Satellite Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 29, 2010

356 N.L.R.B. 51 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

SATELLLITE SERVICES 51
Satellite Services, Inc. and International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District
Lodge 725, AFL–CIO. Case 21–CA–38670
October 29, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS BECKER
AND PEARCE
On September 23, 2009, Administrative Law Judge
Lana H. Parke issued the attached decision. The Charg-
ing Party filed exceptions. On May 26, 2010, the Board,
by its Executive Secretary, denied the Respondent’s Mo-
tion to Strike the Charging Party’s exceptions, but ac-
cepted the Respondent’s submission as an answering
brief to the Charging Party’s exceptions.
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 exceptions1 and has decided to affirm the
judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions as modified
below, and to adopt the recommended Order as modified
below.2
The Charging Party has excepted to the judge’s deci-
sion not to order the Respondent to post the remedial
notice on its intranet system. In light of our recent deci-
sion in J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB 11 (2010), we find
merit in this exception, and we have modified the Order
accordingly.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Satellite
Services, Inc., Riverside, California, its officers, agents,
1 We adopt, in the absence of exceptions, the judge’s findings that
the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by maintaining an overbroad no-
solicitation/no-distribution rule in its handbook and violated Sec.
8(a)(3) by discharging employee Raul Trejo.
Regarding the handbook rule, the judge’s recommended Order re-
quires the Respondent to rescind the rule, if it has not done so. The
Charging Party requests that the Board revise the judge’s recommended
Order to make “clear that employees can distribute or solicit on gov-
ernment premises.” No revision is necessary, however, because the
record establishes that the Respondent adopted and communicated to its
employees a new policy containing that clarification.
Further, we deny the Charging Party’s request that we order the Re-
spondent to notify its Government client, March Air Force Base, of its
unfair labor practices in this case.
2 In accordance with our decision in Kentucky River Medical Center,
356 NLRB 6 (2010), we modify the judge’s remedy by requiring that
backpay and other monetary awards shall be paid with interest com-
pounded on a daily basis.

successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(c) and re-
letter the subsequent paragraph.
“(c) Make Raul Trejo whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against him, plus daily compound interest as pre-
scribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6
(2010).”
2. Substitute the following for current paragraph 2(f).
“(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facilities on the March Air Reserve Base, Riverside,
California, copies of the attached notice marked “Appen-
dix.”29 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 21 after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consec-
utive 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, post-
ing on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other elec-
tronic means, if the Respondent customarily communi-
cates with its employees by such means. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. 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 Re-
spondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed by Respondent at any time since
October 10, 2008.”
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.

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

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO

Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
356 NLRB No. 17

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 52
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT maintain a rule prohibiting any of you
from engaging in union or other protected solicita-
tion/distribution during nonwork time and in nonwork
areas.
WE WILL NOT discharge any employee for supporting
the International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers, District Lodge 725, AFL–CIO, or any
other union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
stated above.
WE WILL rescind any rule prohibiting any of you from
engaging in union or other protected solicitation/dis-
tribution during nonworktime and in nonwork areas, and
we will inform you in writing that this has been done.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer Raul Trejo full reinstatement to his former
job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or
to any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Raul Trejo whole, with interest, for any
loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of
our unlawful discharge of him.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful discharge of Raul Trejo, and WE WILL, within 3 days
thereafter, notify him in writing that this has been done
and that the discharge will not be used against him in any
way.
SATELLITE SERVICES, INC.

Irma Hernandez, Esq., Counsel for the General Counsel, Re-
gion 21, Los Angeles, California.
Mark I. Schickman, Esq., Counsel for Respondent, Freeland,
Cooper & Foreman LLP, San Francisco, California.
Joe M. Young, Organizer, Charging Party, Ontario, California.
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq., Charging Party, Weinberg, Roger &
Rosenfeld, Alameda, California.1
DECISION
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LANA PARKE, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to charg-
es filed by International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers, District Lodge 725, AFL–CIO (the Union), the
Regional Director of Region 21 of the National Labor Relations
Board (the Board) issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing
1 Mr. Rosenfeld, who did not appear at the hearing, gave written no-
tice of appearance on August 10, 2009.
(the complaint) on May 27, 2009.2 The complaint alleges that
Satellite Services, Inc. (SSI or the Respondent) violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
This matter was tried in Riverside, California on July 27–29,
2009.3
II. ISSUES
Did Respondent violate Sections 8(a)(3) of the Act by dis-
charging employee Raul (“Rudy”)Trejo?
2. Did Respondent violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
maintaining an overbroad solicitation/distribution rule in its
employee handbook?
III. JURISDICTION
At all relevant times, SSI, a Michigan corporation, has been
engaged in the provision of facilities maintenance and base
operating support services for the United States Air Force
(USAF) with its principal office and place of business in Mar-
quette, Michigan and operations located at March Air Reserve
Base, Riverside, California (the base). In conducting its busi-
ness operations during the 12-month period ending December
31, which period is representative of SSI’s operations, SSI pro-
vided facilities maintenance and base operating support ser-
vices to the USAF valued in excess of $1 million and purchased
and received at its operations facility goods valued in excess of
$50,000, directly from points located outside the State of Cali-
fornia. I find SSI has at all relevant times been an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act, and the Union has been a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I find the follow-
ing events occurred in the circumstances described below dur-
ing the period relevant to these proceedings. Unless otherwise
explained, findings of fact herein are based on party admis-
sions, stipulations, and uncontroverted testimony.
A. The Respondent’s Relevant Business Operations,
Policies, and Procedures
Since 2005, the Respondent has provided facilities mainte-
nance and operating support at the base pursuant to its contract
with the USAF, employing about 91 workers in various de-
partments situated among the numerous buildings and sections
of the base. All SSI departments were assigned government
vehicles for work duties, and about 30-35 SSI employees had
regular occasion to use them. Employees in the traffic-
2 All dates herein are 2008 unless otherwise specified. The complaint
was amended at the hearing to add “AFL–CIO” to the Union’s name
and “Mark Ditter, Weather Supervisor” to the list of individuals set
forth at complaint paragraph 4. The Respondent admitted the amended
allegations of paragraph 4.
3 The General Counsel’s unopposed post-hearing motion to correct
the transcript is granted. The motion and corrections are received as
ALJ Exhibit 1. As explained at footnote 5, the General Counsel’s post-
hearing request to amend the complaint is denied.

