Cintas Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 2005

344 N.L.R.B. 943 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

CINTAS CORP.
344 NLRB No. 118
943
Cintas Corporation and Union of Needletrades, In-
dustrial and Textile Employees, AFL–CIO, CLC
(UNITE). Cases 13–CA–40821, 13–CA–40885,
13–CA–41030, 28–CA–18488, 29–CA–25421, and
29–CA–25498
June 30, 2005
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
On September 16, 2004, Administrative Law Judge
Joel P. Biblowitz issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, a brief
in opposition to the Union’s exceptions, and a reply
brief. The Union filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
a brief in opposition to the Respondent’s exceptions, and
a reply brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in oppo-
sition to the Respondent’s exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to adopt the judge’s rulings, find-
ings,1 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order as modified and set out in full below.
We adopt the judge’s finding that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining the fol-
lowing confidentiality rule in its Cintas Corporation
partner reference guide:
We honor confidentiality. We recognize and protect the
confidentiality of any information concerning the com-
pany, its business plans, its partners,2 new business ef-
forts, customers, accounting and financial matters.
Since the rule does not explicitly restrict Section 7 ac-
tivity, it will only violate Section 8(a)(1) upon a showing
of one of the following: “(1) employees would reasona-
bly construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity;
(2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activ-
ity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise
of Section 7 rights.” Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia,
343 NLRB No. 75, slip op. at 2 (2004). We agree with
the judge that the rule’s unqualified prohibition of the
release of “any information” regarding “its partners”
could be reasonably construed by employees to restrict
discussion of wages and other terms and conditions of

1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 1083 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d
362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
2 The Respondent refers to its employees as “partners.”
employment with their fellow employees and with the
Union. Therefore, the rule is unlawful under the princi-
ples set forth in Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, su-
pra.3
The judge ordered the Respondent to rescind the rule,
post a notice in each of the facilities, and notify each
employee in writing that the provision has been re-
scinded, and that they have the right to discuss their
terms and conditions of employment with their fellow
employees or with the Union. The Respondent contends
that it would be unduly burdensome to require written
notification of rescission of the rule to each of its tens of
thousands of employees at locations across the country,
and argues that this single violation does not warrant
such an extensive remedy. We will modify the judge’s
order to conform with that recently issued in Guards-
mark, LLC, 344 NLRB No. 97, slip op. 4 (2005).4
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified and set forth in full below and orders that the
Respondent, Cintas Corporation, Mason, Ohio, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining provisions in its Cintas Corporation
partner reference guide that prohibit its employees from
discussing with nonemployees, or among themselves,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the language contained in paragraphs (i),
(ii), and (iii) at pages 5, 16, and 20 of the Cintas Corpo-
ration partner reference guide.

3 Member Liebman dissented in part in Lutheran Heritage Village-
Livonia, finding, contrary to her colleagues, that certain of the em-
ployer’s rules were unlawful. In the present case, she finds that under
either the majority or dissenting view in Lutheran Heritage, supra, the
Respondent’s confidentiality rule is unlawfully overbroad.
4 “The Respondent may comply with our Order by rescinding the
unlawful provisions and republishing its employee handbook without
them. We recognize, however, that republishing the handbook could
entail significant costs. Accordingly, the Respondent may supply the
employees either with handbook inserts stating that the unlawful rules
have been rescinded, or with new and lawfully worded rules on adhe-
sive backing which will cover the old and unlawfully broad rules, until
it republishes the handbook without the unlawful provisions. Thereaf-
ter, any copies of the handbook that are printed with the unlawful rules
must include the new inserts before being distributed to employees.”
Guardsmark, supra, 344 NLRB No. 97, slip op. at 4 fn. 8.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD944
(b) Furnish all current employees with inserts for the
current edition of the Cintas Corporation partner refer-
ence guide that (1) advise that the unlawful provisions
above have been rescinded, or (2) provide the language
of lawful provisions; or publish and distribute to all cur-
rent employees a revised reference guide that (1) does
not contain the unlawful provisions, or (2) provides the
language of lawful provisions.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
each of its facilities in the United States copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 28, after being signed by the Respondent’s author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed any facil-
ity involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the no-
tice to all current and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since January 1, 2003.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com-
ply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidated com-
plaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges violations not
found.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf

5 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT maintain provisions in our Cintas Corpo-
ration partner reference guide that prohibit you from dis-
cussing with nonemployees, or among yourselves,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind the language contained in paragraphs
(i), (ii), and (iii) at pages 5, 16, and 20 of the Cintas Cor-
poration partner reference guide.
WE WILL furnish all of you with inserts for the current
edition of the Cintas Corporation partner reference guide
that (1) advise you that the unlawful provisions above
have been rescinded, or (2) provide the language of law-
ful provisions; or WE WILL publish and distribute to all of
you a revised reference guide that (1) does not contain
the unlawful provisions, or (2) provides the language of
lawful provisions.
CINTAS CORPORATION
Brigid Barnicle, Esq., Jonathan Chait, Esq., and Henry Pro-
tas, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Joel Kaplan, Esq., Jeffrey Kauffman, Esq., and Peter Walker,
Esq. (Seyfarth, Shaw LLP), for the Respondent.
Noah Warman, Esq., Ira Jay Katz, Esq., and Judiann Char-
tier, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOEL P. BIBLOWITZ, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was heard by me on April 26, 27, and 28, 2004, in Chicago,
Illinois, on May 17, 2004, in Brooklyn, New York, and on May
18 and 19, 2004, in New York, New York. The consolidated
complaint herein, which issued on December 31, 2003,1 was
based upon unfair labor practice charges that were filed by
Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees,
AFL–CIO, CLC (UNITE) (the Union), on February 5, March 5,
and May 8, for the Region 13 cases, on February 5, for the
Region 28 case, and on February 6 and March 21, for the Re-
gion 29 cases.2 The consolidated complaint alleges that Cintas
Corporation (the Respondent) engaged in the following unlaw-
ful conduct:
Region 13: It is alleged that on about May 1, Respondent, by
John Doyle and Maggie Regan, the general manager and hu-
man resource manager, at its Bedford Park, Illinois facility, and

1 Unless indicated otherwise, all dates referred to herein relate to the
year 2003.
2 Counsel for the Respondent’s unopposed Motion to Correct Tran-
script is granted.
CINTAS CORP. 945
admitted supervisors and agents of the Respondent, threatened
employees with the loss of benefits if they supported the Union,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and on about Febru-
ary 27, by Joe Bahena and Hector Ortiz, production supervisors
and admitted supervisors and agents of the Respondent, dis-
charged employee Miguel Campos because he supported the
Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(1)(3) of the Act.
Region 28: It is alleged that a confidentiality provision con-
tained in the Respondent’s employee handbook limits its em-
ployees’ right to discuss their terms and conditions of employ-
ment, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Region 29: It is alleged that on about January 14, Respon-
dent, by Adam Del Vecchio, its plant manager at its Central
Islip, New York facility, and an admitted supervisor and agent
of the Respondent, at a meeting of first-shift employees, threat-
ened employees that if the Union succeeded in its campaign to
represent them, they would lose certain benefits, including paid
days off for their birthdays, their 401(k) plan and a portion of
their paid vacation, and also directed the employees to refuse to
sign union authorization cards, and to refuse to allow union
representatives into their homes. It is also alleged that Del Vec-
chio, in late January or early February, at a meeting of the sec-
ond-shift employees, threatened that if the Union were success-
ful in its campaign to represent them, they would lose certain
benefits, including paid days off for their birthday, cake and
refreshments and coats with Respondent’s name inscribed on
them, and in late January, at a meeting of the second-shift em-
ployees, advised the employees to request the return of their
signed authorization cards from the Union and to bring the
cards to him, and gave the employees the Union’s address and
instructed them to go there to retrieve their authorization cards.
It is further alleged that Respondent, by Norah Hickey, human
resources manager, and admitted supervisor and agent of the
Respondent, on January 22, solicited employees to engage in
antiunion conduct by urging employees to join and/or lead the
group of employees opposed to the Union and to speak to em-
ployees who opposed the Union and threatened that employees
would lose benefits if they declined to engage in such conduct.
All of this conduct is alleged to be in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. It is also alleged that on about February 21,
Respondent discharged employee Clorinda Valdivia because of
her support for the Union and because she refused to engage in
antiunion activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(1)(3) of the Act.3
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent admits, and I find, that it has been an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act. The Respondent, with its headquarters in
Mason, Ohio, employs approximately 27,000 people at ap-

3 At the conclusion of counsel for the General Counsel’s Region 29
case, upon a motion of the Respondent, due to absence of any record
evidence, I dismissed an allegation at par. 13 of the complaint that in
January and February the Respondent included the names and ad-
dresses of the Union and Region 29 of the Board with certain employ-
ees’ paychecks in order to encourage employees to retrieve their au-
thorization cards from the Union.
proximately 350 facilities throughout North America. Its prin-
cipal business is supplying workplace uniforms to other busi-
nesses. The only facilities of the Respondent involved herein
are North Las Vegas, Nevada, Bedford Park, Illinois, and Cen-
tral Islip, New York.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
Respondent admits, and I find, that the Union has been a la-
bor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. REGION 28 CASE
The complaint alleges, and the Respondent admits that since
about August 5, 2002, the Respondent has maintained in its
employee handbook entitled “Cintas Corporation Partner Ref-
erence Guide” the following corporatewide provisions:
(i) At page 5—Our business is highly competitive.
Fortunately, we have an advantage over our competition.
That advantage is our people—“partners,” as we call our-
selves.
(ii) At page 16—We honor confidentiality. We recog-
nize and protect the confidentiality of any information
concerning the company, its business plans, its partners,
new business efforts, customers, accounting and financial
matters.
(iii) At page 20—Examples of behavior that could re-
sult in disciplinary action are:
. . . violating a confidence or unauthorized release of
confidential information.
It is alleged that by maintaining these provisions, the Respon-
dent maintained a rule limiting its employees’ right to discuss
their terms and conditions of employment, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The parties stipulated that at all material times the Respon-
dent maintained an employee handbook entitled “Cintas Corpo-
ration Partner Reference Guide” which was distributed to its
employees employed at its facilities throughout the United
States, and the term “partner” or “partners” used throughout the
guide is a reference to the Respondent’s employees, who are
employees within the meaning of the Act. The parties further
stipulated that the allegation herein relates only to “the com-
pany” and “its partners” as referred to in (ii), not “its business
plans . . . new business efforts, customers, accounting and fi-
nancial matters.” In defending against this allegation, Respon-
dent alleges that this provision in its guide, “cannot be read as
broadly as the General Counsel would like it to be read” and
that there is no evidence that it had any chilling effect upon the
employees’ Section 7 rights. Further, Brenda Abramovich,
Respondent’s director of human resources for the rental divi-
sion, testified and identified numerous flyers issued by the Un-
ion in 2003 and 2004 which were distributed to the Respon-
dent’s employees. These flyers contain pictures, and names, of
a number of the Respondent’s employees together with their
wage rates and other terms and conditions of employment. For
example, one flyer entitled “Uniform Justice” contains a picture
of an employee of the Respondent with a copy of her earning
statement showing her hourly pay rate. Another, shows a map
of the United States, listing 12 of the Respondent’s employees
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD946
at 11 of its facilities, together with the hourly rate of each of
these employees. Abramovich testified that she has received all
of these flyers distributed by the Union since the Union began
its organizing campaign in January. After receiving these fly-
ers, she checked with the general manager of each plant where
an identified employee was listed in a union flyer, and asked if
any of those employees had been disciplined for her/his appear-
ance in the flyer, and the answer for all the listed employees
was no.
The guide states that the Respondent recognizes and protects
“the confidentiality of any information concerning the company
[and] its partners” and that “violating a confidence or unauthor-
ized release of confidential information . . . could result in dis-
ciplinary action.” In Lafayette Park Hotel, 326 NLRB 824, 825
(1998), the Board, quoting Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB,
324 U.S. 793 (1945), stated:
Resolution of the issue presented by the contested rules of
conduct involves “working out an adjustment between the
undisputed right of self-organization assured to employees
under the Wagner Act and the equally undisputed right of
employers to maintain discipline in their establishments. . . .
