Corbel Installations, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

May 15, 2013

29-CA-090466 (N.L.R.B. May. 15, 2013)

JD(NY)–20–13
Mt. Vernon, NY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
CORBEL INSTALLATIONS, INC.
and Case No. 29-CA-90466
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO
and
LOCAL 1430, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRIAL WORKERS,
AFL-CIO
Party to the Contract
Sharon Chau, Esq., Brooklyn, NY
for the Acting General Counsel
Joel S. Barras, Esq.,
(Reed Smith, LLP, Philadelphia, PA)
for the Respondent
Gabrielle Semel, Esq.,
(CWA District 1 Legal Department, New York, NY)
for the Charging Party
Brian S. McCarthy, Esq.,
(O’Connor & Mangan, PC, New Rochelle, NY)
for the Party to the Contract)
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Mindy E. Landow, Administrative Law Judge. Based upon a charge filed by the
Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA or Charging Party), the Acting General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director of Region 29, issued a
Complaint and Notice of Hearing (complaint) on December 19, 2012 and a Notice of Motion to
Amend the Complaint on January 22, 2013.1 The complaint alleges that Corbel Installations,
Inc., (Corbel or Respondent) committed various violations of Sections 8(a)(1),(2),(3) and (5) of
the Act.
The complaint, as amended, alleges in essence that Corbel is a successor to Falcon
Data Com, Inc., (Falcon) with respect to a bargaining unit of employees previously represented

1 The Acting General Counsel’s motion to amend the complaint was granted at the hearing.
Respondent filed an oral answer denying the amendments.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
by the CWA; that Corbel unlawfully rendered assistance and support and granted recognition to
Local 1430, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Local 1430); failed and
refused to recognize and bargain with the CWA as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the employees in the unit of employees formerly employed by Falcon and unilaterally changed
terms and conditions of employment for employees without notice to or bargaining with the
CWA.2 The complaint further alleges that Corbel unlawfully assisted Local 1430 and interfered
with employees’ Section 7 rights by: telling job applicants that if they wished to be hired they
must become members of Local 1430; directing employees to sign union authorization cards in
support of Local 1430; threatening employees that they would not receive benefits if they did not
sign authorization cards in support of Local 1430; and threatening never to negotiate with the
CWA. The complaint further alleges that since September 30, 2012, Corbel has unlawfully
maintained and enforced a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 1430 containing union
security and dues checkoff provisions at a time when Corbel did not have lawful authorization to
deduct dues from its employees’ wages. The complaint additionally alleges that, during the
period from September 30 through October 5, Respondent unlawfully failed and refused to hire
employee Kirk Collins.
Respondent filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and further
alleging that the bargaining unit which is the subject of the complaint is a lawful accretion to its
comprehensive bargaining unit represented by Local 1430.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses,3 and
after considering the briefs filed by the Acting General Counsel,4 Respondent, the CWA and
Local 1430, I make the following
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
The Respondent is a domestic corporation, with offices located at 800 South 3rd Avenue,
Mt. Vernon, New York, and a place of business located at 2400 East 69th Street, Brooklyn, NY
where it is engaged in the business of providing cable installation services. During the past year,
which is representative of its annual operations generally, Respondent has provided services
valued in excess of $50,000 for Cablevision, an enterprise directly engaged in interstate
commerce within the State of New York. Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer

2 On March 1, 2013, Counsel for the Acting General Counsel submitted a Motion seeking approval to
withdraw certain complaint allegations relating to the change in pay and benefits for employees insofar as
they relate to Respondent’s setting of initial terms and conditions of employment. The General Counsel
has stated that the withdrawal of these allegations does not relate to any alleged unilateral change made
after the initial terms and conditions of employment were set. Respondent has not objected to the Motion
and it is hereby granted.
3 My credibility determinations are based upon a variety of factors, including the context of the
witness’ testimony, his or her demeanor, the weight of the respective evidence, established or admitted
facts, inherent probabilities and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the record as a whole.
Double D. Construction Group, 339 NLRB 303, 305 (2003); Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB 622, 623 (2001);
see also Roosevelt Memorial Hospital Center, 348 NLRB 1016, 1022 (2006), noting that an ALJ may
draw an adverse inference from a party’s failure to call a witness who may reasonably be assumed to be
favorably disposed toward a party, and who could reasonably be expected to corroborate its version of
events, particularly when the witness is the party’s agent. In addition, as is well established, it is not
unusual to credit some, but not all, of any particular witness’ testimony. Daikichi Sushi, supra at 622.
4 Hereafter referred to as the General Counsel.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. It is also
admitted, and I find that the CWA and Local 1430 are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Background
1. Predecessor Bargaining Units
a. The IBEW Unit
Corbel provides service installation and repairs for Cablevision at and out of five
locations throughout the New York metropolitan region. In May 2012, after a Board-conducted
election, Local 1430 was certified as the collective bargaining representative in a unit comprised
of commercial and residential service technicians based out of Corbel’s Bronx, NY facility.
Subsequently, Corbel and Local 1430 entered into a collective bargaining agreement (the Local
1430 CBA) effective from September 1, 2012 through August 31, 2015.
Shortly thereafter, Corbel and Local 1430 entered into a memorandum of agreement
dated September 17, 2012, which includes the following language concerning additional
facilities operated and/or acquired by Corbel during the term of the Local 1430 CBA:
ARTICLE 1(B): ACCRETION
The Employer agrees to the accretion of any and all Cablevision installation
companies which come to be owned and/or managed in the metropolitan
area, which includes the Bronx, Brooklyn, Connecticut, New Jersey, and
Westchester, to the bargaining unit presently or hereafter covered by the
CBA or any successor collective bargaining agreement thereto and that all of
the terms and conditions set forth in the CBA or its successor shall be
immediately applicable to the accreted bargaining unit.
The parties acknowledge that they have negotiated and exchanged valuable
consideration in reliance upon the lawfulness and validity of their agreement
but recognize the complexity and change inherent in the legal doctrine of
accretion. Nevertheless, in the event that any accretion of Cablevision
installation companies pursuant to these provisions, applied to the fullest
extent of that legal doctrine, should be ruled ineffective, invalid, or
unenforceable by competent legal authority, then the parties hereto agree to
a neutrality and card count agreement for the acquired company. For the
purposes of this provision, "competent legal authority" shall mean the
Regional Director for the applicable National Labor Relations Board
("NLRB"), the United States District Courts for the Southern or Eastern
Districts of New York, or the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
At the time the foregoing accretion clause was entered into, Corbel had approximately
180 technicians in total operating out of its facilities in the Bronx5, northern New Jersey,
Bridgeport, Connecticut and Mamaroneck, New York.6