SATELLLITE SERVICES 53
management office (TMO) were responsible for escorting de-
livery vehicles on and off the base.
SSI’s base operations department (Base Ops) controlled air
traffic and vehicle movement within the flight line area, was
responsible for airfield safety conditions, and monitored weath-
er information for pilots. SSI employed 18 employees in Base
Ops, six of them in the weather division. Because the duties of
the weather division required constant communication availa-
bility with pilots, weather division employees were on duty
during their entire shifts. The Respondent made a refrigerator
and a microwave available to those Base Ops employees who
ate or took breaks while they worked. During the employees’
on-duty lunch periods, they were permitted to make personal
telephone calls, talk to other employees about nonwork issues,
and/or read nonwork related materials. In short, they were
permitted to do anything they could do during a normal work
break as long as they were available to respond to work-related
communications. SSI employees other than Base Ops employ-
ees were provided break periods and had access to break facili-
ties. Given the geography of the base, employees did not gen-
erally have time to leave the base during breaks.
The Respondent’s employee rules of conduct included the
following prohibitions: unauthorized use of government proper-
ty, use of vulgar or abusive language, and sexual or other illegal
harassment or discrimination. The Respondent had no progres-
sive discipline policy.
In connection with the services the Respondent provided to
the USAF, the Respondent subcontracted with Environmental
Management, Inc. (EMI) to provide fuel and mobility services.
EMI employees were also situated on the base. EMI employees
occasionally wore navy-blue shirts at work with the letters
“EMI” on the left breast.
The individuals named below, holding the stated positions
with the Respondent, were supervisors within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act and comprised the Respondent’s man-
agement hierarchy at the base:

James A. Rossi (Mr. Rossi) Project Manager
Bradley S. Potter (Mr. Potter) Airfield Manager
Grady Massey (Mr. Massey) Quality Control
Safety and Secu-
rity/Deputy Pro-
ject Manager
Mark Ditter (Mr. Ditter) Weather Supervisor

B. The Respondent’s No-Solicitation/Distribution Rule
At all times material hereto until early July 2009, when SSI
revised its no-solicitation/distribution policy, SSI maintained
the following provision in its employee handbook (the no-
solicitation/distribution rule), copies of which were distributed
to employees:

To avoid disruption of the workplace and potential embar-
rassment for our employees, no solicitations, collections, and
circulation of petitions or distributions of literature by em-
ployees are permitted during working time or in working are-
as. “Working time” refers to the work time of the employee
soliciting, collecting, circulating or distributing as well as the
employee to whom such action is directed. It does not include
breaks, meal periods, or other times before or after work.
“Working areas” includes all SSI or Government premises.
In addition, no person from outside SSI is allowed on SSI’s
premises at any time for these or related purposes. If an em-
ployee observes someone who is not an employee engaging in
any of these activities at any time, the employee should notify
management immediately.4
C. Union Organizing Campaign
In 2008, the Union engaged in an organizing campaign
among EMI employees. EMI employee Darell Blanford (Mr.
Blanford) shared union organizational information and materi-
als with SSI employees, including Raul “Rudy” Trejo (Mr.
Trejo) and created union flyers for SSI employees to dissemi-
nate.
In March, Mr. Blanford in company with EMI employee,
Andrew Isom (Mr. Isom), took union literature to the SSI
weather division office. Mr. Blanford asked Mr. Ditter if he
could leave the union literature in the SSI employees’ lunch or
break room. Mr. Ditter said that employees ate lunch as they
worked and did not have designated lunch breaks or a lunch
room. According to Mr. Blanford, Mr. Ditter told him that Mr.
Rossi had told him to confiscate literature and to report litera-
ture disseminators. Mr. Blanford testified that Mr. Ditter said
that although employees were free to solicit or distribute litera-
ture in SSI parking lots, they could not do so in any SSI work
areas or discuss union matters in any SSI work areas or during
any SSI work time. Mr. Ditter denied saying he had been di-
rected to confiscate literature and report solicitors, but he ad-
mitted telling Mr. Blanford and Mr. Isom that employees could
not discuss or pass out union literature anywhere at SSI or in its
buildings except for the parking lots. Mr. Ditter denied SSI
management had ever instructed him to record the names of
people organizing for the Union. He said Mr. Rossi, at man-
agement meetings, had told SSI managers that employees could
not engage in union organizing on “company time or in the
building, that they had to do it during off-duty times.”5
On May 15, the Union was certified as the collective bar-
gaining representative of a unit of EMI employees, after which
Mr. Blanford and Mr. Isom were appointed union stewards to
the unit. Sometime prior to June 20, an EMI employee made a
complaint against a government employee. Dan Hanson (Mr.
4 On July 11, 2009, the Respondent revised this policy, notified all
SSI employees of the revision, and thereafter issued an employee hand-
book containing the revised policy. The General Counsel does contend
the revised policy is unlawful.
5 In the posthearing brief, based upon Mr. Ditter’s admission, the
General Counsel moved to amend the complaint to allege the Respond-
ent maintained a rule discriminately forbidding employees from talking
about unionization. The Respondent opposed any such amendment,
arguing that it would be highly prejudicial to SSI, as the amendment’s
timing does not afford SSI an opportunity to defend itself. While it is
unclear just how SSI might counter Mr. Ditter’s admission, it is true
that the Respondent was not put on notice of the proposed allegation
until well after the hearing, which raises a due process question. I find
it unnecessary to resolve that issue since any remedy for the existing
allegation regarding maintenance of an overbroad solicitation/distri-
bution rule would substantially rectify any violation stemming from the
proposed allegation. Therefore, I deny the General Counsel’s request.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 54
Hanson), EMI project manager, investigated the complaint and
then referred the matter to Mr. Rossi, as the overall project
manager and the liaison with the USAF. Mr. Rossi directed
SSI personnel to conduct an additional investigation of the
matter in which both the complainant and the government em-
ployee were interviewed. Thereafter, on June 20, in their ca-
pacity as union stewards, Mr. Blanford and Mr. Isom attended a
meeting that included Mr. Hanson and Mr. Rossi to discuss the
status of the complaint. According to Mr. Blanford, after dis-
cussion of the employee issue was concluded, Mr. Rossi re-
minded Mr. Blanford and Mr. Isom that they were at-will em-
ployees, that he was the project manager at the base, and that if
they continued union activity or solicitation on base, they
would end up on the unemployment line. Mr. Hanson denied
Mr. Rossi made any such statement;

