Cadillac of Naperville, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jun 19, 2018

13-CA-207245 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 19, 2018)

JD–41–18
Naperville, IL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
CADILLAC OF NAPERVILLE, INC.
and Case 13-CA-207245
AUTOMOBILE MECHANICS LOCAL 701,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS,
AFL-CI0
Christina B. Hill, for the General Counsel.
Michael P. Macharg, Esq. (Freeborn & Peters, LLP),
Chicago, IL, for the Respondent.
Brandon M. Anderson, Esq. (Jacobs, Burns, Orlove &
Hernandez), Chicago, IL, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEL A. ROSAS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Chicago,
Illinois on March 20-21, 2018. The complaint alleges that Cadillac of Naperville, Inc. (the
Company or Respondent) engaged in numerous violations of the National Labor Relations Act
(the Act)1 relating to a 7 1/2 week strike by its service mechanics during the summer of 2017.2
Specifically, the Company is alleged to have violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by: threatening
employees before and after the strike with discharge and other reprisal; informing employees that
it would be futile for them to bring complaints to the Union; and encouraging or soliciting
employees to resign their membership or become core members in the Union. The Company
also allegedly violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging employee and union
steward John Bisbikis in retaliation for his union and protected concerted activities. Finally, the
Company allegedly violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by implementing new policies
relating to employee attendance, grievance procedures, free water and work gloves without
affording notice to the Union and an opportunity to bargain over the change.

1 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169.
2 All dates refer to 2017 unless otherwise indicated.
JD–41–18
2
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Respondent and Charging Party,3 I
make the following
5
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Company, a corporation, is engaged in the sale and service of new and pre-owned 10
automobiles at its facility in Naperville, Illinois, where it annually derives gross revenues in
excess of $50,000, and purchases and receives goods and materials valued in excess of $5,000
directly from points outside the state of Illinois. The Company 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 and
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 15
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Company’s Operations
20
The Company, an auto dealership, has been individually owned and operated by Frank
Laskaris since 1996. He serves as president. John Francek is vice president of operations. The
Company’s operations consist of the sales, service, parts and administrative departments. Mark
Klodzinski, as service manager, supervises the service and parts department employees.4 The
discriminatee, John Bisbikis, was employed 15 years by the Company as a journeyman 25
mechanic. He was never disciplined prior to his termination. Bisbikis served as a union steward
for over 10 years. Prior to June, Bisbikis had a good relationship with Laskaris, who often
referred to him as a leader of the mechanics.
B. The Expired Contract30
The New Car Dealer Committee (the NCDC) is a multi-employer bargaining committee
composed of 129 car dealers who assigned their rights to it to negotiate and administer master
agreements with the Union representing 1,949 employees. The Company has been an employer-
member of the NCDC since it was formed in 2002. At all times since August 1, 2013, the 35
Company has recognized the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its

3 The Company excepted to my ruling that witness affidavits needed to be returned to the General
Counsel after cross-examination pursuant to Jenks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 662 (1957). Relying on
the Board’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 339 NLRB 64, fn. 3 (2003), the Company argued that it
was entitled to retain witness affidavits until the close of the hearing. As I ruled at the time, that the
Board’s holding in that decision, as well as Section 102.118 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, is not
inconsistent with my practice of permitting renewed access to witness affidavits upon request in
connection with the cross-examination of other witnesses. (Tr. 104-108).
4 The Company admits that Laskaris, Francek and Klodzinski are supervisors within the meaning of
Section 2(11) and agents within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
JD–41–18
3
approximately 12 mechanics. The mechanics comprise a bargaining unit (the Unit) appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining as described in the 2013-2017 contract between the
NCDC, on behalf of the Company and other car dealers (the Expired Contract):
The Employer recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for all of its 5
Journeyman Technicians, Body Shop Technicians, apprentices, lube rack technicians,
part time express technicians and semi-skilled technicians.
Article 2 of the Expired Contract delineated the Unit employees’ duties and
responsibilities as follows: journeyman technicians perform electrical, mechanical and other 10
technical repair work; body shop technicians perform painting and reconditioning work; semi-
skilled body shop technicians perform sanding, masking, buffing, polishing, shop clean-up,
disassemble damaged vehicles and deliver parts to body shop technicians; semi-skilled
technicians prepare new vehicles for delivery, minor inspections, repairs and maintenance
services and used vehicle reconditioning; apprentices perform the work of, and are supervised 15
by, journeyman technicians and journeyman technicians and journeyman body shop technicians;
and lube rack and part-time express team technicians perform miscellaneous tasks such as minor
maintenance work, snow plowing and removal, transporting vehicles, cleaning and organizing
shop equipment and delivering parts.
20
Notwithstanding the aforementioned classifications, Article 4 of the Expired Contract
provided the Company flexibility in certain situations:
Temporary Work. If business is slack, the Employer may assign an employee work other
than that which the employee is regularly classified where such work would not be 25
hazardous to the employee due to lack of experience and training. The employee shall
receive their applicable rate. This assignment shall not infringe on the jurisdiction of
another Union. Money earned under these circumstances shall be considered a part of the
employee’s regular flat earnings.
30
Article 5 provides Unit employees with an hourly rate of pay times 40 hours worked each
week, plus pay for additional work performed within their specific classifications.5 In addition,
mechanics were often able to earn significantly more than the flat rate based on the “book time”
for particular tasks. However, book time compensation was not applicable to work performed
outside of a Unit employee’s specific duties. For example, lube rack and part-time express team 35
technicians were responsible for cleaning vehicles. If a journeyman mechanic or apprentice
performed such work, however, the time would be counted towards his base rate of pay, but
would not be compensable as additional pay.
Unit employees are required to acquire the tools necessary to perform their work. They 40
were also responsible to provide tool boxes to secure their tools. That arrangement is impliedly
confirmed at Article 14, which requires the Company to insure employees’ personal tools,
requires employees to provide the Company with an inventory of their personal tools, authorizes

5 Notwithstanding the pay rate formula stated in the contract, Unit employees are guaranteed pay for
35 hours if present at the dealership for at least 40 hours. (Tr. 162-163.)
JD–41–18
4
the Company to inspect employee tool boxes, and requires employees to remove their tools
within two weeks of termination.6
C. The Strike
5
On May 6, the Union and the NCDC began negotiations for a successor contract, which
was due to expire on July 31. The members of the Union’s negotiation team included Union
representatives Sam Cicinelli and Kenneth Thomas, and Bisbikis.
On June 29, with negotiations dragging on, Bisbikis approached Laskaris in the latter’s 10
office to discuss several shop-related issues, including the Company’s newly imposed
requirement that employees pay part of the cost of their uniform shirts. Laskaris rejected
Bisbikis’ appeal regarding the shirts and redirected the discussion towards the sputtering labor
negotiations, warning that if the mechanics decided to strike, “things wouldn’t be the same.”7
15
The parties were unable to negotiate a new contract by the July 31 deadline and, on
August 1, the Company’s Unit employees walked out and set up camp across the street from the
dealership. On August 4, the Company sent the striking employees letters setting forth several
changes to their terms and conditions of employment:
20
To all Service Technicians,
It is very unfortunate that you have chosen to strike. In serving the best interest of the
stability of Cadillac of Naperville, its employees and their families, as well as our loyal
and trusting customers, you are hereby put on notice of the following:25
We will no longer be paying for your health insurance. You will be responsible for the
premiums in their entirety.
We have placed ads for replacement technicians. You will be notified once you have 30
been replaced. At that time should you make an unconditional offer to return to work,
you will be placed on a preferential hiring list should an opening occur.
Cadillac of Naperville will no longer be responsible for your belongings when you are
not working. All tools, tool boxes, and personal belongings must be removed from our 35
property by Saturday, August 5, 2017 by 5:30 p.m.
Please make immediate arrangements to have your tools and personal belongings
removed from our property by contacting your immediate supervisor at (630) 355-2700
to arrange an appointment. They will assist you in returning any special tools or Cadillac 40
of Naperville property, as well as assist in an expedient and peaceful transfer of your
belongings.

6 The cited provisions remained essentially the same in the Successor Contract. (Joint Exh. 1-2.)
7 I credit Bisbikis’ detailed version of this conversation in contrast with Laskaris’ steadfast denial (“I
wasn’t thinking about a strike”) after conceding that, “a few weeks before it happened,” he “thought there
was a small chance” for a strike. (Tr. 116-117, 139, 205-208.)
JD–41–18
5
Sincerely,
Cadillac of Naperville, Inc.8
As instructed, Unit employees removed their equipment and tool boxes during business 5
hours by August 5 and transported them on trailers to a commercial storage facility. Empty
toolboxes weighed at least 550 pounds; when full, they weighed several thousand pounds.
On August 9, the Company sent the following form letters to 6 of the 13 striking
employees – Bisbikis, Louis Mendralla, Michael Wilson, Kenneth Scott, Brian Higgins and 10
Mathew Gibbs – notifying them that they were being replaced:
This letter is to advise you that you have been permanently replaced as of today August
9, 2017. You will be placed on a preferential hiring list provided you make an
unconditional application for a return to work. In the event you have a tool box or any 15
personal belongings that you have left behind, please call your supervisor to make
arrangements to pick them up.9
The Company was one of only three dealerships that replaced employees during the
strike. Francek hired three replacement workers based on employment advertisements10 or 20
personal familiarity: Hector Plaza (August 7), Edward Silva, Jr. (September 1) and Scott
Anderson (September 2). Another employee, Michael Vitacco, was hired on the day that the
strike ended (September 15). They were all retained as mechanics after September 15. In
addition, three non-unit employees were transferred from other departments to fill-in for the
striking mechanics: service advisors Jay Montalvo and Jake Johnson (both on August 7), and 25
salesmen George Laskaris (August 21). Montalvo and Johnson returned to their jobs as service
advisors after the strike, while George Laskaris remained as a mechanic.11
Initially, the striking employees picketed across the side street from the dealership on
Ogden Avenue. After the termination letters went out on August 9, the strikers became more 30
vocal and repositioned themselves across the street from the main entrance. They blew horns,
utilized a loud speaker to excoriate the Company, sought to engage customers, and yelled at non-
striking employees. On one occasion, striking mechanic Patrick Towe interfered with an elderly
customer attempting to take a test drive. On several occasions, the Company called the police to
intercede.12 However, the Company never filed police reports or unfair labor practice charges.35

8 Joint Exh. 4.
9 The letter sent to Gibbs was not included with the other five letters in Joint Exhibit 5. However, the
subsequent recall letter indicates that he received the same notification.
10 There was no evidence of the advertisements or the terms of employment of the replacement
workers, specifically, whether they were hired on a temporary, permanent or other basis.
11 I credited the reliability of GC Exh. 6, a Company business record, over that of GC Exh. 5, which
appeared to be a chart compiled for litigation.
12 I credited the undisputed testimony of Laskaris and Francek that the police was called at
unspecified times. However, the incidents were brought under control once police arrived and no police
reports were filed. (Tr. 210-213, 224, 229-230, 282, 310-312.)
JD–41–18
6
D. Strike Settlement Agreement
About 35 dealerships entered into interim agreements after several weeks into the strike.
On Friday, September 15, the NCDC, on behalf of the remaining member companies, entered
into a strike settlement agreement (the settlement agreement), contingent upon ratification by the 5
Union membership. The Union’s membership ratified the settlement agreement, as well as the
2017-2021 collective-bargaining agreement (the Successor Contract), on Sunday, September 17.
The settlement agreement addressed the return-to-work procedures for all Unit employees
at the 129 dealer-members as follows:10