Opportunity to organize and proper discipline are both essen-
tial elements in a balanced society . . . .” In determining
whether the mere maintenance of rules such as those at issue
here violates Section 8(a)(1), the appropriate inquiry is
whether the rules would reasonably tend to chill employees in
the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
The ultimate question in these cases is whether employees read-
ing these rules, would reasonably construe the rules as preclud-
ing them from discussing their terms and conditions of em-
ployment with other employees or a union, or would they rea-
sonably understand that the rule was designed to protect their
employer’s legitimate proprietary business interests. Any ambi-
guity in the rule must be resolved against the promulgator, La-
fayette Park, supra, where the Board found that the prohibition
of divulging “hotel-private information” was not unlawful be-
cause employees would not reasonably view the rule as prohib-
iting them from discussing their wages with others; see also
Freund Bakery Co., 336 NLRB 847 (2001), and Flamingo Hil-
ton-Laughlin, 330 NLRB 287, 292 (1999).
As regards Abramovich’s testimony that none of the em-
ployees pictured, or referred to in the Union’s flyers were dis-
ciplined for the release of the information contained in the fly-
ers, the law is clear that the mere existence of such a rule, even
if it is not enforced, constitutes an unlawful interference with
employees’ Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. Independent Stations Co., 284 NLRB 394, 397 (1987);
Lafayette Park, supra; Main Street Terrace Care Center, 327
NLRB 522, 525 (1999). In Franklin Iron & Medal Corp., 315
NLRB 819, 820 (1994), the administrative law judge, as af-
firmed by the Board, stated:
It makes no difference whether the employees were “asked”
not to discuss their wage rate or ordered not to do so. Nor
does it matter if the rule was unenforced or unheeded. In the
absence of any business justification for the rule, it was an
unlawful restraint on the rights protected by Section 7 of the
Act and violated Section 8(a)(1).
I find that employees could reasonably construe the confi-
dentiality provision in the manual as restricting their right to
discuss their wages and terms and conditions of employment
with their fellow employees and the Union. In addition, the
Respondent has not presented legitimate business purpose for
the employee prohibitions contained in the rule. I, therefore,
find that this provision violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. REGION 13 CASE
A. Campos Termination
The Union began an active campaign to organize the Re-
spondent’s employees at Bedford Park, and other of Respon-
dent’s facilities, on about January 10, and beginning on about
January 13, the Union distributed flyers to the employees at
these facilities. Campos began his employment with the Re-
spondent at its Bedford Park facility in about July 2002 as a
loader on the third-shift working from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.; Ortiz
and Bahena were his supervisors. Catharine Slack, an organizer
for the Union, testified that she visited Campos at his home in
late January or early February. Even though he had already
signed a union authorization card4 (on January 27), Slack went
to see him because she was told that Campos had a back injury,
and she was helping people with workmen’s comp claims. She
told Campos to try to get an accident report from the Respon-
dent and to ask if they would send him for a medical evalua-
tion. When the Respondent initially failed to send him for a
medical evaluation, Slack referred him to the Union’s clinic for
an evaluation. At this meeting at Campos’ home, he gave her
names and telephone numbers of other employees who might
be interested in joining the Union. In addition, he attended un-
ion meetings in January and February, spoke to three fellow
employees in the plant about the Union and wore a union but-
ton on his uniform for a couple of minutes a few weeks before
he was fired, and he believes that this was observed by Ortiz
and Bahena.
Campos testified that on about December 22, 2002, he
slipped on a mop and twisted his lower back, although his ap-
plication to the State Industrial Commission dated February 18,
lists the date of the accident as December 29, 2002. Because
this accident occurred at about 5 a.m. when neither of his su-
pervisors were present, he had nobody to tell until he arrived
the following evening, at about 10 p.m. for the start of the shift.
At that time, he told Ortiz about the injury, and asked him if he
could get somebody to help him with his work because of the
injury. Ortiz told him to be careful, and that he would get him
some help. Campos continued to work and, about 2 weeks later,
he told Ortiz that his lower-back pain had gotten worse, and
asked if they could send him to the Respondent’s clinic or if

4 Counsel for the Respondent objected to the introduction into evi-
dence of Campos’ union authorization card because, “we knew at the
time of his termination that he was a union supporter.” Because of this
admission, there will only be limited discussion of Campos’ union
activities. Further, counsel for the Respondent, in opposing turning over
documents subpoenaed by counsel for the General Counsel, stated that
he would stipulate that the Respondent had animus: “As I understand
the standards for animus it is sufficient to show that the company is
opposed to the Union. Our handbook says that. So, that’s our position.”
CINTAS CORP. 947
Ortiz could fill out an accident report for him. Ortiz said that it
was too late to fill out an accident report, but that he would
check with the plant manager, Mike Shelley. Having not heard
from Ortiz, about 2 days later he asked him if he had spoken to
Shelley about his injury, and Ortiz said that he hadn’t had a
chance to talk to him yet. On the following day, Campos went
to speak to Shelley and asked him if he was aware that he was
injured on the job, and Shelly said that he knew nothing about
it. Campos told him what happened and asked Shelley if he
could fill out an accident report or send him to the clinic, and
Shelly told him that it was too late, and he couldn’t help him.
During January and February, Campos went to see a chiro-
practor about his back on two or three occasions. On February
17, he gave Bahena a note from the chiropractor stating that
Campos was under his care and should be excused from work
until February 24. Based upon this note, Campos was given off
from February 17 through 24. After meeting with Slack, Cam-
pos was sent to the Union’s Sidney Hillman Health Center on
February 20. The health center gave him a note dated February
20 saying that Campos was examined at the health center and
was diagnosed with low-back pain, recommending that he be
off work from February 17 until further notice. The health cen-
ter note has the Union’s name in large bold letters at the top.
Campos testified that at about noon on February 24, he took
this note to Maggie Regan, the human resource manager at the
facility. He had never met her before, and asked her if she was
familiar with his injury and she said that she wasn’t. She read
the note from the health center and asked Campos who was
UNITE. He told her that UNITE was a union and she said that
they didn’t have a union at the Company. He told her that
UNITE was the union that was trying to get into the Company
and that he was a member, and that’s how he went to their
clinic. She took him into the conference room and told him to
wait, that she would get Shelley and John Doyle, the general
manager of the facility. About 20 to 30 minutes later Shelley
and Regan came into the room and Regan said that they would
send Campos to their clinic. Shelley asked him why he joined
UNITE, that all they were interested in was his money. Campos
responded that Bahena refused to fill out an accident report for
him, and the Union helped him by sending him to their clinic,
although this is not referred to in Campos’ affidavit given to the
Board. Shelley filled out an accident report for Campos and
Campos went that day to the Company’s clinic. The note from
the clinic lists the diagnosis as lumbar strain, states that he was
given prescription medication, and that his activity from Febru-
ary 24 until the next visit is limited to no repetitive lifting over
15 pounds, no bending greater than 10 times per hour, and no
pushing and/or pulling over 15 pounds of force.
Campos reported for work at his regular time, 10 p.m. on
February 24 and gave this note to Bahena, who put him on light
duty beginning that evening, folding aprons. He testified that on
the following shift, Tuesday, February 25 into Wednesday,
February 26, sometime prior to the end of the shift, he asked
Bahena for permission to leave work a half hour early that
morning and the following morning, February 26 and 27. He
asked to leave work early because he had a doctor’s appoint-
ment the following 2 days and, since he works all night, he
wanted to get home early to get some rest before seeing the
doctor. He gave Bahena a copy of the note from Respondent’s
clinic which, in addition to giving his diagnosis and listing the
modified activity, at the bottom states that the next two sched-
uled visits are February 26 and 27 at 1 p.m. He testified that
Bahena gave him permission to leave work early on both days,
and he left work a half hour early on Wednesday morning at 5
a.m. He went to the Company’s clinic on Wednesday, February
26, at about 1 p.m. The note from the doctor states that he could
return to work on February 26, but with no repetitive lifting
over 25 pounds and no pushing or pulling over 40 pounds and
that his next visit was scheduled for Thursday, February 27 at 1
p.m. He testified that he gave this doctor’s note to Bahena that
evening when his shift began. He reported for work, as usual,
on that evening, Wednesday, February 26, and left the follow-
ing morning, at 5 a.m. February 27.
When Campos reported for work at his usual time on the
evening of Thursday, February 27, Bahena asked him to come
with him to Shelley’s office. Bahena asked him why he left
early on Thursday morning and he told them that Bahena had
given him permission to leave work early on both Wednesday
and Thursday morning. Bahena said that he had only given him
permission to leave work early on Wednesday, not Thursday.
Bahena wrote him up for leaving work early on Thursday, but
Campos refused to sign it saying that he was lying, that he gave
him permission to leave early on both days. Bahena told him,
“That’s enough, I’m not going to put up with your stuff any-
more. If you want to get your job back, come in tomorrow
morning and talk to Mike Shelley.” Campos said that if he was
being fired he wanted a note explaining why he was being
fired, but Bahena said: “We don’t give those papers here” and
Campos left.
Campos’ job involves loading shortages onto the trucks,
which leave the facility at 6 a.m. It was Campos’ responsibility
to make sure that the trucks contained the required items prior
to leaving the facility. Sometime in about January the Respon-
dent allowed Campos to leave work a half hour early in order
for him to get home early to give his car to his father. In about
early February, either Bahena or Shelley told Campos that this
accommodation was going to end on about March 1, and after
that, he would have to work the entire shift, until 6 a.m.
Regan testified that Campos asked to speak to her on a Mon-
day, presumably, February 24. He gave her the note from the
Sidney Hillman Health Center and she asked him what he
wanted her to do with it, and he said that he had an accident at
work and he wanted her to fill out an accident report. Prior to
this conversation she was unaware that he had been injured on
the job. She testified that when she saw the note she did not ask
Campos what UNITE was; she knew that they were attempting
to organize the Respondent’s employees. She asked if he had
told anybody about the injury, and Campos said that he had told
Shelley, so Regan called Shelley into the conference room,
where it was decided that Shelley would fill out the accident
report and that Campos would be sent to the Company’s clinic.
Bahena, who began working for the Respondent in 2002, tes-
tified that he transferred to the third shift in about January be-
cause they were experiencing difficulty getting their trucks
loaded on the third shift to be ready to go on the first shift. Af-
ter transferring to the third shift, he realized that there was a
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD948
“production flow” problem on the third shift, which had four
employees. In order to alleviate the problem, he instructed
Campos that he should first tally everything that needed to be
done, then fold the items, and then load them onto the truck.
Bahena testified about a written warning that he gave to Cam-
pos on the night of February 12. He noticed that Campos was
not following the directions he gave him and he reminded him
of it. Campos got upset and walked away from him. Bahena
told him that he was talking to him and Campos said that he
didn’t want Bahena talking to him during the shift, he wanted
to be told what to do at the beginning of the shift and to be left
alone during the shift. Bahena told him that his job was to make
sure that the work was performed properly, but Campos contin-
ued to argue with him and walked away from him while he was
talking to him. After speaking to Ortiz, Bahena decided to give
Campos a written warning, dated February 13, which states:
Partner was insubordinate to supervisor. The shift supervisor
has described in detail the daily procedure Miguel should use
to prepare and load the shortages. 25 minutes into the shift
and the partner had not begun his first task (totaling short-
ages). Supervisor instructed him to start totaling and Miguel
became angry. He stated that he knew what to do and to leave
him alone. Supervisor explained once again that the same
procedure needed to be followed every day. In the middle of
the explanation partner turned his back and began to walk
away. Partner continued to argue with supervisor for several
minutes. Partner was suspended for the duration of the shift.
Under “Describe in detail what performance/behavior you ex-
pect from the partner,” Bahena wrote:
Partner must begin work at 10 p.m. to 5:30 a.m. until Febru-
ary 28, 2003. He must follow direction exactly as the supervi-
sor instructs. Partner must complete 100% load out as quickly
as possible. Partner must work from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. starting
March 3, 2003.
As to the consequences to the employee if the behavior is re-
peated, Bahena wrote: “Any further occurrence will result in
termination.”