5 The Bronx facility straddles the border with Mount Vernon, NY and is referred to in the record by
both designations. The Bronx/Mt. Vernon facility is also where Corbel maintains its administrative offices.
6 More specifically, approximately 80 technicians were employed in the Bronx, 40 in New Jersey and
Continued
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
The Local 1430 CBA contains a union security clause, as follows:
It shall be a condition of employment that all employees covered by this Agreement who
are members of the Union in good standing on the execution date of this Agreement
shall remain members in good standing and that any unit employee who is not a
member in good standing in the Union on the execution date hereof shall become and
remain members in good standing in the Union on the 31st day following their
employment, the execution or effective date of this Agreement, whichever is later. The
Employer shall not retain in employment any person unless he is or becomes a member
of the Union as hereinbefore set forth, and, upon notification by the Union that any such
employee is not a member in good standing, shall discharge said employee. In the event
of any change in the law during the terms of this Agreement the Employer agrees that
the Union will be entitled to receive the maximum Union security provision which the law
allows.
b. The CWA Unit
Falcon had been engaged in the business of providing cable installation services for
Cablevision out of its facility located at 6055 Strickland Avenue, Brooklyn, NY. After a NLRB-
conducted election, on July 31, 2012, the CWA was certified by the Board as the exclusive-
collective bargaining representative of the following unit of employees:
All full and part-time technicians, warehouse workers and dispatchers employed by the
Employer at or out of Falcon’s Strickland Avenue facility, excluding all managerial
employees, guards and supervisors as defined under the Act.
There is no evidence of any bargaining between Falcon and the CWA between the time
of certification and the cessation of Falcon’s operations in Brooklyn.
B. Respondent’s Operations
Respondent was established in October 2003. Its owners and officers are Angelo Pino
(president), Robert Cipolla (vice president) and Paul Mucci (vice president).7 At present,
Cablevision is its sole customer. Company headquarters are located in the Bronx/Mt. Vernon
facility which contains administrative offices and houses the company’s dispatchers, and its
payroll, human resources and labor relations departments. Cipolla and Mucci maintain offices
there as do two of Corbel’s supervisors, Sam Harris and Alphie Robinson. Mucci is primarily
involved in overseeing the day to day operations of the company and both Harris and Robinson
report to him.8 The dispatchers who are situated in the Bronx facility serve all areas. Generally
speaking, new employees receive a company orientation in the Bronx facility, although this was
not a requirement or implemented for the former Falcon employees.
There are specific geographical regions which each facility services. The Bronx and
Brooklyn regions cover those entire boroughs. The Bridgeport, Mamaroneck and New Jersey
regions service the counties in which they are located as well as adjoining areas. As will be
_________________________
30 in each of the Mamaroneck and Bridgeport locations.
7 Of the three co-owners, only Mucci testified.
8 As discussed below, Respondent maintains that Harris and Robinson are the sole supervisors of
the service technicians in its five facilities. Neither Harris nor Robinson testified herein.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
discussed below, at times employees are transferred either on a short-term or long-term basis
to deal with operational needs. In each region, there is an individual, referred to by Mucci as a
lead technician/supervisor (also referred to in the record as “manager”) who reports directly to
Harris and Robinson. These are: Tony Pollino (Bridgeport), Douglas Grant (Mamaroneck),
Charles Jackson (New Jersey), Sean Coley (Bronx/Mount Vernon) and Colin Lovelace
(Brooklyn).9
Each week, typically on Wednesday, Corbel will be told the approximate number of job
orders that will be received from Cablevision for the following week. Corbel will assess the
number of employees scheduled to work for that period and establish a workforce planner. If
more work is required in a particular area, Harris and Robinson will decide how it should be
covered. Corbel will then submit to Cablevision the names of those employees that will be
working on any particular day, along with their identification (referred to as “tech”) numbers.
Cablevision enters this information into their computer system which then generates “routes” or
a series of assignments based upon the number of technicians who are expected to be working
on any particular day. Cablevision then prepares job orders which are sent to each individual
facility, where they are printed and distributed on a daily basis. In the event a region is over or
under-booked, Harris and Robinson will move employees around.
As Mucci testified, the facility managers are in charge of distributing the work to their
respective technicians each morning, and overseeing their work throughout the day. They may
make adjustments to the routes assigned to employees after the orders print and may do so
without obtaining permission from either Robinson or Harris. Mucci also testified that it is
Robinson and Harris who are responsible for the performance of the different facilities; the
managers are responsible for quality control and to assist at the direction of the dispatcher,
Harris or Robinson, should a problem arise. The managers may also serve as a liaison with
Cablevision as necessary.
Facility managers have clerical assistants to help with day to day paperwork and work
orders. Reporting to the managers are individuals variously referred to in the record as lead
technicians, supervisors or field technicians (I will call them lead technicians) who are assigned
to monitor the work of field personnel and assist technicians with problems as they arise.
Although employees’ time and attendance is monitored at their assigned facilities, the
company has converted to an electronic time system which enables employees to punch in and
out of work at any Corbel location. The company’s inventory is managed by an employee
named Marian Barion, who is stationed in the Bronx, through a central computer server.
According to Mucci, Corbel determines the pay grade of its employees through
performance. Should a technician request a pay upgrade, recommendations will be forwarded
up the chain of command10 and made to Mucci. Mucci also testified that he developed a “report
card” for each facility, listing 5 different metrics, whereby a technician is provided with an overall
grade. These are reviewed by Robinson and Harris prior to distribution to the facility managers.
The Local 1430 CBA provides for incentive pay based on job performance which is subject to
change at the Employer’s discretion.