2. Return to Work: The return-to-work process will be determined by each individual
dealer. Employees will be reinstated per the terms of the Successor Contract, but may be
placed on layoff depending on the business needs of the Employer. Replacement
employees, if retained, shall be credited with seniority as set forth in the Successor 15
Contract and will be placed on layoff status until higher seniority employees within the
same classification are recalled.
4. Mutual Non-Retaliation: Both parties, on behalf of their respective members, hereby
covenant and agree to use their best efforts and take any action deemed necessary to 20
ensure an orderly and peaceful return to work by striking employees, to ensure no
retaliation of any kind towards any employee or NCDC member dealer, and to maintain
order in the workplace once striking employees have returned to work. NCDC and the
Union agree, on behalf of themselves and each of their respective members, that there
will be no retaliation against any employee based upon conduct that is protected by law, 25
and that there will be no retaliation against any NCDC member dealer or the Union based
on actions taken or statements made during negotiations or the ensuing labor dispute.13
The Successor Contract set forth the seniority, layoff and recall provisions at Article 3,
which states, in pertinent parts: 30
Section 2. Layoff and Recall. Part-time Express Team Technicians will be laid off
before any other bargaining unit employee. In a decrease or increase in the number of
Journeyman Technicians, apprentices, semi-skilled technicians, or lube rack technicians,
when two employees are capable of doing the job, the one with the least product line 35
seniority shall be laid offered first and recalled in reverse order, provided the employer
has submitted a a current product line seniority list to the Union via certified mail. The
Employer shall be permitted to recall or hire up to three (3) Lube Rack Technicians
notwithstanding the layoff status of any Journeymen. A Lube Rack Technician hired or
recalled while a Journeyman is on layoff status may not be promoted while that 40
Journeyman retains recall rights. The Employer shall notify the employee of a layoff no
later than the end of the employee’s last scheduled workday of the calendar week, not the
Employer’s pay week.

13 Joint Exh. 2-3.
JD–41–18
7
Section 6. Reporting After Recall. The Employer shall give notice of recall to the
employee. An employee who fails, without reasonable excuse, to report for work within
three (3) working days of notice of recall shall be considered as having resigned from
employment.14
5
E. Employees Attempt to Return to Work on September 18
(1) Laskaris Rebuffs Employees’ Efforts to Return During Business Hours
On September 18, the day following the Union membership’s ratification of the 10
Successor Contract, the Unit employees congregated in their customary location across the street
from the dealership at about 7:00 a.m. Cicinelli and Thomas, anticipating a contentious return-
to-work process due to the replacement letters received by the five Unit members and concern
over the logistical difficulties in returning the returning mechanics’ tools and tool boxes, were
also present. In fact, Cicinelli arrived with pre-prepared grievance forms, which he had the 15
returning employees sign.
A few minutes later, Cicinelli, Thomas and Bisbikis walked across the street to the
dealership in order to negotiate a date and process for the employees’ return to work. They
entered Laskaris’ office. Francek was also present. Almost immediately, Laskaris said that he 20
did not want Bisbikis present. Cicinelli responded that Bisbikis was a necessary participant
because he was the steward and needed to be in the loop. Laskaris said that he did not care,
insisting that Bisbikis was the ringleader and at fault for the strike, and he did not want him as an
employee. Bisbikis asked Cicinelli what he should do. The latter suggested Bisbikis leave so he
and Thomas could resolve issues preventing the employees from returning that day. Bisbikis 25
complied and returned to join the other Unit members across the street.
During the meeting that ensued, Cicinelli insisted that Laskaris was obligated to reinstate
the replaced employees pursuant to the settlement agreement. Laskaris replied that he needed
time to figure out whether to recall the permanently replaced employees because he had not seen 30
the contract and was getting inconclusive legal advice. He added that he did not want any of the
strikers back and asked “can’t you find them all jobs?” Cicinelli said that he probably could find
them other employment, but the employees wanted reinstatement. At one point, Cicinelli
referred to the replacement workers as “scabs,” causing Laskaris to admonish Cicinelli because
they were “good family men” and note that the Union was obliged to represent them as well. 35
Cicinelli said he did not care, but concurred with the notion that the Union would be responsible
to represent them if they were retained and became Union members. As Cicinelli left to update
the employees, Laskaris proposed that in return for the employees not returning he would give
them $1,000 or $2,000 each to find a job elsewhere. Cicinelli said it was his responsibility to run
any offer by the employees, but considered it a futile effort. 15 40

14 The Company relies on this provision as the basis for Laskaris’ belief that he had three days to
recall the strikers. The testimony of Laskaris and Francek, however, with both professing ignorance as to
the content of the settlement agreement or alluding to conflicting advice from attorneys, did little to
clarify the Company’s responsibilities under this provision. (Tr. 218-219, 268-270, 306-308.)
15 Testimony regarding the first meeting was fairly consistent. Laskaris’ testimony regarding his
alleged confusion over how to implement the settlement agreement and whether he was required to
displace the replacement workers was not credible. He had no interest in ever reading the settlement
JD–41–18
8
Cicinelli and Thomas left Laskaris’ office and communicated his offer to the returning
employees. After the employees rejected the offer, Cicinelli and Thomas returned to Laskaris’
office along with Bisbikis. Once again, Laskaris asked why Bisbikis was there. Cicinelli
responded that Bisbikis was there to speak on behalf of the Unit employees. Bisbikis then began 5
to explain that the striking employees were personally offended after receiving permanent
replacement letters. He asked Laskaris why he issued the letters, and if they issued because he
and the other mechanics did not get along with Francek, which the latter denied. Bisbikis added
that he had been there for 15 years and excoriated Laskaris for his treatment of Bisbikis and the
other strikers. Laskaris said he did not want to hear it and asked why Bisbikis would want to 10
return. Bisbikis replied that he had been there for 15 years and considered it his home. Francek
interjected by questioning the strikers’ loyalty because they harassed customers and other
employees during the strike. Bisbikis denied that allegation. Francek then engaged Bisbikis in a
side conversation questioning the latter’s recent extended absence and Bisbikis replying that he
was still disabled when he returned to work.16 Laskaris reiterated that he did not want any of the 15
strikers to return, especially the “seven” who received permanent replacement letters. Cicinelli
said that the Union was aware of only five such letters and asked Francek to provide copies of
the other two letters. As the conversation continued, there was disagreement over how many
people were issued replacement letters, and to resolve that disagreement, Francek left the room
to retrieve copies of the letters.20

With Francek gone, Bisbikis brought up his June 29 conversation with Laskaris about
several employee concerns. Laskaris denied ever having such a discussion and Bisbikis accused
him of lying. Laskaris cursed at Bisbikis, telling him to “get the fuck out before I get you the
fuck out.” Bisbikis replied by calling Laskaris a “stupid jack off” in Greek as he left the office. 25
Laskaris asked Bisbikis “what did you just say.” Bisbikis looked at Laskaris and asked what he
was talking about? I didn’t say a word.” Cicinelli smirked, looked at Thomas and said “I didn’t
hear him say anything. Did you?” Laskaris replied, “[n]ow even if I have to take you back, now
I’m firing you for insubordination.17
30
Cicinelli responded that the Union would have to file another grievance regarding
Bisbikis’ termination and then asked Bisbikis to leave the room. He then asked Laskaris to
clarify his position regarding the recall status of the remaining strikers. Laskaris reconsidered
and agreed to allow the remaining employees who did not receive replacement letters to bring
back their tools. Cicinelli suggested that some had trailers and could begin returning their tools 35
in the afternoon. Laskaris rejected that arrangement on the ground that it would be too
disruptive, insisting that it was not the Company’s responsibility to transport the employees’

agreement and shifted explanations between contradictory legal advice and testimony evincing a clear
intent to deny reinstatement under any circumstances. (Tr. 38-41, 125-127, 220-226, 270.)
16 Bisbikis was on short-term disability for a herniated disc in his back from December to May.
17 I credit the testimony of Laskaris, a fluent Greek speaker, that Bisbikis called him a “stupid jack
off” in Greek. Bisbikis did not deny the statement at the time and the cavalier manner in which Cicinelli
and Thomas, neither of whom speak nor understand Greek, denied hearing Bisbikis say anything
manifested an evasiveness that undermined their credibility regarding this incident. At the time, however,
Bisbikis was standing by the door and not, as Laskaris suggested, moving toward him in a threatening
manner. (Tr. 42-48, 125-133, 142, 144, 167-173, 184-187, 221-234, 258, 273.) In addition, Laskaris
made no mention of threatening behavior on Bisbikis’ part in the termination letter that followed.
JD–41–18
9
tools to the dealership before they reported for work. The meeting ended with Laskaris giving
Cicinelli and Thomas a list of guys who were not permanently replaced and the plan for the
return-to-work schedule. He also agreed to open the shop two hours early on Tuesday at 5:30
a.m. and needed them to be in their stalls by 7:30 a.m. ready to go. Cicinelli insisted it would be
a problem getting the tools out of storage before 9:00 a.m. and Laskaris replied, “It’s noon. My 5
understanding is 701 has a truck. 701 has a union hall for this purpose. Why don’t you go get
their tools, put them on the truck, take them down to the hall. Not my issue. Now I need you to
get away from the front door and go.” After Cicinelli and Thomas left, Francek followed up
with telephone calls to each of the returning mechanics. He spoke with some and left messages
for others. Some said they would be ready to start work at 7:30 a.m. One employee said he 10
could not continue the call without union representation.
(2) The Union Attempts to Recruit the Replacement Workers
Shortly thereafter, Laskaris walked into the shop and found Thomas speaking to the five 15
replacement mechanics. Laskaris intervened and said, ‘Ken, this is not the time. Guys get back
to work. Ken, I’ll set up a private conference room for you before or after work any time you
want and you can sit and talk to them all you want, but you’re not going to stop them from
working.” Thomas left and rejoined the group across the street.18
20
(3) The Company Formally Terminates Bisbikis
Later that morning, Laskaris sent Bisbikis a “notice of termination for insubordinate
conduct and inappropriate language:”
25
Your insubordinate behavior occurred during a conversation in my office on Monday,
September 18, 2017 at or around 9:05 a.m. during a during a business meeting where you
spoke to me in [G]reek and called me a [stupid jack off] . . . When confronted and told
you can’t speak to me that way, there was no apology nor denial of you actions, instead
you very sarcastically to Sam Cicinelli “I guess that means I should leave now.” 30
This offensive and insubordinate behavior is a direct violation of Cadillac of Naperville’s
Standards of Conduct. In order to assure orderly operations and provide the best possible
work environment, we expect employees to follow rules of conduct that will protect the
interests and safety of all personnel. 35
This violation of conduct is a terminable action. We ask that you immediately refrain
from entering our property. Should you have any personal items, please reach out to your
supervisor to make any and all arrangements regarding your personal item pick up.19
40
(4) The Company Recalls 7 Employees

