggestion, Lakes called Snider and
requested a meeting. Shortly after scheduling this meeting,
Lakes encountered Aiello who, coincidentally, complained to
her about Dill’s behavior that morning.18 When Lakes told
Aiello that she intended to lodge a complaint about Dill with
Snider, Aiello told her that this was “[g]ood.” (Tr. 141.)
Approximately 20 minutes later, Lakes met with Snider to
lodge her complaint regarding Dill’s conduct in the breakroom.
She testified that Snider told her that she appreciated the infor-
mation and that she would “take care of it.” (Tr. 142.) Although
Snider did not testify, Cordell provided testimony that Snider
went to Dill and herself to inform them of Lakes’ complaint.
She described Lakes’ concern “that there was negativity in the
salon about the managers and the staff was really upset with
us.” (Tr. 533.) The three managers decided that they needed to
have an immediate staff meeting to address the problem. As
Cordell explained, they held a conference call with Hausfeld
and told her that they wanted to hold the staff meeting “to nip it
in the bud right away.” (Tr. 534.)
Hausfeld testified that during the conference call with her
managers she was informed that Lakes had lodged a complaint
with Snider, “[a]nd that the whole staff was upset about my
managers.” (Tr. 682.) Hausfeld reported that she approved the
request for an immediate staff meeting to be held in her absence
16 It should be noted that Lakes’ sense of outrage at being ordered to
perform the shop duties was based on her belief that she was one of the
best performing employees when it came to these shop chores. Interest-
ingly, Dill confirmed Lakes’ self-assessment in this regard, testifying
that “I praised her, usually, for being one of the main ones that helped
out.” (Tr. 603.)
17 Lakes’ testimony regarding her contact with Frith was confirmed
by Frith who testified that Lakes sent her a text message to tell her that
“she wanted to go to management about the way that Genny [Dill] was
acting this specific day, and she wanted my opinion if she should go to
Darby [Snider] or if she should go to Trish [Cordell].” (Tr. 192.) Frith
indicated that she recommended Snider.
18 Lakes’ testimony in this regard was fully corroborated by Aiello.
She reported that she had asked Lakes, “[W]hat was wrong with Genny
[Dill].” (Tr. 255.) Lakes replied that she did not know, but “she thought
that her actions were inappropriate.” (Tr. 255.)

SALON/SPA AT BORO, INC. 449
and indicated that the goal of the meeting was to get the em-
ployees to air their concerns, “[b]ecause, according to Natalie
[Lakes], they were all upset at my managers.” (Tr. 684.)
Hausfeld instructed the managers to conduct the meeting and
report the results to her as soon as it was concluded.
Management notified all staff members that there would be a
meeting that evening. Employees who were not on duty that
day were instructed to report to the salon for the meeting. No
less than eight witnesses testified about what was said at this
staff meeting. Fortunately, with one significant exception,
there was a consensus as to what happened at the meeting.
Team Leader Cordell testified that she began the meeting by
telling the assembled staff that the managers “heard you guys
have concerns about there being negativity, and that you’re
upset with management that we’re causing some of the negativ-
ity and we apologize to the staff.” (Tr. 534.) She then solicited
the staff to “talk to us about it.” (Tr. 534.) Initially, nobody
responded. Eventually, Lakes spoke up and this prompted oth-
ers to participate. Call took the occasion to complain about
Cordell’s behavior in appropriating another stylist’s apprentice.
Cordell apologized for her conduct. In her account, Cordell also
reported that Frith made “very positive” comments about the
workplace. (Tr. 538.) As the meeting came to a conclusion,
Cordell told the employees that Hausfeld “had a list of people
that she wanted to talk to when she got back into town.”19 (Tr.
538.)
Team Leader Dill testified that management began the meet-
ing by asking the staff to air their concerns. She reported that
she also took the occasion to apologize to the staff for the dryer
door incident in the breakroom. Dill indicated that when em-
ployees failed to speak up, Lakes became upset and told them,
“I can’t believe you guys aren’t saying anything . . . because
you guys think it’s negative, too.” (Tr. 584.) Despite this en-
couragement, “everybody was just really silent.” (Tr. 586.)
Frith did address the audience, stating that she liked working at
the salon because “management is really nice and positive.”
(Tr. 585.)
As I have indicated, these accounts from the managers are
not markedly different from the numerous versions provided by
the employee witnesses. To the extent that they added details, I
will discuss those accounts. Lakes noted that Cordell began the
meeting by indicating that the original plan had been to hold the
meeting when Hausfeld could attend, but since “someone came
to management today” it was decided to hold it immediately.
(Tr. 145.) After Cordell’s call for discussion of the problems
was met by silence, Lakes reported that she did speak up and
complain that “management has been pretty snappy towards
everybody.” (Tr. 145.) She ended her remarks by observing
that “other people had noticed stuff, too, and I hope they stand
19 I asked Cordell what Hausfeld intended to discuss with the em-
ployees on this list. She advised me that it was, “[p]robably the negativ-
ity problems that we were having in the salon.” (Tr. 539.) Hausfeld
testified that she did have an actual written list of employees that in-
cluded the names of Lakes and Frith because, “I had pretty much al-
ready determined . . . that those two were the main sources of negativi-
ty.” (Tr. 688.) It should be noted that Orth testified that, unsurprisingly,
the announcement about Hausfeld’s list “shocked everybody.” (Tr.
232.)
up and speak.” (Tr. 145.) Thereafter, several employees did air
some of their complaints, while others made positive com-
ments. Lakes also noted that Cordell advised the staff that
Hausfeld had a list of employees that she planned to speak with
on her return.
Frith’s account added a detail regarding Snider. She reported
that Snider advised the staff that an employee had spoken with
her earlier in the day to report that the employees “just felt like
they [the managers] were being really harsh, harassed every-
one.” (Tr. 196.) Frith also noted that Cordell criticized Bays
Williams for raising the apprentice assignment issue because
she had not been present during the incident and must have
learned about it through “gossip.” (Tr. 198.) Cordell asserted
that “[y]ou should have went to management, rather than to
each other.” (Tr. 198.)
Aiello’s account tracked the general consensus. She reported
that, once Lakes chose to begin the discussion, she told the
managers that they were not “treating us or her right.” (Tr.
261.) Call’s testimony included her own subjective acknowl-
edgement that she was prompted to raise the apprentice as-
signment issue, “because Natalie [Lakes] had brought up that
the management team had been kind of negative.” (Tr. 427.)
There was one area of significant divergence in the accounts
of the managers and employees. Several employee witnesses
remarked on the fact that managers made two assertions about
the airing of employee complaints. In the first instance, they
repeatedly confirmed their desire to hear such complaints at the
meeting and assured the staff that there would be no adverse
consequences from such discussion. However, at the same
time, the managers warned the staff that, once the meeting was
over, continued discussion of employee complaints would not
be tolerated. For example, Lakes testified that Cordell told the
staff that they were free to discuss their concerns, “[b]ut if you
mention anything after this meeting, you are going to get in
trouble.” (Tr. 148.) Frith confirmed this account, noting that
Cordell told the employees to “get everything off their chest”
during the meeting and also warned that “if they were caught
talking about it afterwards, then they would get in trouble.” (Tr.
195.)
While it is clear that Lakes and Frith are highly interested
parties, their reports of Cordell’s predictions of the conse-
quences of further discussion of complaints among the staff
was corroborated by other testimony. Thus, Orth’s succinct
version of Cordell’s statements was that she told them, “[S]ay
something now, or forever hold your peace.” (Tr. 231.)
In response to this testimony that management ordered em-
ployees to cease discussing their grievances with each other
after the meeting, Dill provided revealing confirmation. On
direct examination, she reported that she could not recall man-
agers ever telling employees not to discuss these issues later.20
However, under examination by Charging Party Frith, Dill was
asked whether managers told the staff at the meeting “to come
to management instead of going to one another.” (Tr. 606.) Dill
20 Similarly, Cordell testified that she could not recall warning the
employees not to engage in further discussions of their grievances. Of
course, the professed inability to recollect such a statement is not the
same as a denial that it was uttered.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 450
responded as follows, “I do remember that being said in the
meeting . . . .” (Tr. 606.) Dill then attempted to temper her ad-
mission by asserting that what the managers meant was that it
was better to bring complaints to managers since they had the
power to fix things.
In resolving this issue, I readily conclude that the accounts of
the employees are credible. They are clear and consistent with
each other. Orth’s summary is particularly compelling. Fur-
thermore, Dill’s admission provides powerful corroboration.
Finally, such an attitude on the part of the salon’s managers is
entirely consistent with Hausfeld’s strongly held views regard-
ing negativity in the workplace. For all these reasons, I find that
the managers both encouraged the staff to raise grievances at
the meeting and warned them in no uncertain terms that they
would be subject to punishment if they chose to continue to
discuss those grievances among themselves once the meeting
had concluded.
Immediately after the meeting ended, the managers held an-
other conference call with Hausfeld to report on the outcome.
Cordell reported that they told Hausfeld that, “we didn’t think it
accomplished much.” (Tr. 544.) Hausfeld confirmed that the
managers had a negative impression of the value of the meet-
ing, indicating that she was “very disappointed” to hear this.
(Tr. 686.) Hausfeld also noted that, as part of their description,
the managers had informed her that Lakes had been vocal dur-
ing the meeting.
Sensing that her participation in the meeting had been prom-
inent, Lakes chose to raise the matter with both Cordell and
Dill on the following day. She told Cordell that, “I didn’t mean
to throw you under the bus yesterday, but everything was just
getting out of hand and I needed to come to management.” (Tr.
149.) Somewhat ominously, Cordell replied that she appreciat-
ed Lakes’ choice to bring the issues to management since,
“[w]e don’t want everyone to talk about each other.” (Tr. 149.)
Thirty minutes later, Lakes made a similar apology to Dill,
using the same colorful metaphor about the bus. Dill graciously
observed that she knew that Lakes was conscientious about
performing her shop duties. She also noted that management
felt that the meeting had not accomplished much because, “not
everyone stood up that should have.” (Tr. 152.)
As promised during the staff meeting, over the next several
days Hausfeld proceeded to hold individual conferences with
each of the employees on her written list. Specifically,
Hausfeld reported that she met with Aiello, Bays Williams,
Call, and Eubank. She testified that the employees confirmed
to her that Lakes and Frith “were the negativity problem.” (Tr.
120.) The employees provided their own testimony regarding
their individual meetings with Hausfeld.
As to Aiello, Hausfeld indicated that she told her employer
that Lakes and Frith were being negative and that this behavior
consisted of complaints in the breakroom regarding both
coworkers and team leaders. Aiello testified that Hausfeld told
her that she had been advised that several people were said to
be spreading negativity around that salon and that her own
name had been among those mentioned. Hausfeld then asked
her if she knew of any others who had been negative and she
named Lakes and Frith as being a source of negativity at
Hausfeld’s and that they were pulling everyone down through
their behavior.
Hausfeld reported that, during her meeting with Bays Wil-
liams, she was informed that “there were a couple of coworkers
that weren’t happy at work, and because they weren’t happy,
they tended to want everybody else not to be happy either.”
(Tr. 695.) Hausfeld recalled that she named Lakes as one of
those individuals. Bays Williams testified that Hausfeld told her
that “she had some concerns about like with management and
with us talking.” (Tr. 387.) In response, Bays Williams re-
counted that, “then I spoke up and told her about the Laura and
Natalie with Trish incident.” (Tr. 387.) She was referring to the
controversial occasion when Cordell had appropriated the ap-
prentice assigned to another hair designer. She added that the
episode had made her angry and that she “felt negativity” about
it from both Lakes and Frith. (Tr. 405.)
Hausfeld testified that she met with Eubank, but was unable
to recall whether Eubank provided the names of any negative
coworkers. Eubank’s own testimony was highly revealing. At
the time of her testimony, she continued to be employed at the
salon. Her demeanor and presentation on the witness stand
were consistent with that of a person who was undergoing a
conflict between the desire to provide truthful testimony under
oath and the wish to please her employer who was listening to
that testimony. Thus, at first, Eubank was very vague in her
account of her meeting with Hausfeld. She confined herself to
the concession that Hausfeld told her that, “we don’t want
negativity in our salon.” (Tr. 313.) On being confronted with
her earlier affidavit, she admitted that Hausfeld asked her who
was being negative. She described her reply as, “I told Bobbie
that Natalie was the one that was coming to me wanting to be
off early [on Halloween] and it was bringing other people
down, because they were—everybody wanted to be off early to
take their kids off trick-or-treating.” (Tr. 329–330.) Still later
in her examination, Eubank revealed more critical information
about her description to Hausfeld regarding Lakes’ complaints
about Halloween leave. She testified that Lakes’ complaint to
her coworkers included the fact that she was upset because
“managers were getting off first.”21 (Tr. 357.)
Finally, it is important to describe Hausfeld’s meeting with
Call as that meeting is the subject of both the General Coun-
sel’s general claim of a pattern of unlawful interrogations and
also a specific contention that Hausfeld violated the Act by
making a threat of reprisal against Call. Call testified that
Hausfeld made a direct reference to the fact that Call was in a
special position within the salon because of her role as an edu-
cator of new employees.22

