T-Mobile USA, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 2019

368 NLRB No. 81 (N.L.R.B. 2019)

368 NLRB No. 81
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound
volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive
Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of
any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be in-
cluded in the bound volumes.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Communication Workers of
America, AFL–CIO. Case 14–CA–170229
September 30, 2019
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN AND
EMANUEL
On April 3, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Sharon
Levinson Steckler issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the Gen-
eral Counsel and the Charging Party each filed an answer-
ing brief, and the Respondent filed a reply.
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 briefs and has decided to af-
firm the judge’s rulings,2 findings,3 and conclusions4 only
to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order.
FACTS
The Respondent is a national wireless telecommunica-
tions carrier that operates 17 call centers across the coun-
try. The Respondent employs customer service represent-
atives who handle customers’ calls at each call center.
Since 2009, the Union has been engaged in efforts to or-
ganize the Respondent’s customer service representatives,
but to date it has not filed a representation petition for an
election among these employees.

1 No exceptions were filed to the judge’s dismissal of complaint alle-
gations that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(3) by granting benefits
because of ongoing unionization efforts and Sec. 8(a)(1) by interrogating
employees about home visits from a union representative.
The General Counsel contends in his answering brief that T-Voice
representatives were the Respondent’s agents. However, the judge did
not so find, and the General Counsel does not relevantly except. The
General Counsel’s contention is therefore an attempt to assert a cross-
exception in an answering brief, which he may not do. See White Elec-
trical Construction Co., 345 NLRB 1095, 1096 (2005); Bohemian Club,
351 NLRB 1065, 1067 fn. 6 (2007).
2 We find it unnecessary to pass on the Respondent’s exceptions to
the judge’s evidentiary rulings on the ground that certain testimony and
documents include inadmissible hearsay because, even if admitted, the
evidence would not affect the outcome of this case. See Long Ridge of
Stamford, 362 NLRB 310, 311 fn. 8 (2015), enfd. sub nom. Healthbridge
Mgmt., LLC v. NLRB, 672 Fed. Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
3 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance
of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Stand-
ard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d
Although not mentioned by the judge, it is undisputed
that the Respondent has solicited feedback from its em-
ployees for many years through employee surveys, focus
groups, an open-door policy, and a program called “Front-
line Certified,” through which customer service represent-
atives provided prelaunch feedback on planned customer
initiatives. In 2015, the Respondent created T-Voice, a
nationwide program through which customer service em-
ployees could submit “pain points”—work-related issues,
the vast majority of which concerned customers, not em-
ployees’ terms and conditions of employment—to the Re-
spondent. The primary question presented in this case is
whether, as the judge found, T-Voice is a “labor organiza-
tion” within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act that
the Respondent unlawfully dominated in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(2) of the Act. For the reasons discussed below,
we find, in agreement with the Respondent, that the Gen-
eral Counsel failed to sustain his burden of proving that T-
Voice is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act. We also agree with the Respondent that it did not
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by using T-Voice to so-
licit employees’ grievances and impliedly promising to
remedy them during an ongoing union campaign.5 Ac-
cordingly, we reverse the judge’s decision and dismiss the
complaint.
The Respondent started T-Voice as a pilot program at
six call centers in January 2015.6 In June, the Respondent
established T-Voice at all call centers and selected three
to five customer service representatives from each call
center to work as T-Voice representatives for about 4
hours a week. The T-Voice Charter stated that its mission
and objectives were to “[e]nhance Customers[‘] and
Frontline experience by identifying, discussing, and
Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for
reversing the findings.
4 We have amended the judge’s conclusions of law and modified the
judge’s recommended Order consistent with our findings herein.
5 The judge also found that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by
maintaining a rule that prevents employees from sharing or communi-
cating information regarding T-Voice, applying the “reasonably con-
strue” prong of the Board’s decision in Lutheran Heritage Village-Livo-
nia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004). The Respondent excepted to that finding.
After the judge issued her decision, the Board decided Boeing Co., 365
NLRB No. 154 (2017), which overruled Lutheran Heritage Village-Li-
vonia in relevant part. On October 31, 2018, the Board issued a Notice
to Show Cause why the rule-maintenance allegation should not be sev-
ered and remanded to the judge for further proceedings consistent with
Boeing Co. The Union opposed remand and expressed its intent to with-
draw the rule-maintenance allegation. The General Counsel subse-
quently filed a Motion to sever withdrawn allegation and remand to the
Regional Director for approval. On December 4, 2018, the Board
granted the General Counsel’s motion. On December 18, 2018, the Re-
gional Director approved the Union’s request to withdraw the rule-
maintenance allegation.
6 All dates are in 2015 unless stated otherwise.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
communicating solutions for roadblocks for internal and
external customers” and to “[p]rovide a vehicle for Front-
line feedback and create a closed loop communication
with [the] T-Mobile Sr. Leadership Team.” The Respond-
ent was the sole source of financial support for T-Voice.
By email dated June 11, Executive Vice President Brian
Brueckman announced a national roll-out of the T-Voice
program at all call centers. He stated that “T-Voice is . . .
made up of Frontline Representatives from each call cen-
ter[,] plus Site Senior Managers and support team mem-
bers. Their job is to raise Frontline and customer pain
points to ensure they are resolved and then results are
communicated back to the Frontline. . . . You can raise
issues by reaching out to your T-Voice representatives.”
Brueckman then listed the names of customer service rep-
resentatives who were selected to serve as T-Voice repre-
sentatives for each call center. Generally, each call center
had three T-Voice representatives, each from a different
line of business. The term of T-Voice representatives’ ser-
vice was initially 6 months, later extended to 9 months.
1. T-Voice representatives’ collection and submission of
pain points
The record shows that the primary duties of T-Voice
representatives were to collect pain points, submit them to
management through a database called SharePoint, and
share information about new equipment and marketing
programs with customer service representatives. T-Voice
representatives met with their fellow customer service
representatives through various activities, including “table
days” and “knowledge checks.” During table days, T-
Voice representatives set up a table at their call centers and
talked to customer service representatives about new de-
vices or promotions. At the same time, pain points could
be dropped into a small box sitting on the table. For
knowledge checks, T-Voice representatives met briefly
with teams or small groups of customer service represent-
atives and checked their awareness of new developments,
such as the release of a new phone or a new T-Mobile app.
At the end of a knowledge check, T-Voice representatives
typically asked if anyone had a pain point. T-Voice rep-
resentatives also received pain points through suggestion
boxes placed in each call center and through a dedicated

7 The judge sometimes characterized a pain point submission without
a submitter’s name as a pain point from the call center that employed the
T-Voice representative who submitted the pain point or from “the
group.” Thus, the judge seemed to suggest that each pain point had to
be ascribed to someone. The record shows, however, that customer ser-
vice representatives did not have to sign a pain point before placing it in
the suggestion box. Consequently, many pain points were recorded on
SharePoint without a submitter’s name.
8 The judge noted one occasion where a T-Voice representative
emailed vice president of customer service and sales, Kathy Woods, rais-
ing two customer pain points and suggesting ways to resolve them.
email account. In some instances, T-Voice representa-
tives also raised pain points themselves.
After collecting pain points, T-Voice representatives
entered them into a SharePoint database.7 Every pain
point was supposed to be entered into SharePoint unless it
was duplicative of a pain point already submitted, and it
was to be entered almost verbatim (grammatical errors
were corrected). When two pain points identified the
same problem but proposed different solutions, both pain
points were entered into the database. T-Voice representa-
tive Christian Boydo testified that T-Voice representatives
did not discuss pain points with other T-Voice representa-
tives before entering them into SharePoint. Senior T-
Voice Program Manager Kimberly Tolman likewise testi-
fied that T-Voice representatives entered pain points into
SharePoint without any evaluation of their content, let
alone any group decision whether to submit a pain point.
Wichita Call Center Senior Manager Jason Richards also
testified that T-Voice representatives did not decide as a
group whether to enter a pain point into SharePoint.
Once a pain point was entered into SharePoint, a T-
Voice program manager assigned it to one of the Respond-
ent’s customer experience managers.8 The customer ex-
perience manager then independently evaluated each pain
point without T-Voice representatives’ input and entered
a response into SharePoint. T-Voice representatives then
relayed the customer experience manager’s response to
the customer service representative who submitted the
pain point or, for anonymous submissions, to everyone at
a call center.
T-Voice representatives received thousands of pain
points and entered them into the SharePoint database.9
Most of them dealt with customer issues (“customer pain
points”) ranging from billing, fraud procedures, and ac-
cess to computer programs to complaints about the type of
music that customers were subjected to while on hold. A
small number of them related to employees’ terms and
conditions of employment (“employee pain points”).
These included availability of paid time off, a loyalty pro-
gram that rewarded employees with gifts for their longev-
ity with the company, maternity leave for grandparents,
pet bereavement, daycare, birthday leave, and “metrics.”10
Woods forwarded the email to Tolman, and Tolman testified that she
assigned the customer pain points to one of the Respondent’s customer
experience managers, the same as if the pain points had been submitted
through SharePoint.
9 The Respondent estimates that as of the end of October 2016, 3256
pain points had been submitted to T-Voice.
10 Metrics are measurements of a customer service representative’s
activities, such as the number of calls he or she handles, the length of
calls, the speed with which a customer’s concern is addressed, and
whether the customer calls back with the same issue within a certain pe-
riod of time. Examples of metrics include Internal One Call Resolution
T-MOBILE USA, INC. 3
As with customer pain points, the Respondent generally
followed up employee pain points by thanking the submit-
ter for raising them and often promising further review
with other managers.
The Respondent credited T-Voice for giving rise to the
“Loyalty Recognition program.” Customer service repre-
sentatives made suggestions to T-Voice about a loyalty
program, and the suggestions were recorded on Share-
Point. On October 22, Vice President Woods announced
a new Loyalty Recognition program. Woods stated that
“because of [Customer Care Team’s] feedback and the ef-
forts of the T-Voice team,” the program would start in Jan-
uary 2016. The record does not indicate that T-Voice rep-
resentatives were involved in this matter other than by en-
tering employees’ suggestions into SharePoint. Senior T-
Voice Program Manager Tolman testified without contra-
diction that she handled employees’ suggestions about a
loyalty program without discussing them with T-Voice
representatives.
Several local call centers gave T-Voice similar credit
for changes in working conditions. On November 12, cus-
tomer service representatives at a call center in Albuquer-
que, New Mexico, received an email that announced:
“You asked and T-Voice listened! A big pain point that
was brought to our attention was Wi-Fi connectivity
within our building. . . . [S]tarting today we have Wi-Fi
available in all the center!!!” On December 21, customer
service representatives at a call center in Springfield, Mis-
souri, received an email stating that T-Voice had received
suggestions for device-charging stations and therefore,
three charging stations had been installed. The record is
silent regarding what, if anything, T-Voice representatives
did to advance these pain points.11 Similarly, the record is
silent on what, if anything, T-Voice representatives did to
resolve an employee pain point concerning available paid
time-off, although a June 12 email from Woods credited
T-Voice with resolving it.
In February 2016, the Union filed an unfair labor prac-
tice charge alleging that T-Voice is a labor organization

(iOCR), Customer Resolution Time (CRT), and Voice of the Customer
(MyVOC). Generally speaking, a customer service representative’s per-
formance is measured monthly based on a combination of metrics, and
she may meet or exceed her overall monthly goal even if one of her met-
rics is below target. Each department within the Respondent sets its own
metric goals, which are continuously adjusted to account for business
changes. Customer service representatives’ metrics-based performance
has some effect on bonuses, awards, discipline, placement, and work
schedules.
11 The record reveals one instance where a T-Voice representative did
more than enter a pain point into SharePoint. On September 8, T-Voice
Representative Dominique Jones emailed Senior Vice President Callie
Field to ask “for a little assistance in resolving a pain point T-Voice has
received from the Dedicated Care Department.” Jones explained the de-
partment’s need for dual monitors and requested 45 monitors. The
and that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act
by dominating, supporting, or interfering with its for-
mation and/or activities. Subsequently, the Respondent
began telling employees to direct employee pain points to
local management. Additionally, the Respondent re-
moved employee pain points from SharePoint and di-
rected them to local management.
2. T-Voice representatives’ meetings with management
T-Voice representatives met weekly with senior manag-
ers at their respective call centers to plan T-Voice activi-
ties such as table days and knowledge checks for the up-
coming week and discuss past successes and disappoint-
ments. During these meetings, the number of pain points
recently submitted and any major or repetitive pain points
were sometimes mentioned, but there is no evidence that
T-Voice representatives discussed any employee pain
point or idea to resolve a pain point at these weekly meet-
ings. T-Voice representatives also attended managers’
meetings at their respective local call centers and pre-
sented information similar to that shared at their weekly
meetings. Albuquerque Call Center Senior Manager
Melissa Kozlowski testified without contradiction that
managers neither discussed pain points with T-Voice rep-
resentatives nor asked them questions. Some T-Voice
representatives also participated in local focus groups.12
T-Voice representatives also participated in monthly re-
gional and national conference calls with senior managers
and T-Voice support staff, which included Senior T-Voice
Program Manager Tolman and other T-Voice program
managers. Each call center took a turn leading the meet-
ing for its region. A call center in charge of the meeting
shared best practices for gathering pain points and plans
for T-Voice activities.13 Although not mentioned in the
judge’s decision, Senior T-Voice Program Manager Tol-
man testified without contradiction that T-Voice repre-
sentatives received presentations concerning business pro-
jects in prelaunch during one such call, and T-Voice Rep-
resentative Boydo likewise testified about an instance in
official T-Voice newsletter dated December 9 credited a T-Voice team
with raising the need for dual monitors to the Dedicated Care and Special
Account Care teams.
12 Senior T-Voice Program Manager Tolman testified that during one
Springfield, Missouri call center focus group, T-Voice representatives
got off track and brought up a number of employee frustrations, prompt-
ing her to close the focus group and to advise the Springfield managers
to focus on customer issues.
13 Although the record reveals that Meridian, Idaho Call Center Sen-
ior Manager Chad Appleton planned to have T-Voice representatives
discuss, at a regional meeting, a transition of the CRT metric to a Total
CRT metric and a possible name for the changed metric, the record is
silent on whether T-Voice representatives met over this issue and, if so,
what they did at that meeting and what came out of the meeting.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
which he received presentations about open positions.14
Boydo also testified that T-Voice representatives talked
about problems identified in some pain points.15
For national meetings, Tolman prepared and sent out an
agenda. She sometimes asked T-Voice representatives to
review specific brainstorming questions and get feedback
from their sites. In general, during these meetings partic-
ipants learned what pain points had been resolved and
what changes were being worked on in response to T-
Voice submissions, and T-Voice representatives ex-
pressed their personal opinions on pain points. Wichita
Call Center Senior Manager Richards testified that T-
Voice representatives did not make recommendations and
that no pain points were resolved during the national meet-
ings.
For example, at the August national meeting, T-Voice
representatives were informed of several changes relating
to one of the top July pain points—customer surveys
known as MyVOC—and asked to share these changes
with customer service representatives at their respective
call centers.16 They were additionally informed of the top
three pain points for August, all of which were customer
pain points, and were asked to “discuss” them and “[s]eek
solutions and creative ideas to overcome” them.
The September national meeting was conducted simi-
larly. September’s top three pain points, all of which were
customer pain points, were discussed for 10 minutes. The
next 15 minutes were spent informing T-Voice represent-
atives of the status of August’s top pain points, and repre-
sentatives were asked to share updates with their teams.
As the updates were given, several T-Voice representa-
tives and a T-Voice support team member asked clarifying
questions and individually made suggestions. The last 30
minutes were allotted to a focus group on the topic of cus-
tomer impacts and unintended consequences, during
which several ideas were voiced.17

14 In recounting Boydo’s testimony, the judge incorrectly stated
Boydo testified that one of the T-Voice teams was working on career
“pathing.” Boydo testified that after receiving information about open
positions, he and two other T-Voice representatives got together, went
on T-Mobile.com, ascertained open positions and the requirements for
those jobs, and posted that information on a wall.
15 The judge found that a December regional T-Voice meeting con-
sidered a request regarding the purchase of T-Mobile merchandise and
decided that merchandise should be selected and paid for by “reps” and
ordered every month. We find it unnecessary to pass on the Respond-
ent’s exception to the judge’s finding that this pain point arose and was
resolved during the meeting. The judge made no finding, and the record
does not indicate, that T-Voice representatives made a proposal to man-
agement concerning a T-Mobile merchandise store to which manage-
ment responded.
16 As noted in the judge’s decision, Vice President Woods shared the
updates on MyVOC with senior managers, and T-Voice Representative
Jason Kapperman did the same with customer service representatives at
the Springfield call center.
Tolman initially scheduled a focus group on metrics for
the February 2016 meeting, but she removed it from the
agenda after the Union filed an unfair labor practice
charge alleging, among other things, that T-Voice was a
labor organization. At the March 2016 meeting, Tolman
reviewed the T-Voice mission statement with T-Voice
representatives and asked them to focus on customer pain
points. In the summer of 2016, Tolman implemented a
new process to update everyone on monthly top pain
points. In her August 2, 2016 email to the customer expe-
rience method & procedure team, Tolman said that she
would identify the top pain points each month based on
the number of items submitted that month and then have
T-Voice representatives vote on which ones were the most
critical. She requested that support teams join a monthly
national meeting and provide updates on the top pain
points. T-Voice representatives were subsequently asked
to vote on the top three pain points negatively affecting
customers’ experience.
Finally, T-Voice representatives attended two T-Voice
national summits, in Charleston, South Carolina, in Octo-
ber 2015, and in Tampa, Florida, in May 2016. CEO John
Legere, several vice presidents, and managers also at-
tended the summits.18 Each summit lasted two and half
days. The Charleston summit opened with Vice President
Woods’ welcoming remarks, which introduced the sum-
mit as an opportunity to gain knowledge of the Respond-
ent’s business strategies and to share feedback based on
the frontline teams’ customer experiences. Several man-
agers then made presentations on business issues, and Tol-
man led a “T-Voice Strategy” session with T-Voice repre-
sentatives on “what worked well” and “what they thought
of the [T-Voice] program.” In addition, several vice pres-
idents hosted 45-minute focus groups with 10 to 15 T-
Voice representatives.19 In particular, Vice President of
Financial Care Sid Bothra conducted a focus group with
17 Other meetings followed the same pattern. For instance, at a Jan-
uary 2016 meeting, T-Voice representatives received an update on the
Respondent’s new device-insurance plans and provided feedback on
training customer service representatives on these new plans. During a
focus group meeting, T-Voice representatives suggested “training in
sites for coverage device set-up” and “network-specific talking points to
help address customer questions/concerns.”
18 Tolman and other managers agreed that Senior Analyst for Metrics
Adam Irvin should attend the Charleston summit “to capture any metrics-
related conversations and bring [them] back.” After the summit, Irvin
informed the Business Support team that T-Voice representatives had re-
ceived a presentation on MyVOC and a local process through which cus-
tomer service representatives could dispute their MyVOC scores. Irvin
added that T-Voice representatives might start asking about the dispute
process, as some of them were unaware of its existence.
19 Prior to the Charleston summit, Tolman sent an email to all T-Voice
representatives, informing them of the topics for focus groups. She said
that T-Voice representatives could provide feedback on any of the topics.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. 5
T-Voice representatives about metrics. The meeting
minutes of that focus group show that T-Voice represent-
atives suggested changes in various metrics. The minutes
were forwarded to some managers, but Tolman testified
that there was no follow-up action on any of the sugges-
tions made at that focus group.
The Respondent posted an article about the Charleston
summit on the company intranet, which stated in relevant
part: “65 T-Voice Reps rolled into Charleston, S.C., last
week to obliterate customer and employee pain points
. . . . The T-Voice Summit offered the opportunity to dis-
cuss, strategize and resolve top pain points and learn how
issues get resolved ‘behind the scenes.’” The article, how-
ever, made no mention of any deliberation among T-Voice
representatives as a group regarding any employee pain
points during the summit.
On April 26, 2016, prior to the Tampa summit, Spring-
field Call Center Senior Manager Drew Williams emailed
the Tech-Care T-Voice team, asking for a volunteer to
make a presentation at the summit on one customer pain
point that seemed to have the biggest impact in Tech Care.
He asked them to “[g]et together” with their on-site peers
and send him the top three pain points in Tech Care and
any ideas for resolving them. In a follow-up email, Wil-
liams identified “[p]roblems filing Handset Exchanges”
and “[m]y T-Mobile.com login” as items with the greatest
need for resolution. At the Tampa summit, the Respond-
ent shared news about a new team and a new internal
search engine. No focus groups were held, but several T-
Voice representatives, including one from the Tech-Care
T-Voice team, presented five high-impact customer pain
points and their ideas of how to resolve them. A few days
later, Senior Vice President Field sent an email to cus-
tomer service representatives, informing them of an up-
coming change in response to the pain point presentations
about “T-Mobile.com logins.” The email explained that
the Respondent would soon create a process through
which customer service representatives would be able to
help customers who could not directly access their account
online without having to file a help desk ticket.
DISCUSSION
1. The 8(a)(2) allegation
A. Applicable Legal Principles
In determining whether an employer violates Section
8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by interfering with, dominating,
or supporting an employee group, the Board conducts a