18 I base this finding on Laskaris’ credible and undisputed testimony. (Tr. 251-252.)
19 Laskaris testified, as the letter states, that Bisbikis’ conduct violated the Company’s Standards of
Conduct.” He also testified that those standards were reflected in a “book” which was not produced. (Tr.
259-260, 276-277; Joint Exh. 6.) In the absence of documentary evidence to support that assertion, there
is insufficient evidence to conclude that Bisbikis violated any written standards.
JD–41–18
10
Later that afternoon, Veronica Coy, the Company’s controller, e-mailed “all currently
employed technicians returning from work stoppage” regarding the return-to-work arrangement
and copied Cicinelli and Thomas:
5
Return to Work Procedures: Under the terms of the new contract, each individual dealer
may determine how many employees to recall and when. Please make note that after
review of our work requirements we have determined that the following employed
employees will need to return to work AND in their assigned work stall ready for work
on September 19, 2017 at 7:30 a.m.10
THE FOLLOWING EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN RECALLED:
ZIOCCHI, MICHAEL D
GONZALEZ, RONALD J15
MICHOLSON, CHARLES E
SCHULTE, RYAN D
TOWE, PATRICK
AGUIREE-PORTILLO, ANTONIO
SCOTT, JERICHO20
We have made arrangements to have the dealership open 5:30 a.m. until 7:30 a.m. on
September 19, 2017 in order to bring TOOL boxes and Tool carts in. Please note that
ONLY TOOL boxes and Tool carts will be allowed to be returned to the stalls as we have
a redesigned shop and usage will be at full capacity.25
Please also note the Cadillac of Naperville Attendance Policy
ATTENDANCE AND PUNCTUALITY
As an employee you are expected to be regular in attendance and to be punctual. Any 30
tardiness or absence causes problems for your fellow employees and your supervisor.
When you are absent, your work load must be performed by others, just as you must
assume the work load of others who are absent. In order to limit problems caused by
absence or tardiness of employees, we have adopted the following policy that applies to
absences not previously approved by the Company. 35
If you are unable to report for work on any particular day, you must call and speak to (not
text message or email) your supervisor at least one hour before the time you are
scheduled to begin working for that day. Absent extenuating circumstances, you must
call in on any day you are scheduled to work and will not report to work.
Excessive absenteeism or tardiness may result in disciplinary action up to and including 40
termination of employment. If you believe the absence is legally protected, please see the
company’s Disability Accommodation Policy for more information. Each situation of
absenteeism or tardiness will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Even one unexcused
absence or tardiness may be considered excessive, depending on the circumstance.20
45

20 Joint Exh. 7.
JD–41–18
11
F. Recalled Employees Attempt to Report to Work on September 19
At 7 a.m. on September 19, the employees met at their usual location across the street
from the dealership. A short while later, Cicinelli and Thomas marched across the lot with the
recalled mechanics to the service area as vehicles were coming through the service entrance. 5
They were met there by Laskaris and Francek. Laskaris asked what they were doing. Cicinelli
said that he wanted to discuss the logistics for the employees’ return since the storage facility did
not open until 9:30 a.m. Laskaris replied that it was not his problem and if the employees were
not in their stalls with their tools ready to go at 7:30 a.m., he would issue them warning letters
because they were technically late.21 10
Laskaris proceeded to escort the group into the new car delivery area. As they passed
customers in parked vehicles waiting to enter, Cicinelli said to a customer that “these are the real
technicians. Your scabs are in there.” Francek interjected, reassured the customer that the real
mechanics were working and the dealership would take care of him, adding that the individuals 15
walking in “can’t do shit.”22
Once in the room, Laskaris told the employees, “This is my facility. You’re going to
listen to me. I don’t give a fuck who tells you; listen to me. If I tell you to jump, you ask me
how high. This is my – you play by my rules.” Cicinelli interjected, “as long as you adhere to 20
the terms outlined.” Laskaris responded, “I know what that is. I don’t need to be reminded of
that.” Cicinelli agreed with that comment. Laskaris told the employees to bring their tools after
5:00 or 5:30 p.m. that day and Cicinelli replied that he would be filing another grievance for
back pay for that day because Laskaris continued to make it impossible for the employees to
bring the tools back since the storage facility closed at 5:00 p.m. Laskaris then told Cicinelli to 25
have the Unit employees bring them home. Cicinelli said that they did not all have trailers to
transport their tool boxes and/or have room to fit them in their garages. Nor did they have the
option of leaving them outside their homes since they were expensive. Laskaris said that was not
his problem. He said for them to bring them in the next morning and Cicinelli replied that the
storage facility did not open until 9:30 a.m. Cicinelli noted Laskaris’ inconsistency in permitting 30
employees to remove the tools on a Saturday, but now insisting it would be disruptive to bring
them while the facility was open for business. He called it overly restrictive. Laskaris reminded
Cicinelli that he told employees the previous day about being ready when reporting to work and
that some confirmed they would be ready to go. They went through several more exchanges in
which Laskaris said he was not going to do it Cicinelli’s way and the latter insisting that he 35
needed to comply with the contract. Laskaris finally relented, stating that he would run his shop
in a manner consistent with the contract, and agreed to let the employees bring back their tools
after 4:30 p.m. that day.23

21 Laskaris did not, in fact, issue written warnings to employees for lateness on September 19.
22 The testimony of Laskaris, Francek and Cicinelli confirmed the interaction of Cicinelli and Francek
with the customer. In addition, Francek failed to refute Cicinelli’s testimony that the former told the
customer that the strikers “can’t do shit,” while Francek’s testimony that Cicinelli referred to the
mechanics on duty as “scabs” was also undisputed. (Tr. 72-73, 240-241, 295.)
23 The testimony by Cicinelli, Laskaris, Francek and Towe regarding their interaction was fairly
consistent. However, given Laskaris’ penchant for colorful discourse with his employees, I credit
Cicinelli’s version of Laskaris’ vulgar-filled remarks that day. (Tr. 51-55 80-81, 240-242, 294-297.)
JD–41–18
12
G. Employees Finally Return to Work on September 20
The seven reinstated employees returned to work on September 20. Later that morning,
Laskaris pulled aside apprentice mechanic Patrick Towe showed him a video recording of
someone walking across the entrance to the dealership. It was Towe carrying a sign and walking 5
slowly on the stripe line in the middle of the street in front of the driveway. Towe’s shenanigans
enabled him to block a customer who was waiting to take a test drive. She was forced to drive
very slowly behind Towe as he walked across the parking lot entrance. The customer began to
accelerate as Towe had advanced to a point where he was nearly out of her way. However,
Towe suddenly pirouetted and walked back towards the vehicle, causing the customer to slam 10
her breaks.
Laskaris asked if that was him on the video recording and Towe said, “I don’t think so.”
Laskaris was not swayed, pointed out that the prankster was wearing his sweatshirt, and
comment on his harassment of a future service shop customer. He concluded with a remark that 15
he hoped that Towe would refrain from similar conduct. Laskaris then said “I don’t want any of
you here.” After further remarks, Laskaris said, “Well, if this is your home, you wouldn’t be
doing this” and he told Towe to look for another job because he wouldn’t be there very long.
Towe said okay and Laskaris dismissed him back to work.24
20
H. The Company Restricts Union Officials Access to Employees
Prior to the strike, Thomas customarily visited Unit employees at the dealership
approximately once every six weeks.25 Laskaris, upset after the events of September 18 and 19,
contacted an attorney and, on September 21, Laskaris and Francek sent a letter to the Union 25
limiting its previously unfettered access to employees on its premises:
This letter will serve as notice to Sam Cicinelli, Ken Thomas, and Mechanics Local 701.
As a result of the intimidating and threatening behavior of union president Sam Cicinelli and
B.A. Ken Thomas on Monday and Tuesday 9/18 & 9/19 towards myself, our employees, and 30
shockingly even worse our customers. Neither Cicinelli nor Thomas will be welcome in our
dealership or on property. If they choose to ignore our request they will kindly be asked to
leave the property immediately. Proper authorizes will be notified to have them removed if
necessary.
35
As a result of the actions and behavior of Local #701 representatives mentioned above and
complaints received from 4 employees who felt they were being “intimidated and bullied” by
B.A. Ken Thomas on Tuesday the 19th. Local #701 representatives will need to make an
appointment and request access to our facility and/or our employees while they are at work.
An agreed upon time must be scheduled with myself or our V.P. John Francek. Failure to 40
make such arrangements and respect our fair request will result in representatives from Local

24 The video was not a surveillance video generated by the Company and Laskaris was evasive as to
its source. (Tr. 243-245.) In any event, I credit Towe’s testimony regarding this conversation,
which was not denied by Laskaris. (Tr. 82-84, 245.) Towe was laid off on December 2, 2017.
25 The existence of this custom and practice prior to the strike was undisputed. (Tr. 57-58, 252.)
JD–41–18
13
#701 being asked to leave the property immediately and return at an agreed upon scheduled
time.
In closing let me be very clear. I personally will no longer be threatened or tolerate acts of
intimidation by local #701 representatives in my own place of business. Nor will I tolerate 5
such behavior towards my employees or our customers. Such behavior will be met with
swift legal action going forward. I appreciate your cooperation in advance.26
Union access to the facility is governed by Article 8, Section 2 of in both the Expired
Contract and the Successor Contract: “A Union representative shall be permitted access to the 10
Employer’s premises for the purpose of adjusting complaints individually or collectively.”27
I. The September 25th Staff Meeting
On September 25, Laskaris called a staff meeting where he threatened employees with 15
layoff. Laskaris called the meeting to express his frustration over the Union’s decision to leaflet
outside the dealership post the strike. During the meeting, Laskaris told the employees that the
Union’s leafleting was taking money out of their pockets and that if they ran out of work, all of
the recalled employees would be laid off.28
20
J. Changes to Company Rules and Practices
(1) Free Water
During the term of the 2013-2017 agreement, the Company provided unit employees with 25
free gloves and bottled water in the Parts Department. Mechanics are required as part of their
job to wear gloves and were provided with free gloves as needed. Prior to the strike, the
Company also provided employees with a water fountain, as well as free bottled water and
Gatorade during the summer months. The water fountain broke prior to the strike, however, and
the Company provided bottled water. 30
During the first week upon returning to work, the Company no longer provided free
water bottles and removed the water fountain. They were told to remove their refrigerators and
the refrigerator in the break room was removed. 29 The following day, the changes were posted in
a sign on the wall.30 35