Mr. Rossi did not testify
about the meeting. Mr. Blanford testified in a clear, direct, and
sincere manner, and I credit his testimony in this regard.
D. Circumstances Surrounding the Discharge
of Raul Trejo
Employed by the Respondent in July 2007, Mr. Trejo
worked in TMO, processing cargo for the USAF. As part of his
duties, Mr. Trejo escorted outside vendor delivery vehicles onto
the base.6 At work, Mr. Trejo generally wore street clothes.
Mr. Trejo was furnished with but not required to wear a gray
short-sleeved T-shirt with “SSI” on the left breast.
Beginning in mid-April and continuing to about mid-May,
Mr. Trejo solicited employee signatures in support of the Un-
ion, obtaining 12–15 signatures. Mr. Trejo solicited during
lunchbreaks or after work, driving his personal vehicle to some
SSI areas on the base.
In mid-May, Mr. Trejo asked Mr. Blanford to create a pro-
union flyer that Mr. Trejo could distribute to SSI employees.
The resulting flyer (pro-union flyer) read:

To All SSI Hourly Employees Only:

As some of you are already aware that we SSI hourly em-
ployees are organizing ourselves to better our working condi-
tions. What do we mean by better working conditions? We
mean better pay, a C.O.L.A. every year, better 401K plan
(pension), paid sick leave, 2 weeks paid vacation after first
year, and 3 weeks paid vacation after 3rd year, Paid overtime
instead of forced comp time (which is illegal), And a whole
lot more. If you are interested in this; and need these things to
be done please contact Rudy at [Mr. Trejo’s cell phone num-
ber] immediately.

Sometime in mid-May at the commencement of his lunch-
break (11 a.m.), Mr. Trejo drove to Base Ops in his personal
vehicle with copies of the prounion flyer. Entering the Base
Ops office, Mr. Trejo approached two men sitting behind a
counter and asked if they were SSI hourly wage employees.
When they said they were, Mr. Trejo asked when they took
their lunchbreaks. The two men said they were at lunchbreak at
6 Mr. Trejo worked on the day shift, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday. Additional duties included forklift operation, mainte-
nance of two SSI vehicles, responsibility for office equipment, and
forklift training.
that time, and Mr. Trejo observed one of the men eating. Mr.
Trejo understood the men to be working during their lunch-
break. Mr. Trejo handed each man a flyer and asked them to
call him if they were interested in work benefits. As Mr. Trejo
spoke to the men, their supervisor, Mr. Potter, entered the of-
fice whereupon Mr. Trejo thanked the men and left. Shortly
thereafter, Mr. Potter told Mr. Rossi of Mr. Trejo’s visit to the
Base Ops employees and gave him a copy of the prounion fly-
er.
Within an hour after Mr. Trejo returned to his workstation,
Mr. Rossi summoned him to his office where Mr. Massey was
also present. Mr. Rossi told Mr. Trejo he had received a report
that Mr. Trejo was passing out union leaflets at Base Ops,
which was against company policy.7 Mr. Trejo’s account of the
meeting is as follows: Mr. Rossi told him he was not supposed
to solicit for the Union on base, and that he could be terminated
for it. Mr. Trejo said he had the right to organize, that he had
been on his lunchbreak at the time, and that the people he was
talking to were on lunchbreak also. Mr. Rossi said that alt-
hough Mr. Trejo had the right to organize, doing so on base
was grounds for termination. Mr. Trejo repeated that he had a
right to organize, and Mr. Rossi told him not to get into trouble
but to do it right, which meant not organizing or passing out
union leaflets or anything to do with the Union on base.8
Mr. Massey and Mr. Rossi also testified about the meeting.
Mr. Massey said Mr. Rossi reminded Mr. Trejo of the no-
solicitation policy in the employee handbook but did not tell
Mr. Trejo he could not solicit on base. Mr. Massey said Mr.
Rossi told Mr. Trejo that if “both [Mr. Trejo and the solicited
employees were] on break he could talk to them, or if they’re at
lunch, or if they’re both . . . not in the work area. In the parking
lot, I guess, or wherever is fine but clearly just not in the work
area while they’re working.” Mr. Rossi testified that he
showed Mr. Trejo the Respondent’s solicitation policy, told
him there was a right way and a wrong way to solicit and to be
sure he did it the right way: not during work hours or on work-
time in the company work areas.
Mr. Trejo impressed me as a forthright and sincere witness
overall. I also find Mr. Massey’s testimony, although not a
model of clarity, tended to corroborate Mr. Trejo’s version of
7 Apparently it was the union content of the flyers that was objec-
tionable. Mr. Rossi testified that engaging base ops and weather em-
ployees in union discussions while they worked would detrimentally
distract them. However, Mr. Rossi said that if Mr. Trejo had given the
employees a flyer announcing a softball activity during their on-duty
breaks, “there would not have been a concern.”
8 In a statement Mr. Trejo wrote sometime in 2008 after his dis-
charge, Mr. Trejo omitted any reference to Mr. Rossi’s having warned
in the mid-May meeting that breach of the solicitation rules could result
in termination. When confronted with the omission during cross-
examination, Mr. Trejo had no explanation beyond “probably
for[getting]” but nevertheless held to his direct testimony. Mr. Trejo’s
self-prepared account did include an assertion that Mr. Rossi said
Mr. Trejo should “be careful and do it [solicitation] right so that [he did
not] get into trouble,” which constituted an implicit threat of discipline.
I do not find Mr. Trejo’s self-prepared account of Mr. Rossi’s threat of
discipline to be so inconsistent or so at variance with Mr. Trejo’s testi-
mony of Mr. Rossi’s threat of termination as to negatively impact Mr.
Trejo’s credibility.