She went on to warn Call that, be-
cause she was in a “higher position” where other employees
would “look at me as an example, that I was going to be
21 Because she had not been present at the staff meeting, Eubanks
was also called into an individual meeting with Team Leaders Cordell
and Dill. She indicated that they told her that “people were starting to
talk about management and how they were not going to management
with their problems.” (Tr. 310–311.) In this regard, the team leaders
specifically mentioned Bays Williams, Lakes, and Frith.
22 It is undisputed that Call’s additional assignment as an educator
was prestigious. More significantly, this duty came with additional
monetary compensation.

SALON/SPA AT BORO, INC. 451
watched closer for that.” (Tr. 438.) Removing any doubt as to
her intended message, Hausfeld went on to admonish Call that
if she engaged in more negativity, “as an educator, you might
have to take a leave, basically.” (Tr. 439.)
Having delivered this somber message, Hausfeld then ques-
tioned Call regarding the conduct of her coworkers. Call de-
scribed this exchange as follows:

She said that she knew that some people were being negative
and she wanted to know if I knew of anyone. And I said I
couldn’t name anyone off the top of my head. And she’s like,
well, have you noticed Natalie and Liz being negative?

(Tr. 470.) In an effort to avoid harm to her coworkers, Call
responded that, “you know, yeah, everyone has been negative,
at some point in time.” (Tr. 440.)
As just recounted, Call reported that Hausfeld warned her
about the consequences of further negativity and questioned her
regarding the attitudes of her coworkers. Hausfeld’s own ver-
sion of this meeting included her testimony that she was unable
to remember whether Call had provided the names of any spe-
cific employees who had been negative. She did, however,
clearly recall her warning to Call, describing her statements as
follows:

I just reiterated to her that as a leader of—in her position she
leads the young and teaching them for education and training,
and not only does she teach them technically, but she also
teaches them our philosophy and our vision and our culture.
And by her being negative they would look to her for that.
[A]nd they look to her even more so because she is in a train-
ing position, and that she needed to be cautious about the neg-
ativity issue with her, otherwise she wouldn’t be able to re-
main in that because that is my expectation, especially with
my leaders. [Tr. 720.]

After she concluded this series of investigatory interviews
with employees, Hausfeld described her thought process. As
she explained, she made an effort to “assess the situation and
determined that, obviously, there was a really bad problem with
morale and—and atmosphere in the salon, and there was dis-
sention among team. And I truly believed that because of all the
people that have come to me, and because I—I definitely felt
that Liz and Natalie were the main source of the problems.”
(Tr. 697–698.)
After hearing this testimony, counsel for the Employer asked
Hausfeld, “[s]o, what did you decide as a result?” (Tr. 698.)
She replied, “I decided to terminate them.”23 (Tr. 698.) She
23 I credit Hausfeld’s clear and logical response to her attorney’s
question and find that it establishes that Hausfeld made the decision to
discharge Lakes and Frith after she concluded her interviews with their
coworkers. It follows that I reject Hausfeld’s earlier self-serving claim
in her testimony that she decided to terminate the two employees after
Orth had complained about their behavior prior to the staff meeting. I
find this version of events to be an attempt to evade the clear and per-
suasive connection between Lakes’ prominent role at the staff meeting
and her dismissal shortly thereafter. By the same token, I reject Dill’s
similar claim that a decision to terminate Lakes was made at the time of
the October 8 management meeting. This is simply another attempt to
avoid the obvious inference that arises from the timing of Lakes’ dis-
then delegated the task of firing Frith to Team Leader D’Amico
while deciding to terminate Lakes herself. Lest there remain
any ambiguity, counsel for the General Counsel asked Hausfeld
why Frith was discharged. Her succinct response was,
“[n]egativity.” (Tr. 118.)
Frith testified that she was at work on October 20. After fin-
ishing with a client, she asked D’Amico for permission to leave
early due to her child’s illness. In response, D’Amico called
her into the office and told her that, “I hate to do this, but Bob-
bie wants me to give you your termination papers.” (Tr. 203.)
Frith pressed D’Amico to learn the details behind the decision
to fire her. D’Amico directed her to the language on the form
used to document the termination, merely adding that Frith had
been “negative, and backbiting, and disrespectful to my team
leaders.” (Tr. 204.) When asked to give more details, D’Amico
failed to do so. Finally, Frith asked who had complained about
her. D’Amico told her that, “we had meetings with several
different employees and your name was mentioned every time.”
(Tr. 205.) After the meeting, D’Amico escorted Frith so that
she could collect her personal possessions. Frith requested a
chance to speak with Hausfeld, but reported that she was never
given this opportunity. She has not worked for the salon since
that date.24

On the day after Frith’s termination, Lakes reported to the
salon, worked for an hour, and went home sick. On the next
day, October 22, she returned to work and learned that she was
scheduled to have a 1 p.m. meeting with Hausfeld. Hausfeld
testified that she called Lakes into her office with the intent to
fire her. Before she could do so, Lakes complained about her
anger at the decision to fire Frith. According to Hausfeld,
Lakes’ next comment provided an unexpected opening to ad-
dress the actual purpose of the meeting. As she put it,

[Lakes] said, so, I should be fired. If you’re going to fire any-
body, I should be the one fired. And I said, well, you are. And
I am going to let you go.

(Tr. 704.) Once again, counsel for the General Counsel asked
Hausfeld to delineate the reason for this decision to fire Lakes.
As was the case with her response to the same inquiry regard-
ing Frith, Hausfeld’s concise answer was, “[f]or negativity.”
(Tr. 104.)
Lakes described her own termination, providing considerably
more detail than in Hausfeld’s version. She reported that
Hausfeld began the meeting by asking her how she felt about
Frith’s discharge. She replied that it had upset her, “but it is
charge shortly after her very active participation in the October 16 staff
meeting. See NLRB v. Rubin, 424 F.2d 748, 750 (2d Cir. 1970) (timing
of mass layoff mere days after organizing campaign began was “stun-
ningly obvious”). Indeed, counsel for the Employer also placed no
reliance on these claims, asserting in his brief that, “[b]efore making
the final decision [to terminate Lakes and Frith], however, she decided
to meet with other employees upon her return from vacation to confirm
her observations.” (R. Br. at p. 9.)
24 D’Amico did not testify in this trial. I credit’s Frith’s uncontro-
verted account and note that it is entirely consistent with the evidence
demonstrating that she was being discharged for violation of the nega-
tivity policy based on the results of Hausfeld’s series of employee
interviews.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 452
what it is.” (Tr. 153.) Hausfeld asked her whether she knew
why all of her friends got fired, adding that, “[w]hy do you
think all your friends get fired? Do you realize how that makes
you look? It makes you look negative.” (Tr. 154.) Lakes re-
sponded that her friends, “have nothing to do with my work.”
(Tr. 154.)
Hausfeld next complained that Lakes had refused to provide
the names of other employees who were being negative. As
Lakes put it, “[s]he said that I’m showing her that I care more
about my friends than having a job, because I had three chances
to give names and I didn’t.”25 (Tr. 155.) Hausfeld repeated this
assertion and asked if Lakes understood. When she replied in
the negative, Hausfeld told her, “[w]ell, then Hausfeld’s isn’t
for you anymore.” (Tr. 157.) With that, the meeting ended.
Lakes has not been employed at the salon since that time.
In the months following their terminations, both Frith and
Lakes filed charges alleging that the salon had violated the Act
by discharging them for engaging in protected concerted activi-
ty. On May 7, 2010, the Regional Director filed the consolidat-
ed complaint adopting those claims and adding allegations of
other misconduct by the Employer.
C. Legal Analysis
The consolidated complaint alleges that the Employer violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by uttering two threats, conduct-
ing a series of interrogations, and discharging Lakes and Frith. I
will examine each of these contentions in chronological order.
Before engaging in this analysis, however, I must address an
essential preliminary consideration. The General Counsel’s
theory as to most of the alleged unfair labor practices centers on
his view that the employer was responding vigorously and un-
lawfully to protected concerted activities by its employees.
Absent a conclusion that those employees had been engaged in
such protected concerted activities, there would be no basis for
the Board to regulate management’s conduct.
1. Protected concerted activity by employees
At the outset, it must be acknowledged that, typically, the is-
sue of protected concerted activity arises in the context of em-
ployee efforts to organize or assist in the functioning of a un-
ion. There is no evidence that the employees of the salon ever
engaged in activity related to a labor union. Despite this, it is
well-established that the Act’s protection extends beyond the
context of labor unions.26 This is evident in the language of
25 I credit Lakes’ testimony regarding the termination meeting.
Hausfeld’s reported emphasis on Lakes’ failure to give information
regarding the negative behaviors of other employees is entirely con-
sistent with the importance Hausfeld attached to receiving such reports
from employees. Indeed, her attitude was underscored when, later on
the same day, she suspended Hair Designer Michelle Wysong for 1
week without pay for violating the negativity policy by refusing to
report on negative behavior among her coworkers. As Wysong’s sus-
pension notice describes it, her discipline was for, “[n]egativity about
apprentice in break room—not able to come to management about
neg/concerns in salon. Feels that is telling on people.” (GC Exh. 5, p.
1.)
26 Interestingly, the Act’s additional protections are often brought in-
to play in the types of workplaces and occupations not ordinarily en-
countered in labor law. An obvious example is the salon and spa in-
Section 7 providing that employees shall possess “the right to
self-organization . . . to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection.” This right is en-
forceable by means of Section 8(a)(1) which prohibits employ-
er interference, restraint, or coercion of employees who are
exercising their Section 7 rights.
In NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9 (1962),
the Supreme Court endorsed the Board’s action in ordering
reinstatement of employees who were not organized in a union
but who, nevertheless, engaged in a walkout to protest the con-
ditions of their employment. The employer had argued that the
employees’ concerns were mere “gripes” and that their walkout
violated a legitimate company rule against unauthorized depar-
tures from the workplace. 370 U.S. at 15. The unanimous
Court observed that the employees “had no bargaining repre-
sentative and, in fact, no representative of any kind to present
their grievances to their employer. Under these circumstances,
they had to speak for themselves as best they could.” 370 U.S.
at 15. In so doing, they were entitled to the protection of the
Act. As the Court explained, “an employer is [not] at liberty to
punish a man by discharging him for engaging in concerted
activities which §7 of the Act protects.” 370 U.S. at 17.
In operating under the Supreme Court’s mandate, the Board
has taken care to draw a distinction between individual action
and protected concerted activity. That the drawing of such
distinctions required careful policy analysis is illustrated by the
extensive citation necessary to describe the procedural history
of the Board’s leading precedents, Meyers Industries (Meyers
I), 268 NLRB 493 (1984), remanded sub nom. Prill v. NLRB,
755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985), cert. denied 474 U.S. 948
(1985), and Meyers Industries (Meyers II), 281 NLRB 882
(1986), affd. sub nom. Prill v. NLRB, 835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir.
1987), cert. denied 487 U.S. 1205 (1988). In Meyers II, the
Board held that the Act “requires some linkage to group action
in order for conduct to be deemed ‘concerted’ within the mean-
ing of Section 7.”27 281 NLRB at 884.
In assessing the nature of such concerted activity, the Board
has cautioned that a pragmatic approach is required in order to
properly assess the “myriad of factual situations that . . . will
continue to arise in this area of the law.” Meyers I, 268 NLRB
at 497. The key concept is that concerted action must “be en-
gaged in with or on the authority of other employees, and not
solely by and on behalf of the employee himself.” Meyers I,
268 NLRB at 497.
In this case, I have made a careful evaluation of this question
with regard to the conduct of employees at the salon, particular-
ly Lakes and Frith. Turning first to Lakes, the events of Octo-
ber 16 are highly significant. On that day, Dill made her angry
volved in this case. An equally unusual example was another case on
my own docket, Citizens Investment Services Corp., 342 NLRB 316
(2004), affd. 430 F.3d 1195 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (investment consultant
employed by a large financial institution unlawfully discharged for
protected concerted activity). See also KNTV, Inc., 319 NLRB 447
(1995) (discharge of television news reporter for engaging in protected
concerted activity was unlawful).
27 This does not mean, however, that a finding of concertedness re-
quires proof of some sort of express authorization by coworkers. See
Amelio’s, 301 NLRB 182 fn. 4 (1991), and the cases cited therein.