20 We do not agree with any implication in the judge’s decision that
proof that an employee group acts in a representative capacity is essential
to establish that it is a labor organization. The Board has not found it
necessary to resolve that issue in prior cases, and we find it unnecessary
two-pronged inquiry. The first inquiry is whether the
group is a “labor organization” as defined in Section 2(5)
of the Act. If not, the allegation is dismissed. If so, the
Board proceeds to the second inquiry, which is whether
the employer’s conduct vis-à-vis this labor organization
constitutes domination or interference with the organiza-
tion’s formation or administration or unlawful support of
the organization. See Electromation, Inc., 309 NLRB
990, 996 (1992), enfd. 35 F.3d 1148 (7th Cir. 1994). Here,
the judge answered both questions in the affirmative. The
Respondent excepts only to the judge’s finding that T-
Voice is a labor organization. That is the dispositive issue
before us.
Section 2(5) of the Act defines “labor organization” as
“any organization of any kind . . . in which employees par-
ticipate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in
part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, la-
bor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or
conditions of work.” In Electromation, the Board held
that an employee group is a labor organization under Sec-
tion 2(5) if (i) employees participate, (ii) the organization
exists, at least in part, for the purpose of “dealing with”
the employer, and (iii) these dealings concern conditions
of work or other statutory subjects, such as grievances, la-
bor disputes, wages, rates of pay, or hours of employment.
Id. at 994.20
The phrase “dealing with” in Section 2(5) is broader
than the term “collective bargaining.” NLRB v. Cabot
Carbon Co., 360 U.S. 203, 211 (1959). It contemplates a
“bilateral process involving employees and management
in order to reach bilateral solutions on the basis of em-
ployee-initiated proposals.” Electromation, 309 NLRB at
997. That “bilateral process” ordinarily entails a pattern
or practice of a group of employees making proposals to
management over time, and management responding to
the proposals by acceptance or rejection by word or deed.
E. I. du Pont, 311 NLRB at 894. If the evidence estab-
lishes such a pattern or practice, or that the employee
group exists for a purpose of following such a pattern or
practice, the element of “dealing” is present. Id. If, how-
ever, the evidence shows only isolated instances of the
group making ad hoc proposals to management followed
by a management response of acceptance or rejection by
word or deed, the element of “dealing” is missing. Id.
The text and legislative history of the Act indicate that
together, Section 8(a)(2) and Section 2(5) were enacted to
“ensure that employer-dominated groups do not rob em-
ployees of their right to select a representative of their own
to do so here as well. See, e.g., Polaroid Corp., 329 NLRB 424, 434 fn.
29 (1999); Webcor Packaging, 319 NLRB 1203, 1204 fn. 6 (1995), enfd.
118 F.3d 1115 (6th Cir. 1997), cert. denied 118 S. Ct. 1035 (1998); E. I.
du Pont & Co., 311 NLRB 893, 894 fn. 7 (1993).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
choosing.” Polaroid Corp., 329 NLRB at 424. There is,
however, some room under the Act for lawful cooperation.
E.I. du Pont, 311 NLRB at 893. Consistent with these
principles, the Board has made clear that the proscriptions
of Section 8(a)(2) are not infringed by a “suggestion box”
procedure where employees make specific proposals to
management because such a unilateral mechanism does
not constitute “dealing with,” Electromation, 309 NLRB
at 995 fn. 21, and because the proposals are made individ-
ually and not as a group, E. I. du Pont, 311 NLRB at 894.
The Board likewise explained in E. I. du Pont that if an
employee committee “exists for the purpose of sharing in-
formation with the employer, the committee would not or-
dinarily be a labor organization. That is, if the committee
makes no proposals to the employer, and the employer
simply gathers the information and does what it wishes
with such information, the element of dealing is missing,
and the committee would not be a labor organization.” Id.
Similarly, a “brainstorming” group is not ordinarily en-
gaged in dealing. The purpose of such a group is simply
to develop ideas. Management may glean some ideas
from this process and indeed may adopt some of them; but
if the group makes no proposals, the “brainstorming” ses-
sion is not “dealing” and the brainstorming group is there-
fore not a labor organization. Id.
B. The Judge’s Decision
The judge found that T-Voice is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5). Specifically, the
judge found that employees participated in T-Voice on a
representative basis. The judge also found that T-Voice
existed, at least in part, for the purpose of dealing with the
Respondent concerning issues impacting employees, cit-
ing customer service representatives’ submission of pain
points—which she found included “proposals for changes
in their scheduling, benefits, and metrics”—and manage-
ment responses. The judge rejected the Respondent’s ar-
gument that T-Voice representatives’ process of gathering
and submitting pain points was a suggestion-box proce-
dure, similar to the process engaged in by the Employee
Suggestion Screening Committee, which was found not to
be a statutory labor organization in EFCO Corp., 327
NLRB 372 (1998), enfd. 215 F.3d 1318 (4th Cir. 2000).
In rejecting this comparison, the judge relied on the fact
that, unlike a true “suggestion box” process, pain points

21 In light of our determination that the Respondent did not deal with
T-Voice within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act, we find it unneces-
sary to pass on whether the pain points transmitted by T-Voice concerned
Sec. 2(5) statutory subjects or whether T-Voice acted in a representative
capacity.
We find it unnecessary to address the correctness of Electromation
and its progeny here. However, in a future appropriate case, we would
be willing to consider revisions to this area of law in at least two
were not submitted and collected exclusively via a physi-
cal suggestion box. Rather, the submission and collection
of pain points sometimes involved face-to-face contacts
between employees and T-Voice representatives. The
judge also found that several pain points “identif[ied] con-
cerns either from a number of representatives or a number
of call centers.” The judge also rejected the Respondent’s
argument that focus groups in which T-Voice representa-
tives participated were brainstorming or information-shar-
ing groups that fell within the safe haven articulated in E.
I. du Pont, above, and she found that their participation
“implies a bilateral mechanism, beyond brainstorming, to
address pain points.”
C. Analysis
We find that the General Counsel failed to sustain his
burden of proving that T-Voice constitutes a labor organ-
ization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act be-
cause he has failed to demonstrate the requisite “dealing”
between T-Voice representatives and management. To the
contrary, T-Voice functioned primarily as a suggestion
box, receiving suggestions from individual employees in
the form of pain points and forwarding them, essentially
verbatim, to the Respondent’s managers. T-Voice did not
screen pain points, develop, as a group, its own proposals
for their resolution, or engage in any bilateral dealing with
the Respondent over those matters. Moreover, the vast
majority of pain points transmitted by T-Voice dealt with
customer issues. The judge made no finding that these
customer pain points concerned “grievances, labor dis-
putes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or condi-
tions of work,” as Section 2(5) requires, and no party has
relevantly excepted to her failure to do so. Instead, the
judge focused her attention on the relatively few employee
pain points that involved changes in employees’ schedul-
ing, benefits, and metrics. Even assuming that all of the
pain points did address statutory subjects, however, we
find, for the following reasons, that T-Voice was not a la-
bor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.21
The fundamental issue presented here is whether T-
Voice representatives engaged in a bilateral mechanism
through which they made proposals to management and
management responded to these proposals by acceptance
or rejection by word or deed. See E. I. du Pont, 311 NLRB
respects. First, we would consider whether evidence that an employee
committee acted in a representative capacity should be required to show
that it is a statutory labor organization. Second, we would consider
whether a committee’s discussion of topics of mutual interest that tan-
gentially concern working conditions, like efficiency, production, and
safety, is insufficient to show “dealing” regarding the subjects enumer-
ated in Sec. 2(5).
T-MOBILE USA, INC. 7
at 894; see also Electromation, 309 NLRB at 995 fn. 21
(“[W]e view ‘dealing with’ as a bilateral mechanism in-
volving proposals from the employee committee concern-
ing the subjects listed in Sec. 2(5), coupled with real or
apparent consideration of those proposals by manage-
ment.”); Stoody Co., 320 NLRB 18, 20 (1995) (stating that
“du Pont makes it clear that recurring instances of an em-
ployee participation committee making proposals to man-
agement on mandatory subjects constitutes ‘dealing’ and
the committee will be found to be a labor organization”).
Contrary to the judge, the relevant inquiry is not whether
individual customer service representatives relayed pro-
posals to management, and management responded to
those proposals.
As noted above, the Board has held that an employer’s
use of an employee suggestion-box procedure would not
constitute an employer-dominated labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) and 8(a)(2) of the Act.
E. I. du Pont, 311 NLRB at 894; see also Polaroid Corp.,
329 NLRB at 425 (“Employee free choice cannot be in-
fringed under such a procedure because any individual
employee may participate.”). Indeed, the Board has found
that an employee suggestion screening committee did not
deal with management and was not a labor organization
where it merely forwarded the vast majority of sugges-
tions and did not decide which were “best.” EFCO Corp.,
327 NLRB at 374, 376 & fn. 15.
That is precisely what happened here. T-Voice repre-
sentatives relayed their coworkers’ problems and sugges-
tions to management nearly verbatim.22 T-Voice repre-
sentatives’ “collection” of pain points from employees
consists solely of interaction between T-Voice represent-
atives and employees; thus, it is not evidence of “dealing”

22 In EFCO Corp., 327 NLRB at 374, management members of the
employee suggestion screening committee, not employee members of
the committee, were responsible for following up with employees on the
status of their suggestions. In this case, T-Voice representatives not only
entered pain points into SharePoint but also relayed management’s re-
sponses to the pain points to employees. Unlike the judge, however, we
do not view this difference as dispositive of a legal conclusion about the
alleged statutory labor organization status of T-Voice. Cf. Polaroid
Corp., 329 NLRB at 429 (finding the “dealing” element based on record
evidence that the alleged labor organization was not “simply a mecha-
nism by which the [r]espondent communicated information to its em-
ployees, or equipped selected employees to answer questions regarding
existing policies or programs.”); NLRB v. Peninsula General Hospital
Medical Center, 36 F.3d 1262, 1274 (4th Cir. 1994) (“We believe that
[an employer’s] action [of reporting back to employees what, if anything,
it had decided to do with the information it received from them] consti-
tutes the type of communication which is not only not unlawful, but is
actually quite logical. . . .”); NLRB v. Streamway Division of Scott &
Fetzer Co., 691 F.2d 288, 292 (6th Cir. 1982) (“[N]ot all management
efforts to communicate with employees concerning company personnel
policy are forbidden on pain of violating the Act.”).
23 As described above in fn. Error! Bookmark not defined., T-Voice
Representative Jones reached out to Senior Vice President Field
between T-Voice representatives and management. The
record shows that although T-Voice representatives solic-
ited pain points from other customer service representa-
tives, they did not make proposals to management as T-
Voice representatives with respect to subjects enumerated
in Section 2(5), except possibly on a single occasion.23
Additionally, the mere fact that several pain points raised
the same concerns from a number of customer service rep-
resentatives or call centers does not turn customer service
representatives’ individual proposals into group proposals
by T-Voice representatives to management.
We recognize that an employee committee could “deal
with” an employer by weeding out employees’ proposals
it did not wish to advance and recommending others per-
taining to Section 2(5) matters, a process that would, in
essence, put the committee in the position of making pro-
posals to management based on the suggestions of other
employees. See EFCO Corp., 327 NLRB at 376; see also
Aero Detroit, Inc., 321 NLRB 1101, 1109, 1114 (1996)
(finding that the team “dealt with” the employer where it
took employee suggestions through suggestion boxes, dis-
cussed the pros and cons of those suggestions to determine
if they would reduce costs, held a vote, and forwarded
only suggestions approved by a majority of the members
to a management team). However, the judge did not find,
nor does the record demonstrate, that T-Voice representa-
tives weeded out customer service representatives’ pain
points and suggestions. Rather, T-Voice representatives
entered pain points into SharePoint substantially as writ-
ten (aside from correcting grammar) unless they were du-
plicative.24 T-Voice Representative Boydo testified that
T-Voice representatives did not discuss pain points with
other T-Voice representatives before entering them into
concerning a pain point received from the dedicated care department and
requested additional monitors. The record, however, does not show
whether the pain point itself included a suggestion for additional moni-
tors, which Jones simply relayed to Field, whether Jones himself added
his personal recommendation to Field, or whether Jones was making a
proposal. In any event, this isolated incident does not establish the req-
uisite pattern or practice of dealing. See E. I. du Pont, 311 NLRB at 894
(“[I]f there are only isolated instances in which the group makes ad hoc
proposals to management followed by a management response of ac-
ceptance or rejection by word or deed, the element of dealing is miss-
ing.”).
24 The Union argues that T-Voice representatives did not enter em-
ployees’ pain points exactly as written. Specifically, relying on a few
SharePoint entries reflecting pain points from “reps,” the Union asserts
that T-Voice representatives must have synthesized several pain points
from customer service representatives instead of typing out what was
written. The Union also asserts that T-Voice representatives “[a]t times”
explained the context of a co-worker’s pain point, citing a single Share-
Point entry where T-Voice Representative Michael Davis elaborated on
a terse description of a customer pain point and added his suggestion for
resolving this pain point. Neither argument is persuasive. We note that,
with the exception of T-Voice Representative Davis’s entry described
above, there is no evidence that T-Voice representatives substantially
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
SharePoint, and Senior T-Voice Program Manager Tol-
man and Wichita Call Center Senior Manager Richards
corroborated his testimony. That testimony is consistent
with the documentary evidence of thousands of pain
points listed on SharePoint, the sheer volume of which fur-
ther supports a finding that no group decision-making pro-
cess preceded their entry there.25
We acknowledge that in communications with its em-
ployees, the Respondent credited T-Voice with certain
changes in employees’ working conditions. While we
agree with the General Counsel that this evidence is pro-
bative, the record as a whole nevertheless demonstrates
that T-Voice did not, in fact, make any group proposals to
the Respondent regarding such matters. As noted above,
while Vice President Woods attributed the Respondent’s
adoption of the Loyalty Recognition program partly to
“the efforts of the T-Voice team,” she did not detail what
those “efforts” were. Indeed, the only evidence as to how
the loyalty recognition program came about is Tolman’s
testimony that, after T-Voice representatives submitted
employee suggestions about a loyalty program, Tolman
handled them without any discussion with T-Voice repre-
sentatives. In other words, there is insufficient evidence
to establish that T-Voice representatives advanced the
Loyalty Recognition program as their own proposal to
management. Other instances where T-Voice was cred-
ited for changes similarly lack any evidence that T-Voice
representatives made relevant group proposals to manage-
ment.
T-Voice representatives’ attendance at various T-Voice
meetings and participation in focus groups also does not
establish that T-Voice dealt with the Respondent. The
Board does not categorically condemn employers’ use of

modified other employees’ pain points. In any event, we do not find that
T-Voice representatives’ occasional minor edits or revisions of pain
points when entering them into SharePoint suggest that they filtered
other employees’ suggestions. In EFCO Corp., 327 NLRB at 376, the
Board found the employee suggestion screening committee was not a
statutory labor organization where it forwarded the “vast majority of sug-
gestions” made by individual employees—not all of their suggestions—
to management without providing any committee recommendations. We
find likewise here as to T-Voice.
25 Contrary to the arguments of the General Counsel, Customer Ser-
vice Representative Jason Vann’s testimony about what Springfield T-
Voice Representative Jonathan Burski told him about how “the process
worked” furnishes no basis to infer the existence of a “process for weed-
ing out pain points.” According to Vann, Burski said that T-Voice rep-
resentatives “would meet together periodically once or twice a month,
they would gather all the suggestions[,]” “put them on this marker
board,” “go through them[,]” “select the ones that they want to discuss
and ones they want to go over and ones that they think can make a dif-
ference[,]” and “contact different department heads to see what could be
done about those issues.” The judge’s recitation of facts concerning T-
Voice local, regional, and national meetings reveal that the judge either
gave no weight to this testimony, to which the Respondent objected on
hearsay grounds, or implicitly discredited it. As described above, the
employee focus groups to obtain insights and ideas. See
E.I. du Pont, 311 NLRB at 897 (“Nothing in the Act pre-
vents an employer from encouraging its employees to ex-
press their ideas and to become more aware of . . . prob-
lems in their work.”); id. at 894 (“[I]f the group makes no
proposals, . . . [it] is therefore not a labor organization.”).26
The judge made no finding, and the record does not estab-
lish, that T-Voice representatives made group proposals to
management during focus groups. As noted above, the
record indicates that focus groups held at national meet-
ings discussed topics related to customer or business is-
sues and that T-Voice representatives made suggestions
on these topics, including providing customer service rep-
resentatives with “device emulators” to help troubleshoot
customers’ devices, a “script” for explaining to customers
how phone exchanges work, and so forth. However, Tol-
man testified that T-Voice representatives did not give
collective feedback at national meetings,27 and the record
generally describes only the topics of the focus groups and
the suggestions that were made, not how the suggestions
were made. Cf. Polaroid Corp., 329 NLRB at 432 fn. 22
(noting that the employer in E. I. du Pont lawfully “sought
only suggestions and ideas from employee participants
and did not engage in subsequent extensive refinement,
proposals, and responses”).
The same is true for the focus groups held at the
Charleston summit. The record contains only the meeting
minutes of the metrics focus group, summarizing feedback
and suggestions raised during the 45-minute meeting be-
tween Vice President Bothra and 10 to 15 T-Voice repre-
sentatives. The minutes summarize ideas expressed dur-
ing the meeting. While, as the Union points out, some of
T-Voice representatives’ feedback was phrased in the
meetings focused on planning T-Voice activities and discussing their ef-
fectiveness, and T-Voice representatives’ discussion of pain points was
generally limited to reporting recurring issues and receiving updates on
previously submitted pain points.
We also find no merit in the General Counsel’s claim that the Re-
spondent’s “new process,” in the summer of 2016, of updating T-Voice
representatives on the status of submitted pain points demonstrates
“dealing” between T-Voice representatives and management. Under that
process, T-Voice representatives would be asked to vote on the top pain
points of the month, not to make suggestions or proposals about them to
management. Further, by that time, the Respondent was handling only
customer pain points through T-Voice.
26 Compare Polaroid Corp., 329 NLRB at 427, 429 (rejecting em-
ployer’s argument that it had merely surveyed individual views of the
members of an employee group based on evidence that the group mem-
bers made group proposals to management, where group members
“thr[e]w out” ideas, the members and a management representative dis-
cussed them, and the management representative polled or questioned
the members to determine the group’s majority view).
27 The judge found that “[f]eedback [was] provided on the pain points
and [T-Voice representatives gave] personal opinions, similar to a focus
group” (emphasis added).
T-MOBILE USA, INC. 9
plural, no suggestion was reported to be coming from
“reps.” Again, the evidence does not reveal whether T-
Voice representatives made any group proposal to man-
agement or merely expressed individual opinions.28 On
this record, the General Counsel failed to prove that the
focus groups were anything more than brainstorming or
information sharing sessions that do not render T-Voice a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
In sum, we find the evidence insufficient to establish
that T-Voice representatives evaluated individual employ-
ees’ suggestions as a group and made group proposals to
management. See Polaroid Corp., 329 NLRB at 425
(“[T]he inquiry of whether an employee involvement
group constitutes a statutory labor organization focuses on
the evidence showing what the organization actually
does.”). Accordingly, the General Counsel failed to estab-
lish that T-Voice representatives “dealt with” manage-
ment within the meaning of Section 2(5) or that T-Voice
was established for the purpose of enabling T-Voice rep-
resentatives to “deal with” management. For this reason,
we find that T-Voice is not a statutory labor organization.
Consequently, the Respondent has not violated Section
8(a)(2) of the Act.
2. The 8(a)(1) allegation
The judge also found that the Respondent’s promises to
look into employee complaints and respond through T-
Voice constituted an unlawful solicitation of grievances
and implied promise to remedy them during an ongoing
union-organizing campaign in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act. The Respondent contends that the judge erred
in failing to consider the extended duration of the union
campaign, which had been under way for more than 6
years at the time of the hearing. The Respondent argues
that the length of the ongoing campaign negated any in-
ference that T-Voice was initiated for the purpose of erod-
ing employees’ support for the Union. We find merit in
the Respondent’s contention.
Where an employer does not already have a practice of
soliciting employee feedback, its solicitation of griev-
ances during a union campaign raises a “compelling infer-
ence that [the employer] is implicitly promising to correct
those inequities he discovers as a result of his inquiries and
likewise urging on his employees that the combined