26 Laskaris’ assertion that employees complained about the conduct of Cicinelli and Thomas was
neither credible nor corroborated. To the contrary, Laskaris’ testimony indicated his annoyance at the
fact that the union representatives were soliciting the replacement workers while they were on the job and
he injected himself to break up the conversation. (Tr. 261-262, 275; Joint Exh. 8.)
27 Joint Exh. 2 at 44.
28 Laskaris did not dispute Gonzalez’ credible and undisputed testimony regarding this incident. (Tr.
158.) Francek confirmed making remarks about the leafleting and its connection to potential layoffs if
work did not pick up, but did not dispute Gonzalez’ testimony. (Tr. 297-298.)
29 Laskaris was vague as to whether the water fountain broke – “not to my knowledge” – and testified
that prior to the strike free bottled water was provided in the employee lounge refrigerator with a cup next
to it for contributions that the Company matched for charity. (Tr. 249-251, 260-261.) Francek testified
that the Company confirmed that the Company cleaned out old items. He also referred to a technician’s
JD–41–18
14
(2) Attendance Policy
Prior to the strike, the Company did not have a formal attendance policy. It was left up to
the service manager’s discretion as to how they wanted to handle call-offs or calling in late. In 5
some instances, the service manager simply required mechanics to either leave a voicemail
message or text message him if they were going to be late.31 In its September 18 recall letter to
seven employees, the Company inserted an attendance policy at the end of the email. About 2-3
weeks after employees returned to work, the Company revised that policy. It stated in pertinent
part:10
… Technicians should contact their Department Manager to report an absence at least (1)
hour prior to their starting time, and lateness at least a (1/2) hour prior to their starting
time so that arrangements can be made.
15
If any technician is absent from work for three working days without informing his or her
Department Manager, it will be assumed that the employee resigned and employment
will be terminated as of the last day worked by the employee. Warning letters will be
issued for each day of “No Call No Show” with copies being sent to the Member and the
Union.20
… The following describes the disciplinary actions that may result from Unexcused
Absence, Tardiness and or Early Leave.
● Unexcused absence applies to non-scheduled days off and/or non-negotiated days off.25
● Tardiness applies to returning from lunch and/or break periods as well as the
beginning of the workday (including not calling in the proper time for an absence.)
● Early leave applies to leaving before your scheduled workday ends.
Technicians are expected to be punched in and prepared to work no more than (5) mins 30
past their regular start time and they be considered on time. When an employee is late
beyond five (5) minutes, along with any subsequent time thereafter, they are considered
tardy and shall be reprimanded or a written warning issued. Punching in and then leaving
to park car, get breakfast, or other tasks are prohibited.
35
1st offense: Verbal reprimand (written notice for technician’s personal file and Union to
document the communication occurred)
2nd offense: Written warning notice (copy to employee’s personnel file, employee and
Union)
3rd Offense: Final written warning notice (copy to employee’s personnel file, employee 40
and Union)

refrigerator causing an electrical short, but did not address the banning of refrigerators. (Tr. 300-301.)
30 GC Exh. 4.
31 Towe and Bisbikis credibly testified that there was no written attendance policy prior to the strike.
(Tr. 85, 134-135.) .
JD–41–18
15
4th Offense: Subject to termination after management review
Unexcused Absence/Tardiness/Early Leave warnings will be separate warnings to
Discipline and Training warning letters except in the case of “No Call/No Show”
warnings. All unexcused Absence/Tardiness/Early Leave warning shall be held for 1 5
year from the date of issue.
Fulltime technicians are allowed a maximum of 2 excused sick days per calendar year
after first 90 days of employment. Excessive absences will be subject to discipline.32

Upon learning of the new policy, the Union filed a grievance. 10
(3) Car Washing
Prior to the strike, the Company employed porters to clean, wash gas and move cars, as
well as the facilities. Mechanics were not asked to wash cars. Upon returning from the strike,15
however, business was slow and, on at least one occasion, Towe was temporarily tasked with
washing cars. The Company implemented that temporary change without notifying the Union.33

K. The October 6th Meeting
20
At approximately 11:00 a.m. on October 6, Klodzinski instructed the mechanics to cease
work so they could have a meeting. The service managers, service advisors, parts department,
John, Frank and Mark were all present. In a meeting that lasted approximately 40 minutes,
Laskaris revisited the contentious events of the past several months and his labor relations
approach going forward. He told the mechanics that they could take notes and tell the Union the 25
same thing to their face.34 Laskaris’ comments were secretly recorded by Towe:35
I want to make something really clear. I’m going to draw you an analogy. Chuck, you
own a house? You invite us all into your home, give us an opportunity to sleep, eat, share
holidays, earn a little living, happy times, also you come home one day, and we’re 30

32 Joint Exh. 9.
33 Towe was the only witness to testify that he was directed by Towe was asked by Klodzinski to
wash cars on an unspecified date. (Tr. 86-87, 102.) Gonzalez explained that washing cars potentially
reduced mechanics’ earnings potential since it was not compensable as book time. He did not, however,
confirm that he was actually assigned to wash cars at any time. (Tr. 163-164.) Nor do I credit Cicinelli’s
testimony that the Company never bargained over an attendance policy is undisputed. However, I do not
credit his uncorroborated hearsay testimony that strikers told him that they photographed Unit employees
washing cars. (Tr. 59-61)
34 Laskaris testified that he needed to address the group because he was “getting grievances over the
most frivolous, stupid things in my eyes. (Tr. 245-246. 275.)
35 The Company did not object to the authenticity and accuracy of the recording but objected to its
admission on the ground that Illinois is a dual party consent state and Towe did not receive Laskaris’
permission to record the meeting. As I explained at hearing, tape recordings are typically admitted in
Board proceedings, even if made without the knowledge or consent of a party to the conversation, and
even if the taping violates state law. Times Herald Record, 334 NLRB 350, 354 (2001), enfd. 27 Fed.
Appx. 64 (2d Cir. 2001); Williamhouse of California, Inc., 317 NLRB 699, fn. 1 (1995), and Wellstream
Corp., 313 NLRB 698, 711 (1994).
JD–41–18
16
standing on your front lawn, fucking with your neighbors, fucking with your kids, trying
to keep you from putting bread on the table, going on Facebook saying how much of an
asshole you are, how shitty your food is and how fucked up your house is. But once I get
what I want, which is … out of my control, nothing to do with the contract, you got to
open your house and take all of these people back in, sing kumbaya and let all of these 5
people back in . . . I have a hard time with that . . . I think you guys were misled, severely
misled, let me give you an example. You show up on Monday to come back to work and
he assembles you across the street and we’re going to walk on the lot for hours of
meetings and your guy who you see every four years who doesn’t give a shit about you,
is in my office telling me how the fuck I’m going to run my store. . . He’s telling me how 10
the shit is going to go down in my house. . . . I put my name up there so I could walk
around with a big dick, no, this is our place. . .
So I tell him these okay these guys are coming back. Here’s the return to work policy.
I’m going to open up the doors two hours early, get your tools and be ready to get to 15
work at 7:30, not disrupting a day’s work. He makes sure he lets you guys know, fuck
that, we’re not going to do that, we’re going to do it our way . . . He starts whining we
can’t get our tools today. . . . So he assembles you and walks you across the parking lot . .
. and you guys come walking up like West Side Story right in the front door and are
going to cause a scene with the union guy who is not going to know your fucking name in 20
a couple of months . . . “We’ll go show him, we’ll go fuck with him.” Good idea guys. . .
. So what I do? I tell you guys, “we’re opening at 5:30.Bring your tools and be ready to
go,” didn’t I? “Any questions?” Nope. Everybody leaves. Mark gets on the telephone
with Johnny and calls every one of you guys. Spoke to most of you. What were you
told? [An attendee says “between 5:30 and 7:30”]. . . and they said “no problem, I’ll be 25
there ready to go . . . Somewhere between Monday and Tuesday you guys get misled by
some guy who really doesn’t give a shit about you. Somehow he talks you into not
bringing in your tools in. “We’ll just say the rental place isn’t open, storage place isn’t
open.” He didn’t say, you know what guys, you’re my union guys, I’ll send the union
truck over to pick them up right now and I’ll park that truck at union hall” . . . Did he do 30
that for you guys, because I would have done that for you. He didn’t. He said “meet me
across the street, we’ll go fuck with him again.” You know he cost you guys a days’ pay.
He probably told you “that he’ll have to pay you on Tuesday.” No. “You said you’d be in
your stall ready to go. You had plenty of notice. You weren’t in your stall ready to go so
I’m not paying you”. . . “Let’s fuck with the guy more” and the result is, Mike, you 35
don’t get another day’s pay . . . I could have been a prick and said “we’ll try it again
tomorrow at 5:30.” I should of, but I didn’t. I said, fine, we’ll try it again tonight after
work . . . Then I said let’s bring it in tomorrow morning and Sam said “no, the rental
place isn’t open.” I have a question for you guys. You’re supposed to be in your stalls
ready to go on Tuesday. You said you’d be ready to go. If your family depended on 40
breathing on Wednesday based on the money you made on Tuesday, would those tools
have been here. Chuck? You would found a way to get the tools here. So let’s stop the
bull shit, the rental places, it’s all posturing bull shit.
Why am I telling you? You can grieve whatever you want. Let me tell you about the 45
grievance process. You put it in writing and you complain to someone here, me or
management and you let the union know. That’s the process. Otherwise the grievance
JD–41–18
17
doesn’t mean shit. He can walk up on the lot and hand me whatever he wants. . . What
I’m telling you is I don’t give a shit about grievances. Grieve all you want. It doesn’t
matter. They can’t do shit. . . “They’re not giving us free water . . . [or] gloves
anymore.” . . . Grieve all you want. . . . Bull shit. I don’t care about grievances, grieve all
you want. . . Keep putting you name on it. You look stupid saying they don’t give me 5
free water. Until this happened, you were happy working here. Grieved about water, go
ask Jean who makes 20% of what you make where she gets her water, she’ll tell you she
gets it from her house. Be a man, grieve something important, like wages. . .
You don’t know how many times I mortgaged my house to make sure you got a 10
paycheck. . . . You didn’t stand there and tell the Toyota guys, “fuck with your own
owner and fuck with your own customers and leave ours alone.” None of you did that.
Instead, you call them over and say “you blow the horn let’s get him to do it” . . . You
wonder why I’m pissed. . . It’s not right, I’m here to tell you I don’t care, I don’t care on
what you grieve, I don’t care how much you complain, they’re not going to tell me what 15
to do. I suggest you read your little blue book that he waved in my face like a smug
asshole . . . and if I follow that book your life harder will get harder . . . . There’s so much
stuff in that book that nobody enforces. Why? Because we don’t want to be that kind of
place. You’re going to grieve gloves, guys? Good luck. . . . Why are you putting your
name on that, guys? Step away from all this and go ask I’m a man first and I have a 20
family. Why am I signing a piece of paper crying about gloves? If it’s so bad go
somewhere else. It’s okay. You guys need to understand . . . I’m the nicest guy in the
world, fuck with me and I’m going to fight harder. . . . I couldn’t sit back during this
thing and go “ah, it will end someday, no problem, here’s your paycheck . . . Mark.” . . .
Why don’t you call the parts guy . . . ask Jim later after eating shit for all these months, 25
running parts for you guys, . . . while you’re making $1,500, $2,000, $2,500 per week
and he’s making a fraction of that, ask him how he felt being laid off while with no
paycheck you guys are playing darts outside, blowing horns, making sounds, fucking
dancing. . . . Ask some of these people . . . [the sales] and parts people . . . what it feels
like to throw water in front of his car, videotape him instead of letting him sell cars, and 30
then going on Facebook and saying that he’s going to run me over. . . You guys should
instead be angry at Johnny and Sam . . .
Every 701 member has an option. . . You could be a financial core member . . . you get
everything everybody else gets. You’re a member like everybody else. All your benefits 35
are protected. You trade one thing. You never have to strike. . . . But you give up your
vote on the contract but you never have to strike. . . . But before you strike ever again
educate yourself. Because if I were you, I would have changed my membership a week
before the strike. . . . “I’m going to go to work and get a paycheck while those guys
throw play darts, lift weights and make assholes out of themselves”. . . . By the way, your 40
[union representative] he came in and had a meeting with a couple of guys to sign them
up and they said tell me what I’m signing, he goes never mind, just sign, he bullies them.
Then they said tell me about financial core. . . . There’s no such thing. He lies to them.
Now he’s calling them scabs. . .
45
JD–41–18
18
The same person who is on Facebook saying what a horrible place to work this is . . . why
do you want to be here? . . . [Shows a videotape of Towe stepping in front of an elderly
customer seeking to test drive a vehicle] . . .
If they’re gang raping a woman and you stood by are you about as guilty as them? . . . 5
Keep filing shit . . . I would look for a job if I were some of you, maybe all of you. . . . I
wouldn’t want to be where I’m not wanted. . . . While you’re playing darts, Pat . . . are
you kidding me? . . . You guys shit on our house. . . . I look out the window and I saw
some of you guys.. . . We were in a labor dispute. I couldn’t talk to you guys. But you
could have picked up the phone and called Mark, or called me or called John. You could 10
as a group . . . walked in with your leader Johnny who led you down a shitty path and . . .
could have walked in before the strike and said “what are our options” and educated
yourselves. At that point I didn’t know what our options were. . . . .
There’s a contract. We’re going to follow it. But I’m not putting up with any more 15
bullshit ... There’s more videos of behavior ... that will make your stomach turn. ... I
expected a little more loyalty towards the 70 families here... Refer to these guys as scabs
and see what happens...
This shop is going to be run the way I want it to get run, not the way Sam’s going to tell 20
you . . . Gloves, water? You can’t do shit about gloves or water. . . . Pick a fight that’s
worth fighting, guys. Stop it. Or just keep it up. Call him today. Tell him that I
threatened your guys to all look for jobs. . . . Know what the penalty is? . . . Okay, I
won’t do that anymore. . . So they have you thinking they have some power over us.
That’s shit. . . . 25
I own this place. . . . If you think for a minute Chuck that I have to keep you here long
term, you’re wrong. It doesn’t matter . . . I have 701 guys here who want to work, who
are hungry and happy and respect coworkers jobs, so next time they face a horrible
decision they’ll know what they’re walking into instead of obstructing customers and 30
dealers who are trying to sell cars. . . . Johnny, stay the fuck off of Facebook and stop
trashing the dealership. . . . and harassing people. . . .
Watching a guy like Matt who came here as an apprentice and made $120,000 last year.
That’s gratifying to me. And then watching him go outside and act like a complete 35
asshole, pissing on his fucking $10,000 a month. How smart is that? And not having a
guy like Ronny and Mike and Chuck saying “Matt, fucking don’t do that, chill, you want
to do that, go back there and sit under a tree. That would have been good advice. . . .
Nobody can tell you to act like an asshole, nobody can tell you to obstruct our business,
obstruct our building to make a living. . . . 40
What you don’t even know now they cost you a day’s pay by giving you bad advice that
day. . . .Some of you said I’ll be there with my tools ready to go. Someone talked you
out of it. So you start work on Wednesday instead of Tuesday. Cost you a day’s pay.
Right? He can fight for it. Right? Good luck. I can hear the judge now: “Let me get this 45
right, Chuck, you’re a grown man, been doing this a long time, you said you’d be there
on time, it was 12 o’clock on Monday, you couldn’t rent a truck and get your tools to
JD–41–18
19
work by Tuesday morning like you said you could?” He’s not going to believe you.
He’s not going to be able to pay you. . . . That’s your friend Sam, giving you good
advice. . . .
And then they negotiated a contract. You know the first one you vote on wasn’t what 5
you were offered. I was dumfounded. I thought that could be illegal. We could have
offered you $50 an hour. . . . They didn’t put the real numbers in front of you until they
were ready to settle the strike. I tell you what, Sam did a great job against a real legal
team, but he didn’t do you guys any favors because the first contract offer was an
unprecedented deal because everybody wanted to move on and keep going. Nobody 10
wanted a strike. . . . That’s not what’s put in front of you. . . . I don’t even know what
you were offered because I stayed out of it. I didn’t go to one meeting . . . . My point is,
you guys get manipulated. Don’t be manipulated by anybody, don’t be manipulated by
me, the union, anybody, look out for yourself, be smart. . . . The first thing they put in
front of you was not even close to what you were offered. It was three times the 15
historical rates that you guys got and it was voted down. Why? Because they lie to you. .
. . You voted on some bullshit they put in front of you because they wanted a down vote
to muscle. In the end you ended up with the same fucking deal but you sat out on the
curb for six weeks too long for $300 a week. How’s that feel? And you pissed a lot of
people off. How’s that feel, Mike? . . . 20
[The union] keeps preoccupying our time with bullshit; I’ll keep you guys busy with
bullshit. . . . . Keep shitting on your house with stupid bullshit over water. . . . [and that
you used to have] a chest on the wall, now I want it back. Really, who are you guys to
anything? . . . You don’t have a right to demand shit. They can write anything they want 25
on those pieces. . . . .I’ll buy you guys your own pads of grievances for Christmas if you
want. . . .
Keep it up and we can play this game all day because I’m not backing down. I’m not
going to be bullied by Sam. He’s not going to put his fucking finger in my face. . . . . 30
You guys put me on [the news]. . . I’m an asshole. . . .My kid is going to Google that
shit someday. I deserve that? . . .
14 guys acted badly, misguided, misled . . . Easy decision for me. So go home every
night and tell yourself, “What a cock sucker he is.” It’s OK. I can live with it. I can be 35
the nicest guy in the world, you put me in a corner, I’m going to fucking eat your face.
That’s who I am. I’ll give you a kidney, Ronnie but you fuck with me and my people,
I’m going to eat your kidney out of your body and spit it at you. That’s how nasty I can
be. It’s not in my nature to be a prick, but when I see shit like that Pat, it’s easy to be a
prick to you; real easy. And they can’t stop me from being a prick. So you should ask 40
yourself a question, do you want to work for a prick? Think about it. You got anything
you want to say? . . . Let’s go back to work.
L. The October 27 Threat
45
Brian Higgins, a journeyman service technician, has been employed by the Company for
about two years. He was not one of the Unit employees not recalled on September 18. On
JD–41–18
20
October 27, Laskaris called Higgins to inform him that he was finally being recalled to work and
if he was still interested. Higgins responded affirmatively. Laskaris, however, replied that he
did not want Higgins or any of the remaining permanently replaced employees to return to work.
He also warned that if Higgins returned to work it would not be long before he was gone.36
5
M. The November 17th Recall Letters
On November 17, the Company offered recall to Higgins, Wilson, Scott, Gibbs and
Mendralla from their status as “a permanently replaced employee in accordance with the recently
ratified collective bargaining agreement between the NCDC and Local 701:”10
We expect you that you will return to work on Monday November 20, 2017. If, however,
you are unable to report on Monday, November 20, 2017, as outlined in the Standard
Automotive Agreement strike settlement agreement regarding recall, you will have three
(3) working days to report after notice of recall. If you have reasonable excuse for being 15
unable to report during this time period, please communicate that excuse within the three
working day period to Jeremy Moritz . . . [his] assistant (Brittany Chadek) can be reached
at . . . For these purposes, a communication from a union official (including Mr.
Cicinelli) or the Union’s attorney . . . regarding your intended return is sufficient.
20
If you fail to report or do not provide a reasonable excuse within the three-day period,
you will be considered as having resigned from employment. Waiving your recall at this
time will be permanent and will result in loss of all future recall rights as well as a break
in seniority with [the Company], in accordance with the current collective bargaining
agreement. 25
We are looking forward to having you return as a valued member of our organization and
look forward to hearing from you soon.37
LEGAL ANALYSIS30
I. SECTION 8(A)(1) THREATS
Under Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, an employer may not “interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title”. 29 U.S.C. § 158.
The Supreme Court described the balance between those employee rights and an employer’s free 35
speech rights as codified by Section 8(c) in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618
(1969):
[A]n employer is free to communicate to his employees any of his general views about
unionism or any of his specific views about a particular union, so long as the 40
communications do not contain a “threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.” He
may even make a prediction as to the precise effects he believes unionization will have
on his company.

