Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Sep 7, 2012

07-CA-073807 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 7, 2012)

JD–45–12
Detroit, MI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN
and Case 7-CA-73807
ANISE WIDEMAN, An Individual
Patricia A. Fedewa, Esq., of Detroit, MI,
for the Acting General Counsel.
Theodore R. Opperwall, Esq., of Birmingham, MI,
and Lori Keen Adamcheski, Esq., of Detroit, MI,
for the Respondent-Employer.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Bruce D. Rosenstein, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried before me on June
27 and 28, 2012,1 in Detroit, Michigan, pursuant to a Complaint and Notice of Hearing issued by
the Regional Director for Region 7 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board). The
complaint, based upon a charge filed on February 3, by Anise Wideman (the Charging Party or
Wideman), alleges that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (the Respondent or Employer), has
engaged in certain violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
The Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint denying that they had committed any
violations of the Act.
Issues
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when it
terminated the employment of employees Wideman and Shannon Rosado for engaging in
protected concerted activities and failed to offer them other available jobs.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the Acting General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the
following

1 All dates are in 2012 unless otherwise indicated.
JD–45–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
Respondent, a non-profit corporation, with offices and places of business in various
Michigan cities including Detroit and Southfield, has been engaged in the provision of health
care insurance. Respondent, in conducting its business operations derived gross revenues in
excess of $500,000 and purchased and received at its Michigan facilities goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Michigan. Respondent
admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
The 8(a)(1) Allegations
The Acting General Counsel alleges in paragraphs 6 through 8 of the complaint that
about late January 2012, Respondent’s employees, the Charging Party and Rosado,
concertedly complained to Respondent regarding their shared working conditions, by mutually
supporting Rosado’s claim, lodged with Respondent’s Human Resources Department, that a co-
worker harassed them and that Respondent’s previous responses to such complaints were
inadequate. On January 31, Respondent terminated the employment of the Charging Party and
Rosado, and since January 31, Respondent has failed and refused to offer them other available
jobs.
The Respondent defends its conduct by asserting that Wideman and Rosado were
temporary employees whose job assignments ended on January 31, and had no guarantee of
permanent or continued employment.
Background and Facts
At all material times, Curt Schoenjahn held the position of Respondent’s Director, Small
Groups and Special Markets in the Underwriting Department. Jamie Gray, until on or about
October 4, 2010, served as the Supervisor of the Small Groups Underwriting Department and
Karen Sartor-Diehl assumed that position after October 4, 2010. Tiffany Wynne holds the
position of Supervisory Unit Lead in the Small Groups Underwriting Department and reports to
Sartor-Diehl. Tiffany Hunter serves as the Senior Representative in Respondent’s Human
Resources Department.
Employee Sabrina Breedlove holds the position of a program analyst, a non supervisory-
non bargaining unit position, in the Small Groups Underwriting Department.
Respondent and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW) are parties to a Master Collective Bargaining Agreement
whose terms and conditions have been extended to cover events related to the subject case
(GC Exh. 8). The agreement covers full-time permanent employees employed by the
Respondent and in certain circumstances, at Section 8, covers the terms and conditions of
temporary employees who are hired by the Respondent to temporarily supplement the
workforce or to cover temporary time lost by regular employees. Temporary employees, by joint
agreement of the parties, normally work for a fixed period of 90 or more days and if mutually
agreed may be extended beyond that set deadline due to the particular circumstances of the
situation.
JD–45–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
3
Wideman and Rosado were hired in July 2009 by Robert Half Accounttemps, and were
placed with the Respondent to perform work under a Federal Government Mental Health Parity
Contract. The Staffing Agency paid their salary but both employees received work assignments
and direction from Gray.
In August 2010, because of an increased workload due to Health Care Reform
Legislation (Obama Care), and with the concurrence of the UAW, Wideman and Rosado were
directly hired by the Respondent and were converted to full-time corporate temporary
employees. Both employees continued to be supervised by Gray at the Southfield facility until
on or about October 4, 2010, when Sartor-Diehl became there supervisor, and they worked as
rate control specialists.
Wideman and Rosado, along with other corporate temporary employees2 continued to
work at the Southfield location until May 11, 2011, when the rating control department was
transferred to downtown Detroit, Michigan.
On August 18, 2011, the Respondent and the UAW met to discuss the status of the
Obama Care program and whether any more extensions for the corporate temporary employees
could be mutually agreed upon. The UAW was adamant that the program should not be
extended beyond the peak period of September to December 2011, when case intake was at its
highest level. Since case intake and processing tended to taper off after January 1 of each
year, keeping the temporary employees in a work status would take work away from bargaining
unit full-time employees who performed many of the same functions as the temporary
employees. The meeting concluded with an agreement between the parties that the corporate
temporary employees would continue to be employed through January 31, but would be
removed from the rolls on that date.
In early November 2011, Respondent’s Managers informed the temporary corporate
employees in the rate control department that there would be no further extensions of their
temporary appointments, and the last day of employment would be January 31. Both
Schoenjahn and Sartor-Diehl exhorted the temporary employees including Wideman and
Rosado, to complete and hand in resumes, and to consider taking the customer service
representative test (CSR) that was required to qualify for any available permanent position at
the Respondent. Both Wideman and Rosado took and passed the CSR test in mid-January
2012.3
The January 31 ending date for the temporary corporate appointments was based on
several factors. First, the Obama Care project was winding down and the budget for this
initiative was not going to be renewed. Second, the UAW was unyielding in there position that
the temporary corporate appointments would not be extended beyond January 31, as it could
severely impact the work status of bargaining unit employees by taking away any available work
in the Underwriting Department.