SATELLLITE SERVICES 55
the solicitation restrictions Mr. Rossi pronounced in the mid-
May meeting. Carefully considering all three accounts, I find
that in his mid-May meeting with Mr. Trejo, Mr. Rossi told Mr.
Trejo that he was restricted from soliciting in work areas, that
his attempted solicitation of the Base Ops employees had vio-
lated the Respondent’s no-solicitation policy, and that such was
grounds for discipline if not specifically for termination.
After his meeting with Mr. Rossi, although Mr. Trejo con-
tinued to answer telephonic questions about the Union if em-
ployees called him, he ceased all organizing activities on the
base and “laid low”, feeling his union activity was not worth
losing his job over.9
In June, SSI employees including Mr. Trejo unloaded seven
pallets of cargo destined for EMI onto the SSI dock. Later,
EMI employee Linda Houston (Ms. Houston) complained to an
SSI manager that Mr. Trejo had offensively yelled to her to
come and get her “f____material” out of the SSI dock area. In
investigating the complaint, Mr. Massey interviewed both
Ms. Houston and Mr. Trejo. Following the interviews, Mr.
Massey reported the results of his investigation to Mr. Rossi.
Mr. Rossi called Mr. Trejo into his office, told him that use of
foul language was inappropriate at work, and asked him to
furnish a written account of his interaction with Ms. Houston,
which Mr. Trejo never did. The Respondent imposed no disci-
pline on Mr. Trejo related to this incident.
On August 11, the Respondent hired Michael Lyon (Mr.
Lyon). Mr. Lyon worked in facilities maintenance—a different
section than TMO where Mr. Trejo worked—and assisted SSI
employee Don Danley (Mr. Danley). In Mr. Rossi’s opinion,
Mr. Lyon and Mr. Trejo would not normally see each other
unless Mr. Lyon was working in the same area as Mr. Trejo.10
According to Mr. Lyon, over the next two months he had
four or five interactions with a man he believed to be Mr. Trejo
(the putative Mr. Trejo),11 the first four of which went as fol-
lows: (1) Mr. Lyon was introduced to the putative Mr. Trejo
and SSI employee Jose Cervantes (Mr. Cervantes) on his first
or second day of work. On that occasion, the putative Mr. Tre-
jo repeatedly asked Mr. Lyon to “sign for the Union.” When
Mr. Lyon professed disinterest, the putative Mr. Trejo walked
away “huffy and angry.” (2) About a week later, while at a gas
station with Mr. Danley, Mr. Lyon saw the putative Mr. Trejo
9 In attempted refutation of Mr. Trejo’s testimony that he ceased or-
ganizing activities on the base, the Respondent adduced testimony from
Suanne Parobek who said Mr. Trejo telephoned her on June 25 and
asked what she was doing for lunch. When Ms. Parobek asked if it was
about the Union, Mr. Trejo said he couldn’t discuss that issue at work.
There is insufficient evidence to permit me to infer from Ms. Parobek’s
testimony that Mr. Trejo was engaging in or intended to engage in
union solicitation on the base. Rather, I find Ms. Parobek’s testimony,
which recounts Mr. Trejo’s statement that he could not discuss the
union at work, tends to corroborate Mr. Trejo’s assertion that he be-
came circumspect about his union activity on base after his mid-May
meeting with Mr. Rossi.
10 In a prehearing affidavit given to the Board, Mr. Rossi stated,
“Lyon does not interact with Trejo at all.”
11 Since a question exists as to whether the individual Mr. Lyon
identified as Mr. Trejo was, in fact, the alleged discriminatee, the indi-
vidual about whom Mr. Lyon testified is referred to as the putative Mr.
Trejo.
in company with Mr. Cervantes. The putative Mr. Trejo and
Mr. Cervantes approached Mr. Lyon and Mr. Danley and the
putative Mr. Trejo again solicited Mr. Lyon’s support for the
Union. When Mr. Lyon demurred, the two men walked away,
and Mr. Lyon heard the putative Mr. Trejo tell Mr. Cervantes
that Mr. Lyon was a “f____ pussy.”12 (3) About two and a half
weeks later, the putative Mr. Trejo again approached Mr. Lyon,
shook his hand, engaged in social chitchat, and again asked Mr.
Lyon to support the Union. Mr. Lyon said he was not interest-
ed, but as the putative Mr. Trejo continued to urge him, asked
how many signatures were needed. When the putative Mr.
Trejo said seven, Mr. Lyon told him to see him again when he
had six. (4) Thereafter, on an undated occasion, when Mr.
Lyon and Mr. Danley were together in a government vehicle
that was stopped “in a parking lot or on a road or something,”
the putative Mr. Trejo, also in a vehicle, “just said hi real quick
and asked about the Union.” Mr. Lyon said he was not inter-
ested, and he and Mr. Danley drove off.13
As to his fifth and crucial interaction with the putative Mr.
Trejo (the October 6 confrontation), Mr. Lyon testified that on
October 6 at about 9:30 a.m.,14 as he was painting a sign at
work, the putative Mr. Trejo, driving a government vehicle,
stopped by him. The putative Mr. Trejo again spoke to Mr.
Lyon about the Union. Mr. Lyon said he was not interested in
the Union and asked the putative Mr. Trejo to leave him alone.
The putative Mr. Trejo yelled, “Man you’re just a f____ pussy
like everyone else” and sped away.15
About five minutes after Mr. Lyon’s interaction with the pu-
tative Mr. Trejo, Mr. Danley came to where Mr. Lyon was
working, and Mr. Lyon described the incident to him. Mr.
Danley urged Mr. Lyon to report what had happened to man-
12 Mr. Danley’s account of this incident is somewhat different from
Mr. Lyon’s. While Mr. Danley testified that Mr. Trejo and Mr. Cer-
vantes were at the gas station at the same time as he and Mr. Lyon, Mr.
Danley did not say that Mr. Trejo interacted with Mr. Lyon. Mr. Dan-
ley testified only that he overheard Mr. Trejo say to Mr. Cervantes,
“Oh, that’s Don Danley, that’s the f___ idiot, and [indicating Mr. Lyon]
he’s a f_____ pussy.”
13 Mr. Danley did not testify about this incident.
14 In the affidavit he gave to a board agent at the regional office dur-
ing the investigation, Mr. Lyon said the incident occurred at approxi-
mately 1:30 p.m. Mr. Lyon testified that the time stated in the affidavit
was in error because the board agent taking the affidavit took it out of
context and that he was tired when he signed the affidavit after having
spent several hours at the Region. Mr. Lyon accused the board agent of
badgering him and of changing or distorting his words. I cannot accept
Mr. Lyon’s testimony in this regard. He testified that although he knew
his affidavit contained errors, he never contacted the Board to point
them out, and there is no evidence he complained to anyone of affidavit
errors prior to the hearing. Moreover, Mr. Lyon admitted that he read
and corrected several errors in his affidavit before signing it. Not only
did I find Mr. Lyon’s manner and demeanor during this testimony to be
unpersuasive, I find it implausible that if Mr. Lyon believed significant
errors existed in his affidavit, he would not have corrected them at the
time he corrected others. I find Mr. Lyon was, at best, uncertain as to
the time his confrontation with the putative Mr. Trejo took place.
15 Specifically, Mr. Lyon testified that the putative Mr. Trejo “hit the
throttle, the accelerator on the truck and made the tires chirp, burned
out, broke traction, kicked dust and gravel all over the sign [he] was
painting and took off up the street, probably doing about 40 [mph].”