36Laskaris did not dispute Higgins’ credible testimony regarding this conversation. (Tr. 149-150.)
37 Joint Exh. 10.
JD–41–18
21
Between June 29 and October 6, the Company made numerous threats and coercive
statements that lacked the objective character necessary to invoke the protection of Section 8(c).
A. June 295
During a conversation initiated by Bisbikis on June 29 regarding employee concerns,
Laskaris warned him that “things would not be the same” if Unit employees went on strike. The
statement violated Section 8(a)(1). It did not communicate any objective facts or predictions as
to the effects of a potential strike. Although vague, the statement’s timing is significant as it 10
occurred just before a strike was about to begin at the dealership. See United Aircraft Corp., 192
NLRB 382, 383 (1971) (Employer violated the Act with statement two days before a pending
strike that “[a] lot of people are going to get hurt and a lot of people won't be coming back”). On
its face, the statement cannot be viewed as anything but a threat that a strike would produce only
negative consequences for the Unit. Commc'ns Workers of Am. Local 9509, 303 NLRB 264, 272 15
(1991) (employer’s thinly veiled threats to an employee with respect to their union activities was
unlawful); APA Transport Corp., 285 NLRB 928, 931 (1987) (same); Waterbed World, 286
NLRB 425, 427 (1987) (same).
B. September 2020
On September 20, Towe was interrogated by Laskaris about his alleged picket line
misconduct, culminating with the dire prediction by Laskaris that Towe would not be at the
Company very long and should find another job. The overarching theme of the conversation was
not Towe’s shenanigans on a particular day, but rather, Laskaris’ disapproval of Towe’s overall 25
participation in the strike. Laskaris did not assert, and there is no other evidence in the record
indicating otherwise, that the statement was made in jest. See Electri-Flex Co., 238 NLRB 713,
716 (1978) (finding a Section 8(a)(1) violation where employer offered discredited testimony
that the threat of discharge was a joke); cf. Baker Machinery Co., 184 NLRB 358, 361 (1970)
(rejecting a Section 8(a)(1) claim where foreman joked that an employee’s days were numbered). 30
Under the circumstances, Laskaris’ statement of doubt as to Towe’s continued employment was
a threat of discharge in response to protected union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
Concepts & Designs, Inc., 318 NLRB 948, 954 (1995) (coercive threats may be implied rather
than stated expressly); National By-Products, Inc. v. NLRB, 931 F.2d 445, 451 (7th Cir. 1991)
(same). 35
C. September 25
On or about September 25, Laskaris held a staff meeting with Gonzalez and other
employees to address union leafleting at the dealership. At that meeting, in conjunction with his 40
complaint about continued union leafleting in front of the dealership, Laskaris remarked that he
would lay off all of the recalled employees if he ran out of work.
Pursuant to Gissel, the question is whether Laskaris’ statements constituted an unlawful
threat of retaliation in response to protected activity or a lawful, fact-based prediction of 45
economic consequences beyond the employer's control. 395 U.S. 575, at 618-19. In this case,
the Company provided no evidence that leafleting was causing such substantial economic harm
JD–41–18
22
as to justify the termination of a large number of employees. See Massachusetts Coastal
Seafoods, 293 NLRB 496, 510-512 (1989) (statement by company official is an unlawful threat,
not a lawful prediction, when the official gave no facts or figures to support prediction of
economic effects); cf. In Re Tvi, Inc., 337 NLRB 1039 (2002) (finding that supervisor made a
lawful prediction of potential layoffs where company was not profitable and the statement was 5
carefully phrased). Laskaris could have made his views about the dealership’s economic
condition known without threatening to terminate employees, but decided to engage in the type
of “brinksmanship” that the Supreme Court has observed often leads employers to “‘overstep
and tumble (over) the brink.” Gissel, 395 U.S. at 620, quoting Wausau Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 377
F.2d 369, 372 (7th Cir. 1967). Instead, he took the opportunity to once again cast union activity 10
as inimical to Unit members’ employment security in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
D. October 6
The complaint alleges that on October 6, Laskaris convened a meeting on the shop floor 15
with all of the mechanics working that day. During the meeting, Laskaris threatened employees
with stricter enforcement of company rules, informed them that it would be futile to file
grievances, encouraged employees to resign their membership in the union or become core
members of the union, coerced employees by telling them that past employees had lost their jobs
over their decision to strike, and threatened employees with physical violence. Towe recorded 20
the meeting in full, and the Company objected to the admission of the recording based on Illinois
state law, but did not dispute the substance of the recording. The recording was received in
evidence consistent with Board precedent. See fn. 35, supra.
An employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening that it will more strictly 25
enforce rules or policy because of employees' protected activity. Miller Industries Towing
Equipment, Inc., 342 NLRB No. 112, slip op. at 1 (2004) (employer unlawfully threatened
stricter rule enforcement and restrictions on protected activities in non-work areas in response to
unionization); Mid-Mountain Foods, Inc., 332 NLRB 229, 237-38 (2000), enfd. 269 F.3d 1075
(D.C. Cir. 2001) (supervisor unlawfully warned employees that the company would draft strict 30
work rules that would be “followed to the letter”); Long-Airdox Co., 277 NLRB 1157 (1985)
(employer unlawfully threatened employees with plant closure and told them it would more
strictly enforce plant rules).
During the meeting, Laskaris informed the employees that if he chose to enforce the rules 35
as they were written, things would be much harder for them:
I suggest you read your little blue book that he waved in my face like a smug asshole . . .
and if I follow that book your life harder will get harder . . . . There’s so much stuff in
that book that nobody enforces. Why? Because we don’t want to be that kind of place.40
Laskaris’ statement falls squarely in the Long-Airdox Co. line of cases as an unabashed
threat of greater enforcement in response to union activity. The crux of the meeting was that
there would be negative consequences for engaging in union activities. Moreover, Laskaris’
statement of greater enforcement was clearly motivated by general animus towards the protected 45
union actions that occurred at the dealership.
JD–41–18
23
Laskaris’ statement regarding the futility of filing grievances was premised on his
aversion to letting the union tell him how to run his business. The Board has found violations of
Section 8(a)(1) where an employer “conveyed the impression that the contractual grievance
procedure was futile.” Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 317 NLRB 357 (1995) (supervisor
unlawfully informed employee that filing grievances would “lead to a bad situation” and “it 5
didn’t matter what happened during the grievance procedure”); Laredo Packing Co., 254 NLRB
1 (1981) (personnel director unlawfully explained to an employee why the grievance he filed
lacked merit and threatened discharge if he did not withdraw it). Laskaris made his views
regarding the futility of filing grievances and the low merit of past grievances abundantly clear:
10
What I’m telling you is I don’t give a shit about grievances. Grieve all you want. It
doesn’t matter. They can’t do shit. . . “They’re not giving us free water . . . [or] gloves
anymore.” . . . Grieve all you want. . . . Bull shit. I don’t care about grievances, grieve all
you want. . . Keep putting you name on it. You look stupid saying they don’t give me
free water. Until this happened, you were happy working here. Grieved about water, go 15
ask Jean who makes 20% of what you make where she gets her water, she’ll tell you she
gets it from her house. Be a man, grieve something important, like wages. . . You
wonder why I’m pissed. . . It’s not right, I’m here to tell you I don’t care, I don’t care on
what you grieve, I don’t care how much you complain, they’re not going to tell me what
to do.20
In unequivocal fashion, Laskaris stated that he had no patience for past grievances, nor
would he entertain any grievances that did not comport with his idea of a “real grievance.”
These comments crossed the line of protected employer speech under Section 8(c) and, thus,
violated Section 8(a)(1). 25
Laskaris continued the meeting by making a pitch for why the employees should resign
from the Union or become financial core members:
Every 701 member has an option. . . You could be a financial core member . . . you get 30
everything everybody else gets. You’re a member like everybody else. All your benefits
are protected. You trade one thing. You never have to strike. . . . but you give up your
vote on the contract but you never have to strike . .. but before you strike ever again
educate yourself. Because if I were you, I would have changed my membership a week
before the strike. . . . I’m going to go to work and get a paycheck while those guys throw 35
play darts, lift weights and make assholes out of themselves. . . . By the way, your [union
representative] he came in and had a meeting with a couple of guys to sign them up and
they said tell me what I’m signing, he goes never mind, just sign, he bullies them. Then
they said tell me about financial core. . . . There’s no such thing. He lies to them. Now
he’s calling them scabs. . .40