Bahena testified further that in January, Shelley accommo-
dated a request of Campos to leave work a half hour early for
an 8-week period. The final sentences of the February 13 warn-
ing were inserted because: “we just wanted to put that in writ-
ing.” On February 17, when Campos gave him the chiroprac-
tor’s note, Bahena gave him the next week off. When Campos
returned to work on Monday night, February 24, into February
25, he gave Bahena the note from the Respondent’s clinic. Ba-
hena read the note and said that it was no problem; Campos
could load the linen items and Bahena would load the mats,
which were heavier, and that is what they did. When Campos
reported for work the next evening, February 25 into February
26, he asked Bahena if he could leave work at 5 a.m. the next
morning rather than 5:30 a.m., because he had a doctor’s ap-
pointment. Bahena asked what time the appointment was, and
he said that it was in the afternoon, but that he wanted to rest up
for the appointment. Bahena reminded him that he had been
absent from work for the prior week and lost a week’s pay, and
said that it didn’t make sense to lose another half hour, but if he
wanted to leave work early that morning, he could do so. No
mention was made of the following day as well, and Campos
did not show him any note that he had gotten from the clinic.
Campos left work at 5 a.m. on February 26, and reported for
work at 10 p.m. on February 26, and there was no talk that
evening, or the following morning, about Campos leaving early
that morning. At about 4:30 a.m., while Bahena was walking
through the plant, he saw Campos eating an orange on the pro-
duction floor; this was not during a break. He told Campos that
he was not allowed to do that in the production area, Campos
threw the orange away, and Bahena returned to loading the
trucks. When Bahena returned to the production area about a
half hour later he did not see Campos. He asked another em-
ployee where Campos was, and he said that he thought that he
went home. Bahena went to the parking lot and saw that Cam-
pos’ car was gone. When he saw Shelley, he recommended that
Campos be terminated because of leaving early without permis-
sion, and the orange incident that evening: “It just seemed like
another case where Miguel was doing what Miguel wanted to
do. To me it was absolute, clear-cut insubordination.” That
morning, Bahena wrote up the incident:
Partner left work at 5 a.m. on 2/27/03, 1/2 hour before the end
of his shift. Miguel is currently working a reduced (7-1/2
hour) schedule, due to a ride issue that he has. This arrange-
ment was made between himself and his Plant Manager. At
5:02 a.m. the supervisor realized Miguel was not in his work
and began searching the plant for him. . . . checked the park-
ing lot and Miguel’s car was gone. In summary, partner left
early without supervisor’s permission.
As to what performance/behavior he expects from Campos,
Bahena wrote: “Partner must work the entire scheduled shift
(10 p.m. to 5:30 a.m.) unless given permission by the supervi-
sor. This was covered with Miguel in the write-up that occurred
on 2/13/03.” On the evening of February 27, when Campos
reported for work, Bahena, with Ortiz present, told him that he
was fired. He testified that, at that time, he does not recall
knowing that Campos supported the Union. However, he testi-
fied that he saw the note from the Sidney Hillman Health Cen-
ter regarding Campos in February, although he does not re-
member much about the circumstances of seeing it. In addition,
he testified that Campos gave him the note from the Company’s
clinic (which states on the bottom that the “next visits” are
February 26 at 1 p.m. and February 27 at 1 p.m.), but he does
not remember which parts of this note he looked at or did not
look at: “The main parts I normally look at is the restricted
activities.”
Shelley, who left the Respondent’s employ in about July, had
been employed at the Bedford Park facility for about 10
months; Bahena and Ortiz reported to him. His normal working
hours were from 5:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. so that he could observe all
three shifts. He testified that he was aware that in January they
had given Campos a shortened shift from 10 p.m. to 5:30 a.m.
because of a vehicle issue that he had with his family. This
accommodation was temporary and was to end on March 1. He
testified that on February 27 Bahena told him that Campos left
work early without permission, and he recommended that
Campos be terminated, and Shelley approved Bahena’s rec-
CINTAS CORP. 949
ommendation. He testified that at that time he had no knowl-
edge of any union activity by Campos, except that he did see
the UNITE name on the doctor’s note that Campos gave them.
The Charging Party introduced subpoenaed evidence of an-
other employee, John Katulka, who had an attendance problem.
On November 25, 2002, Katulka was given a verbal warning
for the failure to call, or show up for work, adding: “This is not
the first time John has had an attendance issue. Any further
insubordinate action will result in a written warning and/or
possible suspension.” On December 23, 2002, Katulka was
issued a partner disciplinary documentation, stating that he
missed a total of 2 days and was late to work, or left early, on
three occasions, the latest of which was December 20, 2002,
and that he was suspended until December 26, 2002, and would
be on probation until April 19, and would be terminated if he
didn’t follow the rules. On January 17, he was terminated. The
report states that he picked up his check at 5 a.m. on January 16
and left without completing his shift.
Under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), counsel for the
General Counsel must make a prima facie showing sufficient to
support the inference that the discriminatee’s protected conduct
was a “motivating factor” in the employer’s decision. If counsel
for the General Counsel satisfies this burden, then the burden
shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate that it would have
taken the same action even in the absence of the protected con-
duct. The evidence herein establishes that counsel for the Gen-
eral Counsel has satisfied her initial burden under Wright Line.
After being excused from work for the period February 17
through 23, based upon the note from the chiropractor, Campos
came to work on February 24 and gave Regan and Shelley the
note from the Sidney Hillman Clinic, with the Union’s name in
bold letters at the top of the page. Clearly, at that point, the
Respondent knew that Campos was a supporter of the Union. In
addition to counsel’s admission that the Respondent knew that
Campos supported the Union, there is some evidence of dispa-
rate treatment between Campos and Katulka. Campos was fired
for leaving work early on one occasion (in addition to the in-
subordination suspension 2 weeks earlier) while Katulka was
not fired until his sixth offense of not appearing for work or
arriving late or leaving early. I, therefore, find that counsel for
the General Counsel has sustained her initial burden herein.
The more difficult issue is whether the Respondent has sus-
tained its burden to establish that Campos would have been
fired even absent his protected activities. Both counsel for the
General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent, in their
briefs, argue that their witnesses were totally credible and the
witnesses on the other side were not believable. This argument
relates principally to Campos’ testimony that he requested, and
received, permission to leave work early on both February 26
and 27, while Bahena testified that Campos only asked permis-
sion to leave work early on February 26, and that he granted
that request. This is a difficult credibility determination because
I found neither Campos nor Bahena clearly more credible than
the other. Neither one had a clear, and convincing, memory of
the events. Campos’ testimony often changed, or was unclear,
and Bahena often testified that he couldn’t recollect certain
events. Counsel for the General Counsel, in an attempt to estab-
lish that Campos was terminated unlawfully, argues that Cam-
pos was not treated similarly to other employees who were not
involved in union activities. In addition to the situation involv-
ing Katulka, Herbert Johnson received a first written warning
on April 16, 2001, for sleeping in his truck while on the clock.
The warning states that if the behavior continued, it would re-
sult in a second written warning and “possible termination.”
Johnson was a no call/no show on June 18, 19, and 20, 2001,
and was “self-terminated.” Alby Fileto was issued a partner
disciplinary documentation dated September 4, 2001, stating
that he was absent from work on August 29, 2001, even though
he did not have any accumulated leave to cover the absence,
concluding: “This is partner’s 2nd written occurrence. Contin-
ued behavior will result in additional written occurrences and
possible termination.” George Sanchez was absent from work
on January 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 16, 2001, without any medical
documentation. On January 16, 2001, he was notified that if he
did not report for work the following day, he would be termi-
nated. When he did not report for work on the following day,
he was terminated. Counsel for the Respondent argues that
none of these other situations is analogous to the instant matter
involving Campos because 2 weeks earlier, Campos was sus-
pended for insubordination together with a written warning that
the next incident would result in termination.
Counsel for the Respondent, in his brief, also argues that it is
unrealistic to argue that Campos’ termination was caused by his
union activities, for a number of reasons. The Respondent’s
knowledge of Campos’ union activities was limited to the Sid-
ney Hillman Health Clinic note and the discussion that fol-
lowed; there is no evidence that the Respondent knew that he
signed a card for the Union, attended union meetings, or spoke
to other employees about the Union. In addition, there is no
evidence that Bahena or Ortiz saw Campos when he wore a
union button for a couple of minutes a few weeks prior to his
discharge. Yet, employee Josefina Casarubia, who testified
regarding the alleged threats discussed below, was engaged in
more extensive union activities, including one of five letters
that she signed, discussed above in section II, which appeared
in a union leaflet distributed in April. The letter, entitled: “We
need respect” states:
In five years I have taken three sick days and they were taken
from my vacation days. They don’t pay attention to our com-
plaints. They clean the bathrooms with strong chemicals that
due to the strong smell prevent us from using the bathrooms
after they are cleaned. They don’t listen to anyone. We ask for
racks for our clothes but they don’t have enough racks so we
have to put our uniforms on the floor and later they scold us
for getting them dirty.
Counsel for the Respondent, in his brief, notes that even after
writing this letter, Casarubia is still employed by the Respon-
dent.5 He also argues that even after learning of Campos’ sup-
port for the Union, Bahena agreed to assume the heavy work
part of Campos’ job to comply with his work restrictions, and

5 On August 8, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge alleg-
ing that the Respondent disciplined Casarubia in retaliation for her
activities on behalf of the Union. On December 18, the Region ap-
proved the withdrawal of the charge.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD950
agreed to let him leave work early on the morning of February
26, stating: “All of this is hardly consistent with Campos’ claim
that Bahena was looking to punish him for supporting the Un-
ion.”
On the basis of all of the above, I find that the Respondent
has sustained its burden of establishing that it would have ter-
minated Campos even absent his union activity, based upon his
leaving work early without permission on February 27, together
with his warning for insubordination 2 weeks earlier. In addi-
tion to the fact that his union activities were limited, certainly
less and not as obvious as Casarubia’s union activity, I find
especially persuasive the fact that after being given the note
from the Union’s clinic, the basis of Respondent’s knowledge
of Campos’ union activities, Bahena agreed to assume the
heavier part of Campos’ work duties. Based upon all of the
above evidence, I credit Bahena’s testimony that he did not
give Campos permission to leave early on the second day, and
that when he realized that he had left, he recommended that he
be fired: “It just seemed like another case where Miguel was
doing what Miguel wanted to do. To me it was absolute, clear-
cut insubordination.” I, therefore, recommend that this allega-
tion be dismissed.
B. Alleged Threat of Loss of Benefits
The complaint alleges that on about May 1, Regan and Doyle
threatened employees with the loss of benefits if they supported
the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Casarubia
has been employed by the Respondent for 5 years. She testified
that the Respondent conducted a meeting of the first-shift em-
ployees in the cafeteria at the Bedford Park facility in May.
About 60 to 80 employees attended the meeting which was
presided over by Shelley, Regan, and John Doyle, the general
manager. Shelley spoke in English and Regan interpreted what
he said in Spanish. They said that they were there to talk about
the Union which wanted to come in to the Company. They
were concerned because the Union only wanted their money
and it would cost the employees about $20 a month. They told
them to think about it very well, because “the Union would not
give us a raise and instead that the Union would take away
some benefits.” Casarubia was then asked by counsel for the
General Counsel if the subject of 401(k) or profit sharing came
up at the meeting, and counsel for the Respondent objected that
it was a leading question, and counsel for the General Counsel
had failed to exhaust the witnesses’ recollection before asking a
leading question. I sustained the objection, and counsel for the
General Counsel then asked Casarubia if she remembered any-
thing else coming up at the meeting. Casarubia testified: “Well,
I understood that Mike, about this John,—about a 401 or profit
share, that if we enter into a Union we would lose that, that’s
what I understood.” She testified further that an employee,
Anna Ventura, asked Regan a question about social security
cards, but Regan would not let her speak and told her to shut
up.
On cross-examination Casarubia testified that Regan said
that if the Union came in they would lay off people because
there wouldn’t be enough work, and that “all the benefits that
we had, the Union would take away those.” As for 401(k) plans
and profit sharing, she testified: “[T]he words I understood,
profit sharing, 401k, that if the Union entered that we could
lose that.” She could not recollect Regan speaking about Social
Security or social security cards.