SALON/SPA AT BORO, INC. 453
remarks regarding the failure of the staff to perform the shop
duties and slammed the bowls into the sink and the dryer door.
After Dill left the room, Lakes told Call, “I can’t take this any-
more. Management can’t keep treating me like this. I’ve got to
tell somebody.” (Tr. 139.) Call replied that this was a good
idea, since “someone needs to.” (Tr. 139.) Lakes sent a text
message to Frith to ask her advice as to which manager she
should see regarding her complaint about management’s treat-
ment of the employees. Frith suggested Snider. Shortly thereaf-
ter, Lakes encountered Aiello and told her about her intention
to complain to Snider about Dill’s behavior. Aiello responded
that this was “[g]ood.” (Tr. 141.) Lakes did meet with Snider to
register her complaint. In response, the managers called a staff
meeting for later that day. At the meeting, Lakes took the lead
in airing the staff’s grievances. She challenged her fellow em-
ployees to speak up “about the way that management had been
treating everyone.”28 (Tr. 196.) Her challenge was accepted by
Call and Bays Williams who reported their displeasure over the
apprentice assignment controversy involving Cordell.
Aside from her prominent role on October 16, the evidence
established that Lakes engaged in a variety of other conduct
relevant to the issue of protected concerted activity. For exam-
ple, Eubank testified that, during her individual meeting with
Hausfeld, she responded to a query about negative behavior by
other employees by informing Hausfeld that Lakes complained
to her that everyone wanted to have time off on Halloween to
take their children trick-or-treating and “that managers were
getting off first.” (Tr. 357.) Eubank also testified that Lakes
complained about the quantity of customer bookings. By the
same token, Bays Williams reported that Lakes would talk with
her “about negativity in the salon and issues with managers.”
(Tr. 399.) On one particularly busy day, Lakes solicited Bays
Williams to join her in complaining to a manager about sched-
uling.
Turning to Frith’s role, I note that her conduct during the
important October 16 meeting was markedly different from that
of Lakes. Instead of airing grievances about her employer, Frith
used the occasion to speak in a positive vein regarding her job.
Despite this, there was much evidence showing that Frith did
engage in efforts to promote actions by employees designed to
attempt to persuade management to address concerns. For
instance, Call testified that, “on occasion, [Frith] would com-
plain about work, or you know, being slow and, you know,
management, that kind of thing . . . how things were being run.
She didn’t like, you know, some of the policies that we had,
management.” (Tr. 465–466.) Indeed, Call observed that,
“usually when I saw the two of them [Lakes and Frith] togeth-
er, then they were complaining about work conditions.” (Tr.
466.)
Frith’s supervisors also testified that they had taken note of
Frith’s conduct in complaining to coworkers about conditions
at the salon. Cordell reported that Frith did not like the schedul-
ing practices on weekends and “voiced it to other employees.”
(Tr. 526.) Hausfeld testified that she was well aware of Frith’s
dissatisfaction with Cordell’s weekend scheduling practices,
28 As Aiello described it, Lakes told the managers that they were
“not treating us or her right.” (Tr. 261.)
noting that Frith’s complaints on this topic were the subject of
discussion at management meetings. Dill asserted that Frith
“was always negative in the break room talking about co-
workers and about management.” (Tr. 578.)
The course of conduct of Lakes and Frith that I have just de-
scribed falls into three broad categories. Lakes engaged in dis-
cussions of terms and conditions of employment with cowork-
ers, initiated complaints to management, and spoke out at a
staff meeting. Frith also discussed workplace problems with
coworkers on an ongoing basis. I must now determine whether
these activities constituted concerted protected activity within
the meaning of the Act.
In examining this question, it is important to note that the
Supreme Court has taken a realistic and flexible approach.
Writing for the Court, Justice Brennan outlined the policy con-
siderations that underlie any analysis:

[I]t is evident that, in enacting § 7 of the NLRA, Congress
sought generally to equalize the bargaining power of the em-
ployee with that of his employer by allowing employees to
band together in confronting an employer regarding the terms
and conditions of their employment. There is no indication
that Congress intended to limit this protection to situations in
which an employee’s activity and that of his fellow employ-
ees combine with one another in any particular way. Nor,
more specifically, does it appear that Congress intended to
have this general protection withdrawn in situations in which
a single employee, acting alone, participates in an integral as-
pect of a collective process.

NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, 465 U.S. 822, 835 (1984).
Taking its lead from the Court, the Board observed in Mey-
ers II, that concerted activity, “encompasses those circumstanc-
es where individual employees seek to initiate or to induce or to
prepare for group action, as well as individual employees bring-
ing truly group complaints to the attention of management.”
281 NLRB at 887.
With regard to Lakes, it is clear that her conduct constituted
concerted protected activity. In particular, her behavior at the
critical staff meeting goes to the essence of such conduct. The
Second Circuit has noted that the Board and courts have on
“myriad” occasions held that an employee who voices group
grievances at a staff meeting is engaged in protected concerted
activity. NLRB v. Caval Tool Division, 262 F.3d 184, 190 (2d
Cir. 2001). Two examples will suffice to underscore the settled
nature of this finding. In Whittaker Corp., 289 NLRB 933
(1988), the president of the company called the employees to a
meeting to announce a decision to suspend future wage increas-
es. One employee, Johnston, voiced a spontaneous protest for
which he was discharged. In ordering his reinstatement, the
Board held:

We find that, in the presence of other employees, Johnston
protested, at the earliest opportunity, a change in an employ-
ment term affecting all employees just announced by the Re-
spondent at that meeting. This is clearly the initiation of group
action as contemplated by the . . . line of cases which was
specifically endorsed by Meyers II.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 454
289 NLRB at 934. Interestingly, Lakes’ behavior at her staff
meeting makes a stronger case for a finding of concerted activi-
ty. When Johnston made his statement against the cancellation
of wage increases, his coworkers remained silent. By contrast,
when Lakes asked her coworkers to speak up about their condi-
tions of employment, Call and Bays Williams added their own
voices to Lakes’ complaint.
Another precedent presents an even more striking fact pat-
tern where the Board found concerted protected activity. In
Media General Operations, Inc., 341 NLRB 124 (2004), a su-
pervisor convened a staff meeting to chide the staff for their job
performance. In response, an employee, Mankins, interrupted to
assert that the supervisor failed to treat everyone equally, going
so far as to call the supervisor a racist and accusing the compa-
ny of being a racist place to work. For this conduct, Mankins
was suspended. The Board did not hesitate to find that his con-
duct was concerted activity, observing that:

We find that Mankins’ comments at that meeting constituted
protected concerted activity. Indeed, it is well settled that an
employee engages in protected activity by speaking up to
management about the allegedly unfair treatment employees
have received. [Footnote and citation omitted.]

341 NLRB at p. 125.29 From this, it is clear that Lakes’ state-
ment at the staff meeting, made in a far milder and more tem-
perate form than Mankins used, was a clear example of protect-
ed concerted activity.
I must now characterize the other forms of activity engaged
in by Lakes and Frith, particularly their practice of raising
complaints and criticisms of management’s actions and policies
with their coworkers. There is no doubt that this sort of conduct
takes the concept of concertedness to its outer limit. However, a
review of the pertinent authorities demonstrates that it does not
go beyond that outer limit. It will be recalled that, in response
to concerns raised by the D.C. Circuit in its review of Meyers I,
supra, the Board emphasized that, “our definition of concerted
activity in Meyers I encompasses those circumstances where
individual employees seek to initiate or to induce or to prepare
for group action, as well as individual employees bringing truly
group complaints to the attention of management.” Meyers II,
281 NLRB at 887.
I conclude that the conduct of Lakes and Frith in repeatedly
raising specific grievances with their coworkers and seeking
their support and approval was the type of preliminary ground-
work necessary to initiate group activity.30 It was virtually
29 It is interesting to note that the Fourth Circuit declined to enforce
the Board’s order. In so doing, it did not take issue with the finding of
concerted activity, but did conclude that the offensive nature of Man-
kins’ statements rendered them unprotected. Media General Opera-
tions, Inc. v. NLRB, 394 F.3d 207 (4th Cir. 2005). Of course, there was
nothing comparable in the content of Lakes’ remarks at her meeting
that would take them outside the protection of the Act.
30 Indeed, during the Board’s infancy and while using the gender
specific language of that long ago era, Judge Learned Hand observed
that when employees, “in a shop make common cause with a fellow
workman over his separate grievance . . . they engage in a ‘concerted
activity’ for ‘mutual aid or protection,’ although the aggrieved work-
man is the only one of them who has any immediate stake in the out-
identical to activity found to be concerted by the Board in
Champion Home Builders Co., 343 NLRB 671 fn. 3 (2004),
enf. in pertinent part 209 Fed. Appx. 692 (9th Cir. 2006). In
that case, the concerted activity consisted of an employee dis-
cussing his “concerns about bonuses with coworkers on several
occasions” and his statements to management indicating that
his coworkers agreed with his complaint.
While it is true that Lakes and Frith’s pattern of airing com-
plaints to their colleagues did not produce much in the way of
group protest to management, the relative absence of such ac-
tivity is readily understandable in the circumstances of this
case.31 The testimony revealed that the issues that led to disaf-
fection within the Salon arose very shortly before the October
staff meeting. Indeed, this point is underscored by Cordell’s
testimony that management chose to hold the staff meeting
despite Hausfeld’s absence on vacation because the managers
wanted to “nip it in the bud right away.” (Tr. 534.) In fact,
management’s subsequent actions clearly produced the desired
effect. As I will address later in this decision, those actions
consisted of conduct that interfered with, restrained, and co-
erced employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights by
warning them that they could not air their grievances once the
staff meeting had concluded,32 interrogating them regarding the
protected activities of their coworkers, threatening loss of bene-
fits for participation in protected activity, and ultimately, dis-
charging two employees for such participation. Not surprising-
ly, once these steps had been taken, no further group activity
occurred. It had, indeed, been nipped in the bud.
The situation here is one that was anticipated by the Third
Circuit in a venerable case that is often cited by the Board. In
Mushroom Transportation Co. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 683 (3d Cir.
1964), the court was concerned that the definition of concerted
activity not be stretched to include mere individual complaints
or griping. Despite this concern, the court observed:

This is not to say that preliminary discussions are disqualified
as concerted activities merely because they have not resulted
in organized action or in positive steps toward presenting de-
mands. We recognize the validity of the argument that, inas-
much as almost any concerted activity for mutual aid and pro-
tection has to start with some kind of communication between
individuals, it would come very near to nullifying the rights of
organization and collective bargaining guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act if such communications are denied protection be-
cause of lack of fruition.
come . . . . [T]he solidarity so established is ‘mutual aid’ in the most
literal sense, as nobody doubts.” NLRB v. Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss
Chocolate Co., 130 F.2d 503, 505 (2d Cir. 1942).
31 To be clear, Lakes’ incitement of her coworkers at the staff meet-
ing did produce some group activity in that it caused other employees
to voice support for her complaints.
32 I recognize that the General Counsel had not alleged that the warn-
ing to the staff against further discussion about management’s conduct
once the staff meeting ended was a violation of Sec. 8(a)(1). Despite
this, it is appropriate to consider this behavior in evaluating other con-
duct subject to specific complaint allegations. See American Packag-
ing Corp., 311 NLRB 482 at fn. 1 (1993) (well-settled that conduct not
independently charged may be used to show “the underlying character
of other conduct that is alleged to violate the Act”).