2 The rate control group consisted of Wideman, Rosado, Sandra MacPherson, Angela
Redmon, Joe Rabideau and Monica Singh.
3 Rosado previously took the CSR test on or about April 1, 2010, but did not pass. I note the
lag time between November 2011, when they both were notified their appointments would end
and mid-January 2012 when they took the test, especially in light of their appointments ending
on January 31.
JD–45–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
4
In November 2011, Rabideau applied for and was competitively selected for a program
assistant position, a full-time non supervisory-non bargaining unit position. In mid-January
2012, prior to the scheduled January 31 ending date of the temporary corporate appointments,
Singh left the employ of the Respondent. Accordingly, there were four remaining employees in
the rate control group under the supervision of Sartor-Diehl and Wynne (Wideman, Rosado,
MacPherson, and Redmon).
Anise Wideman
Wideman had several interactions with co-worker Breedlove. The first encounter
occurred in June 2010, when Wideman asserted that Breedlove was rude and disrespectful by
throwing work assignments on her desk. Wideman discussed the matter with Gray and shortly
thereafter, the conduct ceased.
The second situation took place in August 2011. Wideman sent an e-mail to Sartor-
Diehl complaining about Breedlove’s actions of yelling at her and throwing work assignments on
her desk (GC Exh. 15). While Sartor-Diehl did not directly reply to the e-mail, she spoke with
both individuals and counseled them to be more respectful of each others work related needs.
In order to relieve some of the friction, Sartor-Diehl instructed Breedlove to send out e-mail
requests for group status reports earlier in the day so Wideman and other corporate temporary
employees had more lead time to gather information and provide timely responses to
Breedlove. This would enable Breedlove to timely acquire the required information in order to
report to management officials during her regularly scheduled 8:30 a.m. conference calls that
were held three times each week.
Wideman acknowledged that after she sent the August 2011 e-mail and Sartor-Diehl
initiated the work related action regarding Breedlove, she did not individually initiate any
additional complaints either orally or in writing with any management or supervisory official nor
did she file a formal harassment complaint against any co-worker with Respondent’s Human
Resources Department.
On January 30, Wideman was instructed to report to the Human Resources Department
for a meeting with Hunter. The purpose of this meeting was to provide information concerning
the harassment complaint that Rosado had individually filed against Breedlove. Hunter’s notes
of that discussion were introduced into the record (GC Exh. 4).
On January 31, around 4:30 p.m., Sartor-Diehl instructed Wideman to proceed to the
Human Resources Department because her temporary appointment was ending that day. Upon
arriving at Human Resources, Wideman was informed by Hunter that her temporary
appointment officially ended and her employment was being terminated. Wideman handed in
her credentials and left the facility.
On February 3, Wideman filed the subject unfair labor practice charge that alleges the
Respondent failed to convert her and Rosado to regular employees, and on January 31
indefinitely laid off both employees in retaliation for their union and/or protected concerted
activities.4