Regan, who speaks English and Spanish fluently, testified
that in April, she and the other HR managers were notified by
the Respondent’s payroll department that the Social Security
Administration had notified them that there was a discrepancies
between some of their employees’ names and their social secu-
rity numbers. On March 31, Respondent’s headquarters sent
Bedford Park and its other facilities a form letter to send to
employees notifying them of the mismatch problem that Social
Security notified them of, and asked them to “validate” their
name and social security number against their social security
card. On April 11, Regan sent this letter to 10 employees (out
of 110 production employees at the facility) asking them to
check their records to see if there was a mismatch in their card
and social security number; they received only one response to
these 10 letters. Regan testified that after these letters went out
there were rumors in the plant that the Respondent was ques-
tioning employees’ resident alien status. In addition, shortly
after these letters went out the Union distributed a leaflet enti-
tled: “Do not sign a pact with the devil.” The leaflet told the
employees that whatever their nationality, that they had rights,
and that they should not sign anything that the Company gave
them until it was reviewed by a lawyer. Shortly thereafter, the
Union distributed another leaflet with the same message. Be-
cause of these rumors, and to answer the Union’s leaflets, the
Respondent held meetings with the employees at the facility on
May 1 or 2; this was the first time in her 4 years as human re-
sources manager that she was notified of social security mis-
matches, and it was the first time that she had conducted a
meeting for employees on this subject. The first-shift meeting
was at 1 a.m.; the second-shift meeting was about 2:30 p.m.
She, Doyle, and Shelley were present for the Respondent.
Doyle began the meetings by saying that it was called to talk
about the social security mismatch letters that were sent to
some of the employees. Regan translated and then took over the
meeting. She told the employees that the Company’s headquar-
ters told them that there was a discrepancy between the names
of some employees and their social security numbers and that’s
why the letters were sent out; that they were not questioning the
employees’ resident alien status. Shelley did not speak at the
meetings, and she never said anything to the effect that the
Union would cost the employees $20 a month, nor did she say
that if the Union came in the employees would lose their 401(k)
or other benefits. In fact, the Union was not discussed at these
meetings.
Shelley testified that the Respondent had two meetings of
employees to discuss the social security mismatch issue. He did
not say anything at these meetings; Regan spoke, in Spanish.
Neither himself, Regan, or Doyle said that if the Union came in
it would cost the employees $20 a month or that the employees
would lose their 401(k) or other retirement benefits. He testi-
fied further that in late April or May the Respondent conducted
three or four meetings with the employees about the Union in
which Regan did the speaking, in Spanish.
The sole evidence supporting this allegation is Casarubia’s
testimony that Regan, interpreting for Shelley, told the employ-
CINTAS CORP. 951
ees that the Union wanted to come into the Company; that the
Union was only interested in their money; that it would cost
them about $20 a month; and that the Union “would take away
some benefits.” She also testified that “she understood” that if
they “enter into a Union we would lose [401 and profit shar-
ing], that’s what I understood.” On cross-examination, she testi-
fied that Regan said that if the Union came in, “all the benefits
that we had, the Union would take away those.” This is an un-
usual credibility issue because while Casarubia testified that
these subjects were specifically discussed, Regan and Shelley
testified that these subjects were never discussed at the meet-
ings. Rather, the meetings were solely to discuss the social
security mismatches. This discrepancy might be explained by
the fact that in late April or early May the Respondent con-
ducted three or four meetings with the employees to discuss the
Union. Although I did not find Casarubia to be an incredible
witness, I did not find her testimony to be definitive enough to
overcome the testimony of Regan and Shelley. For example,
she testified that she “understood” that they would lose these
benefits if the Union came in. In addition, I did not find credi-
ble Casarubia’s testimony that when Ventura asked a question
about social security cards, Regan told her to shut up. If the
Respondent was conducting a meeting to convince the employ-
ees not to support the Union, I find it highly unlikely that they
would respond to employee questions by telling them to shut
up. More likely, they would try to “make nice.” Finally, with 60
to 80 employees attending the meeting, no other employees
testified in support of these allegations. For all these reasons, I
find that counsel for the General Counsel has not proven this
allegation, and I recommend that it be dismissed.
V. REGION 29 CASE
A. The 8(a)(1) Allegations
These allegations involve allegedly unlawful statements that
were made to the employees at the facility, some during meet-
ings of the employees, as well as, the discharge of Valdivia.
There is some confusion regarding the dates of the meetings
that Plant Manager Adam Del Vecchio conducted with the
employees. The principal reason for this confusion is the diffi-
culty that some of the General Counsel’s witnesses had with
dates. For example, employee, Adela Viera testified that the
union agents visited her at her home on January 14, which, in
answer to a question from counsel for the General Counsel, she
specifically testified was a Saturday, and that the first meeting
conducted by the Respondent was on Tuesday, January 17.
However, in 2003, the Saturday that Viera is apparently refer-
ring to was January 11, and the following Monday and Tuesday
would have been January 13 and 14. In evaluating the allega-
tions in this portion of the case I have attempted to correlate the
testimony of counsel for the General Counsel’s witnesses and
the Respondent’s witnesses as best as I could.
The union organizational drive at the Central Islip facility
began in about mid-January. Viera testified that two union
agents visited her at her home at about that time. In addition, on
January 17 she saw these two union agents outside the facility
carrying a sign with the Union’s name saying: “We Want Jus-
tice.” She testified that on that day, when she and the other
employees were in the cafeteria at the conclusion of their break,
Norah Hickey, the human resources manager, and Del Vecchio,
admitted supervisors and agents of the Respondent, and John
Yavorka, the general manager at the facility, told them to wait
for a moment because they were going to have a meeting. Del
Vecchio spoke to the employees in Spanish. He told the em-
ployees that he heard that the Union was visiting them at their
homes, but that they did not need a union because they had
good benefits. He showed the employees “a letter,” more likely
a union authorization card, and told them not to sign it. If they
were given one, “take it and throw it away.” Upon the conclu-
sion of her examination by counsel for the General Counsel,
Viera was asked by counsel for the Charging Party what Del
Vecchio said about benefits at this meeting; she testified that
Del Vecchio said that if the Union came in they would lose
their benefits, for example, their 401(k). In Viera’s affidavit
given to the Board, she said that Del Vecchio told them that he
heard that the Union was visiting them at home, but that they
didn’t need a union, as they had good benefits. He held up a
union authorization card and said that if the Union gave them
such a card, they shouldn’t sign it, and that was all that she
could remember about the meeting. The affidavit does not refer
to the threat of loss of benefits if the Union came in. Her affi-
davit also refers to a subsequent meeting where an employee
asked Del Vecchio whether the Company would do anything
against an employee who signed a union card, and Del Vecchio
answered no.
Yavorka testified that on January 10, he learned from the Re-
spondent’s headquarters that the Union was attempting to or-
ganize the employees and there might be union agents at his
facility the following week. On the following day, he received
telephone calls from two of the service sales representatives
(SSRs) telling him that union representatives visited them at
their homes. Headquarters then told him to have meetings with
employees beginning on Monday morning, January 13, to in-
form them of what was occurring. There were six meetings all
together on that day, covering all the shifts at the facility, be-
ginning early in the morning. Yavorka lead these meetings
using “talking points” provided by corporate headquarters and
Del Vecchio translated what he said in Spanish for the meetings
of the first-, second-, and third-shift production employees; the
other meetings did not require an interpreter. He told the em-
ployees that they knew that some of them were visited by the
Union at home. If they hadn’t been visited, they might be vis-
ited soon. There was no discussion of benefits or closing any of
the Respondent’s facilities. The employees asked some ques-
tions. One question was how the Union got the employees’
addresses and telephone numbers and Yavorka assured the
employees that the Respondent did not give this information to
the Union. Another employee asked what happens if they sign a
union card and he told them that it could mean that they joined
the Union. Received in evidence was the “talking points” pres-
entation that Yavorka employed on January 13. He testified that
he read some of it word-for-word and used some of his own
words in addition:
Many of our Cintas partners across the U.S. and Can-
ada have been solicited at their homes by representatives
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD952
of UNITE. We have no idea how they obtained any part-
ner’s name or address. They did not get it from Cintas.
First off, you should know that NOTHING requires
you to allow union representatives into your home. In fact,
you are under no obligation to even talk to union reps.
They have no legal right to be on your property if you or
your family members object. If the reps are on your prop-
erty, you may ask them to leave, and if they refuse, you
may contact the police.
UNITE reps may ask our partners to sign a union au-
thorization card. The card may even be presented in a way
that leads you to believe you’re only signing up for more
information. Read carefully anything you are asked to
sign.
Beware—these cards are legally binding documents.
You may be giving UNITE your authorization to represent
and speak for you. Because it’s a signed legal document,
you cannot change your mind and get the card back. The
union will not give it to you.
We encourage you not to sign the card, just by signing
the card you are joining UNITE and agreeing to many ob-
ligations, including having to pay union dues, union fees,
union assessments, union initiation fees, possible union
fines and honor UNITE strikes and picket lines. These
things may not be explained to you by a UNITE rep. (Hold
up a 3x5 inch card as an example of a union authorization
card.). Signing a union authorization card is like signing a
blank check and allowing someone else to write in the
amount.
Unions always make promises on what they will get
for you. They can’t deliver on those promises unless a
company agrees to them.
No Cintas facility has ever had a labor organization
organize a facility. In fact, the only unions Cintas has ever
had have come through acquisitions. Nearly all partners at
those acquired locations when given the opportunity have
thrown the unions out because they recognized that the un-
ions added no value to them. And in no case have the part-
ners brought a union back. In my opinion, we do not need
a union.
Again, I strongly urge you to not sign any document or
card or feel pressured to do so when asked by a Unite rep-
resentative.
Are there any questions at this time?
As always, I encourage you to let me know if you have
concerns or questions.
Thank you for giving me your attention.
Del Vecchio testified that he was present for the three meet-
ings of the production employees on January 13; the first meet-
ing was with the third shift, at about 6:30 a.m. The next meet-
ing with the first shift took place before lunchtime, and the
meeting with the second shift was at about 3:30 p.m. Yavorka
read from the talking points “almost word-for-word” and he
translated what he said in Spanish. Del Vecchio had a copy of
the talking points that Yavorka used, so he was able to translate
from the document, generally, one paragraph at a time. Del
Vecchio could not remember Yavorka saying anything that was
not set forth in the talking points document.
The next meeting conducted by the Respondent was the fol-
lowing day, January 14. This meeting was conducted in Span-
ish by Del Vecchio, with a different talking points presentation
prepared by the Respondent’s headquarters. Entitled: “Tips for
UNITE issues” it states:
Thank the many partners who have come forward with
input and feedback regarding the UNITE campaign.
Many partners are upset about UNITE obtaining their
personal information and using it to gain access to their
homes. I can assure you that Cintas did not provide
UNITE any information and we are very upset as well.
Many partners have told us that UNITE reps have mis-
represented themselves as “Cintas Union Representatives”
or “Cintas Representatives”—it sounds like UNITE reps
will use just about any tactic to enter your home or even to
get you to stop and talk.
Beware that UNITE reps will use many misleading
and underhanded tactics to gain your support. For exam-
ple, we have been told that UNITE reps have said:
1. “This card is only to get an election.”
2. “This card is to obtain more information.”
3. “A majority of your fellow workers have already
signed.”
4. “You must sign a card to vote.”
5. “It will cost you more in initiation fees if you don’t
join now.”
6. “Sign now and the union will protect your job.”
7. “UNITE already represents Cintas in Las Vegas,
Chicago and New Jersey.”
All of these statements are FALSE or misleading!
Don’t believe their story. These are typical union tricks.
Ridiculous promises have already been made to some
of our partners including:
1. UNITE can get the partner U.S. citizenship.
2. A $4.00 per hour pay increase for production part-
ners and a starting salary of $50,000 for SSR.
These are promises that UNITE cannot deliver even if
they guarantee it.
Based on everything we know they aren’t getting any-
thing like this for any of their members.
Many partners have provided a UNITE flyer or union
membership card. You have the right to refuse to sign a
union membership card, and we hope that you will. If you
sign it, you have entered a binding agreement whether or
not you intended to. Please note that the opening line of
the membership card states, (hold up card and read from
the beginning) “I proudly join the Uniform Worker Coun-
cil of UNITE.” Folks, the cards UNITE wants you to sign
isn’t for additional information, or to check your interest.
You may be joining UNITE without having a full under-
standing of your legal or financial commitments. Once you
sign the card, you cannot get it back.
Information that we have found on UNITE’s member-
ship shows that in the last 25 years their total membership
has declined from 635,000 in 1977 to 200,000 in 2002.