28 In any event, even assuming arguendo that T-Voice representatives
made proposals to management at that time, Tolman testified, without
contradiction, that no follow-up actions were taken on any of the ideas
expressed at the meeting.
29 The record relevantly shows that seven months after T-Voice was
implemented nationwide, one employee raised a question during a meet-
ing at the Wichita call center whether his coworkers were contacted by
the Union at their homes. In addition, several unfair labor practices
charges were filed against the Respondent, but they involved matters
program of inquiry and correction will make union repre-
sentation unnecessary.” Reliance Electric Co., 191 NLRB
44, 46 (1971), enfd. 457 F.2d 503 (6th Cir. 1972). In Le-
land Stanford Jr. University, 240 NLRB 1138 (1979),
however, the Board held that an employer did not violate
the Act by administering a survey that solicited grievances
from employees concerning certain working conditions
during a union campaign lasting several years. The Board
explained that because, for a considerable period of time
both before and after the distribution of the survey, there
was no active campaigning by either the union or the em-
ployer and no election was scheduled or imminent, the
timing of the employer’s conduct did not suggest that the
survey was designed to undermine the union. Id. at 1138
fn. 1.
At the time the T-Voice program was implemented, the
union campaign had been going on for several years, and
there was no outstanding petition to represent the Re-
spondent’s customer service representatives. Also, the
record contains no evidence of the Union’s organizational
efforts among customer service representatives at that
time.29 Thus, as in Leland Stanford Jr. University, the rec-
ord does not warrant an inference that the T-Voice pro-
gram was undertaken for the purpose of eroding employ-
ees’ support for the Union or—given the years-long dura-
tion of the Union’s campaign—that it would reasonably
have that tendency. Accordingly, we dismiss the 8(a)(1)
allegation.
CONCLUSION
Employer-dominated labor organizations obstruct the
national labor policy established by Congress by interfer-
ing with employee self-organization and free choice of
representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining.
Our decision today respects that principle. Based on the
record as whole, we have found that T-Voice is not a labor
organization but rather a program established by the Re-
spondent to improve its business processes by obtaining
feedback from employees. Nothing in the Act prohibits
employers from adopting such programs. Accordingly,
we shall dismiss the complaint.
unrelated to the Union’s campaign to organize customer service repre-
sentatives. See, e.g., T-Mobile USA, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 23 (2017)
(finding that the Respondent refused to bargain with the Union concern-
ing a bargaining unit of field technicians, switch technicians and material
handlers in Connecticut), enfd. 717 Fed. Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2018); T-
Mobile USA, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 171 (2016) (finding that the Respond-
ent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by maintaining certain work rules), enfd. in part
865 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 2017).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, T-Mobile USA, Inc., is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Communication Workers of America, AFL–CIO is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. The Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and
Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act as alleged in the com-
plaint.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 30, 2019
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
________________________________________
William J. Emanuel Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
William F. LeMaster, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Mark Theodore, Irina Constantin, and Robert Escalante, Esqs.,
for the Respondent.
Glenda Pittman, Esq. and Meron Kebede (CWA Law Intern), for
the Charging Party.
DECISION
SHARON LEVINSON STECKLER, Administrative Law Judge. A
trial was conducted in this matter on October 6 and 7 and No-
vember 3 and 4, 2016, in Wichita, Kansas, after opening tele-
phonically on October 4, 2016. Charging Party Communication
Workers of America (Charging Party) filed the original charge
against Respondent T-Mobile USA, Inc. (Respondent) on Feb-
ruary 23, 2016; Charging Party filed an amended charge on June
21, 2016.

1 Due to illegibility of the original in the transcript, General Counsel
moved, without opposition, to replace GC Exh. 94 at TMSP0001538
with a legible version. That motion is granted.
2 Although I have included citations to the record to highlight partic-
ular testimony or exhibits, my findings and conclusions are not based
solely on those specific record citations, but rather upon my review and
consideration of the entire record for this case. My findings of fact en-
compass the credible testimony, evidence presented, and logical infer-
ences. The credibility analysis may rely upon a variety of factors, in-
cluding, but not limited to, the context of the witness testimony, the
weight of the respective evidence, established or admitted facts, inherent
The Complaint, issued on June 29, 2016, alleges the follow-
ing:
T-Voice, a committee within T-Mobile, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. T-Voice was
named as a party-in-interest.
Since at least August 23, 2015, and continuing, Respondent at
its call centers, by soliciting employee complaints and griev-
ances during an ongoing organizing campaign, promised its em-
ployees increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of
employment if they submitted pain points through T-Voice, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Since at least August 23, 2015, and continuing, Respondent
gave assistance and support to T-Voice by, including, but not
limited to: establishing the T-Voice program to address em-
ployee complaints about their terms and conditions of employ-
ment; selecting T-Voice representatives; permitting the domi-
nated union to utilize Respondent’s facilities and equipment;
convening meetings of T-Voice representatives at Respondent’s
expense; and, bargaining with T-Voice representatives concern-
ing employees’ terms and conditions of employment, in violation
of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
Since at least August 23, 2015, and continuing, Respondent,
at its call centers, granted benefits in response to its solicitation
of grievances during an ongoing organizing campaign by, in-
cluding but not limited to, changing Respondent’s policy regard-
ing employee paid time off and the implementation of an em-
ployee loyalty recognition program in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Since at least August 23, 2015, Respondent maintained an
overly broad rule concerning employees sharing or communi-
cating information regarding T-Voice, and is labeled “T-Mobile
Internal Use Only,” in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
About January 8, 2016, Wichita Call Center General Manager
Jeff Elliott interrogated employees about their union member-
ship, activities, and sympathies by asking employees if Union
representatives had visited their homes, in violation of Section
8(a)(1).
Counsel for the General Counsel (General Counsel), Re-
spondent and Charging Party filed timely post-hearing briefs in
support of their positions, which I have duly considered.1 On the
entire record, I make the following findings, conclusions of law,
and recommendations.
FINDINGS OF FACT2
JURISDICTION
At all material times, Respondent has been a corporation, with
probabilities, and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the rec-
ord as a whole. Double D Construction Group, 339 NLRB 303, 303–305
(2003); Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB 622, 623 (2001) (citing Shen Auto-
motive Dealership Group, 321 NLRB 586, 589 (1996)), enfd. 56 Fed.
Appx. 516 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Credibility findings regarding any witness
are not likely to be an all-or-nothing determination and I may believe that
a witness testified credibly regarding one fact but not on another.
Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB at 622.
When a witness may reasonably be assumed to be favorably disposed
to the party, an adverse inference may be drawn regarding any factual
question on which the witness is likely to have knowledge. International
T-MOBILE USA, INC. 11
an office and place of business located in Wichita, Kansas. It is
engaged in telecommunications business operations throughout
the United States and Puerto Rico. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 363
NLRB No. 171, slip op. at 11 (2016). In conducting its opera-
tions during the 12-month period ending December 31, 2016,
Respondent derived gross revenues in excess of $100,000 and
purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of
$5000 directly from points outside the State of Kansas. At all
material times, Respondent has been an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act. Based on the foregoing, I find that this dispute affects com-
merce and that the Board has jurisdiction of this case, pursuant
to Section 10(a) of the Act.
I also find that Charging Party has been a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. RESPONDENT’S OPERATIONS
A. Overview
Respondent operates 17 call centers throughout the country.
The call centers, also called “Care,” include locations in Wichita,
Kansas, Albuquerque, New Mexico (Menaul), Meridian, Idaho,
Mission, Texas, and Springfield, Missouri. The other locations
are: Augusta; Bellingham; Birmingham; Charleston; Chatta-
nooga; Colorado Springs; Meridian; Nashville; Oakland; Rich-
mond; Salem; and Tampa. (R. Exh. 14.) For a number of years,
Charging Party maintained organizing efforts at Respondent’s
call centers. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 15 (2017).
Respondent’s chief executive officer is John Legere. Its chief
financial officer is Mike Sievert. For most of the relevant period,
the executive vice president was Brian Brueckman. The current
executive vice president is Callie Fields.
The employees handling the customer calls are known as cus-
tomer service representatives (CSRs). Internally, CSRs some-
times are called the “frontline” employees.3 CSRs may be lo-
cated within different departments within a call center, and not
every call center has the same departments. The General Care
department is usually the first level of support, which customers
use to make a payment or make an account change. Closed Loop
handles customers who are identified as a high risk of cancella-
tion or dissatisfaction. The Onboarding department contacts new
customers within a short period after signing up for service. The
Retail Support Line interacts with in-store T-Mobile employees
selling products. Menaul has two separate call centers: one that

Automated Machines, 285 NLRB 1122, 1123 (1987), enfd. 861 F.2d (6th
Cir. 1988). This is particularly true where the witness is the Respondent’s
agent. Roosevelt Memorial Medical Center, 348 NLRB 1016, 1022
(2006). When testifying against their employer’s interests, testimony
from current employees tends to be particularly reliable because it is
against their pecuniary interests. Gold Standard Enterprises, 234 NLRB
618, 619 (1978); Georgia Rug Mill, 131 NLRB 1304 fn. 2 (1961); Gate-
way Transportation Co., 193 NLRB 47, 48 (1971); Federal Stainless
Sink Division, 197 NLRB 489, 491 (1972).
3 Respondent’s witnesses gave varying answers to define who was a
“frontline” employee. Jason Richards, who served as senior operations
manager in Wichita, considered all personnel working in a call center,
including managers, as “frontline.” (Tr. 718.) Nikki Kozlowski from
handles regular calls; and one specialized in executive calls, the
highest level of customer service, which is known as Menaul Ex-
ecutive Customer Relations (ECR). The Solutions Center, lo-
cated in Springfield, Missouri, handles complicated customer is-
sues by accessing systems that a regular CSR cannot.
CSRs within the call centers work in smaller groups called
“pods.” Each pod has a coach and a senior representative. The
coach is a supervisor.
At each location, the Resource Processing department sched-
ules CSRs with the goal of ensuring sufficient staffing. Each call
center periodically undergoes a realignment, in which CSRs bid
upon the area within the call center for work and for their sched-
ules. They receive their bids based upon their rankings, which
in turn are based upon performance measurements called met-
rics.
B. Metrics and CSR Performance
Metrics vary with different types of departments and line of
business. Metrics are various measurements of CSR activity,
such as the number of calls, the length of calls, how quickly is
the customer’s concern addressed, and whether the customer
calls back with the same issue within a certain period of time.
Some CSRs may have sales metrics.
Metrics also change from time to time.4 They may vary with
new product launches and rewards for pre-sales of the new prod-
ucts. Respondent witnesses testified that CSRs have no involve-
ment in determining which metrics apply to their department or
the scores that are deemed adequate or exceptional.
1. Examples of metrics
Internal One Call Resolution (iOCR) when a customer calls
back within a specific time period about an issue. If a customer
does not think he is getting quick enough service, he may hang
up and immediately call again, which results in a negative score
for the CSR.
Customer Resolution Time (CRT) measures the average
amount of time, measured in seconds, a CSR spends speaking
with each customer. If the average exceeds the standard for the
metric, the CSR is considered to be spending too much time on
calls.
Coaches and senior representatives also listen to CSRs’ calls
or may revisit a recorded call. The goal is to ensure the CSR
made required statements or followed the plans for a call. The
CSR then receives a score. This metric affects both the
Menaul stated it covered the CSRs who worked on the phones. (Tr. 806.)
Senior Manager Tolman, who was in charge of T-Voice, defined the term
as all employees who meet directly with customers. (Tr. 829.) For the
purposes of this case, “frontline” employees are CSRs.
4 Some metrics may be placed as a core metric versus a power play
or “kicker,” depending on how Respondent wants to emphasize certain
goals or behaviors for employee performance. A CSR received the
kicker when he achieved more than a certain percentage of a goal and
then received an additional percentage towards the overall score. Con-
versely, should the kicker be significantly below the desired goal, the
CSR would have percentage points removed from his overall score. (Tr.
704.)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
individual’s performance and the team’s performance. (Tr. 74–
75.)5
Customer surveys are used to determine metrics known as
Voice of the Customer (VOC or myVOC).6 Customers answer
surveys provided by Respondent, with the resultant score con-
sidered an indicator of customer satisfaction.
CSRs also perform marketing duties through their customer
interaction. They are measured for average sales per productive
hour, which vary depending on the business line in which the
CSRs work.
2. Relationship between metrics and employee rewards
Respondent weighs the metrics, which in turn yields a per-
centage; the percentages are added together to give each CSR a
total score. Every 6 months, when the departments go through
realignment and CSRs bid on departments and schedules, the
metrics may determine whether the CSR receives the bid as em-
ployees’ rankings on metrics are compared. CSRs who want to
work in Executive Customer Relations would have to have a his-
tory of metrics that exceed expectations. (Tr. 80.) A CSR who
has performed well may be able to handle more difficult cus-
tomer issues or systems and receive the appropriate permissions
to do so.7 (Tr. 646, 705.) Metrics are used to determine bonuses
and awards, such as the Winner’s Circle national trip. The Win-
ner’s Circle recipients also receive gifts, such as telephones.
Failure to meet the expectations set by the metrics would be
grounds for disciplinary action, up to and including termination.
C. Unionization Efforts at T-Mobile
Since 2009, Charging Party has been engaged in ongoing ef-
forts to organize Respondent’s CSRs. To date, Charging Party
has not presented a petition for these employees. During the
course of its organization efforts, Charging Party filed several
unfair labor practice charges.
To date, a few cases have been litigated against Respondent.
Some involve findings against Respondent of unlawful rules,
e.g., T-Mobile USA, 363 NLRB No. 171 (2016). Others found
discriminatory enforcement of rules, interrogation and threats of
discipline. See T-Mobile USA, Inc., available in Westlaw, 2015
WL 5350227 (September 14, 2015), affg. JD(NY)-34-15 (Au-
gust 3, 2015) and JD-57-16 (June 28, 2016). One Board decision
involves a different group of employees who consist of a bar-
gaining unit of field technicians, switch technicians and material
handlers in Connecticut. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 23
(2017).
III. T-VOICE
In June 2015, Respondent initiated a nationwide program
called T-Voice. Although the term “pain points” has been used

5 Abbreviations used in this decision are: Tr. for Transcript; GC Exh.
for General Counsel Exhibit; R. Exh. for Respondent Exhibit; GC Br. for
General Counsel brief; R. Br. for Respondent brief; U Br. for Charging
Party CWA brief. Certain Respondent and GC exhibits have additional
numbering based upon Respondent’s Bates numbers, which are listed as
Txxx. I have not cited for every mention in the transcript or exhibits.
Specific citations to the transcript and exhibits are included where appro-
priate to aid review, and are not necessarily exclusive or exhaustive.
6 Development and computerization of this metric took approxi-
mately 18 months.
for years in Respondent’s call centers, Respondent set up T-
Voice to address the pain points in an organized fashion, rather
than a random submission of pain points. Pain points are per-
ceived problems and complaints.
At issue is whether the pain points gathered and submitted
through T-Voice were limited to customer pain points, such as
issues with accounts and equipment, or included employee pain
points, those affecting employees’ wages, hours and terms and
conditions of employment. General Counsel contends that Re-
spondent used T-Voice and the pain points to address employee
concerns that involve wages, hours and terms and conditions of
employment. General Counsel also contends that by addressing
employee and customer pain points, T-Voice affects the metrics
for CSRs. General Counsel contends that, once unfair labor
practice charge 14–CA–170229 was filed on February 23, 2016,
Respondent changed the focus of T-Voice and fewer of these
employee concerns were addressed; Respondent then concen-
trated more on the customer pain points.
Respondent, however, contends that T-Voice was to address
only customer pain points. (Tr. 843.) An example of a pain point
that affects the CSR’s metrics is a slow computer program that
causes the call time to increase, and thereby cause average call
time to increase and also might cause an unhappy customer to
rate the CSR poorly. (Tr. 319.) Respondent considers that ex-
ample as one that is strictly a customer pain point. The record
also reflects pain points about purely employee issues, such as
scheduling, rewards, and career advancement.
In reviewing the facts here, I first discuss the initiation of the
T-Voice program, how Respondent selected employees to serve
as T-Voice representatives, the duties of the T-Voice represent-
atives, the pain points submitted that deal with employee issues
and the apparent effects of the unfair labor practice charge filed
in February 2016.
A. Respondent Initiates T-Voice at Its Call Centers
Respondent started T-Voice first as a pilot program at six call
centers in January 2015, and then all call centers in June 2015.8
The stated purpose of T-Voice is to identify, assess and resolve
pain points from CSRs. The stated program also communicates
back to the CSRs what happened with their submissions. Re-
spondent provided all financial support to T-Voice, which in-
cluded paid time for the selected employee representatives, their
trips, and T-Mobile gear given away in support of the program.
At the time of T-Voice’s inception, Kathy Woods was the vice
president for the east region and the sponsor for T-Voice. As
sponsor, she drove the strategy for T-Voice and kept her peer
group apprised of program decisions and strategy. (Tr. 879,
990.) Dave Thompson, who reported to Woods, was the director
7 Magenta Heroes is a recognition program for employees who are
consistently excellent performers. (Tr. 829.) They receive additional
permissions to handle higher level customer contacts or issues without
the guidance or assistance of supervisors. (Tr. 705.)
8 T-Voice also exists at 25 “service partner” call centers. Respondent
does not employ the service partners’ employees. Although Respondent
maintains that service partner representative T-Voice representatives
outnumber its own T-Voice representatives, Respondent does not iden-
tify the significance of this issue. General Counsel has not alleged any
violations with the service partners.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. 13
sponsor who also developed T-Voice strategy. Kim Tolman, a
senior manager for frontline programs, reported to Thompson.
Tolman focuses on programs that support customer insights, ca-
reer development opportunities and “building partnerships be-
tween Care and the Retail sides of the company. Tolman over-
sees the Magenta Heroes program and T-Voice. Tolman also
was a member of Employee Engagement and Retention Team
(EE&RT).9
Tolman took responsibility for T-Voice in late May or early
June 2015. On June 11, 2015, Executive Vice President Brueck-
man issued an email to the customer service team. It announced
that T-Voice would be in place at 18 call centers and who the
“frontline representatives” Respondent selected for each loca-
tion. Three to four CSRs at each location served as T-Voice rep-
resentatives. Brueckman stated the goals for T-Voice and the T-
Voice representatives:
. . . raise Frontline and customer pain points to ensure they are
resolved an then results are communicated back to the Front-
line . . . . Each member of T-Voice will serve for six months
and then we’ll select a new group of participants. So, if you’re
interested, talk with your Site Senior Manager.
What does this mean to you? You can raise issues by reaching
out to your T-Voice representatives. Be vocal, let us know
what you think.
T-Voice was created to drive real change in our business and
improve the customer experience by elevating the issues you
experience every day.
(GC Exhs. 2, 84).
The following day, on June 12, Vice President Woods issued
an email to all CSRs that T-Voice and the frontline resolved “an-
other employee pain-point.” The pain point dealt with paid time
off and calling in on the day needed off. Instead of being issued
one type of code for the absence or an unexcused absence, those
with available paid time off would be able to use it. Woods con-
cluded, “When we do these things we can create both Excep-
tional Customer experiences and Exceptional Employee experi-
ences.” (GC Exh. 3.)10
On June 17, 2016, the Menaul Resource Planning Manager,
Krista Thompson, sent an email to a number of job classifica-
tions, including CSRs, entitled “T-Voice followup.” The email
stated that CSRs could contact the resource planner to evaluate
the paid time off available and then contact the coach to request
the time off on the same day. However, should the CSR come
in to the facility and request time off, the preferred method would
be for the coach to speak with the resource planner to request the
time off. (GC Exh. 10.)
Once pain points were received, Respondent’s methods and
procedures team (M&P, now known as “customer experience”
team)11 reviewed them and decided what to do with them. The