Pursuant to Gissel, an employer is free to communicate to his employees any of his
general views about unionism or any of his specific views about a particular union, so long as the
communications do not contain a “threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.” Laskaris’
remarks displayed clear animus toward the union and its representatives, and overzealously 45
encouraged the Unit to consider his proposal for withdrawing union membership. Adair
Standish Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 912 F.2d 854, 860 (6th Cir.), judgment entered, 914 F.2d 255 (6th
JD–41–18
24
Cir. 1990) (supervisor violated Section 8(a)(1) when he “took it upon himself” to “let the
employees know that [he] had forms to fill out to revoke their authorization cards”); Peabody
Coal Co. v. NLRB, 725 F.2d 357, 364 (6th Cir. 1984) (finding a Section 8(a)(1) violation where
the employer “offered both the method and the means to withdraw from the union” and
encouraged consideration of this option”). It is noteworthy that Laskaris openly displayed 5
animus toward the Union and engaged in other Section 8(a)(1) violations before and after these
remarks. NLRB v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours, 750 F.2d 524, 528 (6th Cir. 1984) (“the Board
considers the total context in which the challenged conduct occurs and is justified in viewing the
issue from the standpoint of its impact upon the employees”). Given the overtly hostile context
of the October 6 staff meeting, Laskaris’ encouragement of union members to resign from the 10
union or become financial core members violated Section 8(a)(1).
Laskaris also blamed Unit employees for the loss of non-unit employees’ jobs because
they chose to strike. He admonished the strikers for disrupting the work of non-unit employees
and asked the strikers how they felt about the parts and sales department employees who were 15
laid off because of the strike. Considering the total context in which these statements occurred,
Laskaris deliberately played on the sympathies of the Unit employees to coerce them from
exercising their Section 7 rights again in the future. NLRB v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours, 750 F.2d
at 528. Accordingly, all statements placing responsibility on Unit employees for the loss of non-
unit jobs violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.20
As the meeting wound down, Laskaris ratcheted the impact of his coercive remarks with
anatomically colorful remarks that reasonably threatened physical harm if Unit employees
continued to engage in future union activity:
25
14 guys acted badly, so go home every night and say what a cock sucker he is, I’m Ok
with it, put me in a corner, I’ll eat your face, I’ll give you a kidney, but you fuck with me
and my people, Ronnie, I’m going to eat your kidney out of your body and spit it out.
That’s how nasty I can be. And they can’t stop me from being a prick. Ask if you want
to work for a prick. Anything you want to say?30
Laskaris made this statement during a heated speech aimed at returning strikers and other
employees, and it was not unreasonable for the employees present to be shocked by Laskaris’
comments. See Jax Mold & Machine, Inc., 255 NLRB 942, 946-947 (1981) (supervisor's
statement made in anger that he would shoot union supporters constituted an unlawful threat), 35
enfd. 683 F.2d 418 (11th Cir. 1982); cf. Strauss & Son, Inc., 200 NLRB 812, 822 (1972) (no
violation where employees would not have believed the employer when he said he wished he
could load certain employees into a truck, put some dynamite into it, and blow them all up).
Laskaris’ remark was not made in jest but was an act of verbal intimidation that conveyed to the
employees in attendance that union activities were not to be repeated. Even if Laskaris’ 40
statements were not construed as legitimate threats to cause bodily harm, they would reasonably
tend to coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 364
NLRB No. 118, slip op. at fn. 6 (2016). For the foregoing reasons, Laskaris’ threats violated
Section 8(a)(1).
45
JD–41–18
25
E. October 27
Higgins received a telephone call from Laskaris regarding his recall. During the call,
Laskaris told Higgins that he did not want Higgins or any of the remaining permanently replaced
employees to return to work. He then warned Higgins that if he returned to work it would not be5
long before he was gone.
Laskaris’ statements were overtly coercive in trying to convince Higgins that returning to
the Company would not be in his best interest. The expression of doubt as to Higgins’ longevity
with the Company violated Section 8(a)(1). See Concepts & Designs, Inc., 318 NLRB at 954. 10
II. ALLEGED ADVERSE ACTIONS
The complaint alleges that Laskaris terminated Bisbikis’ employment because he
engaged in concerted union activities and to dissuade others from engaging in such activities.
The Company contends that Bisbikis’ discharge resulted from his use of vulgar language and, 15
thus, insubordinate conduct, toward Laskaris. Other alleged acts of retribution include the
institution of a new attendance policy, the removal of free gloves and water, the implementation
of restrictions on Union access to Company facilities, the Company’s tasking of Unit mechanics
with washing cars, Laskaris’ dismissal of unit employees without pay on September 18, and the
Company’s four month delay in recalling five permanently replaced employees.20
In determining whether Bisbikis and Unit employees were subjected to adverse employer
action because they engaged in protected or union activity, the appropriate test is found in Wright
Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 889 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989
(1982), approved at NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 399–403 (1983). 25
The General Counsel must initially show the employee’s protected activity was a motivating
factor in the decision to terminate. See Coastal Sunbelt Produce, Inc. & Mayra L. Gagastume,
362 NLRB No. 126, slip op. at 1 (2015) (“Under Wright Line, the General Counsel has the
initial burden to show that protected conduct was a motivating factor in the employer's
decision”). Establishing unlawful motivation requires proof that: “(1) the employee engaged in 30
protected activity; (2) the employer was aware of the activity; and (3) the animus toward the
activity was a substantial or motivating reason for the employer’s action.” Consolidated Bus
Transit, Inc., 350 NLRB 1064, 1065 (2007), enfd. 577 F.3d 467 (2d Cir. 2009) (unlawful
motivation found where the employee became active in union activity, the employer was aware
that he was leading employee meetings, and the employer singled out the employee for testing). 35
If the General Counsel prevails, the burden shifts to the Company to prove that it would
have terminated Bisbikis regardless of his protected concerted activity. 251 NLRB at 1089;
Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278, 281 (1996) (employer’s affirmative defenses failed to establish
that it would have transferred the workers to new job sites regardless of their union activities). 40
An employer may not offer pretextual reasons for discharging an employee. Metropolitan
Transportation Services, 351 NLRB 657, 659 (2007) (finding that employer’s reliance on a
minor infraction and a claim of insubordination were pretexts for discharging an employee);
Golden State Foods Corp., 340 NLRB 382 (2003) (noting that there is no need to perform the
second part of the Wright-Line test if the reasons for discharge are merely pretextual. 45
JD–41–18
26
A. Bisbikis and Unit Employees Engaged in Concerted Protected Activity
Protected concerted activity is defined as activity which is “engaged in with or on the
authority of other employees, and not solely by and on behalf of the employee himself.” Meyers
Industries, 268 NLRB 493 (1983) (Meyers I), cert. denied 474 U.S. 948 (1985), supplemented 5
281 NLRB 882 (1986) (Meyers II), cert denied. 487 U.S. 1205 (1988). In Meyers II, the Board
broadened the scope of the definition to include “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. 281 NLRB at 887.
10
It is undisputed that Laskaris and Unit employees engaged in protected concerted and
union activity and the Company had knowledge of this activity. Bisbikis prominently engaged in
union activity as the union steward at the Company. On June 29, he went to Laskaris’ office to
discuss the costs of uniform shirts and the pending strike. Bisbikis and Unit employees
organized and participated in the seven and a half week strike that followed the failure of the 15
union and NCDC to reach a new collective bargaining agreement. On September 18, after the
strike concluded, Bisbikis and Union representatives Cicinelli and Thomas met with Laskaris
and Francek on behalf of the Unit so that they could discuss a return-to-work plan and
communicate grievances.
20
B. The Discharge was Motivated by Animus
Common indicators of animus are a showing of “suspicious timing, false reasons given in
defense, failure to adequately investigate alleged misconduct, departures from past practices,
tolerance of behavior for which the employee was allegedly fired, and disparate treatment of the 25
discharged employee.” Medic One, Inc., 331 NLRB 464, 475 (2000).
Bisbikis worked at the Company for 15 years, and by all accounts had an amicable
relationship with management throughout his tenure. His relationship with Laskaris began to
deteriorate, however, when he met with Laskaris on June 29 to discuss shop issues, particularly 30
the new requirement that employees would be required to cover the cost of their uniform shirts.
At this meeting, Laskaris rejected Bisbikis’ proposal and warned him that if the mechanics went
on strike, “things wouldn’t be the same.” This threat constituted a Section 8(a)(1) violation
which is also compelling evidence of animus. See In Re Sunrise Health Care Corp., 334 NLRB
903 (2001) (veiled threat of more onerous working conditions was both an 8(a)(1) violation and 35
evidence of animus); In Re Casino Ready Mix, Inc., 335 NLRB 463, 465 (2001) (unlawful threat
to move the Company or replace the drivers with owner-operators to avoid unionization was
sufficient to establish animus).
Moreover, during the strike, Bisbikis and four other employees were informed that they 40
had been permanently replaced. Neither Laskaris nor Francek offered an explanation as to why
Bisbikis and the four other employees were permanently replaced while everyone else was able
to return to work. At the conclusion of the strike, Laskaris ejected Bisbikis from his office when
he arrived with Cicinelli and Thomas to discuss the return-to-work process on September 18.
Bisbikis returned with the union representatives a short while later, ignored Laskaris’ demand 45
that he leave, and persisted in conveying the grievances of Unit employees as their steward. The
recitation included a reference to Laskaris’ June 29 threats, which Laskaris falsely denied. After
JD–41–18
27
Bisbikis called him a liar, Laskaris told him to “get the fuck out,” at which point Bisbikis
insulted him in Greek. Laskaris banished Bisbikis for good, telling him that he was fired.
The aforementioned circumstances provide strong indications that Bisbikis’ union and
other protected activity was a “substantial or motivating factor” in the decision to discharge him. 5
North Hills Office Services, 346 NLRB 1099, 1100 (2006) (General Counsel met its initial
burden by showing that the employer instituted a new uniform policy and changed lunch
schedules to curtail Section 7 activity). Evidence of animus can be inferred from the entirety of
the record, looking to both circumstantial evidence and, where available, direct evidence. See
e.g., Frierson Bldg. Supply Co., 328 NLRB 1023, 1023–1024 (1999) (Circumstantial evidence 10
that employer knew about and was monitoring an employee organizing campaign, combined
with the suspicious timing of employee discharges, was sufficient to infer animus). In
Alternative Entertainment. Inc., 363 NLRB No. 131 (2016), enfd. 858 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2017),
an employee engaged in protected concerted activity by discussing concerns about a change in
the wage structure with other co-workers. Management knew about his protected activity, pulled 15
him aside and asked that he refrain from discussing this issue with other workers. Shortly
thereafter, the discriminatee was fired. The Board agreed that the timing of the discharge, in the
absence of direct evidence, provided “strong circumstantial evidence” of not only knowledge of
continued engagement with a protected activity, but also of a discriminatory motive. Id.
20
The timing significantly undermines the Company’s assertion that Bisbikis was
discharged solely for insulting Laskaris and calling him a liar. Laskaris ominously warned
Bisbikis not to go ahead with a strike, but the Unit did so anyway. After the strike began,
Laskaris made clear his displeasure with Bisbikis by permanently replacing him. When Bisbikis
tried to get an explanation for his discharge and explain some of his co-workers’ grievances, 25
Laskaris adamantly refused to speak with him.
Moreover, the Company failed to demonstrate that Bisbikis’ insult of Laskaris was such
an egregious violation of company policy that it warranted immediate discharge. Bisbikis
allegedly violated the Company’s code of conduct, but the Company never produced evidence of 30
such a policy. Nor did the Company produce evidence explaining its decision to permanently
replace Bisbikis, the union steward, and five other employees, while recalling seven others.
Lastly, even after Bisbikis was discharged, Laskaris made a point to voice his displeasure
with Bisbikis to all of the mechanics in the shop during the October 6 meeting. The cumulative 35
weight of the credible evidence strongly supports the conclusion that Laskaris’ animus toward
Bisbikis’ protected union activity was the primary motivation for discharging him.
The Company’s contention that Bisbikis’ insubordination extinguished his Section 7
protection is incorrect. An employee's right to engage in concerted activity permits some leeway 40
for impulsive behavior, which must be balanced against the employer's right to maintain order
and respect. NLRB v. Thor Power Tool Co., 351 F.2d 584 (7th Cir. 1965). The Board uses a 4-
factor test to determine whether communication between an employee and a manager or
supervisor in a workplace is so derogatory that it causes the employee to lose the protection of
the Act. Atlantic Steel Co., 245 NLRB 814, 816 (1979). The four factors are: (1) the place of 45
discussion; (2) the subject matter of the discussion; (3) the nature of the outburst; and (4)
whether the outburst was provoked by the employer’s unfair labor practice. Id.
JD–41–18
28
The incident between Bisbikis and Laskaris took place in the midst of a heated discussion
in Laskaris’ office outside the purview of any other employees. Bisbikis’ language, while vulgar,
did not disrupt the workplace, nor did it undermine management’s authority. Stanford Hotel,
344 NLRB 558 (2005) (highlighting that the workplace outburst occurred away from the normal 5
working area in a closed door meeting where no other employees were present, and did not
weaken management’s authority). Prior to the outburst, Bisbikis was speaking about issues
related to both his own replacement and the replacement of other employees, as well as other
grievances held by Unit employees. Bisbikis’ insult occurred after Laskaris refused to explain
why certain employees were permanently replaced, would not consider the grievances Bisbikis 10
wanted to convey, and denied ever meeting with Bisbikis about worker complaints prior to the
strike. Bisbikis wanted to discuss potential unlawful labor practices that affected the Unit,
including himself, but resorted to insulting Laskaris after the two were unable to have a
productive conversation.38 Considering all the Atlantic Steel factors together, Bisbikis’ conduct
was not egregiously derogatory, and thus he retained the protection of the Act. See Syn-Tech 15
Windows Sys., 294 NLRB 791, 792 (1989) (Employee did not lose the protection of the Act
when he pointed his finger angrily at a manager and made an unspecified threat during a meeting
about union activities); Union Carbide Corp. & Rex A. King, 331 NLRB 356, fn. 1 (2000)
(Employee’s conduct was “at most rude and disrespectful” when he called his supervisor a
“fucking liar”).20
C. The Adverse Actions Taken Against Unit Employees
The Company’s attendance policy was first communicated to employees via the
September 18 recall letters. The previously awarded benefits of free water and gloves were also25
taken away in the immediate aftermath of the strike. Creating these policies within days of a
concluded strike is suspicious, especially since the Company gave no indication that it
considered having a formal attendance policy or ending its practice of free water and gloves prior
to the strike. The Company presented no evidence that it would have implemented the attendance
policy regardless of the Unit’s protected activities. The Company continued to offer water and 30
gloves, but at high prices, removed the shop water fountain, and banned employees from having
refrigerators on the premises. The Company’s price gouging, lack of a credible explanation for
its conduct, and suspicious timing indicate that the decision to withdraw free gloves and water
was motivated by animus towards the protected activities of the Unit. See Frierson Bldg. Supply
Co., 328 NLRB at 1023–1024; Medic One, Inc., 331 NLRB at 475.35
In the midst of a slow business period, the Company assigned Towe, an apprentice
mechanic, to wash cars, a task normally completed by porters. That unspecified amount of time
spent washing cars counted towards Towe’s flat salary rate but not as book time. In the absence
of evidence that Towe was bypassed for available book work, the claim that he suffered 40
economic loss fails. Accordingly, this allegation is dismissed. Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278.
Management instructed the recalled employees to bring their tools with them when they
returned to work on September 18. Unit employees, however, were clearly not prepared to