Ask yourself, if UNITE is so good at providing great
CINTAS CORP. 953
wages and benefits why has their membership dropped by
over 400,000 people—by over 2/3—over the past 25
years.
And in the last two years many petitions have been
filed to decertify UNITE representation in companies. The
membership may decline even further. UNITE needs your
money. But, in my opinion, you don’t need them.
In this difficult economy you have steady work and
good pay and benefits for you and your family. And you
don’t have to join any union and pay costly union dues,
initiation fees and assessments to keep your job! Based
upon information UNITE told some of our partners,
UNITE will charge you $7.25 per week to belong. That is
nearly $400 per year.
We don’t need a union and we don’t want a union.
And we don’t think a union would be good for you either.
I hope you do two things to keep UNITE out of our fa-
cility:
1. Refuse to sign a union membership application and
save your cash, and
2. Speak up on your right to not have a union here, and
the right of all our partners to continue to work in a good,
union-free environment.
Are there any questions?
Thanks for your attention this morning/afternoon.
Del Vecchio testified that he read this January 14 talking
point presentation to the employees in Spanish. The employees
asked questions, principally, what signing the union card meant
and how the Union got their addresses. He answered that the
Company did not know how the Union learned of their ad-
dresses, and that they did not give this information to the Un-
ion. He told the employees that the union card was a “legal
document.” When an employee asked if they would get in trou-
ble for signing a union card, he assured them that they would
not get in trouble. He never told employees that they would
lose birthday benefits, or any benefits, if the Union got in.
Viera testified that the second meeting that she attended was
in January. She was in the cafeteria, and they remained in the
cafeteria where the meeting took place after lunch. Del Vecchio
conducted the meeting with Yavorka and Hickey also present.
The employees were shown a video about unions. Yavorka and
Del Vecchio testified they conducted meetings with different
groups of employees on either January 16 or 17 where a video,
entitled: “Sign Now, Pay Later” was shown to the employees.
In addition, Del Vecchio read another talking points presenta-
tion to the production employees in Spanish, while Yavorka
read this presentation to the office employees and the SSR em-
ployees. Viera testified that the third group meeting that she
attended was in about February. At this meeting, presided over
by Del Vecchio, they were shown a video that told the employ-
ees that the Respondent had good benefits. Del Vecchio testi-
fied that there were three videos shown to the employees. The
second one was shown the last week of January and the third
one was shown the first week of February. The talking points
for these videos that he presented were brief introductions to
the video presentations.
Guarinex Santos, who has been employed by the Respondent
since May 2002, and works from 3:30 to 11:30 p.m., testified
that there were three or four meetings a week from January to
the beginning of February. He signed an authorization card for
the Union on January 15 and the first meeting he attended was
about a week later; it was attended by all of the employees on
his shift, at 4 p.m. in the cafeteria. Del Vecchio, Yavorka and
Hickey, as well as the supervisors, were present. Del Vecchio
spoke in English and fellow employee Jose Aguilar translated
into Spanish, as he did for all the meetings that Del Vecchio
conducted with the employees. They said that if the employees
signed the union cards and the Union came in, “the workers
would lose the benefits that we had with the company.” The
example of benefits that they would lose was a cake on their
birthday and a sweater with their name on it. He also testified
that Del Vecchio said that “if the Union came in all of the bene-
fits that we had would disappear” although no such statement
appears in the affidavit he gave to the Board. Rather, the affi-
davit says that if the Union got in they “might” lose benefits
such as birthday cakes and coats, which “could” disappear.”
After being shown his affidavit given to the Board, he testified
that the employees were shown a video at this meeting where
the Respondent’s president said that the Union was not good
for the employees, it would force the Company to move and it
would be forced to close, and that “the benefits of the workers
would disappear if the Union came in.”6 On cross-examination,
Santos testified that Del Vecchio said that the benefits “were
going to disappear definitively.” Counsel for the Respondent
then asked Santos:
Q. Now do you remember anything else that Adam
said before the video?
A. He said that if the Union were to come in the bene-
fits would disappear and the Union was not good for us.
He also said that because of the Union a lot of companies
have disappeared.
Q. He did not say that if the Union came in Cintas
would close its business?
A. Many companies have disappeared due to that.
Q. But he did not—no one at the meeting said that if
the Union came in Cintas would move or shut down, did
he?
A. Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
Q. Did Adam say anything else at this meeting?
A. He said that if the Union came in all of the benefits
that we had would disappear.
Q. All the benefits?
A. Yes.
Santos was then shown his affidavit and admitted that there was
nothing in the affidavit saying that Del Vecchio said that the
employees would lose all of their benefits if the Union came in.
Del Vecchio testified that on the final Friday of every month
they celebrate the birthdays of the month by serving cake to the

6 There is a transcript of the three videos shown to the employees. In
addition, at the request of the parties, I watched the videos. Based upon
my viewing of these videos, and a reading of the transcripts of these
video, I find that they contained no threats that the Company would
move or close, or that the employees would lose benefits if the Union
came in.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD954
employees. At the employee meetings in January and February
he never referred to these birthday celebrations. He also testi-
fied that Aguilar never translated for him at any of these meet-
ings. Hickey testified that Aguilar assisted Del Vecchio in
translating for one meeting. She could not recollect if he trans-
lated at other meetings as well.
Santos also testified about a meeting held in late January or
early February on a Thursday. The meeting took place in the
women’s department at about 4 p.m. and all the employees
from his shift, between 20 and 30, were present. Del Vecchio
spoke to the employees in Spanish and told them that if they
didn’t want the Union, they should tell the Union that they
wanted their cards back, that they no longer wanted to be repre-
sented by the Union. At one point he testified that Del Vecchio
showed the employees a piece of paper containing the Union’s
address, and shortly thereafter, he testified that Del Vecchio
said that if the employees came to his office, he would give
them the Union’s address. Del Vecchio also said that when they
got their cards back, “his office door would be open to receive
us . . . to hand the card in to him.”
Del Vecchio testified that he held meetings with employees
where he told them that he had the address of the Union and the
Board. Prior to these meetings he was approached by employ-
ees who told him that they had signed for the Union, but that
they had either changed their mind, they had been tricked or
just didn’t know what they were signing. He initially told these
employees that he didn’t know what to tell them, but after
speaking to Yavorka and Respondent’s headquarters, he told
the employees that “we can’t personally do anything, but we
can provide them with the address of UNITE if they wanted
that for their card back.” He never told employees to bring their
union cards to his office, never told employees what to do with
their card if they got it back, and never encouraged, or in-
structed, any employee to get their card back. None of the em-
ployees ever gave him their union card.
Valdivia also testified about two meetings that the Respon-
dent conducted with the employees where there was a threat
that they would lose benefits if the Union came in. She testified
that from the time that she first learned of the Union, mid-
January, to her discharge on about February 21, the Respondent
conducted meetings with the employees almost on a daily basis,
with almost 20 meetings taking place during this 5- to 6-week
period. All the meetings took place in the cafeteria at the facil-
ity, were before lunchtime, and lasted about 20 minutes. They
were attended by all of the employees on her shift, about 50,
including Viera, as well as Yavorka, Del Vecchio, Hickey, and
“Paul.” Del Vecchio was the person who spoke at these meet-
ings, and he spoke in Spanish. At the first meeting, a few days
after she was first approached by the Union, Del Vecchio said
that many employees had told him that they were visited by the
Union, but they didn’t need a union and that Cintas was a good
place to work: “He said not to open the door. And he said that if
we were to belong to the Union we could lose benefits,” al-
though her affidavit given to the Board on March 4 does not
mention the threat of the loss of benefits. “Betty” said that she
had been visited by the Union and Valdivia said that she had
also been visited by the Union, and “everybody was saying that
they had also been visited.” Del Vecchio told them that they
should not open their doors, “and that we should be careful
with our jobs” or “watch our jobs.” He also told them that many
companies had closed because of the union.
Valdivia testified that there was another meeting conducted
on about the following day at about the same time and place as
the prior meeting with the same employees present. At this
meeting, Del Vecchio said that he was going to show them a
video in which the president of the Company was going to
speak to them. At the conclusion of the video, Del Vecchio said
that they should be careful with their jobs and “he said that we
would lose benefits. . . . The contributions that the company
made for insurance purposes, we would lose that.” As testified,
supra, by Yavorka and Del Vecchio, at the first and second
meetings on January 13 and 14, Yavorka read, and Del Vecchio
translated, the “talking points” set forth above. These talking
points do not refer to the loss of benefits or to the Respondent
closing any facility.
Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the complaint allege that on about
January 14, at a meeting of its first-shift employees in the cafe-
teria, Del Vecchio threatened the employees that if the Union
succeeded in its campaign to represent them they would lose
benefits, including paid days off for their birthday, their 401(k)
plan and a portion of their paid vacations, and that on January
14, as well, Del Vecchio also directed the employees to refuse
to sign union cards and to refuse to allow union representatives
to come into their homes. These allegations relate to the testi-
mony of Viera and Valdivia. Paragraphs 16 and 19 allege that
in late January or early February, Del Vecchio at a meeting of
second-shift employees, threatened the employees that if the
Union succeeded in its campaign to represent them, they would
lose certain benefits including paid days off for their birthdays,
cake and refreshments, and coats with the Respondent’s name
inscribed on them, and advised the employees to request the
return of their authorization cards from the Union and to bring
the returned cards to him, and provided the employees with the
Union’s address and instructed them to go there to retrieve their
union authorization cards. These allegations relate to the testi-
mony of Santos.
Counsel for the Respondent, in his brief, argues that the
General Counsel’s witnesses’ credibility is compromised be-
cause of the large number of employees present at these meet-
ings, yet, counsel only called Viera and Valdivia to testify
about the first-shift production meetings, and Santos to testify
about the evening shift meetings. Counsel for the Respondent
further argues against Santos’ credibility because of his confu-
sion as to whether Del Vecchio was speaking in English or
Spanish at these meetings. I find it unnecessary to discuss these
two arguments because I found Viera, Santos and Valdivia’s
testimony about these meetings, and the corresponding allega-
tions, unreliable for other reasons. Viera, Santos, Valdivia,
Yavorka, and Del Vecchio each had some difficulty remember-
ing what occurred at the meetings that the Respondent held
with the employees, but that is certainly understandable as the
meetings took place about 16 months earlier. The problem that
I had with the testimony of counsel for the General Counsel’s
witnesses to these meetings is, what appeared to me, their at-
tempts to embellish or exaggerate on what was said at the meet-
ings. Viera initially testified that Del Vecchio said that they
CINTAS CORP. 955
didn’t need a union because they had good benefits and if they
were given a union authorization card they should take it and
throw it away. It was only after completing her direct examina-
tion from counsel for the General, when she was asked what
Del Vecchio said about benefits, that she testified that he said
that if the Union came in they would lose their benefits. How-
ever, no such statement appears in the affidavit she gave to the
Board. Further, as argued in counsel for the Respondent’s brief,
her affidavit refers to a subsequent meeting where Del Vecchio,
responding to an employee’s question, said that the Company
would not take any action against employees who signed union
cards. Such a statement, even though made at a subsequent
meeting, appears to conflict with a threat that if the Union came
in the employees would lose their benefits. I found Santos’
testimony even more unreliable. He testified that in the video
that they were shown the Respondent’s president said that the
Company would be forced to close and the workers’ benefits
would disappear if the Union came in. However, no such
statement appears in the videos. He also testified that Del Vec-
chio said that if the Union came in the employees would lose
their benefits, such as birthday cakes and sweaters with their
names and that all their benefits would disappear. However, in
his affidavit given to the Board he stated that Del Vecchio said
that if the Union got in they “might” lose benefits and that the
birthday cakes and sweaters “could” disappear. Finally, Val-
divia testified that at the first meeting Del Vecchio said that if
they belonged to the Union they “could” lose benefits, but even
that statement does not appear in her affidavit given to the
Board about 6 weeks after these meetings.
Because I credit the testimony of Del Vecchio over that of
Viera, Valdivia, and Santos, for the reasons stated above, I find
no credible evidence that Del Vecchio threatened employees
with the loss of benefits, including 401(k)s, birthday benefits,
and sweaters, if the Union was successful in organizing them,
and I, therefore, recommend that these allegations, contained in
paragraphs 14 and 16, be dismissed. There remains paragraphs
15 and 19, which allege that Del Vecchio, at meetings of first-
and second-shift employees, in January, directed employees to
refuse to sign union authorization cards and to refuse to allow
union representatives into their homes, and advised employees
to request of the Union that they return their signed authoriza-
tion cards and that they should bring these cards to him, and
provided the employees with the Union’s address and in-
structed them to go there to retrieve their authorization cards.