SALON/SPA AT BORO, INC. 455

330 F.2d at 685.
The record reveals that the salon’s employees engaged in a
pattern of preliminary conversations and discussions that
formed the prelude to group activity in support of their con-
cerns about the terms and conditions of their employment.
Those discussions did lead to a measure of such group activity,
particularly during the October 16 staff meeting. The absence
of significant additional group activity does not undermine the
concerted nature of the preliminary conversations because it
was the direct result of management’s pattern of coercion spe-
cifically designed to preclude further concerted activity by the
employees. For these reasons, I conclude that the employees,
including Lakes and Frith, engaged in conduct that falls within
the ambit of concerted activity entitled to protection under the
Act.
2. The allegedly unlawful threat regarding social
networking activities
Turning now to the specific allegations of unlawful conduct,
the complaint asserts that, “[a]bout September or October 2009,
a more precise date being presently unknown to the General
Counsel,” Hausfeld threatened employees with unspecified
reprisals if they engaged in protected concerted activities, in-
cluding such activities conducted on “internet social sites.” (GC
Exh. 1(g), p. 3.) It is further alleged that this threat was made at
a Doubletree Hotel near Springboro, Ohio.
The Employer mounts a two-pronged defense to this allega-
tion of misconduct. First, it contends that the charge raising
this allegation was untimely filed. Second, it asserts that the
General Counsel has failed to meet his burden of proving that
Hausfeld’s statements violated the Act in the manner alleged. I
conclude that the Employer is correct under both its procedural
and substantive arguments.
As to the affirmative defense based on the untimeliness of
the charge, one must begin by noting that Congress included a
limitations period with regard to the filing of charges alleging
unfair labor practices. Thus, Section 10(b) provides that, “no
complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice oc-
curring more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge
with the Board.” The Board has noted that a significant func-
tion of this provision is to create a “statute of limitations” for
the prosecution of unfair labor practices. Carney Hospital, 350
NLRB 627, 628 (2007).
In order to assess the Employer’s statute of limitation de-
fense, the procedural history must be examined. The initial
charge in this case was timely filed on December 18 because it
was confined to a single allegation of misconduct, the discharge
of Lakes approximately 2 months earlier on October 22.33 (GC
Exh. 1(a).) The issue of timeliness arises because the first and
only charge filed that alleges the utterance of unlawful threats
was filed on April 5, 2010. (GC Exh. 1(e).) Although that
charge and the complaint allegation that incorporates it assert
that the threats were made in “about September and October
2009,” for reasons fully discussed earlier in this decision, I
33 A second charge was timely filed by Frith on February 2, 2010.
That charge confined itself to the issue of her termination on October
20. (GC Exh. 1(c).)
have found that the evidence establishes that the statements
constituting the alleged threat under examination here were
made by Hausfeld at a meeting conducted at the Doubletree
Hotel on September 24. In consequence, it is clear that the
charge alleging this misconduct was filed more than 6 months
subsequent to the event it addresses.
As is often true in the law, this arithmetic calculation does
not end the inquiry since the Board holds that certain equities
can trump the mathematics. In its leading case of Redd-I, Inc.,
290 NLRB 1115 (1988), the Board mitigated the rigor of the
limitations period by authorizing the prosecution of otherwise
untimely charges if those charges are closely related to other
timely-filed charges. Relatively recently, the Board summa-
rized the standards for application of this “closely related” doc-
trine as follows:

The Board considers (1) whether the otherwise untimely alle-
gations of the amended charge involve the same legal theory
as the allegations in the timely charge; (2) whether the other-
wise untimely allegations of the amended charge arise from
the same factual situation or sequence of events as the allega-
tions in the timely charge; and (3) whether a respondent
would raise the same or similar defenses to both the untimely
and timely charge allegations.

WGE Federal Credit Union, 346 NLRB 982, 983 (2006).
In her brief, counsel for the General Counsel argues that each
of the requirements of this analytical standard has been met. I
agree that the third portion of the test, whether the Employer’s
defense would be the same as that which it offers in response to
the timely charge, is met. The Employer’s defense to all of the
complaint’s allegations is that its philosophy and vision that
requires employees to avoid “negativity” does not violate the
Act and has not resulted in any conduct against employees that
violated the Act. Although less compelling, I also conclude that
the General Counsel has shown that the first prong of the test is
met. Thus, since all of the alleged violations in the complaint
arise under Section 8(a)(1), they all involve the legal theory that
requires proof that an employer has engaged in unlawful inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion directed against exercise of the
rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. In my
view, this conclusion stretches the “closely related” doctrine to
what should be its farthest reach. Although both forms of mis-
conduct involve unlawful interference, there is a world of dif-
ference between the utterance of an unspecified threat of repris-
al to a general assembly of employees at a staff meeting and the
highly specific act of discharging an employee because of her
participation in protected activity. Fortunately, the remaining
portion of the Redd-I standard appears to me to be designed to
prevent an overbroad application of the exception to the Con-
gressionally mandated limitation period.
Turning to that remaining analytical criterion, I must deter-
mine whether the allegedly unlawful threat made at the Sep-
tember 24 staff meeting has some meaningful nexus with the
sequence of events contained in the timely filed charges. A
careless application of this standard could easily prove to be so
elastic as to entirely vitiate the Congressional objective of limit-
ing the period in which a party’s past conduct could subject it
to unfair labor practice litigation. Thus, events which occur

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 456
after other events can always be claimed to exist as part of a
sequence or pattern. Indeed, generations of historians have
made their living by attempting to discern a particular signifi-
cance from such a string of incidents. Of course, those histori-
ans are not bound by a statute of limitations.
Fortunately, in recent years the Board has taken clear steps to
limit application of the “closely related” doctrine to those cir-
cumstances where it can be demonstrated that the series of acts
under examination were more than merely sequential in time.
In particular, the holding in Carney Hospital, supra, is vital to
the analysis in this case. In that case, the Board considered the
application of the “closely related” doctrine to a series of
charges that is highly analogous to the present case. The charg-
ing party had filed a timely charge alleging an unlawful disci-
plinary action against a union supporter.34 This was followed
by a series of untimely charges alleging violations of Section
8(a)(1), including interrogations and threats. Applying extant
precedent, the judge concluded that the untimely charge was
closely related to the timely charges because it was part of the
employer’s overall effort to oppose the union’s organizing
campaign.
The Board, adopting the views of two appellate courts, took
the occasion to delineate limits in the application of the concept
of sequence to excuse an untimely filing. It held:

[W]e will not find that the [Redd-I] second prong is satisfied
merely because timely and untimely allegations pertain to
events that occurred during or in response to the same union
campaign. But where the two sets of allegations demonstrate
similar conduct, usually during the same time period with a
similar object, or there is a causal nexus between the allega-
tions and they are part of a chain or progression of events, or
they are part of an overall plan to undermine union activity,
we will find that the second prong of the Redd-I test has been
satisfied. [Footnotes and internal quotation marks omitted.]

Carney Hospital, supra at 630. Holding that the mere fact that
“the events occurred during the same organizational campaign
and the same general time period” was insufficient to support a
“finding of factual relatedness,” the Board dismissed the un-
timely allegations. Id. at 631.
Applying the rationale of Carney Hospital to this case, it is
apparent that there is even less proof of factual relatedness here.
Thus, while recognizing that it was not the only way to meet
the Redd-I standard, the Board clearly noted that the presence
of a pattern of violations forming “part of an overall employer
plan to undermine union activity,” presented a particularly firm
foundation for application of the “closely related” doctrine. Id.
34 The suspension of the union supporter was alleged to violate Sec.
8(a)(3). In the present case, the allegedly unlawful discipline is asserted
to violate Sec. 8(a)(1). I do not see this as a material distinction for the
purposes under discussion. Indeed, to the degree it does matter, I see it
as cutting against the application of the “closely related” doctrine be-
cause the disciplinary action in Carney Hospital was specifically al-
leged to be the product of unlawful animus while proof that the dis-
charges of Frith and Lakes violated the Act does not necessarily require
evidence of such animus. This is significant since animus could well
represent the clear thread that serves to unite what would otherwise
simply be a progression of potentially unconnected events.
at p. 630. In the case under consideration, there was no union
organizing campaign and certainly no overall plan by the Em-
ployer to thwart such a campaign. In fact, far from any overall
plan of attack, the evidence demonstrates that the steps taken
over time by the Employer to address what it viewed as nega-
tivity were ad hoc and individual responses to what it perceived
to be discrete events.
In my opinion, the circumstances revealed in this record un-
derscore the Board’s wisdom in applying restraint to the appli-
cation of the “closely related” doctrine. If mere sequence of
events, standing alone, were sufficient to excuse an untimely
filing there would be no practical constraints on the ability of a
litigant to evade the Congressional intention of limiting the
exposure of private parties to expensive and economically dis-
ruptive litigation. This is powerfully illustrated in this case by
the recognition that the Employer’s efforts to enforce its phi-
losophy against negativity extended to periods far earlier than
the month of September. For example, in February 2008, Ge-
nie Combs was discharged for “negativity with ex-employees.”
(GC Exh. 5, p. 5.) In November of that year, Tanisha Bates was
discharged. Her termination form reports that the reason for
her firing was “negativity in salon.” (GC Exh. 5, p. 6.) In Feb-
ruary of the following year, Kokka Manson was terminated for
“continual negativity which is against company policy.” (GC
Exh. 5, p. 10.) A few months later, on May 27, 2009, Jessica
Frazier was fired for “attitude & negativity.” (GC Exh. 5, p. 2.)
How and where does one draw the line?
If one were to excuse an untimely filing simply because the
alleged misconduct was part of a sequence of similar events to
those timely raised, the intent underlying the statute of limita-
tions would be completely compromised. There is no differ-
ence in principle between the Employer’s application of the
negativity policy to Bates in November 2008 and its alleged
threat based on that policy in September 2009. Without the vital
limits articulated by the Board in Carney Hospital, nothing
would stand in the way of a party’s attempt to employ the
“closely related” doctrine to prosecute remote actions that pos-
sess only a mere sequential and topical relationship to a timely
filed charge. For these reasons, I agree with the Employer that
the allegation regarding an alleged threat on September 24 is
untimely and must be dismissed.
While I have concluded that the complaint allegation regard-
ing Hausfeld’s statements made during the September 24 staff
meeting should be dismissed as beyond the applicable statute of
limitations, in the interest of decisional completeness, I will
examine the underlying merits. The General Counsel contends
that, during this employee staff meeting, Hausfeld made certain
statements that constituted unspecified threats of reprisal
against employees who engaged in protected concerted activi-
ties. In Empire State Weeklies, Inc., 354 NLRB 815, 817
(2009), the Board recently summarized the nature of such an
alleged violation:

An employer violates Section 8(a)(1) by acts and statements
reasonably tending to interfere with, restrain, or coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. The Board
employs a totality of circumstances standard to distinguish be-
tween employer statements that violate Section 8(a)(1) by ex-

SALON/SPA AT BORO, INC. 457
plicitly or implicitly threatening employees with loss of bene-
fits or other negative consequences because of their [protected
concerted] activities, and employer statements protected by
Section 8(c). [Citations and certain internal punctuation omit-
ted.]