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 56
agement, but Mr. Lyon was disinclined to do so because he did
not want to cause a problem.
Three days later on October 9, Mr. Danley told Mr. Rossi
that Mr. Trejo had had a conversation with Mr. Lyon, which
Mr. Lyon did not want to report.16 Thereafter, Mr. Rossi called
Mr. Lyon into his office.17 According to Mr. Lyon, Mr. Rossi
said he had heard that Mr. Lyon and Mr. Trejo had had a con-
flict, and he asked Mr. Lyon to provide a written statement of
the incident, which Mr. Lyon did. In pertinent part, the state-
ment reads, as follows:

I, Michael Lyon, was painting facility signs as assigned via
RPM work order. I was approached by Rudy Trejo about
signing a petition to unionize Satellite Services workers. I
courteously explained to Rudy Trejo I could not discuss such
matters on work hours and was not interested in signing.
Rudy Trejo responded to me from the window of a govern-
ment vehicle, and I quote, “Yea, that’s bullsh—t, you’re just a
f—cking pussy like everyone else!” After screaming these
obscenities at me, he proceeded to burn out and race North up
Graeber Street at an estimated 40 mph.18

Mr. Rossi’s testimony of his meeting with Mr. Lyon differed
significantly from Mr. Lyon’s. According to Mr. Rossi, at their
meeting Mr. Lyon said that in the morning (on an unspecified
date) between 9:30 or 10 a.m., while Mr. Lyon was painting a
sign by building 1203, an individual Mr. Lyon identified as Mr.
Trejo pulled over in a government vehicle and solicited
Mr. Lyon’s signature for the Union. When Mr. Lyon refused,
the individual said, “That’s a bunch of bullsh—t, and you’re a
f—cking pussy,” and sped off. Mr. Rossi said he told Mr.
Lyon, “Well, if you’re that concerned about it then make a
statement out for me,” which Mr. Lyon did. Mr. Rossi initially
testified that he thereafter attempted to contact Mr. Trejo’s
supervisor and, in his absence, spoke to Mr. Trejo’s coworker,
Cliff Law (Mr. Law), who reported that Mr. Trejo had been at
work on October 6. According to Mr. Rossi, Mr. Law brought
Mr. Rossi a bill of lading showing that Mr. Trejo had escorted a
munitions delivery truck on and off the base that morning, sign-
ing off on the lading bill at about 9 a.m. From that information,
Mr. Rossi concluded that Mr. Trejo had been in the area of
building 1203 during the morning of October 6.
16 Mr. Rossi testified that Mr. Danley told him Mr. Trejo had asked
Mr. Lyon to sign with the Union, and when Mr. Lyon refused, had used
abusive language toward Mr. Lyon before speeding away in a govern-
ment vehicle. As explained herein, I did not find Mr. Rossi to be a
reliable witness. I credit Mr. Danley’s account.
17 There is some inconsistency in Mr. Lyon’s testimony as to how
his meeting with Mr. Rossi came about. Mr. Lyon initially testified
that after Mr. Danley spoke to Mr. Rossi, Mr. Danley informed Mr.
Lyon that he needed to report the incident to Mr. Rossi and write a
statement about it, which Mr. Lyon did. That testimony suggests Mr.
Lyon initiated the meeting with Mr. Rossi. Under cross-examination,
however, Mr. Lyon agreed that Mr. Rossi initiated the meeting, calling
him into his office to discuss his interaction with Mr. Trejo. In this
regard I credit Mr. Lyon’s later testimony, which was more detailed
and clearer than his initial testimony. I find Mr. Rossi instigated the
October 9 meeting with Mr. Lyon.
18 Although the statement gave the date of the event as Monday, Oc-
tober 6, it stated no time.
I give little credence to Mr. Rossi’s account of his interview
with Mr. Lyon about the October 6 confrontation, as it is signif-
icantly inconsistent with the version provided by Mr. Lyon,
whom I find to be a more reliable witness to the event than Mr.
Rossi. Mr. Rossi’s account begs an inference that Mr. Lyon
initiated the meeting and pressed for action on his complaint.
Mr. Lyon’s testimony, which I have credited, shows to the con-
trary that Mr. Rossi initiated the meeting and that Mr. Lyon had
little independent interest in lodging a complaint against the
putative Mr. Trejo. I also accept Mr. Lyon’s description of the
ensuing interview. Finally, I give no credence to Mr. Rossi’s
account of his later investigation into Mr. Trejo’s whereabouts
on October 6. When Counsel for the General Counsel conduct-
ed voir dire on the October 6 bill of lading signed by Mr. Trejo,
Mr. Rossi testified he contacted Mr. Law and obtained the bill
of lading prior to October 9 and before he received Mr. Lyon’s
statement. Mr. Rossi’s relevant testimony was as follows:

Q by Counsel for the General Counsel: When did you
get [the bill of lading with Mr. Trejo’s signature]?
A: . . . . It was after the 6th and prior to the 9th that I
inquired and talked to [Mr. Law].
Q by Judge Parke: Prior to the ninth?
A: Prior to the ninth.

. . . .

Q by Counsel for the Respondent: Did you receive [the
bill of lading] before or after you got the statement from
Mr. Lyon?
A: Before.

. . . .