Viera testified that at the first meeting, Del Vecchio showed
them a union authorization card and told them not to sign it,
that if they were given one, they should take it and throw it
away. Valdivia testified that (presumably at the same meeting)
Del Vecchio said that many employees told him that they were
visited by the Union, but that they should not open their door
and that they should be careful with their jobs. Santos testified
that at a meeting in either January or February, Del Vecchio
told the employees that if they didn’t want the Union they
should tell the Union that they wanted their cards back and he
showed the employees a piece of paper containing the Union’s
address. He also said that if they came to his office he would
give them the Union’s address and when they got their cards
back, “his office door would be open to receive us . . . to hand
the card in to him.” On the other hand, the “talking points” read
by Yavorka and translated into Spanish by Del Vecchio says
that if the Union comes onto their property the employees can
ask them to leave and, if they refuse, they can contact the po-
lice, and that they encourage the employees not (emphasized)
to sign a union card. The talking points on the following day
says that the employees have a right to refuse to sign a union
card, “and we hope that you will.” In addition, Del Vecchio
testified that he told the employees that he had the address of
the Union and the Board and “we can’t personally do anything,
but we can provide them with the address of UNITE if they
wanted to get their cards back.” However, he never told em-
ployees to bring their cards to his office, what to do with their
card if they got it back, or instructed or encouraged employees
to get their cards back.
As stated above, I found counsel for the General Counsel’s
witnesses somewhat lacking in credibility on this subject. San-
tos was the least credible, with the most contradictions in his
testimony, while Valdivia the most credible of the three, with
the fewest contradictions. Therefore, I credit Del Vecchio’s
testimony regarding these allegations. Under Section 8(c) of the
Act, an employer may encourage an employee to refuse to sign
a union authorization card or, even, encourage employees to tell
union representatives to leave their property, as long as these
statements are not accompanied by threats or promises. I find
Airporter Inn Hotel, 215 NLRB 824 (1974), and Producers
Rice Mill, Inc., 222 NLRB 875, 881 (1976), cited by counsel
for the Respondent in his brief, right on point. The allegedly
unlawful statement in Producers Rice Mill was: “Stay away
from union meetings. . . . You don’t have to go so just stay
away.” The administrative law judge found that this did not
constitute a warning as there was no threat of retaliation or
retribution. Rather, the employer:
in total context, counseled them on their right to abstain from
union activities, and specifically admonished them to avoid
certain activities, including attendance at union meetings.
Noncoercive admonitions to refrain from union activities are
not necessarily prohibited by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. . . .
Similarly, I find that the statements in the talking points telling
the employees that they can ask the union representatives to
leave their property does not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
and I recommend that this allegation be dismissed.
I also find that Del Vecchio’s statements to employees on
obtaining the return of their union authorization cards does not
violate the Act. He told them that he had the address of the
Union and the Board if they wanted their cards back, but did
nothing further. Vestal Nursing Center, 328 NLRB 87, 101
(1999), stated:
As a general rule, an employer may not solicit employees to
revoke their authorization cards. An employer may, however,
advise employees that they may revoke their authorization
cards, so long as the employer neither offers assistance in do-
ing so nor otherwise creates an atmosphere wherein employ-
ees would tend to feel peril in refraining from revoking. Thus,
an employer may not offer assistance to employees in revok-
ing authorization cards in the context of other contemporane-
ous ULPs. [Citations omitted.]
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD956
Numerous cases, such as Chelsea Homes, 298 NLRB 813, 834
(1990), and Kobacker Co., 308 NLRB 84 (1992), state that an
employer may provide no more than “ministerial” aid to its
employers in withdrawing from the union, and that is all that
Del Vecchio did herein. In addition, there were no contempora-
neous ULPs committed by the Respondent. I, therefore, rec-
ommend that this allegation at paragraph 19 be dismissed.
B. Solicitation and Termination of Valdivia
It is alleged that on about January 22, the Respondent, by
Hickey, solicited Valdivia to urge other employees to join with
a group of antiunion employees at the facility and threatened
that employees would lose benefits if they declined to engage
in such conduct. It is further alleged that the Respondent dis-
charged Valdivia on about February 21, because of her union
activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Respondent
defends this latter allegation by stating that Valdivia quit her
employment with the Respondent.
Valdivia began working for the Respondent in April 1997
repairing uniforms. She worked from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. Although not crucial to the 8(a)(3)
allegation involving her discharge, there was some testimony
regarding the quality of her work. She testified that when she
began working for the Respondent she was paid $7 an hour.
She received a raise every year in April and her final pay rate
was $9.35 an hour. She testified that when she was given the
increases her supervisor told her that it was based upon her
attendance and her work production, and that she was receiving
the best increase among the employees. There is some conflict
in the testimony on whether her work performance was spot-
less. Counsel for the General Counsel asked her if she ever
received any warning or disciplinary action from the Respon-
dent and she answered no. However, counsel for the Respon-
dent produced a partner disciplinary documentation dated Feb-
ruary 10, from her supervisor, John Fitzsimmons, who is no
longer employed by the Respondent, to Valdivia stating that
she had been absent 6 times in the last 12 months.7 The warning
states that she would have to adhere to the attendance policy by
being at work, on time and in proper uniform every day. It is
referred to as a written warning, concluding that the eighth
occurrence will result in a recommendation for termination.
Valdivia did not sign this warning, and she testified that she
had never seen it before. Del Vecchio testified that in mid-
February, Fitzsimmons showed him this warning and told Del
Vecchio that he had attempted to counsel Valdivia about her
attendance, but that she had argued with him about it and re-
fused to sign the warning. Hickey testified that Fitzsimmons
told her that he was trying to correct some attendance problems
in his department, and Valdivia was one of the employees to
whom he had given a warning for them “to clean up their act.”
Valdivia testified that she was visited at her home by two un-

7 Respondent provides its employees who have in excess of 5 years
employment with the Respondent, as did Valdivia at the time, with 5
paid days of sick leave a year based upon their anniversary date of
employment. Respondent’s records establish that from April 2002
through Valdivia’s termination, she was out on sick leave on 3 days,
and worked 5 partial days.
ion representatives on a Friday in January. “Kelly” said that she
was visiting all the laundry employees to talk to them about
what was happening at the Company. Valdivia told her that she
did not have time at that moment to talk to them and they left.
On the following workday, most likely January 13, she talked
about the Union with another employee. On a Saturday at the
end of January, Valdivia attended a union meeting. Kelly and
“Moreno” spoke, and told the employees that they were trying
to organize them and talked about things that were happening at
the Company. Valdivia asked if the Union had good lawyers to
represent them because of the many injustices she had seen at
the Company, and they said that they did have good lawyers.
Valdivia testified: “From being a neutral person, I started want-
ing to belong to the Union.” She signed a union authorization
card on February 12.
In about mid-January, union representatives appeared near
the entrance to parking lot at the Respondent’s facility carrying
signs. Shortly after these union representatives appeared,
groups of employees stood across from the union representa-
tives carrying signs stating that they did not want the Union. On
January 22, Valdivia, who used an interpreter at the hearing,
but testified that she understands a little English, saw Hickey
and called her over to her work area and told her that the at-
mosphere at work was changing and that she did not like the
change in the environment at the facility. By that she meant that
the employees weren’t speaking to each other because they
believed that the supervisors were watching them and they
didn’t want them to think that they were talking about the Un-
ion. She testified that in response, Hickey told her in English:
“You are the person who has the most seniority here, everyone
is going to listen to you. You can go to the cafeteria and speak
to all the people and tell them that we don’t want a union and
you can be the leader.” Valdivia told Hickey: “I didn’t want to
be either against the company nor with the Union, I just wanted
to do my work as usual.” Later that day, Valdivia spoke to both
Del Vecchio and Hickey about this conversation with Hickey
and both told her that she must have misunderstood what
Hickey had said.
Hickey testified that she had a conversation with Valdivia at
Valdivia’s work station at the facility on January 30:
She told me that she was extremely unhappy with how things
had changed in the building. People who used to eat lunch to-
gether and talk to each other were now at each other’s throat.
They weren’t sitting together for lunch. She asked me to tell
the Cintas partners who were outside the building picketing
against the Union to stop doing that; to come in and stop. She
told me if I did this the Union would go away.
Hickey told Valdivia that she wished she could tell both the
Union and the partners to go away, but she was not allowed to
do that. She testified that she never told Valdivia that as she
was a long-term employee her fellow workers would respect
and listen to her, nor did she tell her that she should talk to the
other employees about the Union. At about 2:30 p.m. that day,
Yavorka called Hickey and Del Vecchio into his office and told
them that Valdivia had gone to Fitzsimmons and complained to
him that Hickey told her to go outside and to demonstrate with
the Respondent’s employees, presumably, the antiunion dem-
CINTAS CORP. 957
onstrators. Hickey was extremely upset by this allegation and
Yavorka called the Respondent’s attorneys and received per-
mission for Hickey to meet with Valdivia to “review” what had
occurred that day. Valdivia had already left work for the day so
Hickey documented the events with Valdivia earlier that day:
This is to document a series of incidents that occurred involv-
ing myself and Clorinda Valdivia.
Thursday, January 30, 2003
I was walking the plant floor about 8:30 this morning,
talking to partners. As I approached Clorinda’s work sta-
tion, she raised her hand and called me over.
She told me that she was extremely upset with what
was going on outside our building. People who used to
talk to each other and be friends were no longer talking,
everybody was taking sides.
She told me that I should tell the Cintas partners who
were standing outside at the end of the 1st shift everyday,
that they should stop going out there. They were only en-
couraging the Union to stay longer. If they stopped going
out there the Union would leave.
I answered Clorinda that I could not get involved in
what partners were or were not doing that everyone had
the right the [sic] voice their opinion during a union orga-
nizing campaign.
Clorinda responded that the Union had tried this just
before I joined the company and they had left after three or
four days.
I responded that I did not believe that they would go
away quite that easily this time. It seemed obvious that the
Union was serious in its effort to organize Cintas and other
companies, and that every partner would probably be in-
volved in this before it was over.
I told Clorinda that if anything happened that con-
cerned her, she was to report it immediately to John
Fitzsimmons or Adam Del Vecchio.
I was called into the GM’s office at 2:30. Adam was
there. I was told that a group of plant partners had ap-
proached John Fitzsimmons, 1st shift supervisor, with a
complaint. They had stated that partners were giving them
a difficult time because they thought they were involved
with the Union.
Clorinda was with the group, and after they had lodged
their complaint, she told John that I had told her that she
must go out and demonstrate against the Union, and she
did not want to do this.
I explained to John and Adam what had happened and
suggested that I meet with Clorinda, with Adam present, to
clear it up.
Because of the nature of the complaint, John Yavorka
called Peter Walker’s office. After speaking with the at-
torney, it was agreed that Adam and I should meet with
Clorinda to clear this up.
On Friday, January 31, Adam and I met with Clorinda
in his office.
I told Clorinda that John and Adam had advised me of
her complaint. I apologized to Clorinda for any misunder-
standing. I repeated again what we had discussed on Fri-
day [sic] morning. She agreed that this was what had been
discussed, but thought that I had meant that she would
need to go out and get involved.
I again apologized for any misunderstanding, making
it clear to Clorinda that nobody had the right to tell her or
any other partner what to do in this situation.
She accepted my apology, we hugged, and she went
back to work.
When she met with Valdivia that morning, she told her that
she was upset that Valdivia misunderstood her and assured her
that under no circumstances did she have to get involved in
anything that was going on. Valdivia agreed, they hugged each
other and Valdivia left the meeting smiling. As to her relation-
ship with Valdivia between that day and February 21, she testi-
fied: “Civil, but I was a little leery.”
As stated above, the union authorization card that Valdivia
signed is dated February 12. She testified that after signing this
card, she joined the union pickets near the parking lot at the
Respondent’s facility. However, it is not clear when she joined
these union pickets. On direct examination, asked:
Q. Now after this meeting where you signed the card
on Saturday, did you go to work on Monday?