9 Tolman’s role on EE&RT only came out during cross-examination
and presentation of an email (GC Exh. 90 at T678-T679.) In earlier com-
munications, she was identified as senior manager, T-Voice or senior
manager, Magenta Heroes. She also was involved with “One Team” and
Customer Experience Improvements. (Tr. 908.)
10 Tolman denied that this email was authorized because she was not
consulted and T-Voice was not taking pain points at this time. She tes-
tified she had no idea why T-Voice got credit. (Tr. 893.) I discredit this
M&P team consisted of M&P senior managers and site senior
managers. Based upon Respondent’s log, it appears assignment
was made based upon the type of pain point submitted.
B. Selection of T-Voice Representatives
Respondent selects customer service representatives (CSRs)
from the call centers to serve as T-Voice representatives. Usu-
ally within a month of selection, Respondent trains the T-Voice
representatives about gathering and submitting pain points. The
early T-Voice representatives served for a 6-month period; for
later representatives, Respondent extended that time to 9 months.
Respondent’s management decided which employee applicants
would serve as T-Voice representatives.
During December 2015, Jason Richards led Wichita’s mana-
gerial efforts to select the next group of T-Voice representatives.
The selection process Richards described: recruiting and com-
munication of spots; screening of interested CSRs; recommen-
dation of who should be included or excluded and discussions of
the same issues with the call center’s senior leadership.
When soliciting for T-Voice representatives, the representa-
tives’ duties were sometimes explained. In a Wichita flyer, one
duty was described as representing the voice of the frontline in
leadership meetings. (Tr. 343–344; GC Exh. 80.)
When soliciting CSRs for new representatives in Springfield
in December 2015, Drew Williams discussed the purpose of T-
Voice:
As a T-Voice member you will be responsible for col-
lecting pain points from your peers in Springfield, repre-
senting those issues to local and national leadership teams,
and tracking and communicating resolution back to the
team. In addition, leadership teams will look to YOU to get
feedback on decisions, ideas, and changes from everything
to our local facilities to our national process, policies and
systems. You’ll be given scheduled time to run focus
groups, attend meetings, and meet with local leaders.12
CSR Vann, after discussing his interest with his coach Amond
Easley and the coach checking to ensure he was in good stand-
ing, also talked with team manager, Michelle Pastor and subse-
quently Drew Williams. Williams told Vann the letter Vann
would need to submit should show who would bring fresh ideas,
why the interest and why the applicant would be a good fit with
T-Voice. (Tr. 425.) Vann also spoke with Kapperman, who re-
peated some of the same ideas as Williams. Another T-Voice
representative interviewed Vann in early January, during paid
working time, for approximately 20 to 30 minutes. During the
interview, the T-Voice representative told Vann that T-Voice
was the voice of the employee, how employees can raise, ques-
tions, comments and concerns that they want to see changed, and
take matters up with leadership and management.
At Menual, on December 9, 2015, Kozlowski also sent an
testimony because the email was sent by the vice president in charge of
the project and T-Voice had been accepting pain points since its trial pe-
riod began in January 2015.
11 Tolman testified to the name change, but never identified when the
change took place.
12 This statement contrasts with Williams’ prior statement, that T-
Voice was a direct line to provide Frontline feedback to senior leader-
ship.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
email to everyone recruiting new T-Voice representatives. In the
email she explained that “T-Voice is responsible for enhancing
Customers and Frontline experience by identifying, discussing
and communicating solutions to roadblocks for internal and ex-
ternal customers.” (GC Exh. 20.) In December 2015, CSR Her-
nandez attended a table day near the lunch room at the Menaul
Call Center. Two T-Voice representatives, Adrian Majorga and
Adama Arya, attended the table, with pamphlets and literature
about T-Voice, plus wristbands and T-Mobile trinkets. Hernan-
dez asked how to become a T-Voice representative. Arya gave
him a card to sign that also had a spot for his supervisor’s signa-
ture. The cards would be submitted to management. Hernandez
asked what the perks would be, which Arya identified as time off
the phones, communication with other T-Voice representatives
and training in another state. As far as his duties, Arya told him
that he collected both customer and employee pain points and he
was able to see what outcomes “could be addressed to improve
those concerns . . . .” (Tr. 110.)
On January 14, 2016, Tolman welcomed the newly selected
T-Voice representatives and congratulated them “for being an
advocate for your Frontline peers!” She also said that the point
was to “resolve your internal and external customer pain points.”
She identified the support team, which included Woods, Thomp-
son, a human resources sponsor, Senior Analysis Ryan McDon-
ald and two administrative staff members. (GC Exh. 99.)
C. Duties of T-Voice Representatives
The selected T-Voice representatives encourage fellow CSRs
to submit pain points, which are presented to management
through meetings and in writing. Every employee signs a confi-
dentiality agreement, but T-Voice representatives sign an addi-
tional confidentiality agreement that permits the T-Voice repre-
sentatives early access to non-public, or “dark,” plans for mar-
keting initiatives, such as iPhone and Un-Carrier launches. (Tr.
673.) The T-Voice representatives typically receive four hours
per week off phone duties to take care of T-Voice matters and
Respondent pays them for their time. The parties stipulated that
T-Voice was funded entirely by T-Mobile.
1. Attend summits
T-Voice representatives also attended T-Voice national sum-
mits, first in October 2015 in Charleston, South Carolina and, in
May 2016, in Tampa, Florida. CEO John Legere, several vice-
presidents, and managers also attended the summits with the T-
Voice representatives. The summits lasted 2 ½ days. The ses-
sions at the summits discussed new products and, as Tolman an-
swered to leading question on direct examination, were all cus-
tomer experience related. The Charleston summit included a
presentation on myVOC and the “strategy.” Tolman and another
manager led a session to “gain feedback” from T-Voice repre-
sentatives. Tolman denied that any pain point consensus was
reached or any solutions discussed. However, in a series of
emails about the planning of the Charleston summit, Tolman in-
structed the T-Voice team, including vice presidents, to prepare
for employee engagement and T-Mobile culture, which included
frontline focus programs, and metrics as a topic of discussion for
focus groups. (Tr. 928-933; GC Exh. 90 at T4960–T4963; R.
Exh. 16.) Respondent summarized the summit afterwards ,stat-
ing that “65 T-Voice Reps rolled into Charleston, S.C., last week
to obliterate customer and employee pain points . . . .” and to
resolve them. (GC Exh. 94 at TMPS1538.)
For the Charleston summit, Tolman and other managers dis-
cussed whether Adam Irvin, a senior analyst for metrics on the
EE&RT, should attend. EE&RT calls involved directors within
the sites and “identifying items with the culture of our call cen-
ters.” (Tr. 903–904.) Irvin’s manager, Angela Joslin, who han-
dles EE&RT and metrics, agreed that Irvin should attend the
summit to represent EE&RT and “capture any metrics-related
conversations and bring back to me.” She stated that EE&RT
had “closely partnered” with T-Voice to support addressing their
concerns and improving implementation of ideas. Tolman com-
mented by email, “I think this is a great opportunity for you guys
to see what T-Voice is planning to take and how can we utilize
them to drive performance and recognition at each of the site
levels in 2016.” (Tr. 903–905; GC Exh. 90 at T678–T679.)
2. Collect pain points and educate CSRs
The primary duties for T-Voice representatives were to collect
and give feedback on pain points and educate their colleagues on
new marketing programs and equipment. Respondent released
the T-Voice representatives from their phone duties to perform
T-Voice duties. In order to be released, the T-Voice representa-
tives worked with their local Resource Planning department to
ensure adequate staffing while the T-Voice representatives per-
formed their duties.
Once selected, T-Voice representatives solicited pain points
through various means. CSRs learned of a few ways to submit
pain points to T-Voice representatives through literature left on
their desks or emails. To submit pain points, suggestion boxes,
frequently in Respondent’s magenta, were placed in locations in
each call center. CSRs did not have to sign the pain points sub-
mitted to the T-Voice box and, for the anonymous submissions,
would learn about the results through a general email. The T-
Voice representatives retrieved the pain points from the boxes.
CSRs also could submit the pain points directly to T-Voice rep-
resentatives. T-Voice also had a dedicated email link to submit
pain points to a group of T-Voice representatives.
T-Voice representatives held “table days” in the call centers.
The table days were used to collect pain points or address new
equipment, such as a new iPhone, or an application, which Re-
spondent identified as an educational need. Jason Richards,
Wichita senior manager of operations and support, or Tolman
would raise an issue (could be regional or national). Richards
frequently directed the T-Voice representatives on what to pre-
sent at the table days. Sometimes Wichita table days gave out
apples to CSRs who submitted a pain point. (Tr. 583–584.)
In at least one location, T-Voice also posted signs, called
Flush Facts, on bathroom stall doors. One such Flush Facts in
Menaul announced promotions for customers, such as discounts
on cellular telephones. Kevin Elder testified that the promotion
related to a metric that gave CSRs a 10 percent of the cost of
accessories back as Reward Zone (also called Appreciation
Zone) points. He did not know how long the Reward Zone in
place. In Wichita, a sign promised Reward Zone points to CSRs
when their submitted pain points for policies or systems were
fixed. (GC Exh. 81.) As the CSR accrued the Reward Zone
points, the CSR could redeem them for gift cards, vacations and
T-MOBILE USA, INC. 15
other items.
T-Voice representatives also conducted “knowledge checks”
in which the representatives went to the working pods and talked
to CSRs new equipment and applications during work time. As
before, the T-Voice representatives obtained authorization for
the paid time through resource planning. (Tr. 556–557, 585.) At
the end of a knowledge check meeting with a pod, the T-Voice
representative also asked for any pain points. (Tr. 586.)
3. Keep track of pain points and recording them in the database
Respondent established a database called SharePoint for T-
Voice input of pain points.13 A T-Voice representative or man-
ager entered the data in the program. If the pain point included
a CSR’s name, the CSR received an email that the pain point was
received. (Tr. 559, 666, 749.) Every submitted pain point, al-
most verbatim, was supposed to be entered into the system. The
M&P project manager then directs the pain point to the appro-
priate manager. (Tr. 852.)
Respondent’s headquarters customer service methods and
procedures group (M&P) reviewed the submitted pain points.
Different management groups had different responsibilities for
review and assessment of pain points. A support team reviewed
the pain point, assessed it and gave feedback to the group sub-
mitting the pain point. Other pain points were directed to cus-
tomer experience management group, such as general care. (Tr.
664–665.) Respondent maintained that once the pain point was
assigned, the T-Voice representatives had no further input and
the assigned manager was responsible. (Tr. 855.)
Richards testified that duplicate pain points and non-customer
pain points were not to be entered into SharePoint. (Tr. 666–
667.) Respondent maintained that the T-Voice representatives
or management entered only customer pain points, not employee
pain points, into SharePoint. However, Respondent’s documen-
tation and CSR testimony reflects that T-Voice accepted and ad-
dressed employee pain points until at least February 2016. In
some cases, T-Voice representatives also made suggestions
about how to solve pain points. For example, in September
2015, a representative from Oakland suggested changes to errors
that would result in more customer satisfaction and yield a de-
crease in iOCR. He sent his suggestions to Vice President
Woods, who forwarded it to Tolman and others. Tolman re-
sponded that the Solutions Center was working on improvements
and “This much detail is helpful for them to identify priority fo-
cuses.” (GC Exh. 91 at T5218–5219.)
Tolman testified that the employee-related pain points were
not assigned to the M&P managers, nor discussed with T-Voice
representatives. However, a number of these reflect assignment
to Tolman, who was also involved in the Employee Engagement
and Retention Team (EE&RP). As will be seen below, some
were assigned to the Metrics analysis group for T-Voice.
The SharePoint spreadsheet reflected the person who entered
it, the name of person submitting the pain point if available, the
call center location, a title/category of the pain point, and an
overview of the pain point submitted. The next columns re-
flected the support team response and the support team answer,

13 On June 29, 2015, a program manager on the M&P team sent an
email to Tolman about how to use the database. The email addressed
only inclusion of customer experiences. (R. Exh. 11; Tr. 844-846.)
which would be question answered, use existing policy, new pain
point or existing pain point. The following column showed the
date the modified and a date that showed the date entered. (Tr.
863–865.)
4. Meet in national and regional meetings and with local
management
T-Voice representatives met with managers in charge of the
T-Voice program at their respective call centers. The topics in-
cluded what their activities would be for the upcoming week,
pain points, and needs for knowledge checks. Managers Rich-
ards and Nikki Kozlowski testified about these meetings. For
Richards, located in Wichita, meeting topics included previous
T-Voice activities, identify the activities’ successes and disap-
pointments, and plan the upcoming activities. Discussions also
included effective communication for obtaining pain points. (Tr.
672.) For Kozlowski, located in Albuquerque, the meeting dis-
cussion included the number of pain points submitted and if any
major or repetitive pain points are showing up, then plan upcom-
ing activities. (Tr. 755.)
T-Voice representatives attended managers’ meetings and
presented information similar to that shared with the manager.
(Tr. 564.) Manager Kozlowski testified to leading questions that
pain points were not resolved in these meetings. T-Voice repre-
sentatives were not present for the entire meetings, usually mak-
ing their presentations at the beginning or end of the meetings.
T-Voice representatives also participated in regional and na-
tional conferences calls with each other. Managers from various
locations and T-Voice support staff also participated in these
calls. (Tr. 565.) Each call center presented its plans and previous
activities. (Tr. 566.) The national meetings, run by Kim Tolman,
include the support organization and T-Voice representatives
from around the nation. Feedback is provided on the pain points
and representatives give personal opinions, similar to a focus
group, but Respondent witnesses denied that the T-Voice repre-
sentatives presented any suggestions. Tolman developed the
agendas for the national meetings.
Tolman also conducted T-Voice focus groups. She stated the
purpose was to share ideas and provide educational response and
experiences from the frontline. (Tr. 839.) However, she denied
that any kind of focus group was specific to T-Voice. (Tr. 840.)
Despite this statement, Tolman also traveled to some of the call
centers and conducted focus groups about T-Voice. She said that
at three call centers, the topics of discussion deviated from cus-
tomer pain points. One occurred at Springfield in September
2015. Tolman did not identify when the other focus groups took
place. On cross-examination, however, it became apparent that
some focus groups were specific to T-Voice and, at other times,
T-Voice representatives were in meetings to propose solutions to
certain customer pain points.
T-Voice representative Boydo testified that, in one meeting,
one of the T-Voice teams was working on “career pathing,”
which addressed the number of positions, problems with bid-
ding, and attempts to obtain promotions given the limited num-
ber available. In response, Boydo and two other T-Voice
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD16
representatives created a career wall after examining t-mo-
bile.com, determining the open positions and the requirements
for each position. (Tr. 566–567.) The regional calls also dis-
cussed T-Voice best practices, such as how to run table days or
knowledge checks.
National calls, held on a bi-weekly basis, included a national
managerial representative with T-Voice representatives; how-
ever, the T-Voice representatives attended only monthly. Rich-
ards testified that no pain points were resolved in the national
meetings, nor did T-Voice representatives submit recommenda-
tions.
T-Voice representatives also attended leadership management
meetings in Wichita. Richards testified that the representatives
would not attend the entire meeting, but only the last 10 to 15
minutes. The representatives presented a standing agenda to up-
date management on T-Voice. According to Respondent’s wit-
nesses, pain points were not resolved during these meetings.
(e.g., Tr. 677.)
D. T-Voice Solicits Pain Point Submissions
A review of the exhibits and testimony demonstrate that the
pain points were consistent with the stated goal of dealing with
frontline and customer pain points. The customer pain points,
by far the majority submitted, dealt with a number of diverse is-
sues, from billing, fraud procedures, and access to computer pro-
grams to complaints about the type of music customers were sub-
jected to while on hold. (R. Exh. 12.) These are not disputed.14
However, a number of pain points dealt with employee concerns.
Tolman prepared an agenda for a T-Voice national meeting
for August 19, 2015. The national meeting covered issues in
billing and simplification. Tolman sent the agenda to manage-
ment and the T-Voice representatives. Action items for August
included “Continue to trend and discuss top issues within your
sites focus groups” and “Seek solutions and creative ideas to
overcome pain points.” However, Tolman identified for follow
up the top pain point from July: Improvements in myVOC. The
improvements are later described in an attached Power Point
presentation. (GC Exh. 90 at T5716–T5724.) Tolman con-
tended testified that myVOC was a point for T-Voice represent-
atives to educate CSRs. Nonetheless, the actions on myVOC
scores followed some criticisms of T-Voice, as noted in Re-
spondent’s SharePoint program.
On August 21, 2015, Vice President Woods sent to senior
managers, directors, and location managers an email with a T-
Voice update. Some of the accomplishments were:
T-Voice has worked with NCSQ [National Customer Service
Quality team] to help improve the MyVOC SMS Survey expe-
rience, provided feedback to make sure customers received
their . . . discounts on the latest rate plans, helped update a
number of documents to improve the frontline process, and
partnered with site leadership to enhance the culture15 in each

14 On August 25, 2015, for example, Wichita Manager Amy Carlson
sent on behalf of the T-Voice representatives an email requesting ranking
of pain points, none of which were specific to wages, hours, or terms and
conditions of employment. (GC Exh. 87.)
15 Tolman testified that “enhancing the culture” means “engaging and
creating awareness that T-Voice is available and an avenue of getting
of the call centers.
(GC Exh. 90 at T662–T663.)
CSR Vann spoke with T-Voice representative Kapperman
several times about the VOC disputes and iOCR issues and put
suggestions in the suggestion box as well. On September 6,
2015, Springfield T-Voice representative Jason Kapperman up-
dated employees about some of the topics discussed. In addition
to addressing the computer issues, Kapperman addressed VOC
concerns and said that VOC would stay as part of the metrics b/c
important to measure what customer thinks; any further concerns
should be addressed to coach or business support team members.
For unpaid time off for emergency sick days, Kapperman stated
the employees’ feedback had been sent for review and in the
meantime, review the policy. Regarding reserved realignment
spots for bids, the answer was that it would not be fair to require
all new hires to work the graveyard or 6 a.m. shifts so that the
teams remain balanced. Regarding obtaining more equipment
for the facility’s workout room, “We are working with facilities
to determine, what, if any, can be added based on employee
safety and overall cost and upkeep of the equipment. Stay
tuned.” (GC Exh. 37.) In Springfield, T-Voice was credited with
obtaining a charging station in the break room for employees to
charge their electronics. (Tr. 418; GC Exh. 39.) Shortly after
discussions about more equipment in the exercise room, a punch-
ing bag and a few other items appeared. (Tr. 418.)
CSR Victoria Singer testified that, in Menaul, around Christ-
mas 2015, she attended a team meeting in her pod, which in-
cluded the entire team, Coach Aja Wood and Senior Representa-
tive Everett Anaya. Wood said T-Voice was “our voice” and
that it was there to solve pain points by submitting them in the
T-Voice box or contacting the new T-Voice representative, Alex
Garcia, directly. Asked what could be submitted, Garcia said
anything at all. A coworker raised that the women’s bathroom
did not have hot water and Garcia said to submit anything.
CSR Hernandez submitted several pain points to T-Voice.
Another pain point was differentiating paid sick time versus va-
cation time. The third was requesting reinstatement of employee
phone discounts. One was about employee schedules upon bids.
Regarding scheduling, Hernandez spoke to his supervisor, Brian
Trent. Trent told him to submit the issue to T-Voice and re-
minded him about the T-Voice suggestion boxes. In August
2015, after he heard nothing about his pain point, Hernandez
spoke with a T-Voice representative, Adrian Mayorga. Hernan-
dez asked how long it took for T-Voice to respond and how T-
Voice handled its process. Mayorga told Hernandez that the pain
points were submitted to management and management would
review them; the T-Voice representative would provide findings
and results after management decided what to do with the pain
point. Hernandez never received any emails resolving his sub-
mitted pain points.
CSR Kevin Elder (Menaul) was directed by supervisor,
feedback to leadership members for customer experience items.” (Tr.
902.) This explanation seemed more of an exercise in using buzzwords
than in explaining what a short phrase meant. Woods was not called to
testify about what her email meant.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. 17
Roxanne Garza, to contact a T-Voice representative about his
concern with a lack of dispute process for VOC scores. Elder
stated sometimes he received zeros on an UP score because he
did not have authority to make the changes the customer wanted
or he was unable to access the account. When Elder spoke to T-
Voice representative Garza about his concern, she told him,
“They [T-Voice] were discussing it.” (Tr. 157-158). He dis-
cussed the matter with another T-Voice representative and re-
ceived a similar response.
In December 2015, Kim Tolman, senior manager for frontline
programs, sent an email with an attached Power Point presenta-
tion to discuss the 2016 T-Voice Roadmap. In January 2016,
managers received an email received a T-Voice update covering
December 2015. The update included a review of pain points
from December 2015. The update included the number of forms
submitted by category. Most related to dealing with devices, ac-
counts, plans and offers and troubleshooting. However, 12
forms were submitted each regarding “departments” and “call
center management”; another 8 involved employee metrics.16
Tolman admitted that Respondent did not instruct T-Voice
representatives to limit submitted pain points, but testified, “As
of today, we ensure that the T-Voice reps have the resources at
site level, so if they receive it at the site, it won’t be submitted
because at that point they’ve directed that employee to work with
site leadership.” However, she also testified that she instructed
T-Voice leaders, after the national roll out, to review for dupli-
cates and deal with site leadership teams, but then said she would
conduct them with senior leadership teams by telephone. (Tr.
872–873.) Kozlowski, who was involved since the national T-
Voice roll out, did not testify to receiving those reminders.
E. Particular Submissions and Actions upon Employee Pain
Points
Respondent’s brief argues that the emphasis was on customer
pain points and a few others slipped through the system. Re-
spondent argues that employee pain points were not a large num-
ber between inception of the program and the first week of Au-
gust 2016, when its submitted record keeping ended. The sub-
mitted pain points involved problems experienced by customers.
Anyone, including managers, could submit a pain point. Re-
spondent contends that, for the pain points submitted through the
first week of August 2016, only 2.5 percent of the pain points, or
53 items, fell outside Respondent’s goal to collect customer pain
points. This representation is misleading, as most of the em-
ployee-related pain points occurred before the unfair labor
charge was filed in late February 2016. A number dealt with
employee issues, including metrics.
Respondent’s brief does not address how it handled the em-
ployee pain points before the charge was filed. I therefore am
compelled to provide some of the submissions and actions,
which are located primarily in Respondent’s SharePoint spread-
sheet (R. Exh. 12), a 900-plus page document in 6-point Calibri