Q by Counsel for the Respondent: Did you receive [the
bill of lading] before or after you got the statement from
Mr. Lyon?
A: Oh, it was before. This was on the 6th and I in-
quired about it and Mr. Law advised me or validated that
there was a munitions shipment on the sixth.
Q by counsel for the Respondent: Tell you why I’m
confused. You’re saying you’re investigating the com-
plaint—did you receive this during your investigation of
the complaint that Mr. Lyon submitted?
[Objection as to leading]
Judge Parke: It’s not leading, but there certainly is
some confusion surrounding this.
A: Well, I’m sorry. Maybe I’m confused.

Following the above exchange, Mr. Rossi testified that he
obtained the bill of lading after he met with Mr. Lyon. I recog-
nize that witnesses may become confused when fixing dates
and that such confusion does not necessarily impact credibility.
However, the confusion Mr. Rossi evinced was not simply a
matter of muddling dates; rather Mr. Rossi misstated a se-
quence of events that one could reasonably expect him to recall
clearly, and Mr. Rossi held to the mistaken sequence until the
Respondent’s counsel spelled out his confusion. Further, in his
Board affidavit Mr. Rossi made no mention of obtaining any
document from Mr. Law, and the Respondent neither called
Mr. Law to corroborate Mr. Rossi’s account nor explained its

SATELLLITE SERVICES 57
failure to do so. In sum, I find that Mr. Rossi conducted a cur-
sory and superficial interview of Mr. Lyon regarding his con-
frontation with the putative Mr. Trejo, and I further find that
Mr. Rossi did nothing to corroborate or verify the underlying
facts of Mr. Lyon’s complaint.
On the afternoon of October 10, Mr. Trejo was called to Mr.
Rossi’s office where Mr. Rossi and Mr. Massey were present.
Mr. Rossi gave Mr. Trejo a pay check and a termination letter
dated October 10 that read:

You are terminated effective immediately for violation of the
“No Solicitation Policy” in accordance with Satellite Services,
Inc. Employee Handbook. Additionally, you violated Satel-
lite Services’ policy in using vulgar language or abusive lan-
guage to another employee of Satellite Services. You were
also in violation of using a government vehicle for solicitation
purposes. This is a misuse of a government vehicle.