A. Yes.
Q. Now on that day did you do anything different that
you had never done in the past?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do that was different?
A. When I would go out, when I would leave work, I
stopped with the people from the Union.
The difficulty is that February 12 is a Wednesday, not a Satur-
day, so it is not clear exactly when Valdivia joined the union
demonstrators outside the facility. What makes it even less
clear is that her affidavit given to the Board states that she be-
gan joining the union demonstrators in the end of January.
However, based upon all of her testimony, I find that she began
joining the union demonstrators on about February 13. She
testified from that day, until her final day of work for the Re-
spondent, she stood outside with about seven or eight union
demonstrators almost every day. She testified further that on
the first day, while she was with the union supporters for about
20 minutes, she saw Del Vecchio and Hickey watching her
from a window in the plant, about 25 to 30 feet from where she
was standing, for a period of about 10 minutes. She testified
that they were watching her from an office window at the cor-
ner of the building, although in her affidavit given to the Board
she stated that they were observing her from a hall window.
Del Vecchio testified that the union supporters were standing
on a sidewalk that runs along the street just outside the Respon-
dent’s property line. On the evening prior to his testimony, after
being present during Valdivia’s testimony, he measured the
distance from where the union representatives stood to the loca-
tion where Valdivia testified that he and Hickey observed her
with the union supporters, and the distance is 150 feet. He iden-
tified from a diagram of the facility the location that Valdivia
testified that he and Hickey were observing her as the office of
the first aid & safety division of the Respondent. He testified
that he never observed Valdivia from that office or any other
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD958
location at the facility. He testified further that he has been in
that office five or six times in the prior 4 years and that he does
not believe that people in those offices would be visible from
where the union demonstrators were located. He has seen union
demonstrators in the area when arriving for, or leaving from,
work or at other times when he had reason to be in the area. In
addition, he has seen them from a window in the conference
room at the facility. Hickey testified that prior to Valdivia’s
termination, she never observed her standing outside the facility
with other union supporters, although after her termination she
saw her with the other demonstrators wearing a union hat.
The incident that culminated in Valdivia’s termination oc-
curred on the morning of February 19. She testified that a repair
order that she received said that an employee identification
label on a uniform was about to come off. A fellow employee,
“Yolanda,” is the employee who attaches these labels to the
uniforms, so Valdivia told Yolanda that she should be more
careful with her work because she had been receiving a lot of
uniforms with that problem. This problem had been occurring
for a few months and it was causing more work for Valdivia.
Yolanda responded that she was not the only one working there
and Valdivia said that she wanted to let her know of the prob-
lem. Yolanda said that she was going to contact Del Vecchio,
and Valdivia said that she was going to check her work. When
Yolanda seemed annoyed, Valdivia said that she was joking
and she should not be annoyed, but Yolanda walked away.
Valdivia returned to work and, when she saw Fitzsimmons, she
told him that she wanted to speak to Del Vecchio about
Yolanda. Fitzsimmons said that he was called to Del Vecchio’s
office, but when he finished, he would come to see her. She
saw Fitzsimmons go into Del Vecchio’s office, waited about 5
minutes and then she stopped working and walked to Del Vec-
chio’s office. When she got to the office she saw Del Vecchio,
Fitzsimmons, and Yolanda in the office and she asked if she
could come in. Yolanda, smiling, said, “Look at that hypo-
crite.” She also said that Valdivia insulted her, was rude to her
and spoke to her like a supervisor. Valdivia responded that she
couldn’t believe what was happening as they had always gotten
along, and Valdivia had often helped her when she had a prob-
lem. Del Vecchio then asked Valdivia to leave and said that he
would call for her shortly. About 5 or 10 minutes later,
Fitzsimmons came to get her and they both went into Del Vec-
chio’s office. Valdivia showed Del Vecchio the shirt that
caused the instant problem, and Del Vecchio told her that she
should be more careful when she spoke to Yolanda. Valdivia
said that she couldn’t believe what was happening as she had
not previously had a problem with Yolanda. She and
Fitzsimmons left Del Vecchio’s office and she told
Fitzsimmons that Yolanda was lying, and Fitzsimmons told her
not to talk to Yolanda, that she should just do her work.
On the following morning, Yolanda was yelling and pointing
out a shirt that needed to be repaired; Valdivia said that she
didn’t want to talk to her. She testified that Yolanda responded:
She said that I could not tell her that I was not going to speak
to her and that she was going to denounce me, that she was
going to bring a case against me. She said that she was an-
noyed because I had not signed the card from the union . . . .8
After Yolanda said this, Valdivia became nervous, was shaking
and crying and went to speak to Fitzsimmons in his office.
Fitzsimmons told her that he would speak to Del Vecchio, and
that she should go to the cafeteria to calm down. She stayed in
the cafeteria for 2 or 3 minutes and then went to Del Vecchio’s
office. When she arrived, Fitzsimmons and Yolanda were just
leaving, and Fitzsimmons went with her into the office. Del
Vecchio told her that he had to fix the problem with Yolanda
and Valdivia said that Yolanda was lying. Valdivia testified
that she then said that she “was feeling very nervous and that
she couldn’t work under those conditions.” She said that she
wanted to go home and Del Vecchio said that he couldn’t stop
her and that she should do whatever she wanted, and Valdivia
said that she was going home. She walked out of his office,
went to her work area, took her personal items that she brought
to work every day, and left without clocking out for the day.
She was not asked to return her uniform, clean out her work
station, or complete any paperwork prior to leaving that day.
On the following morning, Valdivia reported for work at her
regular time, 7:30 a.m., “punched” in to work by placing her
hand in the timeclock, as usual, went to her work area and be-
gan working. A few minutes later, Del Vecchio approached her
and asked her to come to his office. When they got to his office,
Del Vecchio told her that she no longer works for the company.
She asked why, and Del Vecchio said that since she decided to
leave the day before they understood that she no longer wanted
to work for the Company. She told him that she left the day
before because she felt ill and “couldn’t work under those con-
ditions.” She told him that she had not quit her job. At that
time, Hickey knocked on the door and Del Vecchio walked out
of his office, closed the door and spoke to Hickey. Valdivia
remained in the office. About 2 minutes later, Del Vecchio and
Hickey came into the office and Hickey told her, “I’m very
sorry, we already sent your papers to the corporation.” Valdivia
said that she had been a good worker and they always appreci-
ated her work, “didn’t that count for anything?” Hickey said
that she was sorry, that Valdivia should go home and relax.
Valdivia testified that she knows of two employees, “Consuelo”
and “Victoria” who left work early several times because they
felt ill, and were allowed to return to work the following day.
On cross-examination, Valdivia was asked about her argu-
ment with Yolanda on February 19:
Q. And this was not the first time that you’ve had ar-
guments with co-workers?
A. That was the first time.
Q. You’ve never had arguments with co-workers be-
fore?
A. Never.
Counsel introduced Valdivia’s evaluations in 1999 and 2002. In
1999, in 8 categories, her grades out of 10 were five 9s, two 8s,

8 As Valdivia had signed a union authorization card a week earlier, it
is not clear what this refers to, although it apparently reflects Yolanda’s
sense that Valdivia was unhappy that she, Yolanda, had not signed a
union authorization card.
CINTAS CORP. 959
and one 7, in attendance, tardiness. In ability to work with oth-
ers, she received a 9, with a comment: “Needs to be more toler-
ant of other personalities.” In 2002, she received three 10s,
three 9s, and one 8, in ability to work with others, with the
comment: “Needs to improve a little bit on her ability to work
with others.” Her 1997 evaluation gave her a 10 in this area
with the comment: “Gets along well with all members of the
team” and a January 1999 evaluation gave her a 9, stating:
“Gets along great with co-workers.”
Del Vecchio testified that on February 19, Yolanda came to
his office and told him that Valdivia was being rude to her.
That she was acting like a supervisor and telling her what to do.
Del Vecchio told her that it was important for them to get along
since they worked in the same department. Later that day he
told Valdivia the same thing. On the following day, Yolanda
came to his office and said that she asked Valdivia a question,
and Valdivia responded: “Don’t talk to me.” He does not recall
what he told Yolanda other than that he would discuss it with
Valdivia. About 5 minutes later, he met with Valdivia in his
office and told her what Yolanda said. Valdivia said that
Yolanda was lying, that she was the one being rude and that it
was difficult working under those conditions. Del Vecchio
repeated that it was important that they get along, since they
worked side-by-side and shared equipment. Valdivia then stood
up: “She said she did not want to work here anymore, that she
didn’t like working here, that she wasn’t comfortable and she
wanted to leave.” Del Vecchio asked her if she was sure, be-
cause it seemed like a drastic decision resulting from a minor
incident, and Valdivia “said she was sure, that she had thought
about it, and that she had made a decision and that she did not
want to work there anymore.” He asked her a second time
whether she wanted to reconsider and she said no, and left his
office. She went to her workstation, got her purse, and left
without clocking out. He testified that the Respondent provides
all the tools and implements that Valdivia used at work. Del
Vecchio then called Yavorka and left him a message about
what occurred and documented the incident in a memo. The
memo corresponds generally with Del Vecchio’s testimony, but
adds that on February 19, Valdivia defended her actions by
saying that she corrected Yolanda so that she would learn, and
that Del Vecchio told Valdivia that if she saw Yolanda doing
something wrong, she should tell the supervisor. In addition it
states:
Today [February 20] Yolanda came to my office to complain
about Clorinda’s behavior again. She asked Clorinda if she
was able to repair a garment that had a hole in it. Clorinda
then told Yolanda not to speak to her. Yolanda told her that
they have to speak since they work together, and that she did
not appreciate being treated badly because she (Yolanda) does
not want the union. At this point Clorinda became very upset
and left the repair area. Yolanda also related to me that
Clorinda had been repeatedly bothering her about joining the
union and she felt harassed by Clorinda.
Sometime later that day Del Vecchio told Yavorka what hap-
pened with Valdivia: “[I]t was clear to us that she had quit and
that we would do the appropriate paperwork, and that was it.”
He testified further that on the following morning Valdivia
returned to work and he called her into his office. He asked her
what she was doing at work and she said that she had changed
her mind. She prayed, thought it over and wanted to return to
work. He told her: “When you leave, you leave. You can’t re-
turn.” Hickey joined the discussion in Del Vecchio’s office and
also told Valdivia that once she left, she couldn’t return. On
February 21, Del Vecchio wrote a memo to Yavorka stating,
inter alia:
At approximately 7:15 a.m. I witnessed Clorinda Val-
divia walk into the building and go to the repair area. I got
Paul Florio, the Stockroom Supervisor, and we both ap-
proached Clorinda and asked her to come to my office.
Once in my office, I asked Clorinda what she was do-
ing here. She stated that she wanted to come back to work,
because she had changed her mind. I told her that she quit
yesterday and that she had already been taken off the pay-
roll, so it was not possible for her to return. I also told her
that when someone quits a job, they cannot return because
they changed their mind. She told me that she was very
upset yesterday, and that yesterday she did not want to
work here anymore, but she went home and prayed, and
wants to come back and try again . . . .
I then left the room to get Norah . . . Norah explained
to her again that she could not quit and return to work the
next day. Norah also explained to Clorinda that her pa-
perwork had already been sent up to corporate and that she
was not on the payroll anymore so we could not take her
back. At this point Clorinda stated that she did not quit,
but only wanted to leave for the day. I reminded Clorinda
that I asked her more than once if she was sure that she
wanted to give up her job and she had told me yes. . . . She
also said that if we appreciated her work over the past 6
years we would let her return. Norah explained to her that
we did appreciate her work, but that we are running a
business and that we cannot have partners quitting and re-
turning to work. Norah also informed her that John, the
General Manager, was on vacation and that we could not
do anything until we spoke to him. We advised Clorinda to
go home and told her that we would call her on Monday,
when John returned.
Hickey testified that the first she knew of this situation was
on the morning of February 20 when Del Vecchio told her that
Valdivia had come to his office and told him that she was leav-
ing, that she did not want to work there anymore. She and Del
Vecchio then called Yavorka and left a message for him. When
he called back, Del Vecchio told Yavorka what had occurred
with Valdivia and Yolanda. After this conversation, Hickey
prepared an employee status notification: Leave of ab-
sence/termination form (ESN) for Valdivia dated February 20.