4 I note that the Acting General Counsel’s complaint allegations do not rely on any union
activities undertaken by Wideman or Rosado. Indeed, it is undisputed that neither Wideman nor
Rosado were members of the UAW bargaining unit, and the record does not contain any
evidence that either employee was terminated for engaging in union activities.
JD–45–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
5
Shannon Rosado
On October 13, 2010, Rosado sent an e-mail to Sartor-Diehl requesting a meeting to be
scheduled with Breedlove to discuss ongoing personal issues that have occurred between them
(GC Exh. 10). Sartor-Diehl responded, and stated she would try and find some early morning
free time.
Sartor-Diehl held a meeting with Rosado and Breedlove to address the allegations
raised in the e-mail. During the meeting, a discussion ensued in which Sartor-Diehl counseled
the employees regarding decorum in the workplace and urged them to resolve there
differences. Sartor-Diehl observed that things seemed to quiet down between them and no
further concerns regarding Breedlove were brought to her attention until January 23, a period in
excess of one year.
Prior to leaving work on January 23, Rosado approached Sartor-Diehl and stated she
wanted to tell her something. After hesitating somewhat, Rosado ultimately informed Sartor-
Diehl that she heard that Breedlove had made the comment that “Shannon is not the type of girl
you bring home to your Mother.” Sartor-Diehl asked Rosado whether she had talked to
Breedlove about the matter. Rosado said, “I can’t.” Sartor-Diehl then asked Rosado “Who told
you this?” Rosado refused to tell Sartor-Diehl who informed her about Breedlove’s comment.
Sartor-Diehl told Rosado that she would talk to Breedlove about the issue.
The next day, January 24 (Tuesday), Sartor-Diehl attempted to locate Breedlove to
discuss Rosado’s allegations but learned that she did not come into work that day.
On January 25 (Wednesday), Wynne held a morning meeting (Huddle meeting) with the
employees in the rate control group. In part, the meeting was called due to a concern raised by
employee Alicia Adams who informed Wynne several days before the Huddle meeting that
another employee had been harassing her but she was reluctant to reveal the source.5 In order
to communicate Respondent’s position regarding issues of harassment, Wynne impressed upon
the employees the importance of congeniality in the work place and to be respectful of your co-
workers. Wynne concluded the meeting by telling the employees that if anyone has a problem
along these lines they need to let the Respondent know so it can be resolved.
Immediately after the Huddle meeting concluded, Rosado approached Wynne and
informed her that Breedlove was making unflattering comments about her. Rosado told Wynne
that she had previously raised the issue with Sartor-Diehl but felt that nothing had been done
about the matter. Since this was the first time that Wynne had heard the allegation, she
informed Rosado that a meeting would be scheduled with Sartor-Diehl, as soon as possible, to
further discuss her concerns.
A meeting was subsequently held on January 25 with Sartor-Diehl, Wynne and Rosado
in attendance. Rosado asserted that Breedlove was talking about her in a negative and
unprofessional manner. Sartor-Diehl asked Rosado whether Breedlove had made the negative
comments directly to her during work time. Rosado responded, that a third party informed her
that Breedlove was making the negative comments about her. Sartor-Diehl then asked Rosado