Mr. Rossi told Mr. Trejo he had gotten a report from Mr.
Lyon that in soliciting for the Union Mr. Trejo had used abu-
sive/vulgar language and had misused a government vehicle.
Mr. Rossi said he was terminating Mr. Trejo for those reasons.
Mr. Trejo repeatedly denied the conduct, insisting that he was
not the offender and saying he did not even know Mr. Lyon.
Mr. Trejo asked to meet his accuser, arguing it was unfair to
terminate someone on the basis of accusations alone. Mr. Rossi
said it was his opinion that Mr. Trejo had engaged in the con-
duct he had been accused of and refused to rescind the termina-
tion.
During the period February 2005 to October 9, SSI had dis-
charged only three employees at the base: two for positive drug
tests and one for poor performance and safety infractions, in-
cluding one that resulted in a battery-acid injury to an employ-
ee. In all instances of alleged inappropriate employee interac-
tion described in the record, save Mr. Trejo’s, the Respondent
interviewed the parties involved in the incidents. As described
above, in June the Respondent’s supervisors interviewed both
parties involved in an SSI/government employee dispute. Also
in June the Respondent’s supervisors interviewed both an EMI
employee and Mr. Trejo regarding the EMI employee’s com-
plaint of inappropriate behavior. In 2009, an SSI employee
complained to management of employee harassment about his
height. Mr. Massey interviewed both complainant and the ac-
cused before counseling the accused to “cease and desist.”
E. Mr. Lyon’s Purported Identification of Mr. Trejo
Under cross-examination, Mr. Lyon testified as follows
about his contacts with the putative Mr. Trejo: Mr. Lyon rarely
saw him at the base. Although the man occasionally greeted
Mr. Lyon by name, Mr. Lyon never conversed with him. The
first two or three times the man spoke to him, Mr. Lyon had to
ask someone else his name, as he could not recall it. Mr. Lyon
was not sure whether the man was an EMI or an SSI employ-
ee.19 Mr. Lyon could not remember the putative Mr. Trejo’s
face the first couple of times that he met him.20. At the time of
19 In the affidavit he gave to the Board during the investigation, Mr.
Lyon said the putative Mr. Trejo was an EMI employee.
20 Although Mr. Lyon testified that his confusion about the putative
Mr. Trejo’s identity lasted for only the first couple of meetings, in his
the October 6 incident with the putative Mr. Trejo, Mr. Lyon
did not know the man’s last name.
During the course of his testimony, Mr. Lyon returned from
a hearing break and testified that he had seen in the restroom
the person who used abusive language to him on October 6.
Although Mr. Lyon could not recall whether the individual he
saw in the restroom had facial hair or what shirt he was wear-
ing, the Respondent asks me to find, based on Mr. Lyon’s re-
stroom identification that the putative Mr. Trejo and Mr. Trejo
are one and the same. I cannot do so. The hearing was held in
a conference room at a golf course clubhouse, the restrooms of
which were open to all clubhouse visitors. There is no direct
evidence that the individual Mr. Lyon saw in the restroom was,
in fact, Mr. Trejo, and the deficiencies in Mr. Lyon’s recall
make it impossible for me to draw any reasonable inferences as
to the individual’s identity.
V. DISCUSSION
A. The Respondent’s No-Solicitation/Distribution Rule
The complaint alleges that the Respondent’s no-solici-
tation/distribution rule in effect through the relevant period
until early July 2009 was impermissibly overbroad and violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Respondent contends that this
complaint allegation is barred because it is untimely under Sec-
tion 10(b)) of the Act.
On April 29, 2009 the Union filed an amended charge with
the Region alleging, inter alia that the Respondent had violated
the act by “maintaining and enforcing an overly broad no-
solicitation policy.” Thereafter, on May 27, 2009, the com-
plaint issued alleging that since July 22, the Respondent had
maintained an invalid no-solicitation/distribution rule. The rule
at issue was adopted more than 6 months prior to the filing of
the April 29, 2009 charge, which first alleged that the rule vio-
lated the Act. Nonetheless, the Respondent’s untimliness ar-
gument fails because the Respondent continued to maintain the
challenged provision during the 6-month period prior to the
filing of the April 29, 2009 charge and thereafter until July
2009. Section 10(b) does not preclude the Board from finding
that a provision or policy maintained by an employer within the
10(b) period is unlawful even if it was adopted more than 6
months prior to the filing of a charge, since such violations are
continuing in nature. Carney Hospital, 350 NLRB 627, 628
(2007). Accordingly, I find the amended charge and the com-
plaint allegations regarding the Respondent’s maintenance of
an invalid no-solicitation/distribution rule to be timely.
An employer may lawfully impose some restrictions on em-
ployees’ statutory rights to engage in union solicitation and
distribution. Such restrictions, however, must be clearly limited
in scope so as not to interfere with employees’ right to solicit
their coworkers on their own time or to distribute literature on
their own time in non-work areas. Republic Aviation Corp. v.
NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (1945): Our Way, Inc., 268 NLRB 394
Board affidavit, Mr. Lyon said the putative Mr. Trejo was wearing an
EMI shirt the first time Mr. Lyon met him, that the putative Mr. Trejo
looked like a “different guy” each time Mr. Lyon met him, and that Mr.
Lyon could not remember his face because he never really paid atten-
tion.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 58
(1983). The Board considers that an employer’s maintenance of
a work rule violates Section 8(a)(1) if employees would reason-
ably construe the language of the rule to restrict the exercise of
Section 7 rights.21 Applying that standard here, I find the Re-
spondent’s no-solicitation/distribution rule was unlawful be-
cause employees reasonably would construe its prohibition of
“solicitations, collections, and circulation of petitions or distri-
butions of literature by employees . . . in working areas . . .
[which] includes all SSI or Government premises” to prohibit
activity protected by Section 7.
The Respondent essentially concedes that the language of the
no-solicitation/distribution rule was overbroad but argues that
any violation of the Act has been substantially remedied by its
voluntary revocation and replacement of the offending rule.
The Respondent rescinded the relevant rule in early July 2009,
replacing it with an assertedly lawful policy that it disseminated
to all SSI supervisors and employees. The Respondent cites
Contra Costa Times, 263 NLRB 566, 569 (1982), in support of
its position. Contra Costa is inapposite to the instant situation.
In Contra Costa, the Board affirmed an administrative law
judge’s conclusion that an employer’s mere maintenance of a
no-solicitation rule rendered unlawful by a change in Board
law22 was substantially remedied by its prompt alteration in the
rule’s language. The judge further noted the absence of evi-
dence that the unlawful provisions of the former rule had been
enforced. Unlike the facts in Contra Costa, here the Respond-
ent repeatedly applied the provisions of its pre-July 2009 rule to
restrict employees’ protected solicitation and distribution ac-
tivities. In these circumstances, the Respondent’s maintenance
of the no-solicitation/distribution rule constituted significant
interference with and deprivation of employees’ Section 7
rights and requires the imposition of an appropriate remedy.
Accordingly, I find the Respondent’s no-solicitation/dis-
tribution rule was unlawfully overbroad and thereby violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
B. The Discharge of Raul Trejo
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act provides that it shall be an unfair
labor practice for an employer to discriminate in regard to hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor or-
ganization. The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) by discharging Mr. Trejo on October 10 be-
cause he engaged in union activities. The Respondent contends
it lawfully discharged Mr. Trejo because of his triple violation
of SSI’s rules, i.e., the rules against using abusive language,
misusing government vehicles, and soliciting employees when
and where they were working.
In cases turning on employer motivation, the Board applies
the analytical framework established in Wright Line,23 which
assigns the General Counsel the initial burden of proving pro-
tected activity by an employee, employer knowledge of the
activity, and animus on the part of the employer. If the General
21 Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 646–647
(2004).
22 See T.R.W. Bearings Division, 257 NLRB 442 (1981).
23 251 NLRB 1083, 1089 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981),
cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982).
Counsel meets the initial burden, the burden shifts to the em-
ployer to prove, as an affirmative defense, that it would have
taken the same action even in the absence of the employee’s
protected activity. Wright Line, supra at 1089.
The General Counsel has met his Wright Line burden as to
the discharge of Mr. Trejo by showing that Mr. Trejo engaged
in union activities, that the Respondent knew of his union activ-
ities, and that the Respondent bore animus toward his activities.
It is undisputed that Mr. Trejo engaged in union activities dur-
ing the relevant period. The Respondent’s general animosity
toward employees’ union activities is evidenced by Mr. Rossi’s
March threat to Mr. Blanford and Mr. Isom that if they contin-
ued union activity or solicitation on base, they would end up on
the unemployment line. The Respondent’s knowledge of and
animus toward Mr. Trejo’s union activities is evidenced by Mr.
Rossi’s mid-May meeting with Mr. Trejo concerning Mr. Tre-
jo’s distribution of a union flyer to Base Ops employees. At
that meeting, Mr. Rossi emphasized to Mr. Trejo the unlawful
breadth of the Respondent’s no-solicitation/distribution rule by
informing him that the rule applied to union organizing on the
base and by threatening him with discipline if he violated the
rule.24 Mr. Rossi further demonstrated his union animus by
acknowledging at the hearing that presentation to the Base Ops
employees of a non-union-related announcement such as a
softball activity would not have generated employer concern.
The General Counsel having met the initial Wright Line burden,
the burden shifts to the Respondent to establish persuasively by
a preponderance25 of the evidence that it would have dis-
charged Mr. Trejo even in the absence of his union activities.
The Respondent argues that it was justified in discharging
Mr. Trejo because it had a reasonable belief that he had three-
fold violated the Respondent’s valid workplace rules: he had
breached the company’s no-solicitation/distribution policy; he
had used vulgar or abusive language to another employee; and
he had used a government vehicle for solicitation purposes.
The reasonableness of the Respondent’s belief that Mr. Trejo
had, in fact, committed any of the three acts as charged is a
significant issue. In order to meet its shifted Wright Line bur-
den, the Respondent “must show that it had a reasonable belief
that the employee committed the offense, and that it acted on
that belief when it discharged him.” McKesson Drug Co., 337
NLRB 935, 936–937, fn. 7 (2002). After careful consideration
of the credible evidence here, I find Mr. Trejo did not commit
the acts he was accused of, and Mr. Rossi, who made the deci-
sion to discharge Mr. Trejo, did not reasonably believe that he
had done so.
I find that Mr. Lyon’s purported identification of Mr. Trejo
as the October 6 offending employee was so convoluted and
inconsistent that I cannot reasonably infer that Mr. Trejo was
the individual who accosted Mr. Lyon on October 6. Without
Mr. Lyon’s identification, there is no evidence that Mr. Trejo
24 The complaint does not allege Mr. Rossi’s warning as an unlawful
threat, presumably because it falls outside the 10(b) period; it may,
nonetheless, serve as evidence of animus.
25 A “preponderance” of evidence means that the proffered evidence
must be sufficient to permit the conclusion that the proposed finding is
more probable than not. McCormick, Evidence, at 676–677 (1st ed.
1954).