16 Manager Richards testified contradictorily about seeing the pain
points. Although he was not involved with T-Voice in December 2015,
he first testified that he entered pain points into SharePoint. He later
testified that he did not see the pain points and only knew of the pain
points from interactions with the T–Voice representatives. (Tr. 728.)
font. 17
1. Respondent maintains that the focus of the T-Voice program
was to collect customer pain points, not employee pain points
At issue is whether Respondent made clear through its man-
agers and T-Voice representatives that T-Voice was collecting
customer pain points only. Tolman and Richards testified that
T-Voice representatives were supposed to only collect customer
pain points. (Tr. 658, 849). Richards testified that pain points
unrelated to the customer experience should be directed to the
appropriate person, such as a team manager, coach, or site direc-
tor. (Tr. 667.) Richards also testified that the T-Voice represent-
atives had no discretion in determining whether to submit a pain
point. (Tr. 670.) Tolman said that a T-Voice representative only
had discretion to not enter into the database non-customer related
issues and duplicates. (Tr. 850.) At the same time, T-Voice rep-
resentatives were to submit a pain point without any evaluation.
(Tr. 851.)
According to CSR Boydo, a T-Voice rep at Wichita Call Cen-
ter, if a paid point was not customer related, subjects like paid
time off or bonuses, he would refer the CSR to managers or the
human resources department. (Tr. 561–562.) However, Boydo
did not begin his service in T-Voice until 2016 and this testimony
was contradicted by early communications to the CSRs and
emails touting T-Voice accomplishments. Additionally, several
CSRs who spoke with T-Voice representatives and managers
were told pain points could be either customer related or em-
ployee related and should submit them all.
On July 9, 2015, Wichita T-Voice Representative Mike
Ringer sent an email to the on-boarding department, including
CSRs, coaches and managers, about what was happening with
T-Voice. In relevant part, the email told the recipients:
Reach to you all and gather ideas that will help solve our cus-
tomer’s pain points, as well as our own.
. . .
I know we talk to a lot of customers that end up somewhat dis-
satisfied, and it relies on us to make it right, and sometimes,
there are certain things we wish we could do, but the system
won’t allow us to perform these actions in real time.
My job is to eliminate that.
This is our chance to address these issues, and make it more
pleasant on both ends, for the customer, AND the company.
So if you could please, write these issues/conveniences down,
forward them to me, and I will address them the first chance I
get, and resolved as quickly as possible.
Looking forward to hearing from all of you and continuing on
our Un-Carrier move!
(GC Exh. 86.)
17 I also include some employee pain points that arose before the 10(b)
period, which began August 23, 2015, to demonstrate Respondent’s pat-
tern in handling these issues. Some of the issues in this document will
be covered in a subsequent protective order. In my discussion, I have
taken care not to reveal specific marketing plans, other corporate secrets,
or how metrics are calculated.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD18
In Springfield, CSR and T-Voice Representative Jason Kap-
perman sent an email announcing T-Voice as a voice of the em-
ployee and a way to bring up concerns, or pain points, to man-
agement. Coach Dustin Beasley spoke with his team, which in-
cluded CSR Jason Vann, a few times and employees raised the
issues. Vann testified that employees raised the VOC survey and
ratings based upon the survey and the iOCR. In addition, the
employees in Springfield raised navigation and functionality of
the computer systems. (Tr. 391-392).
At Menaul, on July 11, 2015, Manager Kozlowski sent to eve-
ryone at Menaul an email announcing the T-Voice representa-
tives with the stated purpose of resolving pain points for “Cus-
tomers and Yourself.”18 Similarly, on August 11, 2015, T-Voice
representative and Menaul CSR Ani Martinez emailed that her
T-Voice job was to raise frontline and customer pain points to
ensure they are resolved and then communicate those results.
(GC Exh. 17.)
After the Charleston summit, Respondent posted an article,
dated November 2, 2015, available to all employees, to summa-
rize the event. The first lines of the article stated:
 A group of Frontline reps known as T-Voice
gathered in S.C. to talk employee and customer
pain points
 T-Voice is a direct line of Frontline feedback
for senior leadership
The next line stated that the purpose of the meeting was to “oblit-
erate customer and employee pain points.” (GC Exh. 94 at
TMPS1538.)
Kozlowski, in recruiting new representatives in December
2015, used language reflecting resolving issues for internal and
external customers. After the unfair labor practice charge was
filed, Kozlowski’s subsequent email for recruiting clearly stated
that the program was to resolve customer issues and made no
reference to employees or internal customers.
2. Employee Loyalty Program
SharePoint reflects that employees submitted recommenda-
tions to T-Voice about the loyalty program, also called milestone
anniversary gifts. As an example, Respondent gave an August
21 response to a New Mexico TC entry, dated August 2, 2015:
This is great feedback. I am working closely with the Employee
Engagement team to implement a recognition program for em-
ployee tenure. There will be more to come over the next few
weeks.
(R. Exh. 12 at T145 and T605; also see at R. Exh. 12 at T20,
Bellingham.)
On October 22, 2015, Vice President Woods sent to all cus-
tomer service employees an email announcing that, because of
feedback and “the efforts of the T-Voice team,” Respondent was

18 Kozlowski’s testimony on this email conflicted with evidence that
showed employees submitted pain points affecting their wages, hours
and terms and conditions of employment. Her testimony here did not
specifically deny that the employees could submit pain points on their
wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment at that time and
sounded like a post hoc excuse.
initiating a new employee loyalty program. On the same date,
Karen Viola, the site manager at Menaul, announced by email an
employee loyalty recognition program that gave awards, such as
t-shirts and jackets and up to an excursion to a spa, based upon
the number of years served with Respondent. After encouraging
CSRs to keep the feedback coming, the email said” “#bestteam
ever #tvoicerocks.” (Tr. 101; GC Exh. 4.)19 When Viola received
questions about whether the program was retroactive, she sent
her question “up to the national T-Voice team and will get you
an update this week.” (GC Exh. 4.)
After Woods’ email, T-Voice continued to receive pain points
about its loyalty program. One pain point suggested that em-
ployees receive telephone discounts and free telephones after
five years’ tenure. As of approximately October 29, 2015, the
item was marked as no change and with further comments:
This item has been reviewed with the Employee Engagement
team and Care leadership group. We will continue to align with
our current process and support the company strategy . . .
(R. Exh. 12 at T192 and T652, Springfield.)
One from Salem recommended the program to include T-Mo-
bile pants or athletic shorts and lunch or dinner with a manager.
The response, on November 12, 2015, stated, “These are great
suggestions. I am going to work with the HR teams and site di-
rectors as options into the new loyalty program.” (R. Exh. 12 at
T182 and T642.) Another, submitted January 19, 2016 from Bel-
lingham, asked to change back to a gift that was removed or al-
ternatively use Appreciation Zone points for employees with 10
years’ service. That item was marked as awaiting response and
had nothing entered in the notes. (R. Exh. 12 at T290 and T750.)
At Menaul, about December 2015, a slick-looking T-Voice
poster promoted T-Voice’s accomplishments for the year 2015.
Of 1272 pain points submitted, 1143 were “answered/resolved.”
It touted the new employee loyalty program, with the note “Feed-
back shared and project delivered!” It also said, “Frontline advo-
cates through focus groups, table days, monthly incentive sup-
port.” It further identified T-Voice’s 2016 goals, including
“building working partnerships with the Customer Care Leader-
ship” and expanding the partnerships so that all teams could ac-
cess T-Voice. (GC Exh. 11.)
Tolman explained that T-Voice received an idea for a 10-year
recognition program. Despite a number of call centers having
their own loyalty programs, Tolman decided that a consistent
program should be shared with Human Resources. (Tr. 869–
870.) However, Tolman demurred and said it was not the first
time the loyalty program had been a point of feedback from the
front line. She denied that the loyalty program was assigned to
a M&P manager. (Tr. 870.) She further denied, to a series of
leading questions, that she ever discussed the employee recogni-
tion program with T-Voice representatives or a focus group. (Tr.
871.) The suggestion was not the same as the ultimate loyalty
19 Manager Kozlowski denied knowledge that this email was the result
of any T-Voice submission. Respondent did not call Vice President
Woods or Viola to testify about what their emails meant and the emails
directly contradict Kozlowski’s testimony.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. 19
program, which Tolman stated she designed. (Tr. 871.)
This explanation rings hollow as Respondent’s documents re-
flect that it gave T-Voice the credit for the customer loyalty pro-
gram changes in late 2015. Further, the response to the Salem
pain point demonstrates that T-Voice, upon receipt of the pain
point, intended to work with human resources and the locations,
instead of immediately directing the employees to their sites’
management or to human resources directly.
3. Scheduling and Time Off
A number of submitted pain points related to how CSRs re-
ceived paid time off or requests for additional forms of time off.
Some also addressed problems in scheduling or dealing with the
resource planning department, in charge of scheduling at each
facility. Others dealt with how Respondent should schedule hol-
iday time or distribute time off.
From Richmond, a July 28, 2015 submission requested a bet-
ter work-life balance by increasing paid time off per pay period
or adding sick days. (R. Exh. 12 at T161.) The August 21, 2015
summary of Respondent’s action was:
This feedback is something we are reviewing with HR and em-
ployee engagement team. We are always trying to help create
a strong work life balance and provide options for all employ-
ees to have the time they need outside of T‐Mobile. I will con-
tinue to work with them and help find creative ways to meet
the frontline need.
The SharePoint close date shows December 17, 2015, with a no-
tation of “no change.”
In December 14, 2015, T-Voice Senior Analyst Ryan McDon-
ald sent an email to Tolman and senior management about na-
tionwide T-Voice pain point submissions, feedback and re-
sponses from support teams. A pain point McDonald identified
as “trending” was requests from CSRs to automatically have
their birthdays off. McDonald stated he would be creating a new
pain point and “will have more details within the first quarter of
2016.” (GC Exh. 90 at T1043–T1049.)20 It also mentioned in
December pain points as a new pain point in the T-Voice feed-
back monthly update for December 2015. (GC Exh. 90 at T1043
et seq.)
One Springfield suggestion, first noted July 12, 2015, was a
reward for perfect attendance and to use it as a bump in realign-
ment ranking as an incentive. (R. Exh. 12 at T190.) It appears
Respondent made two responses, one July 15 and the second Au-
gust 21, 2015:
7/15: Thank you for submitting your pain point. I am reviewing
this item with additional Customer Service Support team

20 About November 12, 2015, this pain point arose from Albuquerque,
with the entry of “various representatives have approached [the T-Voice
representative] with this pain point.” The action noted, about December
10, 2015, was “will review with our HR teams and reachout to your lead-
ership team with updates.” The last date entry was December 17, 2015.
Another pain point from Charleston, submitted on February 22, 2016,
suggested birthdays off without using paid time off. It was marked
awaiting response and had no further updates to it. (R. Exh. 12 at T342
and T802.)
21 About the same time, another Springfield pain point suggested us-
ing unpaid sick days for emergencies instead of vacation (R. Exh. 12 at
resources. Please give me a couple of weeks to provide addi-
tional updates and possible resolution to your item.
I am working with the Employee Engagement team on Tenure
and Attendance recognition programs. There will be more de-
tails to come. I also recommend talk with your site leaders on
how to create a Springfield recognition program for perfect at-
tendance. As T‐Voice members this is something I think you
can work with Vince and your TM teams to create and show
them the changes they are helping create.
The pain point is marked closed effective December 17, 2015
as “question answered.” (R. Exh. 12 at T650.)21
Another pain point from Salem also suggested sharing paid
time off and awaited a response. (R. Exh. 12 at T255, T715.)
Some of the pain points related to paid time off during the holi-
day season. One such point suggested moving paid time off to
be used to September. The response, apparently dated October
29, 2015, stated:
This is great feedback. I will work with the local leadership
team to address these concerns.
(R. Exh. 12 at T177 and T637, Salem.)22
Another pain point on holiday work arose from Springfield. It
was entered as of July 12, 2015, and apparently answered Octo-
ber 29, 2015. The pain point suggested that Respondent first so-
licit volunteers for holiday work and assign if not enough volun-
teered. After initially thanking the submitter and asking for some
time to provide additional updates and possible resolution with
the Customer Service Support team, the response to the pain
point read:
This is a great suggestion and one I am reviewing with the em-
ployee engagement team. At this time we are going to follow
normal process to allow for proper forecasting for all lines of
business. We will see how we can improve Holiday coverage
and ensure a work life balance for all of our employees
(R. Exh. 12 at T192 and T652.)
Pain points also dealt with scheduling. From Tampa, one sug-
gested e-mail notification if the e-scheduler changed. (R. Exh.
12 at T244.) Respondent’s action was “awaiting response.” An-
other, from Mission, wanted to be able to view schedules away
from work as well as be able to request paid off when not at
work. It first appeared on September 9, 2015, and the last re-
sponse date was December 16, 2015. Respondent’s action, un-
der review as of December 17, 2015, stated:
T191.) The answer also was somewhat similar: no change first asked to
give a few weeks to provide additional updates (7/15/15), then response
on 8/21/15 of “a number of changes to sick days and I will continue to
review this with the employee engagement team, but believe the new
process of no today codes addresses this.” (R. Exh. 12 at T651.)
22 Another holiday pain point suggested that employees be allowed to
give back holidays. The entry further noted, “not a way to list all the
people that have approached us.” On the same page, another pain point
was to pay out the time or use as a gift to others. (R. Exh. 12 at T244,
Salem.)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD20
I am sharing this with the HR and RP team to see if this is
something they are able to build in 2016. They are always look-
ing on how to improve that work life balance and tools availa-
ble.
(R. Exh. 12 at T129 and T589.)23
A pain point submitted in December 2015 also had a response
on December 16, 2015. The pain point, submitted from Mission,
was a complaint about difficulty in requesting and obtaining ap-
proval for time off. The response was: “sharing feedback with
benefits and leadership team to ensure you voice is heard as we
continue to look at opportunities to enhance and/or ensure our
benefits are meeting the needs of all employees” (R. Exh. 12 at
T245 and T705.) 24
“A substantial amount of reps” requested grandparent mater-
nity leave. Last modified apparently on August 19, 2015 and
awaiting a response, Tolman was the ultimate point of contact.
(GC Exh. 90 at T5089.)
4. Appreciation zone and other awards
Respondent’s SharePoint log also showed that T-Voice re-
ceived a number of suggestions on how to improve its Appreci-
ation Zone program, which rewarded points to employees that
eventually yielded gifts. Most of these pain point entries precede
the unfair labor practice charge.
A pain point from Salem, with a first entry date of September
29, 2015, wanted more Appreciation Zone points awarded. (R.
Exh. 12 at T176.) The noted action was:
I have escalated this to the Employee Engagement Team and
we have begun [sic] discussion on how to integrate additional
appreciation zone points for performance metrics. This item
will be reviewed with each team review and how we reward
monthly items
(R. Exh. 12 at T636, answered question November 12, 2015.)
A pain point from Bellingham, with the first entry date as Oc-
tober 29, 2015, suggested Appreciation Zone choices for em-
ployees. The response, apparently on November 19, 2015,
stated:
Thank you for the feedback and I have shared this item with
our Rewards and Recognition team for review. They can work
with the vendor and see how to best implement feedback that
we receive from the Frontline Teams.
At this time there are no identified changes based on feedback
but they will continue to review options and update based on

23 One additional submission raised the pain points of scheduling
through the computer program and eSchedule Planner and incorrect in-
formation regarding paid time off availability, with a suggestion pro-
vided. It was submitted from Albuquerque about October 31, 2015, with
a response on November 19, 2015. The closed date was March 28, 2016.
(R Exh. 12 at T414 and T874.)
24 Two additional PTO pain point submissions in January came from
Oakland. One suggested reverting to a previous paid time off system to
avoid losing goal points based upon attendance. (R. Exh. 12 at 277 and
T737.) The second recommended being able to come back to work on
the same day to avoid affecting absenteeism. (R. Exh. 12 at T279 and
T739.) Neither had a response.
feedback.
(R. Exh. 12 at T27 and T487, closed December 17, 2015.)
One pain point, with an entry date of November 19, 2015,
came with the recommendation to allow employees to apply Ap-
preciation Zone Points to their own phone bills (R. Exh. 12 at
T226, Tampa). The action, approximately one month later,
shows the following:
I will forward this feedback to the HR Employee Engagement
Team to discuss for their 2016 updates. They are constantly
taking feedback and working with the vendor to improve the
customer experience and appreciation zone options. They
were not able to confirm it would be something they are able
to complete but will review the options.
Tolman was the person assigned to the pain point. (R. Exh. 12
at T686, closed December 17, 2015.)
One generous soul from Charleston, on December 25, 2015,
suggested that Appreciation Zone points could be shared points
with coworkers (R. Exh. 12 at T283). The action taken, dated
January 4, 2016, stated:
I sent this to the HR Rewards and Recognition team to see if
this is something they could include with their future improve-
ments. If I get additional details from them after providing this
idea I will update the pain point.
Tolman was assigned to this entry. (R. Exh. 12 at T743.)
One pain point arose during a December 2, 2015 T-Voice re-
gional meeting involving Meridian and Albuquerque sites. The
request was about purchasing T-Mobile merchandise. The meet-
ing outcome determined to send out links to reps and letting them
select what they want to order; place one mass order on same day
of each month; cover shipping; and the CSR pays for the items.
(GC Exh. 94 at T376–T377.)25
Lastly, a pain point from Oakland, entered about December
18, 2015, recommended that bonuses should be paid on the last
Friday of the month because the current system created financial
hardship. It was awaiting response. (R. Exh. 12 at T246 and
T706.)
5. Benefits and additional working conditions
Pain points on benefits were diverse. Some addressed lack of
WiFi for the employees, the employee telephone program, addi-
tional suggestions for benefits and/or their flexibility, or educa-
tional and training benefits.
Free Wi-Fi for all reps in all call centers was proposed from
25 Other pain points suggested: Access to the appreciation zone out-
side of work (R. Exh. 12 at T9 and T468, first dated November 19, 2015,
Albuquerque); change the anniversary gift (called milestone) back to per-
mit a gift no longer available, or alternatively use Appreciation Zone
points for employees over 10 years (R. Exh. 12 at T290 and T750, Bel-
lingham); offer a T-Mobile kiosk in call centers for T-Mobile gear and
may use appreciation points (R. Exh. 12 at T349 and T809, Mission);
and a number of representatives, as late as March 2016, want to use ap-
preciation zone points for T-Mobile gear (R. Exh. 12 at T398 and T858,
Springfield).
T-MOBILE USA, INC. 21
Oakland without acknowledgement or updates. (R. Exh. 12 at
T244 and T704.) However, on November 12, 2015, at Menaul,
Respondent credited T-Voice with resolving an employee pain
point about inability to use wireless access during their lunches
and breaks without slowing down or overloading Respondent’s
system. With this resolution, employees now would have no
problem working on personal email and social media with the
new wi-fi access during non-working times and without impact
to the employees’ data plans. (GC Exh. 5.)26
For the telephone program, submitted about August 4, 2015,
no change was made as of the close date of December 17, 2015,
with the notation:
As mentioned by Brian Brueckman in his [sic] recent Webcast,
we will not be making any major changes to the employee
phone program at this time including how we handle employee
requests. We will continuously evaluate the experience, and
look for opportunities but no changes are planned.
(R. Exh. 12 at T533.)
A creative pain point, from Albuquerque, proposed a loan
company for associates as a benefit. Respondent’s response was:
Thank you for this idea. I shared the details with our team and
at this time this is something we are not going to pursue, be-
cause T‐Mobile has a number of financial benefits and em-
ployee perk / discount programs that we provide employees.
You can work with your local HR team for details on what is
available
(R. Exh. 12 at T12 and T472.)
Regarding benefits enrollment, a pain point was a need for
more flexibility. The October 29, 2015 response, marked as
question answered, stated:
7/15: Thank you for submitting your pain point. I am reviewing
this item with additional Customer Service Support team re-
sources. Please give me a couple of weeks to provide additional
updates and possible resolution to your item.
After discussing details with the HR team there unfortunately
is not flexibility in changing benefits after enrollment unless it
falls within the life changing events guidelines. Benefits are re-
viewed and able to be changed yearly.
(R. Exh. 12 at 191, T651, Springfield.)
Another Springfield pain point recommended a cash award for
unused benefits, such as not using child care or tuition benefits.
As of October 29, 2015, Respondent decided that no changes
would be made for this pain point. (R. Exh. 12 at T194 and
T654.)
A pain point, entered about November 21, 2015, recom-
mended improving insurance by including lasik eye surgery. The
response, on December 16, 2015, stated:

26 Kozlowski denied any knowledge of the request and denied that it
was a T-Voice initiative. (Tr. 774.) The documentation, which acts as
an admission against interest, indicates otherwise.
27 Pain points also included employees having problems calling in on
their benefit accounts. (R. Exh. 12 at T155, Oakland and T191,
I have shared this with our HR teams to see if there are benefit
improvements they can share with our Insurance vendors. They
did reply that employees can sign up for Flex Spending account
that will help with cost of Lasik surgery. Direct Frontline to
work with their local HR teams for details on Flexible Spend-
ing Accounts.
(R. Exh. 12 at T130 and T590, Mission.)27
Educational benefits and career improvement also were pain
points. One pain point from Oakland, awaiting response as of
January 11, 2016, suggested that Respondent pay down an em-
ployee’s student debt every month as a way to attract potential
employees with the requirement that an employee stay a year af-
terwards. (R. Exh. 12 at T276 and T736.) Another, from Salem,
suggested increasing educational assistance above $5000 per
year. This pain point was addressed with the responses:
I have escalated this item to HR for feedback and how to help
address this concern with the Frontline teams. More details to
come.
Based on feedback there have been a number of changes and
updates to the educational program. The recommendation is to
work with your local HR team to have the interested parties
receive full details and benefit review of how to receive support
for tuition reimbursement and improvements to the program.
(R. Exh. 12 at T178 and T638.)
Regarding career development, one pain point requested train-
ing for advanced positions. One submitted to SharePoint, on
about December 11, 2015, included a request for training on ad-
vanced positions. The response, dated approximately a week
later, stated:
Matt Meyers, the Bellingham CC Sr. LDC on the Leadership
Development team was able to connect directly with [CSR
name], review the current national leader support programs and
development content available at [intranet website], as well as
discuss the customized support and development available
from the national CC Leadership Development team. Matt will
continue to connect with [CSR name] to make sure develop-
ment needs are met.
(R. Exh. 12 at T28 and T488.)28
Various day care options were submitted as pain points. One
suggested onsite day care to decrease absenteeism. (R. Exh. 12
at T283, Charleston.) Another suggested weekend daycare op-
tions. Tolman was assigned to this pain point. (R. Exh. 12 at
T283, GC Exh. 42 at T1521, Meridian.) Another suggested in-
house day care for holidays. Tolman again was assigned. (R.
Exh. 12 at T283 and T743, Meridian.) The last two pain points
arose in December 2015 and both had the same action: “This re-
quest has come up from a couple of sites. I am working with HR
to get further details on how T‐Mobile is looking to support
Springfield.) For the Springfield pain point, Respondent’s action was to
provide feedback to HR Directors and give feedback to the benefit ven-
dors. (R. Exh. 12 at T651.)
28 Also see, e.g., R. Exh. 12 at T145 and T605, T244, and T704.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD22
Work Life balance with onsite daycare options. As I get more
details I will update this form.”
6. Metrics
Respondent did not count metrics as employee pain points.
Respondent contends that resolution of customer pain points
could not affect metrics because fixing a pain point would be
difficult to determine. Richards stated that he had not observed
a change in a CSR’s ability to meet metrics when a pain point is
resolved. (Tr. 649.) He denied that any change in metrics since
T-Voice’s inception would be related to T-Voice. (Tr. 649-
650.).
The SharePoint log, by my count, contained over 30 pain
points related to metrics before the filing of the unfair labor prac-
tice charge. Some discussed updates to metrics; others discussed
the way the metric was calculated. A common thread frequently
arising was the idea that the CSR could be adversely affected by
the metrics.
On about October 21, 2015, Vice President of Financial Care
Sid Bothra conducted a focus group with T-Voice representa-
tives specifically about metrics. Nikki Howard, a senior man-
ager of operations support in Tampa, submitted minutes of the
meeting. Howard divided the expressed concerns by depart-
ment, then by metric, and added other suggestions/feedback.
The representatives expressed a number of changing the weights
of the metrics and kickers and how to remedy the problems, con-
cerns about disputing myVOC scores and a need for more train-
ing. (GC Exh. 90 at T1257–1259.) Tolman testified she was not
on the call and denied doing anything about it once she received
a copy of the minutes. (Tr. 921–922.)
A number of these pain points requested “real time” updates
or at least faster updates on what the CSRs’ scores were and what
the new metrics were for each month. A response to a Spring-
field request for “real time” progress had an initial response, then
a subsequent answer about October 29, 2015:
7/15: Thank you for submitting your pain point. I am reviewing
this item with additional Customer Service Support team re-
sources. Please give me a couple of weeks to provide additional
updates and possible resolution to your item.
Teams provide updates to the Business Support teams for in-
centive details on a regular basis. The local BS support team
will be able to provide details
(R. Exh. 12 at T191 and T651.) Another pain point, raised from
Salem, wanted a specific metric updated each day rather than
every 14 days. The response, on November 5, 2015, stated SSI
was working on a transactional report to give more visibility and
probably arrive in 2016; it also explained why the system cur-
rently worked in the way it does. (R. Exh. 12 at T256 and T716.)
A Tampa pain point, entered and answered on November 19,
2015, also complained that T-Metrics updated too sporadically.
The answer stated:

29 Also see R. Exh. 12 at T237 and T697, Wichita pain point in De-
cember 2015 for metrics and sales number should be visible on the same
day or next day, if possible, with a lengthy response concluded that the
2016 implementation should improve upon accuracy and timeliness of
the reporting tools.
Hi [name]-
The metrics team and SSSI [are] working diligently to improve
the stability and accuracy of all of our responding tools, includ-
ing T-Metrics.
We have made significant progress in recent months, and you
should expect to see continued improvements into 2016.
Thank you for taking the time to provide the feedback.
(R. Exh. 12 at T686.)29
Two suggestions came in December 2015 from two different
locations about the negative effects on scores to dropped calls.
Hi Birmingham, thanks for the feedback. Great news! You do
have the ability to call your customers back in the event the call
drops! We hope you don’t have a lot of these scenarios but we
understand that calls sometimes drop and don’t want you to be
negatively affected by customers calling back so we have made
it available for you to call your customers back! Please take a
look at the below link and especially the Valid and Invalid
Callbacks Reason section. That will give you all the reasons
why we would want to call our customers back. Thanks again
for the feedback!
Hi Chattanooga, Thank you very much for the feedback. At this
time we would not be changing the parameters regarding iOCR
as the Metric Team meets weekly to discuss these scenarios
and sets the goals accordingly to these situations. Don’t forget,
there is also a policy you can follow for dropped calls that al-
lows you to call the customer back thus not taking a hit on your
iOCR: [intranet site link provided] Thank you again for the
feedback and keep it coming!
(R. Exh. 12 at T510 and T521.)30 On January 13, 2016, a similar
pain point arose in Oakland. Senior Metrics Analyst Irvin gave
Respondent’s response:
Hi [name],
Thank you very much for the feedback. We take these things
into account when we set the goals. Some of these reasons is
why we don’t set the goal to 0%. Make sure to follow the policy
for dropped calls and attempt to contact the customer back if
possible. Its important to remember that not all dropped calls =
an iOCR hit . . . . At this time we wont be making any changes
but again, please keep the feedback coming. This is a great way
for us to gain insight on how things are working for you and if
we can make any changes to make them better!
(R. Exh. 12 at T280 and T740.)
Another pain point submission from Springfield stated that
end of month metrics were inaccurate. The initial response was
on July 15, 2015, with a later response of apparently October 19,
2015 and closed on December 17, 2015.
30 Also see R. Exh. 12 at T172 and T632, a similar pain point submit-
ted from Salem, and the response in December 2015 was no change in
metrics. Once again the submitter was encouraged to keep sending feed-
back.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. 23
7/15: Thank you for submitting your pain point. I am reviewing
this item with additional Customer Service Support team re-
sources. Please give me a couple of weeks to provide additional
updates and possible resolution to your item.
I reviewed this feedback with the metrics team and unfortu-
nately there is not a way to speed up the process, but the reps
that feel there is a discrepancy they will need to work with their
local leadership team for disputes. The metrics team does scrub
items to ensure full fairness across all teams and are always
willing to follow up on any escalations from the site leaders for
reps performance.
(R. Exh. 12 at T190 and T650; also T61 from Chattanooga.)
An August 11, 2015 entry from Bellingham complained about
the myVOC policy and dispute policy and how it could be “dev-
astating” to CSR’s scoring. The response, initialed with “K.T.”,
had a recorded response on August 13, but marked as “question
answered” and closed December 17, 2015:
813 (K.T.) Thank you for the feedback. This is a hot topic of
discussion and we will be talking through the recent updates
and changes on our National T-Voice meeting Wednesday
8/19. I will work with Victoria Morgan between now and then
for updates to the doc numbers. We will have a lot more details
come Wednesday when we meet with NCSQ.
(R. Exh. 12 at T42 and T502, Bellingham.)
A Meridian pain point, first entered on November 18, 2015,
suggested that more scores were needed to ensure accuracy of
VOC. The lengthy response discussed the factors making up the
VOC score. (R. Exh. 12 at T112 and T572.) For a similar pain
point, also from Meridian about November 18, the T-Voice re-
sponse was:
Hi [name]! There’s not a lot of detail in here but I assume you
are suggesting that we ask customers more questions than just
[those] we ask them today. Good news for you ‐ we are going
to test a new survey (we’ll do it behind the scenes at first with-
out impacting any front line reps or coaches) and it will have
additional questions regarding T‐Mobile [ . . . ] [I]t should pro-
vide us much more insights without making the survey too
long. Stay tuned for more information coming in January when
we begin testing!
(R. Exh. 12 at T111 and T571.) Also see: R. Exh. 12 at T118
and T578 for pain point suggesting how to measure.
Another Meridian pain point, entered November 18, 2015,
discussed iOCR disputes and suggested a dispute process. Re-
spondent, on December 1, 2015, answered that it would not do
so and told the CSR to further track “one off” calls, send them to
leadership and request that they be sent to the metrics team. (R.
Exh. 12 at T114, T574.)
A Mission pain point suggested CSRs have time to catch up
on emails so that they did not have to stay after the shift. The
response in October 2015 stated:
I have forward this idea to the RP team for review and see if
this is something we could implement for future
improvements. I will update details after I get their response
items.
CSRs had concerns about backskilling, apparently assisting
other areas, and the effect it might have on metrics. One re-
sponse, initially dated July 21 and continuing to July 24, 2015,
in response to Salem, stated:
7/21 (KT): Hi [name]! Thanks for the feedback and T‐Voice
item. I am pulling in our Metrics team to help me better under-
stand how back skilling impacts metrics (positive and nega-
tive). I have them looped in but will not have a full answer for
your pain point until further review with the additional support
team. Please give me a couple of weeks to follow up with more
details.
7/24 (KT): Followed up with the metrics team and was able to
get some more details for back skilling impacts. There are some
negative impacts, but they are very small to the performance or
monthly bonus expectations. If the back skill is more than a
percent of their calls the metrics team reviews that each month
and does what is right for the Frontline employee. If we see a
large influx in calls that impact their metrics they have set up
mitigation process to ensure the frontline employees bonus, In-
ner circle points and realignment items are not impacted and
set the mitigation plan in place.
(R. Exh. 12 at T165 and T615, closed 12/17/15.) A similar con-
cern was raised about September 29, 2015, with an answer on
November 12, 2015:
I am working on getting some positioning and feedback for
how the metrics teams is addressing the back skill items and
impacts to metrics. More to come.
(R. Exh. 12 at T176 and T636, marked last as awaiting response
12/17/15.)
Another metrics pain point, submitted November 25, 2015
from Richmond, suggested that each center should determine its
own metrics (GC Exh. 12 at T161). The December 2, response
stated:
12/2/15 Thank you for your comment. We’ve received similar
feedback from others, and based on that feedback we are work-
ing with the leadership team in each site to determine the best
way to provide a “discretionary” metric that can be awarded by
individual sites. You should see a change coming tentatively
beginning January 1st. Over the past several months, we have
spent a lot of time researching other metrics we could use for
Solution Center. To drive Brian’s goals of Resolution and Cus-
tomer Experience, iOCR and Quality are the best metrics that
Solution Center can impact, that can also drive the enterprise
goals. If you or your peers have any other recommendations,
please feel free to share. Have a nice day! :‐)
This pain point was marked as “awaiting response” as of Decem-
ber 17, 2015. (GC Exh. 12 at T621.)
In December 2015 and January 2016, a number of pain points
regarding metrics were submitted. For a certain metric that
counted against agents, Respondent provided this response on
December 18, 2015:
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD24
Hi [name],
This is a valid complaint and one that we hear often. In Q1, the
previous [metric] is going to be revisited with this in mind. We
won’t have a resolution here for at least a month but we will
definitely consider this when redesigning the process and see
how we can implement something such as this. We will also be
taking a look if a specific adjustment code should be created
for [metric].
Thank you for the feedback.
(R. Exh. 12 at T248 and T708, Oakland.)
Another metric pain point from Salem, with a response on De-
cember 3, 2015, discussed how a certain type of credit impacted
the statistics:
Great suggestion! This is definitely a painpoint for our frontline
reps. [. . . ] This pain point hits the nail on the head of impact.
In Q1 2016, we will be evaluating a feedback form that can be
used in situations like this. Thanks again for the feedback.
(R. Exh .12 at T248 and T708.)
Regarding certain myVOC disputes, a Mission pain point, en-
tered on December 16, 2015, stated such a dispute affected em-
ployee metrics, which led to a failure in maximizing bonus po-
tential. Assigned again to Senior Metrics Analyst Irvin, Re-
spondent’s response was:
Hi [name], very sorry for the misunderstanding. A MyVOC
dispute that is approved by your leadership absolutely counts
in ACERR ranking along with all the other things the metric
counts towards. I.E., Winner Circle, bonus, realignment rank.
The Metrics Team will be in contact with your leadership team
to see what wires might have been crossed. Again, sorry for the
misunderstand[ing, sic] but thank you for bringing this to our
attention!
The item was closed on December 28, 2015 with the note of “no
change.” (R. Exh. 12 at T257 and T717.)
On about December 23, 2015, a pain point recommended that
employee metrics, which was labeled as call center management,
be used to have a bonus kicker for taking certain overflow calls
with increased difficulty. The pain point was marked as “await-
ing response.” (R. Exh. 12 at T255 and T715, Salem.)
Another Springfield metrics pain point highlighted the method
of calculating myVOC and recommended a way to change the
calculation. The entry was from Janaury 4, 2016 and answered
the same day, apparently by Irvin:
Hi [name], thanks for the feedback. We have received this re-
quest in the past as well. The Metrics Team currently meets
weekly to discuss feedback that is received and your voice is
heard loud and clear. We also work with the quality team on
these suggestions as they are ultimately the owners of MyVOC.
At this time however, the team has discussed the current pro-
gram and we will not be making any changes to the way it is
currently being ran. We do appreciate the feedback and encour-
age you to continue to send it in as this is a great way for us to
identify pain points for us to make changes! Thanks!
(R. Exh. 12 at T258 and T718.) Irvin also was assigned a Janu-
ary 14, 2016 pain point from Albuquerque, which he answered
the same day; his response requested an example and stated he
would be happy to research the matter. (R. Exh. 12 at T284 and
T744. Also see: R. Exh. T310 and T770, Richmond, entered
12/4/2015 with answer same day and closed 1/29/16.)
Irvin provided a lengthy response to an iOCR pain point based
upon a Charleston submission and suggestion, dated January 18,
2016. The response, dated February 27, 2016, included a long
summary of calculations of why the suggestion would not work;
Irvin’s discussion addressed service levels and a need to hire
more employees to accommodate the suggestion, but encouraged
the submitter to continue to provide feedback. (R. Exh. 12 at
T331 and T791.)
Similarly, Irvin addressed a Wichita iOCR pain point that rec-
ommended not counting calls if a customer calls back within 30
seconds. Entered on February 16, 2016, Irvin answered the same
day:
Hi [name]!
Thank you very much for the feedback. We in the Metrics
Team are always looking for ways to balance the business and
make your jobs easier. At this time however, we wont be mak-
ing any changes to iOCR. Part of the reasons we don’t set the
goal much lower is due to the reasons you state. We incorporate
a lot of things into the goal and this is one of them. I encourage
you to keep the feedback coming though as we don’t hear pain
points without people like you. Thanks!
(R. Exh. 12 at T330 and T790.)
A pain point from Salem, entered February 15, 2016, included
several suggestions, including counting statistics for the long
term. The response, dated February 18, 2016, thanked the sub-
mitter for the feedback, but Respondent did not want to cause
confusion and ultimately dissatisfaction with how the metrics
worked, but would pass along the feedback to the metrics com-
mittee. The item was marked “under review.” (R. Exh. 12 at
T338 and T798, Salem.)
At least two additional metrics pain points were submitted the
week of February 21, 2016. Both were marked “awaiting re-
sponse.” Irvin responded to one that each rep metric was under
examination, which would determine the best course of action to
take care of the frontline team; the impact would have to be as-
sessed first and the submitter “should hear something in a week
or so.” (R. Exh. 12 at T343 and T803, T348 and T808.)
F. Post-ULP Charge, Respondent Emphasizes Customer Pain
Points
The charge in this matter was filed on February 24, 2016, the
day of a scheduled national T-Voice meeting. On February 23,
manager of the T-Voice program Kimberly Tolman sent to T-
Voice teams, including Wichita’s Jason Richards and national T-
Voice representatives, an agenda for a national T-Voice meeting
scheduled for February 24, 2016. The agenda included a metrics
focus group, which stated, “feedback and pain points of rep met-
rics and scorecard” and then a presentation from the marketing
focus group, dealing with customer pain points. Approximately
8 hours after the original email, Tolman sent a revised agenda
that eliminated discussion of metrics. Tolman’s email states,
“There was a recent change to the agenda and we will not be
T-MOBILE USA, INC. 25
hosting a focus group discussing metrics. The Metrics team un-
derstands the important of gaining rep feedback and I will con-
tinue to work with them for future items.” She then limited the
upcoming discussion to share pain points on marketing strategy
items previously provided. (GC Exh. 92 at T4589, T4590; R.
Exh. 8.) Tolman identified the metrics were removed because
“this was about the time that a ---charge had come into place and
we wanted to ensure that we removed any items that could be
impacted . . . .” (Tr. 950–951.). Richards testified that the metrics
focus group portion did not occur and, when asked why, simply
said it was stricken. (Tr. 688–689.).
The Flush Facts, March 2016 edition, reflect only customer
issues, such as checking status of minutes available by computer,
the headset exchange policy, and a packaging issue for refur-
bished headsets. (GC Exh. 29.)
In March 2016, Tolman conducted a national team meeting
and issues meeting notes to the T-Voice representatives, T-Voice
program managers and contractors. The minutes reflect a review
of T-Voice’s goals. Tolman said that it was normal to do so, but
after the unfair labor practice charge was filed in February, the
“leadership team” wanted to reinforce the focus on customer
pain points. (Tr. 909–914; GC Exh. 90 at T966–T967.)
SharePoint reflects that a few employee pain points were en-
tered in late February and March 2016. Some dealt with metrics
and others dealt with promoting events with certain rewards.
In April 2016, a senior representative in Wichita emailed her
T-Voice representative about career development. The T-Voice
representative forwarded it to the T-Voice West Region and re-
sponded to the senior representative that he agreed, was working
on the project and looking at ways to improve the process; he
also told her to provide any other feedback to make the process
better. Tolman saw the email and pulled it out of T-Voice. She
instead directed to Bellingham Assistant Director Jason Lee an
email, instructing him to address this issue at the site leadership
level and to remind the T-Voice representative to direct em-
ployee relations items to site leadership. Tolman concluded,
“Thanks for all your help as this is a highly sensitive item.” (Tr.
946–947; GC Exh. 92 at T4519–T4520.)
By T-Voice’s one-year anniversary, a July 29, 2016 email
from Vice President Callie Field to all customer service employ-
ees indicated that T-Voice addressed only customer pain points;
employee pain points were not mentioned.31 (GC Exh. 89.) An
August 16, 2016 email to Menaul Call Center and Menaul ECR,
requesting applications for T-Voice representatives, now identi-
fied T-Voice’s purpose as identifying, discussing and communi-
cating solutions for customers. (GC Exh. 6.) On August 1, 2016,
Tolman announced that the T-Voice representatives voted on the
“top pain points.” However, none of the pain points related to
working conditions, benefits, or pay.
On June 17, 2016, Menaul’s resource planning manager
emailed the Menaul coaches, senior representatives and CSRs
regarding “T-Voice Follow Up” for scheduling paid time off.
(GC Exh. 10). Kozlowski testified the email was “just a