5 Adams sent an e-mail to Wynne requesting to move her seat due to the harassment.
Adams later informed Wynne that Rosado had been bothering her and she couldn’t tolerate it
anymore.
JD–45–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6
the name of the person that informed her about Breedlove’s comments but Rosado refused to
provide the information. Sartor-Diehl informed Rosado that if she was reluctant to provide the
name of the third party, it would be very difficult to correct the problem. Sartor-Diehl further
informed Rosado that she had attempted to address the problem by removing Breedlove from
passing out work to the employees, and gave that role to Adams in March 2011. Since that
time, she informed Rosado that no further problems had been brought to her attention. The
meeting ended with Rosado becoming frustrated due in part to her feeling that temporary
employees did not have any rights and her impression that nothing had been done about the
Breedlove issue that she had previously raised.
Shortly after the meeting ended with Sartor-Diehl and Wynne, Rosado proceeded to the
Human Resources Department to file a harassment complaint.6
On January 31, Sartor-Diehl accompanied Rosado to the conference room in the Human
Resources Department where Hunter formally informed her that she was being let go as her
temporary appointment had ended. At the same time, Hunter gave Rosado a letter regarding
her harassment complaint that was filed on January 25. In pertinent part, the letter stated that
the investigation did not find substantial evidence to support the allegations that she presented
in her claim, and no further action would be taken (GC Exh. 12). In response to a question by
Rosado regarding the linkage of her temporary appointment ending and the final investigation
letter, Hunter responded that they were not related.
Availability of Other Jobs
The Acting General Counsel alleges in paragraph 7(b) of the complaint that the
Respondent has failed and refused to offer Wideman and Rosado other available jobs. This
allegation is premised on the placement of MacPherson and Redmon in other temporary
positions on February 1, while the temporary appointments of Wideman and Rosado were
terminated, and they were not considered for those positions.
Facts
The evidence establishes that after the decision had been made to no longer extend the
corporate temporary employees appointments beyond January 31, Rick Williams, a Director and
counterpart of Schoenjahn inquired whether two of the temporary rate group employees could
assist his group with an ongoing project for which funding had recently been acquired. The
names of employees MacPherson and Redmon were familiar as they had previously interfaced
with a number of his employees on joint projects and had performed in an exceptional manner.
After Schoenjahn discussed the request of his counterpart with Sartor-Diehl, she recommended
that MacPherson and Redmon be considered for the positions. Sartor-Diehl supported her
rationale by comparing and contrasting the overall performance of the four remaining temporary
employees under her supervision.
With respect to Rosado, Sartor-Diehl characterized her overall performance as poor
based on her lack of focus in performing her assigned duties, spending large amounts of work

6 The Acting General Counsel did not introduce any formal written harassment complaint
filed by Rosado against Breedlove. The meeting notes of Hunter stated in pertinent part that
“Shannon requested to meet with me to discuss a concern that she had with a NBU employee
by the name of Sabrina Breedlove” (GC Exh. 2). Rosado did not assert in her complaint that
she was filing it on behalf of Wideman or any other co-worker.
JD–45–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
7
time talking and texting on her cell phone, having a poor attendance record by routinely coming
in late for work, and frequently entertaining visitors at her desk that caused a disruption in her
work assignments. Sartor-Diehl also noted, when comparing the four employees, that Rosado
had the lowest number of cases processed and the highest overage turnaround days.
Concerning Wideman, Sartor-Diehl noted that her work product was generally good
however she had a problem following proper office protocol. In this regard, Wideman on a
number of occasions refused to follow direct orders from her supervisors and proceeded as she
saw fit. While her case processing and average turnaround days were good, they did not equal
those of MacPherson or Redmon.
Sartor-Diehl evaluated MacPherson and Redmon as outstanding and excellent
performers respectively, with MacPherson being detailed oriented and Redmon handling special
projects in an exemplary manner. MacPherson had the highest case processing rate in the
group with Redmon handling the next highest number of cases, both of their statistics exceeding
those of Wideman and Rosado (R Exh. 4).7
Discussion
The record establishes that there were only two available corporate temporary positions
in Williams’s group, and based on an assessment of their work performance, MacPherson and
Redmon were selected for the positions.
Since the positions in the other work group were not considered bargaining unit work,
the UAW did not object to the temporary appointments continuing beyond January 31.
Based on the forgoing discussion, I find that when comparing the work performance of
Wideman and Rosado with that of MacPherson and Redmon, it conclusively establishes that the
later two employees were the superior performers. Thus, the decision by Respondent to select
them for the two available corporate temporary positions was based on sound business
principles and in no way was influenced by any protected activities undertaken by Wideman or
Rosado. I further conclude the same decision would have been made even if Wideman and
Rosado had engaged in concerted activities that will be addressed more thoroughly below.
Under these circumstances, I find that the Acting General Counsel has not established a
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in paragraph 7(b) of the complaint.
Legal Analysis and Conclusions
The protected nature of employee’s efforts to protest Respondent’s actions concerning
wages, hours and working conditions has long been recognized by the Board who has held that
similar conduct comes within the guarantees of Section 7 of the Act. See Joseph DeRairo,
DMD, P.A. 283 NLRB 592 (1987). The Board has also held in Mike Yurosek & Sons, Inc., 306
NLRB 1037, 1038 (1992), that “individual action is concerted where the evidence supports a
finding that the concerns expressed by the individual are [sic] logical outgrowth of the concerns
expressed by the group.”
In its lead case on concerted activity, Myers Industries, 268 NLRB 493, 497 (1984)