In this connection, the Board has also observed that, “[t]he test
of whether a statement is unlawful is whether the words could
reasonably be construed as coercive, whether or not that is the
only reasonable construction.” Double D Construction Group,
339 NLRB 303 (2003). [Footnote omitted.] Finally, “in consid-
ering whether communications from an employer to its em-
ployees violate the Act, the Board applies the objective stand-
ard of whether the remark tends to interfere with the free exer-
cise of employee rights. The Board does not consider either the
motivation behind the remark or its actual effect.” Scripps Me-
morial Hospital Encinitas, 347 NLRB 52, 52 (2006). [Citation
and internal quotation marks omitted.]
In applying this standard for assessment of the Employer’s
statements at the September 24 meeting, I am mindful that the
crucial component is the determination whether any of those
remarks could reasonably be interpreted as intimidation, coer-
cion, or interference with protected rights.35 Examination of the
descriptions of Hausfeld’s statements contained in the testimo-
ny of the various individuals present at the meeting reveals that
those statements contained two themes. First, Hausfeld im-
pressed upon the employees that their postings on the social
networking sites were perhaps more available for public view-
ing than they realized. Because of the possibility that customers
or other interested persons may read such postings, she urged
the staff to exercise judgment and restraint in making use of the
sites.
In evaluating these comments, I am cognizant of the genera-
tional difference between Hausfeld and her staff members.
Those staff members belong to a generation that takes the in-
ternet and other modern means of communication for granted
and that, arguably, maintains a different expectation of personal
privacy than those of us belonging to older age cohorts. In my
view, much of Hausfeld’s objective in making her comments
was educational and almost parental in nature. The evidence
reveals that the audience took the remarks this way as well. For
example, Frith, hardly a witness who desired to put a positive
spin on Hausfeld’s behavior, testified that she assumed that the
comments were not a specific reference to the work environ-
ment, but rather were directed toward life “in general.” (Tr.
189.)
It is clear to me that Hausfeld’s overall purpose in warning
her employees to be careful in their use of social networking
media was didactic, not coercive. Thus, her references to the
potential negative effects of the exercise of poor judgment
when using the sites did not represent a threat of reprisal from
35 Although it is far from clear that such is the case, I will assume
that Hausfeld’s remarks at the meeting may be viewed as being di-
rected, in part, against employees’ activity that could be both protected
and concerted. Thus, if employees chose to engage in group communi-
cations designed to seek improvement in their conditions of employ-
ment by the means afforded through social networking sites, this could
potentially constitute conduct shielded by Sec. 7 of the Act.
management but rather a warning that poorly chosen statements
or photographs could have a negative impact on a young per-
son’s reputation with resulting impact on her career. The point
here is the same one underscored by the Board in Baker Con-
crete Construction, 341 NLRB 598, 598 (2004). In that case, a
supervisor named Kelly warned an employee to stay away from
union proponents or, “you [could] have trouble.” In determin-
ing that this statement was not an unlawful threat of reprisal,
the Board noted that, “it is far from clear that Kelly was saying
that the Respondent would be the source of that trouble.” Id. at
598. By the same token, I conclude that there is no evidence
that the bad consequences from misuse of social networking
alluded to by Hausfeld were going to come from some action
by management.
The second broad theme in Hausfeld’s remarks was her dis-
pleasure that certain current employees were choosing to post
comments on social network sites belonging to disgruntled
former employees. Thus, she posed a rather persuasive rhetori-
cal question, asking the staff members why they would want to
have friendly relations with persons who desired their employer
to go out of business, thereby rendering them jobless. Nothing
in these comments represented a threat of reprisal by manage-
ment. As the Supreme Court has observed, Section 8(c) of the
Act protects an employer’s freedom under the Bill of Rights to
communicate her opinions to her employees without fear of
“infringe[ment] by a union or the Board.” NLRB v. Gissel
Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 617 (1969). Because Hausfeld re-
frained from uttering any threats regarding consequences from
management if staff continued to communicate with former
employees, her criticism of this behavior was protected by both
the Act and the Constitution. See, for example, Children’s Cen-
ter for Behavioral Development, 347 NLRB 35, 35 (2006) (if
unaccompanied by threats or promises of benefit, employer
may “criticize, disparage, or denigrate a union”) and Miller
Towing Equipment, Inc., 342 NLRB 1074, 1076 (2004) (em-
ployer may offer his “perspective” against union so long as it is
not accompanied by threats).
Having examined the content and tenor of Hausfeld’s state-
ments made at the Doubletree meeting on September 24, I find
that they cannot reasonably be construed as tending to interfere
with, restrain, or coerce her employees in the exercise of their
statutory rights. To the contrary, I conclude that her remarks
were simply expressions of opinions of the type that are pro-
tected by Section 8(c) of the Act. As a result, for reasons both
procedural and substantive, I will recommend that this allega-
tion of the complaint be dismissed.
3. The alleged unlawful interrogations by Hausfeld
The General Counsel alleges that, during the third full week
of October, Hausfeld engaged in coercive interrogations of
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1). The Board’s evalua-
tive criteria in this regard are particularly clear. They derive
from its leading case on the topic, Rossmore House, 269 NLRB
1176 (1984), affd. 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985), and are
summarized as follows:

Under Board law, it is [well established] that interroga-
tions of employees are not per se unlawful, but must be
evaluated under the standard of “whether under all the cir-

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 458
cumstances the interrogation reasonably tended to restrain,
coerce, or interfere with rights guaranteed by the Act.” In
making that determination, the Board considers such fac-
tors as the background, the nature of the information
sought, the identity of the questioner, the place and meth-
od of interrogation, and whether or not the employee being
questioned is an open and active union supporter. [Foot-
note omitted.]

Norton Audubon Hospital, 338 NLRB 320, 320–321 (2002). In
addition, it is important to note that the Board has expressed
particular concern regarding interrogations that appear designed
to obtain “information upon which to take action against indi-
vidual employees.” John W. Hancock, Jr., Inc., 337 NLRB
1223, 1224 (2002). See also SAIA Motor Freight, Inc., 334
NLRB 979, 980 (2001) (interrogations that constitute “a point-
ed attempt to ascertain the extent of the employees’ union ac-
tivities” are unlawful).
There is little, if any, material dispute regarding the facts in-
volved in this allegation. Hausfeld testified that she compiled a
written list of employees that she intended to interview on her
return from vacation. She described her purpose as, “what I
intended to do if they were negative is ‘what’s going on, you
know, talk to me.’” (Tr. 687.) [Internal quotation marks sup-
plied.] Similarly, Cordell testified that the probable purpose of
the interviews was to investigate “the negativity problems that
we were having in the salon.” (Tr. 539.)
Significantly, management used the occasion of the October
16 staff meeting to announce the upcoming interviews with
Hausfeld. Whatever management’s intentions were, a reasona-
ble employee hearing that the salon’s owner had a written list
of people to interview would find this to be ominous and
threatening. Thus, it is not surprising that Orth reported that
this announcement did, in fact, shock the audience of employ-
ees.
Regarding the actual interrogations, Hausfeld testified that
she met privately and individually with Aiello, Bays Williams,
Eubank, Orth, and Call. She confirmed that she discussed the
negativity problem with these employees and that she was told
that Lakes and Frith were engaged in negative behaviors. The
employees who testified about the interviews provided addi-
tional details. Eubank, albeit reluctantly given her uncomforta-
ble position as a current employee, admitted that Hausfeld
asked her who was being negative in the salon. Call reported
that Hausfeld, “did ask me if I knew of anyone else that was
being negative.” (Tr. 439.) Indeed, she pressed the inquiry by
raising the names of Frith and Lakes and asking whether “you
noticed them being negative at any time.” (Tr. 440.) Aiello also
confirmed that Hausfeld asked her for the names of other em-
ployees who had been negative.
Before applying the analytical criteria to this largely undis-
puted factual record, I must address an important preliminary
consideration. There is no doubt that the subject of each inter-
rogation was the compliance of the staff with the Employer’s
negativity policies. It remains to be determined whether ques-
tioning regarding such compliance with the policy constituted
interrogation about protected concerted activity. In this regard,
two things are clear. First, the Employer’s negativity policies
cover a wide range of topics that extends far beyond any pro-
tected activity. Indeed, it has already been noted that even a
complaint about the weather resulted in a counseling session
from Hausfeld. Second, it is equally clear that the negativity
policies do include topics that directly concern protected con-
certed activity. Thus, Hausfeld readily agreed with counsel for
the General Counsel’s assertion that the policies included,
“[c]omplaining about how the Company’s run.” (Tr. 74.) Simi-
larly, Team Leader Dill testified that “talking about a member
of management” constitutes prohibited negativity. (Tr. 591.)
Finally, counsel for the Employer conceded the point in his
opening statement, observing that, “we apply this policy to any
kind of negativity, including negativity towards management.”
(Tr. 491.)
It is quite likely that the employees who were being interro-
gated about negativity in the salon would have found the line of
questioning to be ambiguous and vague in its scope. In as-
sessing the significance of the presence of such ambiguity, the
proper analogy is to the Board’s line of cases addressing em-
ployers’ written work rules that are ambiguous in their word-
ing.36 In its leading case on this subject, the Board has held
that “any ambiguity in the rule must be construed against the
Respondent as the promulgator of the rule.” Lafayette Park
Hotel, 326 NLRB 824, 828 (1998), enf. 203 F.3d 340 (D.C. Cir.
1999). (Footnote omitted.) See also Ark Las Vegas Restaurant
Corp., 343 NLRB 1281 (2004).
The Employer’s unwritten negativity policy that, in signifi-
cant part, proscribes statements and conduct that consist of
complaints about management’s conduct or other working con-
ditions is overbroad and serves to chill the employees’ exercise
of their Section 7 right to engage in protected concerted activi-
ty. This is made entirely clear in the Board’s holding in KSL
Claremont Resort, 344 NLRB 832, 832 (2005), where the em-
ployer maintained a written rule against “negative conversa-
tions” about employees and managers. In evaluating that poli-
cy, the Board held:

We find that the rule’s prohibition of “negative conversa-
tions” about managers would reasonably be construed by em-
ployees to bar them from discussing with their coworkers
complaints about their managers that affect working condi-
tions, thereby causing employees to refrain from engaging in
protected activities. Accordingly, the rule is unlawful. [Cita-
tion and footnote omitted.]