SATELLLITE SERVICES 59
interacted with Mr. Lyon at all on October 6, and I accept Mr.
Trejo’s denial that he did so. Of course, Mr. Lyon’s mistaken
identification of Mr. Trejo does not, in and of itself, prevent
Mr. Rossi from forming a reasonable belief of Mr. Trejo’s cul-
pability; accordingly, Mr. Rossi’s belief in the validity of Mr.
Lyon’s complaint must be examined.
In assessing the reasonableness of Mr. Rossi’s asserted be-
lief, I have considered the following: (1) Mr. Rossi failed to
conduct a reasonable and objective investigation of Mr. Lyon’s
complaint. The credible evidence shows that Mr. Rossi did not
question Mr. Lyon about what had occurred on October 6, but
merely asked him to write a statement. Although Mr. Lyon’s
statement was cursory at best, Mr. Rossi did not ask for a fuller
description of the alleged event. Specifically Mr. Rossi did not
ask Mr. Lyon what time the confrontation occurred even
though, according to Mr. Rossi, the alleged timing was a signif-
icant factor in his belief of Mr. Trejo’s guilt and even though
superficial inquiry could be expected to reveal Mr. Lyon’s un-
certainty about the time. Mr. Rossi also did not inquire into
Mr. Lyon’s reluctance to lodge the complaint, which might
have shed light on the incident, and he did not question Mr.
Lyon’s identification of Mr. Trejo although any meaningful
inquiry must have exposed at least some of the inconsistencies
revealed by Mr. Lyon’s testimony. Further, Mr. Rossi made no
effort to obtain Mr. Trejo’s version of what, if anything, had
occurred, even though evidence of SSI’s misconduct investiga-
tion procedures shows a practice of interviewing both parties
involved in employee clashes.26 (2) Mr. Rossi’s lack of credi-
bility in testifying of the circumstances surrounding the termi-
nation.
I find that Mr. Rossi’s failure to conduct an adequate investi-
gation of Mr. Lyon’s complaint evidences discriminatory moti-
vation in Mr. Trejo’s discharge. See Alstyle Apparel, 351
NLRB 1287, 1287–1288 (2007) (limited investigation into
alleged misconduct without giving employees an opportunity to
explain allegations against them support a conclusion that the
discharges were discriminatorily motivated); Midnight Rose
Hotel, 343 NLRB 1003, 1005 (2004) (failure to conduct fair
investigation before imposing discipline defeats claim of rea-
sonable belief of misconduct). I further find that Mr. Rossi’s
lack of credibility in explaining the circumstances surrounding
Mr. Trejo’s termination also evidences an absence of reasona-
ble belief and an improper motive. Inferences of animus and
discriminatory motive may derive from false reasons given in
defense,27 and I draw just such inferences from Mr. Rossi’s
credibility lapses.
In sum, I find the Respondent held no good faith belief in
Mr. Trejo’s misconduct when it fired him. As a consequence,
the Respondent has not met its shifted burden under Wright
Line. The evidence supports the conclusion that the Respond-
26 Respondent’s apparent argument that Mr. Rossi’s knowledge of
Mr. Trejo’s conflict with Ms. Houston obviated the necessity of deeper
investigation is without merit. In a work setting where, as the evidence
shows, use of vulgar or obscene words is fairly common, brief instanc-
es of vulgarity do not establish a modus operandi sufficient to identify
Mr. Trejo as the likely culprit.
[27 Trump Marina Hotel Casino, 353 NLRB 921, 931 (2009) (cita-
tions omitted).
ent’s true motivation in discharging Mr. Trejo was not Mr.
Trejo’s alleged misconduct but rather his union activities. Ac-
cordingly, I find the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act by discharging Mr. Trejo on October 10.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and
in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
maintaining an overly broad rule prohibiting employees from
engaging in protected solicitation/distribution during nonwork
time and in nonwork areas.
4. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by discharging Raul Trejo because he engaged in union or
other concerted, protected activities.
5. The unfair labor practices set forth above affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I find it must be ordered to cease and desist and
to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
The Respondent having unlawfully discharged Raul Trejo, it
must offer him reinstatement and make him whole for any loss
of earnings and other benefits. Backpay shall be computed on a
quarterly basis from the dates of his discharge to the 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 Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987). The Respondent will be ordered to make
appropriate emendations to Raul Trejo’s personnel file. The
Respondent will be ordered to rescind, insofar as it has not
already done so, its overly broad solicitation/distribution rule,
and the Respondent will be ordered to inform employees in
writing that it has done so. The Respondent will be ordered to
post an appropriate notice.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended28
ORDER
The Respondent, Satellite Services, Inc., March Air Reserve
Base, Riverside, California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining a rule prohibiting employees from engaging
in protected solicitation/distribution during nonwork time and
in nonwork areas.
28 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.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 60
(b) Discharging any employee for engaging in union or other
protected concerted activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Insofar as it has not already done so, rescind the overly
broad rule prohibiting employees from engaging in protected
solicitation/distribution during nonwork time and in nonwork
areas and inform employees in writing that this has been done.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Raul
Trejo full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no long-
er exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without preju-
dice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed.
(c) Make Raul Trejo whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against him,
in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from
its files any reference to the unlawful discharge of Raul Trejo
and within 3 days thereafter notify him in writing that this has
been done and that the discharge will not be used against him in
any way.
(e) 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.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cilities on the March Air Reserve Base, Riverside, California
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”29 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 21 after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized rep-
resentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt 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,
Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy
of the notice to all current employees and former employees
employed by Respondent at any time since July 2008.
(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.

29 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.”