7 Wynne testified consistently with Sartor-Diehl’s assessment of the four temporary
employees work performance in the rate control group.
JD–45–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
8
(Myers I), remanded sub nom. Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985), cert denied 474
U.S. 948 (1985), the Board explained that “to find an employee’s activity to be ‘concerted,’ we
shall require that it be engaged in with or on the authority of other employees, and not solely by
and on behalf of the employee himself.” Following a remand from the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Board reiterated that standard but clarified that it
“encompasses those circumstances where individual employees seek to initiate or to induce or
to prepare for group action, as well as individual employees bringing truly group complaints to
the attention of management.” Myers Industries, 281 NLRB 882, 887 (1986) (Myers II, enfd.
sub nom. Prill v NLRB, 835 F. 2d 1481 (C.C. Cir. 1987), cert denied 487 U.S. 1205 (1988).

Applying these principles, the Board has consistently found activity concerted when, in
front of their coworkers, single employees protest changes to employment terms common to all
employees. See, e.g., Chromalloy Gas Turbine Co., 331 NLRB 858, 863 (2000), enfd. 262 F.3d
184, 190 (2d Cir. 2001); Whittaker corp., 289 NLRB 933, 934 (1988). The concerted nature of
an employee’s protest may (but need not) be revealed by evidence that the employee used
terms like “us” or “we” when voicing complaints even when the employee had not solicited
coworkers’ views before hand.
In Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd, 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied
455 U.S. 989 (1982), the Board announced the following causation test in all cases alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(3) or violations of Section 8(a)(1) turning on employer motivation.
First, the General Counsel must make a prima facie showing sufficient to support the inference
that protected conduct was a “motivating factor” in the employer decision. On such a showing,
the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the same action would have taken place
even in the absence of the protected conduct. The United States Supreme Court approved and
adopted the Board’s Wright Line test in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S.
393, 399-403 (1993). In Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278 fn. 12 (1996), the Board restated the
test as follows. The General Counsel has the burden to persuade that antiunion sentiment was
a substantial or motivating factor in the challenged employer decision. The burden of
persuasion then shifts to the employer to prove its affirmative defense that it would have taken
the same action even if the employee had not engaged in protected activity.
The underpinning of Rosado’s harassment complaint was first raised with Sartor-Diehl
as she was leaving work on January 23. In this regard, Rosado informed Sartor-Diehl that a
third party had informed her that Breedlove was making unflattering and negative comments
about her (Shannon’s not the type of girl you bring home to your Mother) but was reluctant to
reveal the source of the comments. On January 25, after the Huddle meeting, Rosado also
informed Wynne about the unflattering comments. In a subsequent meeting with Sartor-Diehl
and Wynne on January 25, Rosado again refused to reveal the source of the third party
comments. The harassment complaint was then officially lodged with Hunter in the Human
Resources Department (GC Exh. 2). Hunter’s interview notes specifically reveal that Rosado
filed the complaint based on a “personal” concern that she had with Breedlove. No mention of
any other employee, who also had this identical or general concern, was made by Rosado when
she filed the complaint with Hunter. I am hard pressed to find that the negative and unflattering
comments that may or may not have been directed at Rosado (she refused to reveal the source
and thus any comments were hearsay) raise issues of employment terms common to all
employees. Rather I find that Rosado, when she met with Hunter on January 25, raised an