38 Foul language was used at least once during the conversation prior to Bisbikis’ insult when
Laskaris told Bisbikis to “get the fuck out before I get you the fuck out.”
JD–41–18
29
return to work that day. Rather than ask management for leeway to arrive later that morning so
that they could get their tools after the storage facility opened, they arrived empty-handed with
their union representatives and grievances. Laskaris was also uncooperative on September 18
and at the outset on September 19 when Unit employees paraded, once again empty-handed, to
the facility. He eventually relented, however, and permitted Unit employees to return their tools 5
later during the afternoon of September 19 and they returned to work the following day. Under
the circumstances, considering the Company’s interest in avoiding disruption of having massive
tool boxes hauled back into the shop during business hours, the eventual arrangement was not
unreasonable. Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278. This complaint allegation is also dismissed.
10
III. UNILATERAL CHANGES TO WORK TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The complaint alleges that the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
enacting a new attendance policy, removing free gloves and water that were once provided to
employees, assigning mechanics to wash cars, and changing the Union access policy without 15
going through the collective bargaining procedure. The General Counsel claims that the Strike
Settlement Agreement and Successor Contract required the Company to abide by the collective
bargaining procedure with respect to changing any previously existing policies and procedures.
The General Counsel also asserts that the Company’s delay in recalling five permanently
replaced until November was a violation of 8(a)(5). The Company concedes that it took these 20
unilateral actions, but asserts that it did so justifiably.
Where a unilateral change in the terms or conditions of employment is material,
substantial, and significant, such a change constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act. Angelica Healthcare Services Group, 284 NLRB 844, 853 (1987) (noting that there is a 25
statutory bargaining obligation where the unilateral change affecting the terms and conditions of
employment of bargaining unit employees is material, substantial and significant); Alamo
Cement Company, 277 NLRB 1031 (1985) (finding that a change in classification where the
employee performed essentially the same function as before the change in classification was not
a substantial, material, and significant change). Not every unilateral change, however, constitutes 30
a violation of the bargaining obligation. Compare J.W. Ferguson & Sons, 299 NLRB 882, 892
(1990) (finding that the change was not material, substantial, and significant where the employer
increased the lunch break by five minutes and decreased the afternoon break by five minutes;
Weather Tec Corp., 238 NLRB 1535 (1978) (finding the employer’s decision to end paying for
coffee supplies that employees used was not a material, substantial and significant change) with 35
The Bohemian Club & Unite Here! Local 2, 351 NLRB 1065, 1066 (2007) (finding changes to
cleaning duties material, substantial, and significant because cooks had to work an extra 30
minutes to accomplish new tasks, and involved new tasks such as wiping down walls, counters,
refrigerator doors, and sweeping the floor) and Crittenton Hospital, 342 NLRB 686, 690 (2004);
(finding a change in the dress code policy a material, substantial, and significant change to the 40
terms and conditions of employment).
A. Attendance Policy
In its September 18 email recalling seven employees, the Company communicated, for 45
the first time, an attendance policy. Several weeks later, the Company implemented another
attendance policy without the input of the union. The Company did not have a written
JD–41–18
30
attendance policy prior to the strike. It neither disputed this contention nor offered any reasoning
for its unilateral decision to implement a written attendance policy. Neither economic
expediency nor sound business considerations are sufficient for overcoming the obligation to
bargain over a material, substantial term of employment. Van Dorn Plastic Machinery Co., 265
NLRB 864, 865 (1982), modified 736 F.2d 343 (6th Cir. 1984) (finding a violation of Section 5
8(a)(5) where the employer implemented a new attendance policy without a compelling
economic justification) (emphasis added). An attendance policy is undoubtedly a substantial
aspect of the terms and conditions of employment for an employee. Id; Local 2179, United
Steelworkers of Am. v. N.L.R.B., 822 F.2d 559, 565–66 (5th Cir. 1987) (any subject classified as
a “term or condition of employment” is a mandatory bargaining matter). Having proffered no 10
compelling justification for its refusal to bargain over the attendance policy, the Company’s
unilateral creation of an attendance policy violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
B. Free Gloves and Water
15
Approximately one week after the strike ended, the Company unilaterally ended its
practice of providing free gloves and water to its employees. The Company asserted that it
rescinded these privileges as a cost-cutting measure, but presented no compelling economic
justification for this decision. Van Dorn Plastic Machinery Co., 265 NLRB at 865. The workers
needed gloves to complete their work, effectively making it a part of their uniform. Any change 20
to the dress code required the Company to bargain with the Union beforehand. Crittenton
Hospital, 342 NLRB at 690. Employee access to clean drinking water is a material aspect of
employment as dictated by OSHA regulation. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.141(b)(1)(i) (“Potable water
shall be provided in all places of employment, for drinking, washing of the person, cooking …”).
Having failed to afford the Union an opportunity to bargain over these changes, the Company’s 25
rescission of free gloves and water violated Sections 8(a)(5) of the Act.
C. Washing Cars
On an unspecified date on or after September 20, Towe was tasked with washing cars, a 30
job that was completed solely by porters before the strike. Section 8 of the Successor Contract
stipulates:
If business is slack, the Employer may assign an employee work other than that which the
employee is regularly classified where such work would not be hazardous to the 35
employee due to lack of experience and training. The employee shall receive their
applicable rate.
The Company’s assertion that work was slow after the strike was not disputed.
Moreover, Towe, an apprentice mechanic, was the only witness to testify that he was assigned to 40
wash cars on an unspecified occasion(s). While there was undisputed testimony that washing
cars instead of performing book work could diminish a mechanic’s earnings potential, there was
no evidence indicating that Towe or any other Unit employee suffered economic loss as the
result of such work. Accordingly, this allegation is dismissed.
45
JD–41–18
31
D. Union Access Policy
The Company prohibited Union representatives Cicinelli and Thomas from accessing the
Unit employees without notifying the Union or bargaining with the Union. Several 5
unsubstantiated safety reasons were proffered by the Company, and none of them are
compelling. The policy governing Union access to employees was strictly governed by the
Successor Contract and any changes to this policy required notification and bargaining. See
Angelica Healthcare Services Group, 284 NLRB at 853. The company had no compelling
justification for its unilateral change to the Union access policy. Id. Accordingly, the 10
Company’s unilateral change to the Union access policy was a violation of 8(a)(5) and (1).
E. November Recall
During the strike, five Unit employees were permanently replaced and were not recalled 15
to work until November. The procedure by which employees were to return to the Company was
expressly governed by the settlement agreement and Successor Contract. The settlement
agreement stated that temporary replacement workers would be displaced while permanently
replaced employees would be placed on a preferential hiring list in order of seniority. The
Company was unable to provide any evidence showing that the five employees recalled in 20
November had been permanently replaced during the strike. The lack of immediate
reinstatement for these five employees constituted a departure from the settlement agreement and
a unilateral change to a material condition of employment in violation of Section 8(a)(5).
Angelica Healthcare Services Group, 284 NLRB at 853. Furthermore, the record is devoid of a
compelling economic justification for the Company’s decision to not recall five employees for 25
almost two months after the strike was over. Van Dorn Plastic Machinery Co., 265 NLRB at
865. It should be noted, however, that unlike the request for a make whole remedy for Bisbikis,
there is no make whole remedy requested in the complaint or by the General Counsel regarding
the two month delay in recalling the five employees. See GC Brief at 36.
30
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the
Act.
35
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening that things would not be the same if employees went on strike, telling
permanently replaced employees that he did not want any of them to return to work and that if
they returned to work it would not be long before they were gone, telling employees that he 40
would not be at the Respondent very long and should find another job, telling employees, as the
Union leafleted outside the facility, that he would lay off recalled employees if he ran out of
work, threatening stricter enforcement of company rules, informing employees that it would be
futile to file grievances, encouraging employees to resign their membership or become core
members of the Union, telling employees that non-unit employees lost their jobs over the 45
decision to strike, and threatening employees with physical violence, the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
JD–41–18
32
4. By enacting new attendance policies, and removing free work gloves and drinking
water because of employees’ union activity, all without notifying the Union and giving it an
opportunity to bargain over the changes, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3), (5) and (1).
5
5. By prohibiting access to Unit employees at the Respondent’s facility by Union
representatives Sam Cicinelli and Ken Thomas because they engaged in union activity, and
without first notifying the Union and giving it an opportunity to bargain over the changes, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
10
6. By discharging John Bisbikis on September 18 because he supported the Union, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
7. The remaining allegations are dismissed.
15
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.20
The Respondent, having discriminatorily discharged John Bisbikis, must offer him
reinstatement and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits. Backpay shall be
computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the
rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in 25
Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010).
In accordance with the Board’s decision in King Soopers, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 93 (2016),
enfd. 859 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2017), the Respondent shall also be ordered to compensate Bisbikis
for his search-for-work and interim employment expenses regardless of whether those expenses 30
exceed interim earnings. Search-for-work and interim employment expenses shall be calculated
separately from taxable net backpay, with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, supra,
compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, supra. Additionally, the
Respondent shall be required to compensate Bisbikis for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of
receiving lump-sum backpay awards, and to file with the Regional Director for Region 13, 35
within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a
report allocating the backpay to the appropriate calendar years. AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc.,
363 NLRB No. 143 (2016). Finally, the Respondent shall be ordered to remove from its files
any reference to Bisbikis’ unlawful discharge and to notify him in writing that this has been done
and that the unlawful suspensions and discharges will not be used against him in any way40
Respondent shall file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay
to the appropriate calendar quarters. Respondent shall also compensate the discriminatee for the
adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering
periods longer than 1 year, Latino Express, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 44 (2012). 45
JD–41–18
33
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended39
ORDER5
The Respondent, Cadillac of Naperville, Inc., Naperville, Illinois, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from10
(a) Threatening employees that their terms and conditions of employment things would
not be the same if they went on strike.
(b) Telling permanently replaced employees that you do not want any of them to return to 15
work and that if they return to work it would not be long before they were gone.
(c) Telling employees that they would not be employed by you very long and should find
another job because they engaged in strike or other union activities.
20
(d) Telling employees that, if you ran out of work, you would lay them off first because
they engaged in strike or other union activities.
(e) More strictly enforcing company rules because of employees’ union activities or
support. 25
(f) Telling employees that it would be futile to file grievances.
(g) Encouraging employees to resign their membership or become core members of the
Union.30
(h) Telling employees that non-unit employees lost their jobs over their decision to strike.
(i) Threatening employees with violence if they engage in concerted or union activities.
35
(j) Enacting attendance policies and removing free work gloves and drinking water
because employees engage in strike or other union activity, without first notifying the Union and
giving it an opportunity to bargain over such changes.
(k) Prohibiting access to Unit employees at your facility by Union representatives without 40
first notifying the Union and giving it an opportunity to bargain over such changes.