31 The email also discussed that the Retail group would soon start its
T-Voice program. Neither the charge nor the complaint raises allega-
tions that Respondent’s use of T-Voice within the Retail group employ-
ees violated the Act and I do not address any issues there.
communication thing” but also admitted it was a follow up to an
anonymous T-Voice submission. According to Kozlowski, the
anonymous submission was not entered into the SharePoint T-
Voice log. (Tr. 765–767.)
When recruiting T-Voice representatives in August 2016, Ko-
zlowski’s email now stated that T-Voice was dealing with cus-
tomer issues and no longer included the phrase “internal and ex-
ternal customers.” (GC Exh. 6.)
III. ANALYSIS OF ALLEGED DOMINATION, IN VIOLATION OF
SECTION 8(A)(2) (COMPLAINT ¶7)
To determine whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2)
through T-Voice, I first examine credibililty, then whether T-
Voice was a labor organization under Section 2(5). If I find that
T-Voice operated as a labor organization, I then examine
whether Respondent dominated T-Voice. Electromation, Inc.,
309 NLRB 990, 994 (1992), enfd. 35 F.3d 1148 (7th Cir. 1994);
EFCO Corp. v. NLRB, 215 F.3d 1318 (4th Cir. 2000), enfg. 317
NLRB 372 (1998). Respondent’s intent in formation of T-
Voice is irrelevant to the analysis of a possible Section 8(a)(2)
violation: The statute applies whether intent is “benevolent or
malevolent.” Alta Bates Hospital, 226 NLRB 485, 491 (1976).
A. Credibility and Evidentiary Issues
Before reviewing the actual allegations, I must address Re-
spondent’s contention that General Counsel’s evidence, particu-
larly the testimonies of its employee witnesses, is flawed because
most of it is either hearsay or lacked proper foundation. It also
contends General Counsel failed to subpoena any witnesses who
were actually involved in T-Voice and relied upon employee wit-
nesses.
Regarding the hearsay claim, Respondent maintained running
objections to most of General Counsel’s employee witnesses
who testified what they were told about T-Voice from either
managers or T-Voice representatives. Respondent emphasizes
that these statements made to the employees were made out of
court and were for the truth of the matter asserted.
The CSRs’ testimony concerns what they were told was the
purpose of T-Voice and submission of pain points. Some testi-
mony also discussed T-Voice representatives describing their
duties to CSRs. This testimony does not meet the definition of
hearsay. Further, even presuming those statements were hear-
say, hearsay may be accepted “if rationally probative in force and
if corroborated by something more than the slightest amount of
other evidence.” Dauman Pallet, Inc., 314 NLRB 185, 186
(1994), quoting RJR Communications, 248 NLRB 920, 921
(1980) and citing Livermore Joe’s Inc., 285 NLRB 169 fn. 3
(1987). Also see RC Aluminum Industries, Inc., 343 NLRB 939,
939–940 (2004). The CSRs’ testimonies are supported by more
than a scintilla of evidence: They are corroborated by a number
of emails discussing T-Voice, T-Voice results, the T-Voice rep-
resentatives’ roles and Respondent’s SharePoint log showing
what pain points were submitted.32 Respondent’s coaches and
32 I consider Respondent’s emails about T-Voice and SharePoint re-
sponses to entries as Respondent’s admissions against interest, which are
not hearsay pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Ferguson Enterprises,
Inc., 355 NLRB 1121 fn. 2 (2010). In addition, the documents are the
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD26
managers were notified on T-Voice representatives’ emails and
Respondent presented no contradictory evidence.
Regarding Respondent’s contention that General Counsel
failed to establish credible evidence because it did not subpoena
witnesses, Respondent relies partially upon the Case Handling
Manual, which is not a document upon which I can rely. Further,
General Counsel cross-examined all witnesses presented by Re-
spondent.
I discredit the testimonies of Respondent’s witnesses that T-
Voice was only supposed to collect customer pain points. The
evidence, as detailed above, shows Respondent not only ac-
cepted pain points affecting the CSRs’ terms and conditions of
employment before the unfair labor practice charge, but also re-
quested employee pain points until the charge was filed. Re-
spondent communicated with CSRs regarding employee pain
points and gave T-Voice credit for changes made. Respondent’s
documentation also undermines its claims that metrics are cus-
tomer pain points and have no relationship to CSR awards for
performance. Instead the documentation reflects that it was well
aware that metrics were related to employee performance and
some of the pain points were assigned to Tolman herself instead
of directly advising the submitter to contact local management
without entry into SharePoint. Some were discussed with
EE&RT or forwarded to other areas. Irvin’s responses in Share-
Point also reflect that it answered employee issues on metrics,
even to the point of explaining why the pain point and suggestion
could not be changed and, in a few cases, that it would be re-
viewed and considered.
B. Is T-Voice a Labor Organization Pursuant to Section 2(5) of
the Act?
“Labor organization” is defined in Section 2(5) of the Act as:
. . . [A]ny organization of any kind, or any agency or employee
representation committee or plan, in which employees partici-
pate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of
dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of
work.
The definition of labor organization is broadly construed and
is a question of fact. NLRB v. Peninsula General Hospital Med.
Center, 36 F.3d 1262, 1269 (4th Cir. 1994); Electromation, su-
pra. The organization is not required to have a formal structure,
elected officers, constitution or bylaws, nor is it required to meet
regularly. Id. at 994. Even without this formal framework or
regular meetings, the group may meet the definition of Section
2(5). Id.
In examining whether the definition of labor organization ap-
plies to a group, the Board applies a four-part test: (1) employee
participation; (2) purpose to “deal with” employers; (3) the deal-
ing concerns conditions of employment or other statutory sub-
jects; and (4) for employee representation committees, evidence
that the committee has some representation of employees. Elec-
tromation, 309 NLRB at 996.

best evidence about the document content, not the testimony provided
about the content. The Contract Knitter, Inc., 220 NLRB 558 (1975).
(1) Employee participation in T-Voice
CSRs were selected to participate in T-Voice as representa-
tives. Their terms of service are limited, but not so limited as to
say individuals were participating as opposed to a selection of
representatives. Short terms tend to favor obtaining significant
input from a multitude of employees with face to face contacts.
NLRB v. Streamway Div., 274 F.2d 691, 294-295 (6th Cir. 1982)
(3-month rotation indicated less likelt to be employee represen-
tation and therefore acting as individuals); Sears, Roebuck &
Co., 274 NLRB 230, 243-244 (1985) (one employee from each
department met with management only for two meetings before
rotating out). At first, CSRs were selected for 6 months, and
now for 9 months. This information demonstrates that employee
participation was more likely on a representative basis, not on an
individual basis.
(2) Whether T-Voice existed, at least in part, of “dealing with”
the employer
Any group may be an employee representation committee or
plan if it includes employee participation and deals with condi-
tions of work or other statutory subjects. Electromation, 309
NLRB at 994. The term” dealing with” is broader than “collec-
tive bargaining” and “applies in situations that do not contem-
plate the negotiation of a collective-bargaining agreement.”
Electromation, 309 NLRB at 995. An anti-union motive is not
necessary to make the finding that an employer violates Section
8(a)(2). Electromation, 309 NLRB at 996. However, the pur-
pose of the group or its actual dealings, not motive, drives the
discussion on “dealing with” employees for conditions of em-
ployment. Id. at 996; NLRB v. Peninsula, 36 F.3d at 1270. For
further elucidation of “the interplay between Section 8(a)(2) and
Section 2(5),” the Electromation Board relied upon NLRB v.
Cabot Carbon Co., 360 U.S. 203 (1959).
The question then is whether T-Voice dealt with Respondent
as a “bilateral mechanism in which that group of employees ef-
fectively made proposals to management, and management re-
sponded to these proposals by acceptance or rejection by word
or deed.” Polaroid Corp., 329 NLRB 424, 425 (1999), citing
E.I. du Pont & Co., 311 NLRB 893, 894 (1993). To establish
dealing, the evidence must show a pattern or practice, or a pur-
pose to have a pattern or practice; if the group only makes “ad
hoc proposals,” even with management acceptance or rejection,
dealing is not present. E.I du Pont, 311 NLRB at 894. Com-
promise is not a necessary element. Id.
The pattern and practice with T-Voice shows that employees
effectively made proposals. Respondent, in its SharePoint
spreadsheet, referred to pain point submissions as suggestions or
feedback. Despite these labels, employees made numerous pro-
posals for changes in their scheduling, benefits and metrics. Dil-
lon Stores, 319 NLRB 1245, 1251 (1995).
If the purpose of the tasks assigned to the employees is purely
a managerial function, then no dealing exists. Crown Cork &
Seal, Co., Inc., 334 NLRB 699, (2001), discussing Electro-
mation, 309 NLRB at 995 and General Foods Corp., 231 NLRB
1232, 1232–1233 (1977). On the other hand, when a group of
T-MOBILE USA, INC. 27
employees discuss suggestions that were submitted by other em-
ployees with management, Respondent appears to have desig-
nated the “worker members” as representatives of their cowork-
ers. NLRB v. Webcor Packaging, Inc., 118 F.3d 1115, 1120-
1121 (6th Cir. 1998), enfg. in rel. part 319 NLRB 1204 (1995).
The T-Voice representative duties were not merely managerial.
Because the suggesting employees are absent and the “worker
members” are acting in their stead during local and national
meetings and collection of pain points, T-Voice used the “worker
members” as representatives of the coworkers, particularly in
management meetings, focus groups and other such contacts. Id.
EFCO Corp., 327 NLRB 372 (1998), enfd. 215 F.3d 1318 (4th
Cir. 2000) must be considered for “dealing with.” The Board
found three of four employer-established employee committees
unlawful. The fourth committee, the employee suggestions
screening committee, did not deal with the employer. This com-
mittee only reviewed suggestions in a “clerical or ministerial”
method to screen suggestions from the employees’ suggestion
box. 327 NLRB at 376. T-Voice did not just screen pain points.
The T-Voice representatives participated in focus groups about
the issues, which is beyond screening of suggestions, and implies
a bilateral mechanism, beyond brainstorming, to address pain
points. Id.
I also find instructive Reno Hilton Resorts, 319 NLRB 1154,
1156–1157 (1995). The employees raised issues such as com-
pensation and other employment matters, including safety,
equipment needed, employee rotation, training of new employ-
ees, staffing air flow in working areas, job descriptions, and paid
sick days. Although the majority of concerns did not deal with
wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment, the
Board applied the definition of Section 2(5) to find that the em-
ployee organization in part dealt with the employer concerning
those subjects. Id. at 1156–1157. Similarly here, although most
of the issues did not deal with employee pain points, the em-
ployee pain points raised the loyalty program, paid time off and
rewards through metrics. Respondent gave T-Voice credit for
raising paid time off and the loyalty program and that T-Voice
got results.
Before filing of the unfair labor practice charge, a number of
the responses to the pain points also show some consideration by
management. For benefits, some were forwarded to the benefits
provider. For metrics, Senior Analyst Irvin reviewed methods
and gave responses. Tolman too forwarded to EE&RP.
Respondent characterized T-Voice as no more than a permis-
sive suggestion box. (R. Br. at 4.) Indeed, T-Voice sometimes
used a suggestion box and the email equivalent of a suggestion
box. A suggestion box normally would be a safe haven as it is
unilateral and the proposals are made individually, not in group
fashion. Polaroid Corp., 329 NLRB at 425. However, collec-
tion of pain points was not limited to the suggestion boxes. T-
Voice representatives solicited pain points through face to face
contacts, such as table days and knowledge days. T-Voice rep-
resentatives primarily collected the suggestions and presented
them to management. According to Respondent’s witnesses, the
SharePoint entries were not to be duplicated. As seen above,
several of the pain points identify concerns either from a number
of representatives or a number of call centers. Compared to the
suggestion box, T-Voice also made responses directly and
indirectly to those who submitted pain points. In several cases,
Respondent moved the submitted employee pain point to a dif-
ferent department or to other managers to address the issue, with
the promise to have further updates. The communication there-
fore was not a unilateral submission of pain points.
Respondent also cites Crown Cork & Seal, supra, to deny T-
Voice dealt with Respondent. However, the Board found the
tasks delegated to the employee committees were purely mana-
gerial and therefore could not be a labor organization pursuant to
Section 2(5). 334 NLRB at 701–702. As pointed out in Keeler
Brass Automotive Group, 317 NLRB 1110, 1114 (1995), the
committees in Crown Cork & Seal made changes without the
employer’s approval. With T-Voice, some of the tasks, such as
training, could be considered managerial; nonetheless, the col-
lection of employee pain points and attendance at focus groups
and Respondent’s pattern of responses support a finding that Re-
spondent used T-Voice to “deal with.”
(3) These dealings concerned “grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or conditions of
work.”
As described above, T-Voice dealt with a number of employee
pain points and Respondent credited T-Voice with a number of
changes, particularly in its loyalty program, paid time off, WiFi
access, and charging stations in Springfield. In many pain points
when changes were not made, Respondent logged in answers in
its SharePoint program, with some directly addressed to employ-
ees or a call center, why it could not comply, or that the issue
was under consideration. Thompson Ramo Woolridge, Inc., 132
NLRB 993, 994–995 (1962), enfd. as modified, 305 F.2d 807
(7th Cir. 1962).
Despite Respondent’s insistence that T-Voice was not sup-
posed to deal with these issues, the process and answers given
within the SharePoint log undermine testimony from Respond-
ent’s witnesses. This conclusion is further supported by anecdo-
tal evidence from CSRs and emails from management, including
Vice President Brueckman. Even if metrics were excluded, the
topics dealt directly with diverse employee issues, such as paid
time off, grandparental leave, wifi access for employees, vision
benefits, among others. Dillon Stores, 319 NLRB at 1247-1248
(e.g., requests about smoking lounge and vacation are proposals
on wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment).
Respondent skims over this topic in its analysis, with little dis-
cussion of the topics, volume of interactions and handling of the
issues. I distinguish the issues from the one issue resolved in
General Foods, 231 NLRB at 1235: There the only issue possi-
bly dealt with holiday work schedules, which the administrative
law judge termed as “de minimis and isolated.” Here, the num-
ber of issues included not only holiday schedules, but paid time
off, other forms of leave, loyalty awards, how to obtain and use
Appreciation Zone awards, and the metrics described above. Be-
cause the pain points were not supposed to be repeated in the
SharePoint spread sheet, some of the pain points note that a num-
ber of representatives asked for the same thing.
Based upon this information, T-Voice dealt specifically with
issues impacting only employees, not customers.
4. Evidence of some representation of employees
Representation of employees is evidenced by T-Voice
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD28
obtained T-Voice representatives from different shifts, various
call functions and different call centers. Anecdotal evidence
demonstrates that the T-Voice representatives verbally encour-
aged fellow CSRs to submit pain points either indirectly through
suggestion boxes or email or directly to them. But see EFCO,
327 NLRB at 375 fn. 8 (citing Electromation, 309 NLRB at 994
fn. 20, finding that the committees acted in a representational ca-
pacity and therefore unnecessary to determine whether employee
group acted as a representative of other employees).
5. Conclusion regarding 2(5) status
The factors support a finding that T-Voice was a labor organ-
ization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The next
step is to determine whether T-Voice was dominated as alleged.
C. Was T-Voice Dominated, as Defined in Section 8(a)(2)
of the Act?
Section 8(a)(2) of the Act states that an employer commits an
unfair labor practice when it acts to:
To dominate or interfere with the formation or admin-
istration of any labor organization or contribute financial or
other supporter to it: Provided, That subject to rules and
regulations made and published by the board pursuant to
section 6, an employer shall not be prohibited from permit-
ting employees to confer with him during working hours
without loss of time or pay . . . .
Electromation, 309 NLRB at 995-996, instructs that actual
domination exists “by virtue of the employer’s specific acts of
creating the organization itself and determining its structure and
function.” If the organization is formed by employees and its
structure is determined by employees, then the organization is
not dominated. Id. 33
This analysis here examines three elements for an employee
representation group: Management creates the labor organiza-
tion; management determines the structure and function of the
labor organization; and management controls the continued ex-
istence of management. Webcor Packaging, Inc., 319 NLRB at
1204.
Uncontroverted evidence shows Respondent created T-Voice.
Yukon Mfg. Co., 310 NLRB 314, 335–336 (1993). It completely
supported T-Voice financially. Tolman drew up the by-laws.
Respondent determined T-Voice’s purpose: Until the unfair la-
bor practice charge was filed, T-Voice was not limited to collect-
ing and resolving customer pain points in a “closed feedback
loop,” but also dealt with employee pain points. Tolman’s doc-
umentation even stated that the program was to drive recogni-
tion.
Respondent dictated the T-Voice’s structure and direction by
establishing its goals and meeting agendas, requiring face to face
meetings with management, and determining how to enter pain
points. Management attended the committee meetings. These