issue solely pertinent to her, and did not use terms like “us” or “we” when voicing the complaint.
JD–45–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
9
Thus, I find that not only was the matter not a term and condition of employment but the
underlying complaint was not concerted.8
Additionally, for the following reasons and in agreement with Respondent’s
comprehensive investigation, I find that the complaint filed by Rosado was unsubstantiated and
lacked merit (GC Exh. 2-7 and 12).
First, it is noted that Rosado refused to reveal to Sartor-Diehl on two separate
occasions, the source of the third party comments that alleged Breedlove had been making
unflattering and negative comments about her or whether the comments were make at the work
site. Thus, it was impossible for Sartor-Diehl to press forward with any type of investigation as
the complaint was nothing more then hearsay. It is also noted that Breedlove apologized to
Rosado for any actions she took that might have offended her. Second, the record confirms
that Sartor-Diehl and Wynne were sympathetic and took immediate action whenever Wideman
or Rosado complained about Breedlove’s attitude by speaking to all parties concerned and
removing the assignment of cases from Breedlove that seemed to be causing the friction
between them. Third, I conclude that the underpinnings of the tension between Rosado,
Wideman, and Breedlove can be attributed to working in a stressful high volume environment
where personalities often clash and actions can be misinterpreted by employees. Thus, I find
that the type of complaints lodged against Breedlove by Wideman and Rosado are common
occurrences in a work setting that in this case were immediately and substantially addressed by
the Respondent.
Lastly, I find that when Rosado and Wideman were informed that their appointments had
ended on January 31, and their employment was terminated, it was based on lawful business
reasons unrelated at the time to any protected concerted activities they may have engaged in
including the filing by Rosado of a harassment complaint with the Human Resources
Department.9 In this regard, I note that there is no dispute that Rosado and Wideman were
informed in the November 2011 meeting by the Respondent that their temporary appointments
would expire on January 31, and their employment would be terminated on that date. Thus,
there was no reason for the Respondent to terminate the employment of Wideman and Rosado
pursuant to the filing of the harassment claim that was fully investigated and found no
substantial evidence to support the allegations.
For all of the above reasons, I find that the Acting General Counsel has not sustained
the allegations in the complaint and, therefore, determine that the Respondent has not violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

8 The Acting General Counsel’s reliance on Holling Press, Inc. 343 NLRB 305 (2004) in the
particular circumstances of this case is misplaced. Indeed, the citation in their post hearing brief
relies on then Member Liebman’s dissenting opinion. The Board majority dismissed the
complaint finding that while the conduct was concerted it was not engaged in for the purpose of
mutual aid or protection. Moreover, I note in that case, there was a specific request for a co-
worker to be a witness. Here, no such request was made by Rosado. Rather, Hunter inquired
of Rosado whether she knew of anyone else who experienced problems with Breedlove.
9 The decision to end the corporate temporary appointments was jointly made by the
Respondent and the UAW in August 2011, a period of time prior to the filing of Rosado’s
harassment claim on January 25.
JD–45–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
10
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent did not terminate the employment of Anise Wideman or Shannon
Rosado for reasons violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act nor did it fail and refuse to offer
them other available position by interfering with, restraining, or coercing them in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended10
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 7, 2012

_____________________
Bruce D. Rosenstein
Administrative Law Judge

10 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.