39 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted
by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD–41–18
34
(l) Unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of employment of unit employees by
implementing an attendance policy, and charging employees for the cost of work gloves and
drinking water.
(m) Discharging employees because they supported the Union.5
(n) 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 effectuate the policies of the Act. 10
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer John Bisbikis full reinstatement to
his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or to any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
15
(b) Make Bisbikis whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of
the discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(c) Compensate Bisbikis for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum
backpay awards, and file with the Regional Director for Region 13, within 21 days of the date 20
the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the
backpay awards to the appropriate calendar years for each employee.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from its files any reference to the
unlawful discharge, and within 3 days thereafter, notify the employee in writing that this has 25
been done and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way.
(e) Notify all employees that written attendance policies issued on and after September
18, 2017, and policies issued on or after September 25, 2017 charging employees for the cost of
work gloves and drinking water, have been rescinded. 30
(f) Before implementing any changes to attendance policies, work gloves, drinking water
or other terms and conditions of employment, notify and, on request, bargain with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of employees in the following bargaining unit:
35
All of Journeyman Technicians, Body Shop Technicians, apprentices, lube rack
technicians, part time express technicians and semi-skilled technicians.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Naperville, Illinois
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”40 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by 40
the Regional Director for Region 13, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in

40 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice
reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.
JD–41–18
35
conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In
addition to physical posting of paper notices, the 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. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by 5
any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since June 29, 2017.
10
(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges 15
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 19, 2018
20
_____________________________________
Michael A. Rosas
Administrative Law Judge
~.~~ /~ ~-
JD–41–18
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge you if you support a Union or engage in Union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten you that your terms and conditions of employment things will not be
the same if you go on strike.
WE WILL NOT tell you, if you go on strike and subsequently to return to work, that we do not
want you to return to work and that if you do return to work it would not be long before you
were gone.
WE WILL NOT tell you that will not be employed by us very long and should find another job if
you engage in strike or other union activities.
WE WILL NOT tell you that, if we run out of work, that we will lay you off first because you
engage in strike or other union activities.
WE WILL NOT more strictly enforce company rules because your union activities or support.
WE WILL NOT tell you that it would be futile to file grievances.
WE WILL NOT encourage you to resign your union membership or become a core member of
the Union.
WE WILL NOT tell you that non-unit employees lost their jobs over your decision to strike.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with physical violence.
WE WILL NOT enact attendance policies and charge you for work gloves and drinking water
because you engage in strike or other union activity, without first notifying the Union and giving
JD–41–18
it an opportunity to bargain over such changes.
WE WILL NOT prohibit access to you at your facility by Union representatives without first
notifying the Union and giving it an opportunity to bargain over such changes.
WE WILL NOT 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.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer John Bisbikis full
reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to his seniority or to any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed.
WE WILL make Bisbikis whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from his
discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest, and WE WILL also make him whole for
reasonable search-for-work and interim employment expenses, plus interest.
WE WILL compensate Bisbikis for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump
sum backpay award, and WE WILL file with the Regional Director for Region 13, within 21
days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report
allocating the backpay awards to the appropriate calendar years for each employee.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any
reference to the unlawful discharge of Bisbikis, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify
him in writing that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used against him in any
way.
WE WILL rescind, and have rescinded, written attendance policies issued on and after
September 18, 2017, and policies issued on or after September 25, 2017 charging employees for
the cost of work gloves and drinking water.
WE WILL, before implementing any changes to attendance policies, work gloves, drinking
water or other terms and conditions of employment, notify and, on request, bargain with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of employees in the following
bargaining unit:
All of Journeyman Technicians, Body Shop Technicians, apprentices, lube rack
technicians, part time express technicians and semi-skilled technicians.
CADILLAC OF NAPERVILLE, INC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
JD–41–18
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
Dirksen Federal Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Room 808, Chicago, IL 60604-1443
(312) 353-9158, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/13-CA-207245 or
by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the
Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (312) 353-7170.