I readily conclude that when Hausfeld questioned her em-
ployees regarding compliance with the negativity policies of
the salon, those employees could (and did) reasonably conclude
that the interrogation included an inquiry into the employees’
participation in protected concerted activities.
With this background, it is now appropriate to apply the
Rossmore House factors to the series of interviews conducted
by Hausfeld. As to the background of the interrogations, I con-
clude that this factor supports a finding of coercion. The an-
36 Indeed, the ambiguity in an unwritten policy such as this one is
even more patent that any vagueness in a written work rule. Whatever
the defects contained in a written work rule, such a rule is at least pre-
sented in a concrete and immutable form.

SALON/SPA AT BORO, INC. 459
nouncement that Hausfeld had compiled a written list of em-
ployees to be interviewed inevitably produced fear and anxiety
in the work force. This would be particularly acute because
that work force was certainly well aware that, as Hausfeld put
it, violations of the negativity policy were one of the “most
common reasons for discipline.” (Tr. 623.)
I have already noted that the Board has expressed particular
concern about interrogations that seek to learn about the specif-
ic involvement of employees in protected concerted activities.
It is clear that Hausfeld’s questions were entirely directed to
learning about violations of the negativity policy by specific
employees. Since that policy encompassed protected concerted
activity by those employees, this factor is perhaps the strongest
indicator of unlawful and coercive conduct by Hausfeld. In-
deed, nothing illustrates the degree of intimidation involved in
this questioning more clearly than the fact that the interviews
were closely followed by the imposition of dramatic discipline
on those employees who were named by the interviewees as
having violated the negativity policy.
The next set of factors consists of the identity of the ques-
tioner and the location and method of interrogation. Each of
these supports a finding of unlawful conduct. The questioner
was the highest ranking official in the salon. The location was
in her private office, a setting that was both out of the ordinary
and quite formal. The method of questioning was pointedly
designed to ask each employee privately to report on her col-
leagues’ behavior. All of this served to heighten the coercive-
ness of the interviews.37

The Employer conducted a series of interrogations that were
designed, at least in significant part, to elicit information, in-
cluding involvement in protected concerted activities, that
would be used to determine individual employee’s compliance
with the negativity policies for the purpose of imposing sanc-
tions on those coworkers who had violated the policies. Those
interrogations were conducted in a manner that would reasona-
bly be perceived as coercive by the interviewees. As a result, I
find that Hausfeld’s series of interrogations conducted during
the week of October 19 were unlawful within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The alleged threat of reprisal against Laura Call
The General Counsel contends that, during the course of in-
terviewing Call as described above, Hausfeld also uttered a
threat of reprisal against Call.38 This is alleged to also violate
Section 8(a)(1).
37 The remaining factor, whether an employee was an open union
supporter, is irrelevant under the facts of this case.
38 For reasons that have never been explained and which I cannot
comprehend, the General Counsel characterized this as a threat of “un-
specified” reprisal. As will shortly be discussed, the uncontroverted
evidence demonstrates that the threat of reprisal was laser-like in its
precision and specificity. There is no contention that this erroneous
characterization of the threat caused any prejudice to the Respondent in
presenting its defense. Furthermore, the issue was fully explored during
the trial. As a result, no harm was caused by the General Counsel’s
error. See Pergament United Sales, 296 NLRB 333, 335 (1989), enfd.
920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1990) (no prejudice where issue was fully litigat-
ed) and Dal-Tex Optical Co., 130 NLRB 1313 (1961) (complaint alle-
As with the interrogations, there is no dispute about the con-
tent of the conversation involved in this allegation of miscon-
duct. Call testified that Hausfeld began her interview by warn-
ing her that her compliance with the negativity policy was go-
ing to be “watched closer” than that of rank and file employees
because of her status as an educator. (Tr. 438.) Underscoring
her point, Hausfeld cautioned Call that, if she violated the poli-
cy in the future, “as an educator, you might have to take a
leave, basically.”39 (Tr. 439.)
If there was any trace of ambiguity about the nature of
Hausfeld’s threat of reprisal to Call contained in Call’s account,
it was dispelled by Hausfeld’s own testimony about the discus-
sion. As Hausfeld, explained, she told Call that, “she needed to
be cautious about the negativity issue with her, otherwise she
wouldn’t be able to remain in that [educator’s position] because
that is my expectation, especially with my leaders.” (Tr. 720.)
Earlier in this decision, I have outlined the Board’s standards
for determining whether an employer has made statements that
violate Section 8(a)(1). If the statements reasonably tend to
interfere with, coerce, or restrain an employee in the exercise of
her Section 7 rights, they are unlawful. See Empire State
Weeklies, Inc., supra. Hausfeld’s undisputed warning to Call
was that she would lose the status and extra compensation as-
sociated with her role as an educator if she violated the Em-
ployer’s negativity policies. As I have already discussed in
detail, those policies prohibited a broad range of speech and
behavior, including a variety of conduct that would constitute
protected concerted activity. Beyond this, Hausfeld chose to
deliver her warning to Call in the course of an otherwise unlaw-
ful interrogation. As the Board has observed, “[w]here an in-
terrogation is accompanied by a threat of reprisal or other viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, there is no question as to the
coercive effect of the inquiry.” SAIA Motor Freight, Inc., supra
at 980. [Citations omitted.]
In a private meeting that included an unlawful interrogation,
Hausfeld warned Call that she would lose her prestigious status
and extra monetary compensation as an educator if she engaged
in conduct, including protected concerted activity, which vio-
lated the negativity policies. In uttering this threat of reprisal
against Call, Hausfeld violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
directly and powerfully interfering with Call’s exercise of Sec-
tion 7 rights.
5. The discharges of Natalie Lakes and Elizabeth Frith
The most serious set of allegations against this Employer is
the General Counsel’s contention that it unlawfully discharged
Lakes and Frith due to their involvement in protected concerted
activity. The Board’s standard for assessment of this claim is
well summarized as follows:

The discharge of an employee will violate Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act if the employee was engaged in concerted activity
(i.e., activity engaged in with or on the authority of other em-
gation was sufficient where it provided the name of the agent who
committed the alleged offense, the date, and the nature of the activity).
39 I found Call’s testimony to be particularly compelling. She pre-
sented her account in a calm, poised, and confident manner that under-
scored her reliability.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 460
ployees and not solely on her own behalf), the employer knew
of the concerted nature of the employee’s activity, the con-
certed activity was protected by the Act, and the discharge
was motivated by the employee’s protected concerted activity.

Triangle Electric Co., 335 NLRB 1037, 1038 (2001). I will
now apply this standard to the circumstances of this case.40
As to the first criterion, I have previously set forth in detail
my finding that Lakes and Frith did participate in concerted
activity within the meaning of the Act. The evidence clearly
demonstrated that Lakes engaged in a series of discussions with
her coworkers regarding their terms and conditions of employ-
ment, initiated complaints to management regarding those
working conditions, and spoke out about those conditions at a
staff meeting. Frith also engaged in discussions about working
conditions with her coworkers on an ongoing basis. At the very
least, the conduct of these two employees constituted precisely
the type of preliminary activity that forms the prelude to the
group activity that the Act is designed to foster and protect. As
a result, I conclude that Lakes and Frith were engaged in a pat-
tern of concerted activity within the meaning of the Act.
At the second step, it is necessary to determine whether the
Employer was aware of the concerted activities of Lakes and
Frith. Clearly, an employer who is ignorant of the nature of an
employee’s concerted activity cannot be found to have dis-
charged that employee because of involvement in that activity.
See Reynolds Electric, 342 NLRB 156 (2004). In this case,
there is abundant evidence that management was acutely aware
of the concerted activities engaged in by Lakes and Frith. As
will become evident during the discussion of management’s
articulated reasoning for their discharges, it was precisely this
concerted activity that aroused the ire of Hausfeld and her sub-
ordinates. In this regard, the situation is identical to that de-
scribed by the administrative law judge in another very recent
case involving the termination of employees due to their in-
volvement in concerted activity. As the judge described in
words that easily fit most of the facts of this case:

The many conversations that [the two employees] had with
each other, with fellow employees, and with management, re-
garding their wages, hours, and working conditions, beyond
question constituted protected concerted activity. Further,
there is no doubt that management officials at the [workplace]
were acutely aware of this activity, in many instances directly
responding to it in a very negative way. [Citations omitted.]

Roomstores of Phoenix, LLC, 2010 WL 2180784, Case 28–
CA–22404, slip op. at 20 (2010).
Having found that Lakes and Frith engaged in concerted ac-
tivities and that management was aware of those activities, I
must determine whether the nature of these actions brought
40 This analytical methodology is applied in cases where there is a
single motive for the adverse employment actions. The Employer
shares my view that this is such a case. As counsel put it, “Respondent
believes that a single motive analysis is appropriate in this case to the
extent that there was only one motive for discharge and that motive was
legal.” (R. Br. at p. 15.) The evidence clearly shows that the only mo-
tive was “negativity” and that a single motive analysis is required to
resolve the issue of whether that motive was a lawful one.
them within the protection of the Act. Here, the concerted ac-
tivity consisted of verbal discussions with coworkers regarding
complaints about the conduct of managers and the work poli-
cies of management, discussion with managers about the same
topics, and similar statements made during the course of a staff
meeting.
The Act affords employees broad scope in airing their griev-
ances in a concerted manner. Nevertheless, as the Board has
described,

The protection that our Act provides employee verbal and
written expressions during the course of protected activity is
not without limitation. Otherwise protected activity may be-
come unprotected if in the course of engaging in such activity,
the employee uses sufficiently opprobrious, profane, defama-
tory, or malicious language. Nonetheless, the most repulsive
speech enjoys immunity provided it falls short of a deliberate
or reckless untruth. [Citations and internal punctuation omit-
ted.]

Honda of America Mfg., Inc., 334 NLRB 751, 752 (2001), enf.
73 Fed. Appx. 810 (6th Cir. 2003). There is simply no allega-
tion that Lakes or Frith engaged in any speech or conduct that
falls outside the wide ambit of protection under the Act. Their
statements regarding the terms and conditions of their employ-
ment constituted protected activity.
I must now address the issue of whether Lakes and Frith
were discharged due to their participation in protected concert-
ed activity. Unlike the typical case involving alleged unlawful
terminations, there is no dispute as to the employer’s rationale
for the adverse actions. This was underscored when counsel for
the General Counsel asked open-ended questions to Hausfeld
seeking her explanation as to why the two women were fired.
In response, Hausfeld gave the succinct answer that Lakes and
Frith were fired due to “negativity.” (Tr. 104, 118.) There is no
claim that the decision to fire either employee was motivated
by any other factor, such as other forms of misconduct or any
performance issue. Indeed, as to performance, it is noteworthy
that Hausfeld testified that Lakes is an “extremely talented
[hair] designer.” (Tr. 648.) Similarly, Frith’s performance
evaluations reflect the highest possible score in the area of
“ability to provide quality Customer Service.” (GC Exh. 16, pp.
9, 12.) [Capitalization in the original.] Dill also confirmed that
she had never had any problem with the work performance of
either Lakes or Frith.
There is no dispute that Lakes and Frith were fired because
they were perceived to have violated the negativity policies of
the salon.41 While there is no question that Lakes and Frith
41 To a considerable degree, this justification by the Employer is, in
itself, problematic. The Board has a long history of justifiable skepti-
cism regarding employers’ disciplinary actions that are based on nega-
tive characterizations of the employees’ attitudes, particularly when
such actions occur in the context of protected concerted activities by
those employees. Thus, the Board has ordered reinstatement for em-
ployees discharged because they were a “disruptive force” (Skyline
Lodge, 305 NLRB 1097 fn. 1 (1992), enf. 983 F.2d 1068 (6th Cir.
1992); or an “instigator” (Boddy Construction Co., 338 NLRB 1083
(2003); or a “troublemaker” (United Parcel Service, 340 NLRB 776
(2003). As the Board explained, “[i]t is well settled that an employer’s