On this form she checked off the box for “Resignation” stating:
“Please term partner-last day worked was 2/20.” She testified
further that every Thursday evening they transmit a package to
the Respondent’s headquarters and she forwarded Valdivia’s
ESN to them that evening. In addition, the Respondent employs
a company that handles their unemployment claims and when-
ever they issue an ESN terminating an employee, they have to
send forms to this company. She transmitted a form to them for
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD960
Valdivia, checking off: “Walked off job.” On the morning of
February 21, Del Vecchio called her and asked her to come to
his office. When she got there, Valdivia told them (in English)
that she had changed her mind and wanted to return to work.
Hickey told her that she had resigned, that her paperwork had
been processed that day, and that she did not have the authority
to let her return to work. After Valdivia left, they called
Yavorka again, and left another voice mail for him. When he
returned the call, they told him that Valdivia came to work and
wanted to return and Yavorka asked if there had been similar
occurrences with any other employees quitting and then at-
tempting to return, and Hickey referred to Baqer Momin. They
discussed the situation involving Momin, but she does not re-
call much that was said in this conversation.
At the conclusion of her cross examination, I asked Hickey:
Q. The other question is about Ms. Valdivia’s leaving.
Now I know from your testimony that you were not pre-
sent on the 20th when she discussed it with Adam, right?
A. Correct.
Q. But you were present when she came back on the
21st and she clearly wanted her job back?
A. Correct.
Q. Now tell me—you were there on the 21st. What
would have been so difficult or terrible about giving her
job back?
A. We had already set a precedent with another part-
ner, a brother of one of our supervisors, who had walked
off the job. And we did not take him back. And we had to
consider the consequences of not taking back one partner
and taking back another. We felt that it was best to follow
the precedent that we had set. It was our first experience
with a walk off; Baqer Momin’s was. And Clorinda’s was
our second. And we felt it best to follow the same policy.
Yavorka testified that he had a voice mail from Del Vecchio
and Hickey on February 20 saying that they needed to speak to
him because Valdivia had walked off the job and quit. He told
them that there was nothing for him to do and they said that
they would process her paperwork. On the following day, there
was another voice mail from them. When he called them back,
Del Vecchio said that Valdivia had changed her mind and
wanted her job back. Yavorka asked, “Isn’t this the same thing
that happened with Baqer?” and they said that it was. Yavorka
then said that they shouldn’t let Valdivia come back.
Baqer Momin began his employment with the Respondent at
the facility in about February 2001. The Respondent issued an
ESN for him terminating his employment. The ESN states that
“[j]ob abandonment” is the reason for the termination and that
his last day of employment was October 9, 2002. Del Vecchio
signed it on October 21, 2002, and Yavorka approved it on
October 24, 2002. The effective date of the termination is stated
as October 10, 2002. Yavorka testified that he believes that
Momin quit and walked off the job and then attempted to return
to work the following day, but the Respondent refused to allow
him to return. Del Vecchio testified directly about the Momin
incident. Momin is the brother of a supervisor at the facility. On
about October 9, Momin had a disagreement with his supervi-
sor who asked him to perform a certain job and Momin replied
that it was not his job. The supervisor then told him that if he
wouldn’t do it, that he could leave, and Momin left the facility.
Either the next day, or a few days later, Momin returned and
told Del Vecchio about the incident, said that he had made a
mistake and wanted his job back. Del Vecchio told Momin that
it was not possible for them to give him his job back because
“he walked off the job, and we’re trying to run a business here
and we need people to be here every day and be responsible,
and I couldn’t allow him to just leave and come back.” He testi-
fied that the 12-day delay between Momin’s last day of work
and the date that he completed the ESN was due to the fact that
he did not personally witness Momin’s leaving, and he wanted
to discuss it with Yavorka before making a decision.
Subsequent to Valdivia’s termination, another employee,
Miriam Gonzales quit and attempted to return to work. Del
Vecchio testified that on August 6, Gonzales, who began work-
ing for the Respondent in June, got into a disagreement with
her sister, also an employee of the Respondent, and was leaving
the facility. Del Vecchio tried to get her to calm down and to
stay at work, but she said that she couldn’t work there anymore
and left. She returned the following morning and said that she
wanted to return to work, but Del Vecchio said that it wasn’t
possible, “that I gave her every opportunity yesterday to think
about it before she made a decision, but that now it was too
late.” They did not allow her to return to work, and her ESN,
dated August 6 is effective August 7, and states that “[j]ob
abandonment” is the reason for her leaving.
It is initially alleged that the Respondent, on January 22, by
Hickey, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by soliciting Val-
divia to engage in antiunion conduct by urging her to join a
group of employees opposed to the Union and to speak to em-
ployees who opposed the Union and threatened that she would
lose benefits if she refused to engage in such conduct. In sup-
port of this allegation Valdivia testified that on January 22 she
called Hickey to her workstation and told her that she did not
like the change in the atmosphere and environment at the facil-
ity and Hickey told her that as she was the person with the most
seniority, the employees would listen to her. That she should go
to the cafeteria and tell the employees that they did not want the
Union. Hickey’s testimony, and her memo of the events is con-
trary to Valdivia’s testimony. She agrees that Valdivia told her
how unhappy she was with the way things had changed at the
facility; people were not talking to each other. However, she
testified that Valdivia asked her to tell the employees who were
picketing against the Union to stop and the Union would go
away. Hickey replied that she wished that she could tell both
sides to go away, but she was not allowed to do so.
As stated, supra, I found Valdivia more credible than Viera
or Santos. However, I found her less credible than Yavorka,
Del Vecchio, and Hickey, principally because her testimony
was, at times, inconsistent and was at variance with her affida-
vit. In addition, on cross-examination, she had difficulty di-
rectly answering the question asked of her. Further, in making
this credibility determination I have taken into consideration
the immediate reaction of Del Vecchio and Hickey, upon hear-
ing from Fitzsimmons of Valdivia’s allegation, that she must
have misunderstood what Hickey had said. It is clear that al-
though Valdivia has some understanding of English, as she
CINTAS CORP. 961
testified with an interpreter, she is not totally comfortable con-
versing in English. This leads me to believe that Valdivia may
have misunderstood what Hickey said to her on that day. I
therefore recommend that this allegation be dismissed.
The final allegation is that the Respondent discharged Val-
divia on February 21 because of her support for the Union and
because of her refusal to engage in antiunion activity, in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. As I have dismissed the alle-
gation that Hickey asked her to engage in antiunion activity,
this allegation is limited to the alleged retaliation for her union
activities. The initial issue is whether counsel for the General
Counsel sustained his initial burden under Wright Line, supra.
The nuance of this case involves whether Valdivia quit her
employment on February 20. If so, the issue is whether the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by refusing to take her
back on February 21, or whether she simply left work on Feb-
ruary 20 because she was sick and Respondent fired her when
she reported for work the following day.
I did not find particularly credible Valdivia’s testimony
about joining the union pickets and being seen by Del Vecchio
and Hickey from a window in the building because, like some
of her other testimony, it was, at times, shifting and at odds
with her affidavit. In addition, I find it unlikely that the picket-
ing and counter picketing would take place within 25 to 30 feet
of the building. However, it is unnecessary to depend on this
picketing for knowledge of her union activity as the Respon-
dent was aware of her support for the Union as Del Vecchio’s
February 20 memo to Yavorka says that Yolanda felt harassed
by Valdivia’s repeated requests that she join the Union.9
I find that the events of February 20 support the Respon-
dent’s argument that Valdivia quit her employment on that day.
Although I found Del Vecchio more credible than Valdivia,
even if I were to credit the testimony of Valdivia regarding the
events of February 20, I would find that a reasonable person
could conclude that she was quitting. As she made clear to
Hickey, she was unhappy with the picketing and counter pick-
eting because people were not as friendly as they had been. In
addition, there was the more recent difficulty with Yolanda.
She testified that she told Del Vecchio that “she couldn’t work
under those condition” and that she was going home. However,
“those conditions”—the union and nonunion activity at the
plant and the resulting animosities were not about to end soon.
Therefore, her statement that she couldn’t work under “those
conditions” could reasonably be interpreted as, “I’ll be out for
quite a while.” Even clearer is Del Vecchio’s credited testi-
mony that she told him that “she did not want to work here
anymore.” This clearly indicates that she wanted to quit, even
though she did not specifically use that word. I find inapposite
Amperage Electric, Inc., 301 NLRB 5 (1991), and Dico Tire,
Inc., 330 NLRB 1252 (2000), cited by counsel for the Charging

9 I agree with counsel for the Respondent’s argument in his brief that
Del Vecchio’s inclusion of this in his memo to Yavorka is relevant to
his overall credibility because there is no other credible proof of the
Respondent’s knowledge of Valdivia’s union activity. In addition, I
find that his inclusion of this in the memo indicates that it was not a
“big deal” to him. One could reasonably argue that if this was going to
be the basis of the discrimination against Valdivia, he would not have
put it in writing.
Party in her brief. Both involve companies that engaged in sub-
stantial unfair labor practices. In addition, in Amperage, the
discriminatee said that he “ought to quit” which is not as im-
mediate as Valdivia’s statement to Del Vecchio and in Dico
Tire the employee left work early because he was sick, and he
got sick because the employer transferred him to a different,
more strenuous job because of his union activities. None of that
is present in the instant matter.
Having found that Valdivia quit, the final issue is whether
the Respondent refused to take her back on February 21 be-
cause of her union activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act. I find the evidence does not support this allegation. Ini-
tially I note that Valdivia was not one of the more visible union
supporters at the facility. Viera was a more active union sup-
porter whose picture appears in a union leaflet in June, and she
is still employed at the facility. More importantly, the Respon-
dent established that after Momin quit, it refused to reinstate
him even though his brother was a supervisor at the plant.
Counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Charging
Party point out some differences in these two situations, that
Valdivia had been employed by the Respondent for almost 6
years and was an excellent employee, whereas Momin had been
employed for about 1-1/2 years at the time of the incident. In
addition, Valdivia returned to work the following day, whereas
it is unclear when Momin returned, although his ESN is dated 9
days later. Although this argument is initially persuasive, I
found convincing Hickey’s testimony that because the Respon-
dent has established a precedent 4 months earlier in not taking
back Momin, they felt that it was best to follow the same policy
because of the possible consequences of taking one back after
refusing to take back the other. Although I might have done
differently, if I were in the Respondent’s shoes, taking into
consideration Valdivia’s 6 years of employment and her excel-
lent work record, that cannot be a factor in my decision herein.
I, therefore, find that the counsel for the General Counsel has
not sustained his initial burden under Wright Line, and I, there-
fore, recommend that this allegation be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Cintas Corporation has been an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Union has been a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
maintaining in its employee handbook a provision unlawfully
limiting its employees in their right to discuss their terms and
conditions of employment among themselves and with the Un-
ion.
4. The Respondent did not violate the Act as further alleged
in paragraphs 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21 of the consoli-
dated complaint.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent maintained a provision in
its employees handbook that unlawfully restricted its employ-
ees’ right to discuss their terms and conditions of employment,
I shall recommend that the Respondent affirmatively rescind
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD962
the language contained in paragraphs (i), (ii), and (iii) at pages
5, 16, and 20 in its handbook. Respondent shall also post a
notice at each of its facilities in the United States where the
handbook is effective notifying its employees that it has re-
scinded these provisions. Counsel for the General Counsel, in
the Region 28 portion of this case, in his brief, argues that in
addition to posting a notice herein, the Respondent should be
ordered to notify in writing all employees covered by the hand-
book that the defective language has been rescinded, citing
Double Eagle Hotel & Casino, 341 NLRB 112 (2004). It is true
that in its Order, the Board required the respondent to “Rescind
the language . . . remove the language from the employee
handbook and notify employees in writing that this has been
done.” (Emphasis added.) However, it is not clear from this
Order whether the Board meant that this could be accomplished
through an amended handbook, or whether the respondent had
to affirmatively write to each employee to notify them of the
change. Regardless, with approximately 27,000 employees in
North America, a vast majority of whom are in the United
States, it would be unfair to require the Respondent to notify
each employee in that fashion. Rather, I shall recommend that
the Respondent be ordered to attach to each of the amended
handbooks a letter to the employees notifying them of the pro-
visions that have been changed or deleted.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]