33 Employee satisfaction or dissatisfaction with T-Voice is not rele-
vant to the inquiry. NLRB v. Newport News Shipbuiding & Dry Dock
Co., 308 U.S. 241, 247–248 (1939). I therefore make no findings and
rely upon objective facts.
34 According to Keeler Brass Automotive Group, 317 NLRB at 1115–
1116, paying for T-Voice representatives’ time and providing meeting
facts demonstrate that Respondent determined the structure and
function of T-Voice. EFCO, 327 NLRB at 377.
T-Voice’s administration and continued existence depended
upon Respondent. Respondent stipulated that it provided all fi-
nancial support for T-Voice. It maintained all databanks and
controlled the scheduling of T-Voice representatives’ activities
through resource planning.34 Respondent, with some assistance
from T-Voice representatives, solicited CSRs for new T-Voice
representatives at Respondent’s appointed times. Respondent
determined how many T-Voice representatives would serve at a
time, the length of service, and which areas would be repre-
sented. T-Voice representatives were selected by management
according to Respondent’s criteria. Electromation, 35 F.3d at
1154; NLRB v. Webcor Packaging, Inc., 118 F.3d 1115 (6th Cir.
1997), cert. denied 118 S.Ct. 1035 (1998), enfg. 319 NLRB 1203
(1995). Respondent never claimed that T-Voice could be dis-
banded at the employees’ choice and no evidence was presented
to show T-Voice had a limited life span. Thus, T-Voice’s initial
and continued existence depended upon Respondent.
The question here is whether T-Voice “is the creation of man-
agement, whose structure and function are essentially deter-
mined by management . . . and whose continued existence de-
pends on the fiat of management.” Electromation, Inc., 309
NLRB at 995. Each of these factors has been demonstrated. In
Reno Hilton, 319 NLRB at 1157, domination existed when the
employer developed the quality committee, created the agendas,
determined the number, size and structure of the committees and
paid the employees for their time. Management included itself
in the committee meetings and maintained “ultimate decision
making power.” Id. Similarly, employees volunteered for their
positions. Id. However, Respondent took the domination one
step further than in Reno Hilton by having managers make the
ultimate selection of the T-Voice representatives. Compare
Reno Hilton, 319 NLRB at 1157. Respondent’s actions with T-
Voice are similar to Ryder Distribution Resources, Inc., 311
NLRB 814 (1993): Domination existed when an employer cre-
ated wage and benefit committee, sought employee volunteers,
assigned management representative to committee, conducted
formalized training sessions to teach employees about em-
ployer’s problem-solving methods and financially supported the
committee. Respondent also appointed specific managers to co-
ordinate the entire program. Electromation, 35 F.3d at 1162–
1163.
Respondent’s brief does not contend that it cured its unlawful
conduct after the unfair labor practice charge was filed, but I con-
sider Respondent’s conduct pre- and post-charge. An employer
may relieve itself of unlawful conduct through an effective repu-
diation. Passavant Memorial Area Hospital, 127 NLRB 138
(1978). The repudiation must be timely, unambiguous, specific
to the nature of the conduct, and free from other proscribed ille-
gal conduct. Id., citing Douglas Div., The Scott & Fetzer Co.,
space and equipment are not per se violations of Section 8(a)(2); how-
ever, when “in furtherance of Respondent’s domination of the Commit-
tee,” the totality of circumstances dictates that Respondent was not act-
ing at “arm’s length” with T-Voice. Id.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. 29
228 NLRB 1016, 1024 (1977). Although Respondent tapered
off on accepting employee pain points by the end of March 2016,
or at least did not enter them into the SharePoint spreadsheet, its
actions do not pass the Passavant criteria as it instead said that it
re-emphasized that T-Voice was to collect only customer pain
points. Because the unlawful conduct took place over several
months, Respondent’s shift to accepting only customer pain
points, without employee pain points, was not timely. Respond-
ent did nothing regarding its previous acceptance and treatment
of employee pain points.
I therefore find that, since August 23, 2015, Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(2) by dominating T-Voice.
IV. ALLEGATIONS THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTIONS 8(A)(1)
AND (3) BY PROMISING AND GRANTING BENEFITS DURING
ONGOING UNION CAMPAIGN (COMPLAINT ¶¶6(A) AND 8)
General Counsel alleges that Respondent promised increased
benefits and improved terms and conditions for employment if
employees submitted pain points through T-Voice, in violation
of Section 8(a)(1). (Complaint ¶6(a)). General Counsel also al-
leges that respondent granted benefits through solicitation of
grievances in violation of Section 8(a)(3). Both allegations
maintain that these actions occurred during Charging Party
CWA’s ongoing union campaign.
An antiunion motive is not necessary to make the finding that
an employer violates Section 8(a)(2). Electromation, 309 NLRB
at 996. Also see NLRB v. Webcor, 118 F.3d at 1123. However,
proof of an employer’s discriminatory motivation may be based
on evidence of the employer’s contemporaneous commission of
other unfair labor practices. See, e.g., Amptech, Inc., 342 NLRB
1131, 1135 (2004), enfd. 165 Fed.Appx. 435 (6th Cir. 2006); Da-
vid Saxe Productions, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 100 (2016).
Respondent’s witnesses testified that they accepted employee
complaints through an open-door policy. However, with T-
Voice, the methodology changed with implied promises to rem-
edy them. Center Service System Div., 345 NLRB 729, 730
(2005), enfd. in rel. part, 482 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2007) (employer
cannot rely on past practice if it significantly alters how it solicits
during a union campaign); Amptech, 342 NLRB at 1136. I there-
fore find that Respondent’s promises to look into these issues
and respond through T-Voice was indeed solicitation of griev-
ance and implied promises to remedy employee grievances dur-
ing an ongoing union campaign.
The 8(a)(3) allegation, however, requires a finding that Re-
spondent, through T-Voice, granted these benefits due to the on-
going unionization efforts. Because of the duration of the union
campaign, which was over 6 years at the time of the hearing, I
am unable to find specific evidence of animus related to Re-
spondent’s grant of benefits through T-Voice. The prior unfair
labor practices findings are not specific evidence that Respond-
ent granted these particular benefits to stave off unionization.
Most cases cited by General Counsel and Charging Party show
that the grant of wage increases or other benefits occurred shortly
after a union campaign began or after the petition was filed. See,
e.g., Capitol EMI Music, 311 NLRB 997, 1010–1011 (1993),
enfd. 23 F.3d 399 (4th Cir. 1994).
Examining the grant of benefits under Section 8(a)(1), instead
of Section 8(a)(3), requires an analysis under NLRB v. Exchange
Parts, 374 U.S. 405 (1964). Exchange Parts is applicable even
when a petition has not yet been filed. Manor Care Health Ser-
vices-Easton, 356 NLRB 202, 222 (2010), enfd. 661 F.3d 1139
(D.C. Cir. 2011). Normally analysis under Section 8(a)(1) for
grant of benefits would be through an objective standard, but Ex-
change Parts examines for motive. Id., citing Network Dynam-
ics Cabling, 351 NLRB 1423, 1424 (2007), and cases cited
therein. Here, a number of years passed, and like the Section
8(a)(3), I cannot say the record shows that Respondent and T-
Voice’s motives were spurred by animus. I therefore shall rec-
ommend dismissal of this allegation.
V. ALLEGED CONFIDENTIALITY RULE PROHIBITING EMPLOYEES
FROM DISCUSSING T-VOICE, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 8(A)(1)
General Counsel contends that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) with six documents labeled either confidential or for Re-
spondent’s internal use only. As previously noted, all CSRs sign
a confidentiality agreement for trade secrets. I will first examine
the applicable law, then present the documents. Documents spe-
cifically arose in Albuquerque and on a national level. Lastly, I
examine the parties’ positions and provide analysis.
A. Applicable Law for Confidentiality
Section 7 provides employees with the right to self-organiza-
tion and collectively bargaining, as well as the right to act to-
gether for their mutual aid or protection. These rights have long
been interpreted to “necessarily encompass[ ] the right effec-
tively to communicate with one another regarding self-organiza-
tion at the jobsite.” Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483,
491 (1978). These rights includes employee communications
regarding their terms and conditions of employment. Central
Hardware Co. v. NLRB, 407 U.S. 539, 542-543 (1972); Parexel
International, LLC, 356 NLRB 516, 518 (2011), citing Aroostook
County Regional Ophthalmology Center, 317 NLRB 218, 220
(1995), enfd. in part 81 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (discussions
regarding wages, the core of Section 7 rights, are the grist on
which concerted activity feeds).
An employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act if it maintains
workplace rules that would reasonably tend to chill employees
in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. See Lafayette Park Hotel,
326 NLRB 824, 825 (1998), enfd. 203 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
The analytical framework for assessing whether maintenance of
rules violates the Act is set forth in Lutheran Heritage Village-
Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004). Under Lutheran Heritage, a
work rule is unlawful if “the rule explicitly restricts activities
protected by Section 7.” Id. at 646 (emphasis in original). If the
work rule does not explicitly restrict protected activities, it none-
theless will violate Section 8(a)(1) if “(1) employees would rea-
sonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2)
the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the
rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.”
Id. at 647.
Rules cannot be construed in isolation and must be given a
reasonable reading. Roomstores of Phoenix, LLC, 357 NLRB
1690 fn. 3 (2011); Lutheran Heritage, 343 NLRB at 646. Any
ambiguity in the rule must be construed against the drafter as
employees should not have to decide what information is not
lawfully subject to prohibition. Hyundai America Shipping
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD30
Agency, 357 NLRB 860, 861-862 (2011); Lafayette Park, 343
NLRB at 825. Facial challenges to the rules do not depend upon
evidence of enforcement. Schwan’s Home Service, 364 NLRB
No. 20, slip op. at 2, fn. 4 (2016). All rules are examined to de-
termine whether an employee could reasonably construe the lan-
guage to prohibit Section 7 activities. Lily Transportation Corp.,
362 NLRB 406 (2015).
An employer may legitimately require confidentiality rules in
appropriate circumstances. However, the employer must attempt
to minimize the impact of such a rule upon protected activity.
Boeing Co., 362 NLRB 1789, 1789 (2015). When the rule fails
to present “accompanying language that would tend to restrict its
application,” employees reasonably could assume that protected
concerted activities, such as discussing wages, hours and terms
and conditions of employment, are included in the prohibition.
Lily Transportation Corp., 362 NLRB 406, 406 fn. 3.
B. Alleged Violations from Menaul
Each of the following four documents was labeled with the
reminder: “Content is for T-Mobile Internal Use Only.” Menaul
Manager Niki Kozlowski was the author of each document.
General Counsel cites a July 11, 2015 example that included
the phrase “Content is for T-Mobile Internal Use Only”. General
Counsel summarized the email as follows:
In a July 11, 2015 email from Kozlowski to all employees at
the Albuquerque Menaul Call Center, she praises the work of T-
Voice by noting thenumber of pain points submitted along with
a request for employees to submit anyideas they have to improve
customer service options, policy updates, nice to haves, etc.
Within her email, Kozlowski included pictures of T-Voice Rep-
resentatives along with the line, “Content is for T-Mobile Inter-
nal Use Only”.
The second instance raised by General Counsel was a Decem-
ber 9, 2015, email from Kozlowski, in which she solicited em-
ployees for new T-Voice representatives. After thanking every-
one for making 2015 a year in which T-Voice members effectu-
ated changes, she stated T-Voice was the method of identifying,
discussing, and communicating solutions to roadblocks for inter-
nal and external customers, and for providing frontline feedback
to senior management. (GC Exh. 20.)
In the third instance, Kozlowski’s email discussed a scavenger
hunt at Menual. The hunt concerned Respondent’s new intranet
site and, in turn, promised employees an opportunity to win
prizes like smartphone and accessories. (GC Exh. 94 at T1660.)
Lastly, on August 6, 2016, Kozlowski emailed the Menaul
employees to recruit for new T-Voice representatives. After
thanking the current T-Voice representatives, she briefly in-
cluded the purpose of T-Voice and the necessary method for ap-
plying for a position. (GC Exh. 6.)
C. Alleged documents at the corporate level
1. T-Voice charter
The T-Voice Charter was marked “T-Mobile Confidential.”
(GC Exh. 40; GC Exh. 94 at T1053.) Employees received copies
of the charter. (Tr. 421.) The charter includes no specific data
of trade secrets, marketing plans, or specifics on metrics. In-
stead, it identifies the goal of T-Voice to create a closed loop
communication system, briefly identifies selection criteria for T-
Voice representatives, discusses meeting schedules for clearing
up points,” and identifies in generalities the key tasks. (GC Exh.
40.)
2. Summary of Charleston summit posted to OneVoice
Respondent posted to its intranet site a one-page summary
about the Charleston summit. All employees have access to the
intranet. Authored by Senior Communications Manager for
Frontline Communications Vanessa Gallant, the summary dis-
cusses that 65 T-Voice representatives attended the summit and
an overview of what happened. (GC Exh. 94 at TMSP1538.)
The bottom line states “Content is for Internal TMUS Use Only.”
D. Parties’ Positions and Analysis
None of the emails were issued in response to union activity.
Nothing in the record reflects enforcement of the confidentiality
requirement. Therefore, the standard is based upon whether a
reasonable employee would read the confidentiality requirement
as preventing the employee from sharing the information with
persons outside the organization.
1. Parties’ positions
General Counsel argues that the confidentiality requirements
in the above emails and documents restrict employee communi-
cation about their wages, hours, and terms and conditions of em-
ployment, pursuant to Lutheran Heritage, supra, and Triple Play
Sports Bar & Grille, 361 NLRB 308, 308 (2014). Respondent
contends that the lack of testimony about the phrase warrants a
finding that General Counsel did not carry its burden of proof.
Respondent also contends that most of the documents con-
cerning T-Voice, except those mentioned by General Counsel,
were not subject to such restriction and employees therefore
would understand that:
. . . the six-word phrase can only be interpreted, at most, as a
restriction on the “content of the particular email, if and only if,
the email contains information not readily available elsewhere
concerning T-Voice (i.e., commercially sensitive or non-public
information concerning customers. This reading would not vi-
olate the law.”
(R. Br. at 117.) Respondent points to two cases to demonstrate
that a general warning is sufficient for these documents: Super
K-Mart, 330 NLRB 263, 263-264 (1999); and Lafayette Park
Hotel, 326 NLRB at 824 and 826.
2. Analysis
No evidence was presented that the warnings of confidential-
ity were enforced and I am permitted to determine whether the
documents are facially lawful. See generally Schwan’s Home
Services, supra.
The first Menaul email occurred in July 2015. The 6-month
statute of limitations is based upon a charge filed on February
23, 2016. The statute of limitations period begins then on August
23, 2015. Because this email occurred before the statute of lim-
itations, I dismiss any portion of the allegation relating to this
email.
The remainder of the emails occurred within the statute of lim-
itations. None contain any trade secrets, marketing plans, or
other information that might be considered confidential. Nothing
T-MOBILE USA, INC. 31
discusses private customer information. A reasonable employee
would not necessarily read the emails with its confidentiality re-
striction and follow Respondent’s logic to search for other doc-
uments that allow outside discussion. Respondent’s reasoning
ignores that, in requiring employees to search for similar infor-
mation, it supports a finding that the confidentiality requirements
are ambiguous. Further, Respondent’s logic, that the infor-
mation is available elsewhere and employees would know
whether the information was confidential from other documents,
begs the question: Why these emails? Respondent has not ex-
plained satisfactorily why these emails, compared to other docu-
ments, are confidential, but the information implicitly may not
be so restricted. One email promises potential rewards for par-
ticipation in the scavenger hunt and therefore deals with a benefit
Respondent gave to employees. These emails deal with working
conditions, including the existence of T-Voice. I therefore find
that Respondent unlawfully restricted communication about the
three Menaul emails by labeling them as confidential and for in-
ternal use only.
I rely upon more recent cases, such as Boeing, supra, and Lily
Transportation, supra, than Super K-Mart and Lafayette. The
facts in Lafayette Park Hotel are distinguishable as well. The
Board in Lafayette Park Hotel examined a rule that prohibited
divulging private information to employees, other individuals, or
entities without authorization to receive such information. The
Board concluded that employees reasonably would understand
that the confidential information was legitimate business infor-
mation, not information related to Section 7 rights.
VI. SECTION 8(A)(1) ALLEGATION THAT MANAGER INTERROGATED
EMPLOYEES ABOUT HOME VISITS FROM CHARGING PARTY
(COMPLAINT ¶6(B))
A. January 8, 2016: Events in a Wichita Call Center Group
Meeting (Complaint ¶6(b)
Three teams met with Wichita Director Jeffrey Elliott. The
teams were supervised by Coahes Wambach, Uhde and Maron,
with about 35 to 40 people in attendance.
CSR Angela Melvin testified that Elliott began the meeting
with statistics on the number of pain points submitted and the
number resolved. He gave statistics on the decline of unions and
said he had an open-door policy. Uhde talked about the iPhone
launch and effect on call backs/iOCR. Melvin further testified
that, at the beginning of the meeting, Elliott asked how many
people had a home visit from a union representative. Five to six
people raised their hands. Maron talked about that things an em-
ployer could and could not say, and further said that signing a
union card was like signing a blank check. Melvin raised her
hand and said there was no union at T-Mobile at the time. One
of the CSRs, Vincent Krehbiel, started screaming at her in the
meeting about how the hell she got his address. Melvin said she
did not have his address. He said the hell she didn’t. She said
she did not, but the union might. Krehbiel asked Jeff Elliott if
he could hit the union representatives with his car. Elliott said,
in a condescending manner, that he did not want anyone to get
hurt. (Tr. 366.)
CSR Vincent Krehbiel, who attended the meeting as part of
Uhde’s team, testified that he was the one who brought up how
the Union obtained his address. He addressed his concern to El-
liott, but admitted asking how many of his fellow employees had
been contacted by the Union at their homes. (Tr. 520.) Elliott
said the company did not provide that information to employees.
(Tr. 525.) Krehbiel directed his questions several times to one
female employee, whose name he did not know, about the Union
obtaining personal information. He said the fellow employee
gave him no response. He was angry then, and he was angry
when he testified as well because he did not want his wife dis-
turbed. Krehbiel recalled little else in the meeting.
B. Analysis
I credit that Krehbiel raised the issue of whether the Union had
the employee addresses. Elliott testified but had little independ-
ent recall of the overall meeting events. I do not rely upon his
testimony except for identifying Krehbiel as the person who
questioned his fellow employees about the home visits. Melvin
had difficulty recalling events and was hesitant. I therefore can-
not find that Elliott interrogated employees about the home visits
and recommend dismissal of this allegation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent T-Mobile USA, Inc. is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Charging Party Communication Workers of America
AFL–CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. Since at least June 1, 2015, T-Voice has been a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. Since August 23, 2015, Respondent T-Mobile, through T-
Voice, violated Section 8(a)(1) by implied promising to remedy
grievances during an ongoing union campaign.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by limiting to internal
discussion only certain emails and documents.
6. Since August 23, 2015, Respondent T-Mobile violated
Section 8(a)(2) of the Act by maintaining, dominating and assist-
ing T-Voice.
7. The unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent
affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent T-Mobile USA, Inc. has
engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find that it must be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirm-
ative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Whenever an employer unlawfully establishes and maintains
a dominated labor organization, that organization must be dises-
tablished. Webcor, 319 NLRB at 1206 and cases cited therein.
The rationale for doing so dates back to the earlier days of en-
forcing the Act: The dominated labor organization cannot func-
tion as a bargaining representative of employees and employees
must have a choice to begin anew for organizing purposes. Id.
(citing NLRB v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 U.S. 261,
270 (1938) and NLRB v. Newport News Shipbuilding Co., 308
U.S. 241, 250 (1939)). Also see: Keeler Brass Automotive
Group, 317 NLRB at 1116; Ona Corp., 278 NLRB 400 (1987)
(disestablishment essential when §8(a)(2) violation found).
Regarding the unlawful confidentiality provisions that act as
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD32
unlawful rules, Respondent must immediately rescind the of-
fending rule so that employees may engage in protected activity
without fear of being subjected to the unlawful rule. Guards-
mark, LLC, 344 NLRB 809, 812 (2005), enfd. in rel. part 475
F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Pursuant to Guardsmark, Respond-
ent may comply with the Order by rescinding the unlawful rules
and republishing the documents without them. Any revised doc-
uments should be distributed to all employees.
The Respondent shall post an appropriate informational no-
tice, as described in the attached appendix. This notice shall be
posted in the Employer’s facility or wherever the notices to em-
ployees are regularly posted for 60 days without anything cover-
ing it up or defacing its contents. In addition to physical posting
of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such
as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other
electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates
with its employees by such means. 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 current employees and former employees em-
ployed by the Respondent at any time since August 23, 2015.
When the notice is issued to the Employer, it shall sign it or oth-
erwise notify Region 14 of the Board what action it will take with
respect to this decision.
General Counsel requests the enhanced remedy of notice read-
ings. For serious and persistent multiple unfair labor practices,
a notice reading is a “minimal acknowledgement of the obliga-
tion . . . imposed by law and provides employees with some as-
surance that their rights under the Act will be respected in the
future.” Affinity Medical Center, 362 NLRB 654,654 (2015).
According to General Counsel, notice readings are particularly
important to ensure that all employees, not just those reading bul-
letin boards, are aware of the information contained in the
Board’s notice. UNF West, Inc. v. NLRB, 844 F.3d 451, 463 (5th
Cir. 2016), enfg. 363 NLRB No. 96 (2016). The reading is an
“effective but moderate way to let in a warming wind of infor-
mation, and more important, reassurance.” J.P. Stevens & Co v.
NLRB, 417 F.2d 533, 539–540 (5th Cir. 1969).
General Counsel relies upon past cases involving Respond-
ent’s actions. Respondent, at its Albuquerque Menaul Call Cen-
ter, promulgated an unlawful rule against speaking about union-
ization. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 15 (2017). Another
case found Respondent maintained numerous unlawful rules at
its facilities across the United States and Puerto Rico. T-Mobile
USA, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 171 (2016). Respondent appealed four
of the rules to the Fifth Circuit; the Board has applied for en-
forcement. Also pending is an administrative law judge’s ruling
regarding the Wichita facility, but it is not precedential until the
Board rules upon Respondent’s exceptions. I do not rely upon
these earlier decisions as they are of a different nature than the

35 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Or-
der shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes
due under the terms of this Order.
36 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National
Section 8(a)(2) violations found here.
Although I find the 8(a)(2) violation pervasive throughout the
call centers, the prior unfair labor practices primarily involve
rules, interrogation, and threats of discipline. I cannot find the
prior labor practices, even coupled with the Section 8(a)(2) vio-
lation, constitutes such a combination of serious violations. I
therefore decline to recommend reading of notices.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended35
ORDER
Respondent T-Mobile USA, Inc., its officers, agents, succes-
sors and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Dominating, interfering with the formation or administra-
tion, or assisting or otherwise supporting T-Voice or any other
labor organization at any of its call center facilities;
(b) Soliciting grievances and impliedly promising to remedy
them during an ongoing union campaign;
(c) Maintaining confidentiality rules on emails and summar-
ies about T-Voice, including recruiting for T-Voice representa-
tives, scavenger hunts, the T-Voice Charter, and the summary of
the Charleston summit.
(d) 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 effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
(a) Immediately disestablish and cease giving assistance, in-
cluding administration and financial assistance, or any other sup-
port to T-Voice or any other labor organization;
(b) Rescind or revise the emails and documents, which recruit
for T-Voice positions, direct employees to engage in a scavenger
hunt, the T-Voice charter, and the summary of the Charleston
summit, that limit disclosure of the information to internal use
only or are marked confidential
(c) Furnish all employees with revised copies of the docu-
ments above that advise that the unlawful rules have been re-
scinded, or provide language of lawful rules.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its call
center facilities copies of the attached notice marked “Appen-
dix.”36 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 14, after being signed by Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent and main-
tained 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 dis-
tributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet
or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respond-
ent customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure
Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”
T-MOBILE USA, INC. 33
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. If Respondent has gone out of business or closed the
facility involved in these proceedings, Respondent shall dupli-
cate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since August 23, 2015.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director for Region 14 a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to
the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all allegations contained in the
complaint found not to constitute unfair labor practices are dis-
missed.
Dated, Washington, D.C. April 3, 2017
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your 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 dominate, assist or otherwise support T-Voice
or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT solicit grievances or impliedly promise to rem-
edy them during an ongoing union campaign.
WE WILL NOT maintain rules that prohibit your discussions
about T-Voice, such as recruiting for T-Voice representatives,
directing you to participate in scavenger hunts, discussing the
Charleston summit or T-Voice Charter with anyone not em-
ployed by the company.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL immediately disestablish and cease giving any assis-
tance or support to T- Voice or any other labor organization.
WE WILL rescind or revise the rules that prohibit your discus-
sions about T-Voice, such as recruiting for T-Voice representa-
tives, directing you to participate in scavenger hunts, discussing
the Charleston summit or T-Voice Charter with anyone not em-
ployed by the company.
WE WILL provide you with revised or rescinded copies of the
documents that previously prohibited discussions about T-
Voice, such as recruiting for T-Voice representatives, directing
you to participate in scavenger hunters, and discussing the
Charleston summit or the T-Voice Charter with anyone not em-
ployed by the company.
T-MOBILE USA, INC.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/14-CA-170229 or by using the QR code be-
low. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from
the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015
Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202)
273-1940.