SALON/SPA AT BORO, INC. 461
were fired for engaging in prohibited negativity, I clearly rec-
ognize that this does not automatically resolve the issue of
whether they were fired for protected concerted activity. The
Employer’s negativity policies are both vague and extremely
broad. They cover a wide variety of behavior that includes both
protected concerted activity and “negative” conduct that does
not involve the terms and conditions of employment. Such
prohibited negativity may include comments about their own
personal lives, the personalities of others, or even bad weather.
Therefore, I must determine whether the forms of negativity
that the Employer considered to be misconduct leading to the
decision to terminate Lakes and Frith consisted of protected
concerted activity.
In assessing whether the negativity that led to the firing of
Lakes and Frith consisted of their protected concerted activities
I have accorded great weight to the contemporaneous written
justifications for the two discharges that were prepared by man-
agement in order to document the thinking behind the adverse
actions. Of course, past experience teaches that it may some-
times be naïve to place great reliance on the contents of such
termination reports. A large and sophisticated employer operat-
ing in a union context may well employ a phalanx of labor and
employment lawyers and human resource specialists capable of
crafting justifications designed to avoid liability for prohibited
personnel actions. I am convinced that such is not the case here.
This is a small employer who appeared to be entirely unfamiliar
with the statutory framework governing protected activity. I
conclude that the written termination reports constitute an accu-
rate portrayal of management’s actual rationale for discharging
Lakes and Frith.42

Turning to the key documentary evidence, it is noteworthy
that the Employer maintains a form entitled, “Hausfeld’s Ter-
mination of Employee By the Company.” (GC Exhs. 11, 13.)
The form explains that, “[i]t is the Supervisor’s responsibility
to record the grounds of termination of an employee by the
company. Use the space below for the Supervisor’s reason or
reasons for termination.” (GC Exhs. 11, 13.) This form was
completed in order to document the terminations of both Frith
and Lakes.
As to Frith, the form, dated October 20, states in full:

Liz is being let go do [sic] to violating Company’s policy on
zero tolerance with negativity. She is conversing with em-
ployees about other team members & team leaders negatively.
In doing so, she has created an uncomfortable & negative
work environment for fellow employees. She is not focused
reference to an employee’s ‘attitude’ can be a disguised reference to the
employee’s protected concerted activity.” Rock Valley Trucking Co.,
350 NLRB 69 (2007).
42 Beyond this, I conclude that those reports are more trustworthy
than subsequent attempts to explain and justify the discharges that have
been provided during the course of this litigation. In so doing, I note
that the Board has endorsed the view that documentary evidence pre-
pared while events were fresh and before lawsuits were contemplated
may properly be accorded greater probative value than subsequent
testimony from interested parties. See Domsey Trading Corp., 351
NLRB 824 fn. 56 (2007) (a finding that documentary evidence was
“was entitled to greater weight than contradictory testimonial evidence”
is consistent with Board law).
on her career here with Hausfeld’s. She is ultimately not hap-
py for she expresses her disapproval of many of Hausfeld’s
policies to other team members. [GC Exh. 11.]

This explanation of the Employer’s rationale for discharging
Frith makes it abundantly clear that she was fired for engaging
in protected concerted activities consisting of “conversing with
employees about . . . team leaders negatively” and “ex-
press[ing] her disapproval of many of Hausfeld’s policies to
other team members.”43 (GC Exh. 11.) A fair reading of the
entire explanation leads to the clear conclusion that the particu-
lar forms of negativity that resulted in the disciplinary action
were precisely those forms that coincided with the Act’s defini-
tion of protected concerted activity.
Turning now to the written explanation for Lakes’ discharge,
dated October 22, it provides in full:

Meetings with multiple Hausfeld’s employees at the
Springboro location resulted in the conclusion that Natalie
Lakes is one of the main sources of negativity about team
members and management.
Natalie is unable to keep the line of friendship and ca-
reers separated and allows and is involved in situations
that causes [sic] dissention among team members. [GC
Exh. 13.]

As with Frith, this explanation makes it crystal clear that the
form of negativity that led to the decision to discharge Lakes
was her involvement in protected concerted activity. Thus,
Lakes was fired because she was “one of the main sources of
negativity about . . . management” and a cause of “dissention
among team members.” (GC Exh. 13.)
An examination of the totality of the evidence, with particu-
lar reference to the Employer’s written justifications, reveals
that Lakes and Frith were not fired because they expressed
negativity regarding their personal problems, the personal be-
havior of their coworkers, or the general circumstances of their
lives. Instead, they were discharged specifically because their
negativity consisted of a pattern of criticism of managers’ be-
havior and the policies of their Employer as articulated to
coworkers, and in the case of Lakes, to supervisors and the
assembled work force at a staff meeting.
Having found that the discharged employees engaged in pro-
tected concerted activity and that the Employer fired them be-
43 The Employer’s written explanation also encapsulates the thought
that Frith’s employment should end because she was “not happy” work-
ing at Hausfeld’s. This is consistent with Hausfeld’s testimony that, “if
[employees are] negative all the time, that tells me they’re not happy
with us. And if they’re not happy with us, why do you want to stay with
us[?]” (Tr. 622.) On many occasions, the Board has found such expres-
sions to constitute violations of Sec. 8(a)(1). For example, see Paper
Mart, 319 NLRB 9 (1995) (finding unlawful an employer’s statement
that if an employee was not happy, he could seek employment else-
where); Jupiter Medical Center Pavilion, 346 NLRB 650, 651 (2006)
(unlawful for employer to indicate that unhappy employees should find
another job because the statement suggests that support for protected
activities is “incompatible with continued employment”); and Plaza
Auto Center, 355 NLRB 507, 508 (2010) (owner’s statement to em-
ployee that, if he did not like employer’s policies, he did not need to
work there was both “unlawful and provocative”).

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 462
cause they did so, I must consider one additional factor. The
Board will uphold an employer’s policy that restricts the exer-
cise of protected rights if that employer establishes that there is
a “legitimate and substantial justification” for its policy. Phoe-
nix Transit System, 337 NLRB 510 (2002), enf. 63 Fed. Appx.
524 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In this case, the Employer asserts that it
has such a justification.
It will be recalled that Hausfeld testified that the salon’s neg-
ativity policies were the product of her careful analysis of the
conditions in her occupation and the reasons why some beauty
salons were not successful. Based on her examination, she con-
cluded that it was vital to maintain an atmosphere where the
customers felt “a culture of love and happiness.” (Tr. 124.)
Because employee discussions with each other about problems
in the workplace that affected their terms and conditions of
employment, even when conducted out of the presence of cus-
tomers, could create a negative feeling in the shop that could be
sensed by customers, such conversations were prohibited by the
negativity policies.
I have no doubt as to the sincerity of Hausfeld’s testimony
regarding the reasons for her broad negativity policies and her
vigorous enforcement of those policies. I am also sympathetic
to counsel for the Employer’s argument that, “this Employer
should not be punished simply because they have a unique take
on how they want their workplace to be.” (Tr. 494.) Indeed, it
is clear to me that the Board strives to accord deference to an
employer’s vision and philosophy when such deference is con-
sistent with the Board’s statutory responsibilities. For example,
in W San Diego, 348 NLRB 372 (2006), the employer empha-
sized that it had an operating philosophy designed to make the
guests’ experiences at its hotel a “Wonderland” where custom-
ers would feel able to fulfill their “fantasies and desires.” 348
NLRB at 372. [Capitalization in the original.] In order to effec-
tuate this vision, the hotel required employees to wear a uni-
form that included a small pin. It also maintained a work rule
that prohibited all other adornments to the uniform. This rule
was enforced against an employee who chose to wear a union
pin in the public areas of the building. The Board concluded
that the employer had demonstrated “a special circumstance . . .
justifying its prohibition on wearing the pin in public areas of
the hotel.” 348 NLRB at 373. [Footnote omitted.]
Given the Board’s attitude, I have made an effort to find an
accommodation between this Employer’s negativity policy and
the Section 7 rights of its employees. Unfortunately, there is
simply no way to harmonize the policy with the statutory rights
of employees created by Congress. The Employer’s demand
that its staff refrain from all forms of criticism among them-
selves and toward members of management, whether in earshot
of customers or not, is so broad as to effectively destroy the
ability of the employees to engage in Section 7 activities. In
explaining the reasons supporting enactment of the statute,
Congress stated:

It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate
the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow
of commerce . . . by protecting the exercise by workers of full
freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of
representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of ne-
gotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or
other mutual aid and protection.

(Sec. 1 of the Act.) The breadth of the Employer’s negativity
polices, coupled with the vigorous manner in which they are
enforced, would render it impossible for employees to engage
in even the most preliminary forms of discussion of the types
that were given protection under the Act. Indeed, it is impossi-
ble to envision how any group of employees could assert their
Section 7 rights in the face of such a set of policies. For these
reasons, I conclude that the Employer has failed to demonstrate
a lawful justification for its decision to discharge Lakes and
Frith because of their participation in protected concerted activ-
ities that it deemed to be in violation of its negativity policies.
Before concluding this discussion, it is necessary to address
a procedural defense that forms a central feature of the argu-
ments raised in counsel for the Employer’s posttrial brief.
Counsel argues that the allegations in the complaint are “ex-
tremely limited,” and that the General Counsel failed to sub-
stantiate those tightly constrained claims. (R. Br. at p. 2.) In
particular, he stresses that a close reading of the language of the
complaint demonstrates that the General Counsel’s theory re-
garding the discharges is strictly confined to proof that the em-
ployees were fired “due to protected concerted activity taking
place on October 16.” (See R. Br. at p. 3.) (See also R. Br. at
pp. 10–11.) A literal reading of the complaint allegations would
support this point of view. (See complaint, par. 5(a–d), GC
Exh. 1(g), p. 3.)
As to Lakes, counsel’s argument gains no traction at all.
Even if one were to apply counsel’s highly technical and con-
stricted approach to the complaint allegations, the evidence
demonstrates that Lakes was, indeed, terminated in large meas-
ure due to her conduct on October 16. On that day, she engaged
in discussion with her coworkers regarding their grievances
against the supervisors. With the support of those coworkers,
she took the initiative to bring this matter to the attention of
Snider. Management responded by convening a staff meeting
that evening. At the meeting, Lakes clearly took the lead in
articulating grievances and encouraging her coworkers to do
the same. Upon her instigation, other employees did voice simi-
lar complaints. Thus, even under counsel’s very narrow view of
the issue, the evidence clearly shows that Lakes was discharged
because she was “one of the main sources of negativity about
team members and management” and was “involved in situa-
tions that causes [sic] dissention among team members,” and
that this rationale was directly related to management’s ap-
praisal of her conduct on October 16. (GC Exh. 13.)
Regarding Frith, the situation is different. Counsel for the
Employer is accurate in observing that she was not on duty
during October 16. Her only involvement in protected concert-
ed activity on that date was the exchange of text messages with
Lakes regarding Lakes’ plan to complain to management about
the conduct of the supervisors. While Frith attended the even-
ing staff meeting, it is undisputed that her comments about the
work environment made during the session were positive in
tone and content. Thus, I agree with counsel that if the General
Counsel were properly limited to proving that Frith was dis-
SALON/SPA AT BORO, INC. 463
charged due to her behavior on October 16, the evidence would
be slight.
The difficulty with counsel’s argument is that it fundamen-
tally misperceives the role of the complaint in unfair labor prac-
tice proceedings. As long ago as 1940, the Sixth Circuit de-
scribed that role as follows:

The sole function of the complaint is to advise the respondent
of the charges constituting unfair labor practices as defined in
the Act, that he may have due notice and a full opportunity for
hearing thereon. The Act does not require the particularity of
pleading of an indictment or information, nor the elements of
a cause like a declaration at law or a bill in equity. All that is
requisite in a valid complaint before the Board is that there be
a plain statement of the things claimed to constitute an unfair
labor practice that respondent may be put upon his defense.

NLRB v. Piqua Munising Wood Products Co., 109 F.2d 552,
557 (6th Cir. 1940), quoted with approval by the Board in Arte-
sia Ready Mix Concrete, 339 NLRB 1224, 1226 (2003).
It is noteworthy that the complaint, although inartfully draft-
ed,44 does comply with the standard contained in the Board’s
rules. Section 102.15 requires that the complaint allegations
include “a clear and concise description of the acts which are
claimed to constitute unfair labor practices, including, where
known, the approximate dates and places of such acts and the
names of respondent’s agents or other representatives by whom
committed.” This the complaint certainly manages to do. It
advises the Employer that the unfair labor practices committed
consisted of the discharges of Frith and Lakes on October 20
and 22 respectively. Beyond this, the complaint clearly articu-
lates a legal theory in support of this conclusion, to wit: that the
discharges constituted interference, restraint, and coercion di-
rected against those employees due to their protected concerted
activities. (Complaint, pars. 5, 6, GC Exh. 1(g), p. 3.)
Although the wording of the complaint was unnecessarily
narrow in appearing to confine the protected concerted activity
to events on October 16, the key requirements of due process
and fundamental fairness were achieved. In its leading case in
this general area, the Board authorized an unfair labor practice
finding under a completely different legal theory from the one
articulated in the complaint. It did so because it concluded that
“the complaint placed at issue the motivation” for the allegedly
unlawful conduct and the matter had been subject to “full litiga-
tion” at trial. Pergament United Sales, 296 NLRB 333, 335
(1989), enfd. 920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1990). See also the Board’s
very recent application of this doctrine in Stabilus, Inc., 355
NLRB 850 at fn. 13 (2010) (unfair labor practice finding up-
held where “theory was not advanced by the General Counsel,”
but the material facts were “fully litigated”). The same reason-
ing clearly applies here. The Employer was certainly on notice
that the motivation underlying the discharges of Lakes and
Frith was alleged to be an unlawful response to their protected
44 As I have already observed, this is not the only example of the in-
artful wording in this complaint. See fn. 37, infra.
concerted activities. Counsel for the Employer clearly grasped
this and mounted a full defense to this challenge.45
Ultimately, the absence of prejudice to the Employer from
the unnecessarily restrictive language of the complaint is
demonstrated by comparing what occurred here to a venerable
case before the Supreme Court. In NLRB v. MacKay Radio &
Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333, 349–350 (1938), the Court af-
firmed the Board in the face of the employer’s contention that
the Board had relied on a different legal theory than the one
articulated in the complaint. Characterizing this defense as
“highly technical,” the Court held:

A review of the record shows that at no time during the hear-
ings was there any misunderstanding as to what was the basis
of the Board’s complaint. The entire evidence, pro and con,
was directed to the question whether . . . the respondent did in
fact discriminate against the [employees] because of union ac-
tivity. While the respondent was entitled to know the basis of
the complaint against it, and to explain its conduct, in an effort
to meet that complaint, we find from the record that it under-
stood the issue and was afforded full opportunity to justify the
action of its officers as innocent rather than discriminatory.

I conclude that the same analysis here results in an identical
conclusion. The complaint adequately put the Employer on
notice as to the actions of its managers that were under scrutiny
and as to the General Counsel’s legal theory as to why those
actions violated the Act. The Employer was given every oppor-
tunity to mount a full defense and, indeed, did just that.
Because Lakes and Frith engaged in protected concerted ac-
tivity consisting of discussions aimed at inducing and preparing
for group action and the Employer discharged them for this
conduct, I find that the Employer has violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.46

45 One example will suffice. On direct examination by counsel for
the Employer, Team Leader Dill was asked, “[W]hat’s your observa-
tion with respect to Ms. Frith . . . being negative or positive?” Dill
replied, in pertinent part, “it was reported to Bobby [Hausfeld] and
Bobby reported to the managers that—that Liz was one of the main
one’s name[d] that was always negative in the break room talking about
coworkers and about management.” (Tr. 578.) It was clearly understood
by all involved in the trial that the issue centered on the conduct of the
employees during the entire period at issue and on management’s re-
sponse to that course of conduct. The parties never confined themselves
to the events of October 16. In fact, the defense took pains to raise the
matter of the employees’ conduct prior to that date. As counsel asserted
in his brief, “[p]roblems with Charging Parties’ negative attitude sur-
faced long before October.” (R. Br. at p. 13.)
46 Because I have found that the Employer’s reason for discharging
the employees was an unlawful one directed specifically toward their
protected concerted activities, it would not be appropriate to examine
the facts of this case using a dual motive methodology as outlined in
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir.
1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982). See Aluminum Co. of Ameri-
ca, 338 NLRB 20, 22 (2002) (judge erred in employing dual motive
analysis where there is a “causal connection” between protected activi-
ty and resulting discipline). In any event, if I were to have looked at
this as a dual motive case, I would have concluded that any alternative
explanations for the discharges were simply pretexts. It is evident that
the actual motivating reason for the disciplinary action consisted of the
Employer’s conclusion that Lakes and Frith violated the negativity

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 464
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Employer coercively interrogated its employees re-
garding their protected concerted activities and the protected
concerted activities of their coworkers in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. The Employer threatened one of its employees with loss of
status and monetary compensation if she chose to engage in
protected concerted activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
3. The Employer discharged its employees, Natalie Ann
Lakes and Elizabeth A. Frith, because they had engaged in
protected concerted activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
4. The charge alleging that the Employer uttered an unlawful
threat of reprisal concerning employees’ participation in social
networking was untimely filed. Additionally, the General
Counsel did not meet his burden of proving that these state-
ments constituted an unlawful threat of reprisal within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1).
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act. Regarding Lakes and Frith, I will
recommend that the Respondent be ordered to offer reinstate-
ment and restitution for the loss of pay and benefits from the
date of discharge until the date of such offer of reinstatement. I
will also order that the Respondent post a notice in the usual
manner.
In addition to these typical remedial measures, the General
Counsel seeks two types of relief that have not previously been
routinely awarded by the Board: compound interest for the
unlawfully terminated employees and electronic notice posting
on the Employer’s intranet system. Interestingly, both of these
matters are currently before the Board for full consideration.
On May 14, 2010, the Board issued an invitation to the labor
law community seeking amicus briefs as to both issues. While
it would be instructive to wait until the Board has ruled on the-
se issues, such a delay would be inappropriate in this case since
it involves remedial action for unlawfully discharged employ-
ees. See Kentucky River Medical Center, 355 NLRB 657, 661
at fn. 13 (2010).
As to compound interest, the General Counsel has made it a
routine, albeit thus far unsuccessful, practice to seek this relief.
In the past, I have expressed my concern about this litigation
tactic of demanding unprecedented relief from administrative
law judges who are clearly not authorized to grant it. For ex-
ample, see my comments in Frye Electric, Inc., 352 NLRB 345,
358 (2008). Until now, the Board has continued to decline to
policies by engaging in criticisms of their supervisors and their terms
and conditions of employment during discussions with coworkers, and
in the case of Lakes, in discussions with supervisors and during the
course of a staff meeting. Where the Employer’s asserted justifications
are pretextual, the analysis mandates a finding of unlawful conduct.
See Rood Trucking Co., 342 NLRB 895, 898 (2004) (where pretext is
found, “there is no need to perform the second part of the Wright Line
analysis”).
order compound interest. See, for example, Quanta, 355 NLRB
46, 48 at fn. 4 (2010), citing Rogers Corp., 344 NLRB 504
(2005). Unless and until the Board changes its policy, I contin-
ue to lack the authority to grant the relief requested. Therefore,
I shall order that the Respondent shall offer the discharged
employees reinstatement and make them whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis from
date of discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement, less
any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co.,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New Hori-
zons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
The situation is different regarding the request for electronic
posting of the notice. In the past, the Board had expressed con-
siderable reluctance to issue such an order, going so far as to
delete a judge’s electronic notice posting order despite the ab-
sence of any exception from the respondent. See National Grid
USA Service Co., 348 NLRB 1235 fn. 2 (2006). More recently,
however, the Board’s views have evolved. In Windstream
Corp., 352 NLRB 510 (2008), opinion adopted at 355 NLRB
614 (2010), the Board added an electronic notice provision to
the judge’s recommended notice. It took this action because it
had evidence in the record that “the Respondent regularly
communicates its employment policies to employees through
electronic mail.” 352 NLRB 510 at fn. 3.
Although the Board has not yet enunciated an overall policy,
it appears to me that Windstream authorizes judges to make
individual findings on this issue based on the record in each
case. See also, Naples Community Hospital, 355 NLRB 978 at
fn. 2 (2010). In this case, counsel for the General Counsel did
develop the record regarding the issue. Hausfeld testified that
the Employer maintains a so-called “in-house intercom system”
which is similar to email. (Tr. 645.) Frith characterized this
intercom system as, “like an email set up, but it’s personalized
through each stylist.” (Tr. 188.) The Employer uses this intranet
system to communicate to the staff about such matters as the
scheduling of staff meetings.
Because the circumstances are similar to those in Wind-
stream and the use of intranet posting will provide a modern,
efficient, and effective means of facilitating the Board’s com-
munication to the employees, I will grant the General Counsel’s
request for intranet posting. In so doing, I will utilize the lan-
guage drafted by the Board in Windstream. I recognize that
there may be technical issues involved in accomplishing this
electronic posting. Particularly, in light of the fact that this is a
small employer, I expect that the Regional Office will furnish
all appropriate technical assistance to the employer. I further
intend that the Employer be authorized to raise any technical
impediments to the effectuation of this portion of the order in
the compliance process.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended47
47 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.

SALON/SPA AT BORO, INC. 465
ORDER
The Respondent, Salon/Spa at Boro, Inc., Springboro, Ohio,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating its employees regarding their
participation in protected concerted activities and the participa-
tion of other employees in such activities.
(b) Threatening, coercing, or intimidating its employees due
to their participation in protected concerted activities.
(c) Discharging or otherwise disciplining Natalie Ann Lakes,
Elizabeth A. Frith, or any of its other employees due to their
participation in protected concerted activities.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer
Natalie Ann Lakes and Elizabeth A. Frith full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantial-
ly equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Natalie Ann Lakes and Elizabeth A. Frith whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result
of their unlawful discharges, in the manner set forth in the rem-
edy section of this decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, re-
move from its files any reference to the unlawful discharges of
Natalie Ann Lakes and Elizabeth A. Frith, and within 3 days
thereafter notify them in writing that this has been done and
that the discharges will not be used against them in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment rec-
ords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Springboro, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix.”48

Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 9, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings,
the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
48 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.”
copy of the notice to all current employees and former employ-
ees employed by the Respondent at any time since October 17,
2009.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix” electronically on the Re-
spondent’s intranet with a link sent by electronic mail to its
employees.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed inso-
far as it alleges a violation of the Act not specifically found.

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

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO

Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.

WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees about
their participation in protected concerted activities or about the
participation of other employees in such activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or intimidate our employees
due to their participation in protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discipline Natalie Ann
Lakes, Elizabeth A. Frith, or any of our other employees be-
cause of their participation in protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Federal labor law.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Natalie Ann Lakes and Elizabeth A. Frith full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantial-
ly equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Natalie Ann Lakes and Elizabeth A. Frith
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from
their discharges, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 466
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from our files any reference to the unlawful discharges of Na-
talie Ann Lakes and Elizabeth A. Frith, and WE WILL, within 3
days thereafter, notify each of them in writing that this has been
done and that the discharges will not be used against them in
any way.

SALON/SPA AT BORO, INC.