9 To distinguish these individuals from other employees who were also termed to be lead
technicians/supervisors, I will refer to them as “managers.” My use of this term is not intended to denote
any legal conclusion: however, I find that the use of this term has support in the record, as it is used in the
course of Corbel’s customary operations, as will be discussed below.
10 It appears from the record that such requests are initially made to the employee’s facility manager.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
The record reflects that, to a large measure, Corbel employees are required to purchase
their own tools, except for meters. In this regard, I note that the Local 1430 CBA provides for an
equipment allowance to employees.
C. Corbel’s Assumption of Brooklyn Operations and Recognition of Local 1430
Mucci testified that Falcon’s owner, Matt Spiewack, had been a former employee and
Mucci learned that he wanted to cease operations in Brooklyn. Falcon planned to wrap up at the
end of September and Corbel had discussions with Cablevision about assuming operations at
that time.
On about September 21, 2012,11 Corbel purchased certain assets of Falcon which
included trucks and equipment. There was no agreement entered into between the parties
regarding what, if anything, would happen to the Falcon employees. However, Corbel had
agreed with Cablevision that it would seamlessly continue to provide services to Brooklyn
customers including those who had been previously serviced by Falcon. As Mucci testified, it
would be easier to hire as many Falcon employees as they could. This was because the
technicians were already certified and approved, had “tech numbers,” the requisite experience
and Cablevision identification, all required for employment. At the time, Falcon had between 50
and 60 employees working out of its Brooklyn facility.
On the same day that the aforementioned asset agreement was entered into, counsel for
Corbel advised Local 1430 that Corbel had purchased certain assets of Falcon and intended to
accrete the employees it planned to hire for its new Brooklyn operation into the existing Local
1430 bargaining unit and apply the CBA to these new employees. On September 24, a sign was
posted at the Falcon facility announcing a “mandatory meeting” scheduled for the following day.
D. The February 25th Meeting
On February 25, Falcon convened a meeting for its employees. Present were Corbel co-
owners Mucci and Cipolla. Also present were two representatives from Local 1430, Jordan el-
Hag and Josh Gottleib, who had been invited to the meeting and two representatives from the
CWA, Chris Calabrese and Timothy Dubnau, who had not. Employees were told that as of
Sunday, September 30, Corbel would assume operations in Brooklyn; that Corbel wanted to fill
approximately 60 routes; that employees who filed job applications would be hired; that they
would retain the same tech numbers; would drive the same trucks albeit with a new Corbel logo,
and that their schedules and routes would remain essentially unchanged. Employees were also
told that they were required to complete the Corbel application form, which was rather
extensive, in its entirety. The application form distributed to employees included membership
cards for Local 1430 as well as dues checkoff authorization cards.
Employees were also told about certain changes in their terms and conditions of
employment. They were informed that they would receive gas cards so that they would be
compensated for expenditures for gasoline on the road; that they would be eligible to participate
in a 401(k) plan and the IBEW health plan. There was also some discussion of the Corbel pay
structure, which varied from Falcon’s. According to certain witnesses, the meeting was
somewhat chaotic in nature

11 All dates hereafter are in 2012 unless otherwise specified.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
According to Dubnau, there was concern that not everyone would be hired, so the CWA
representatives asked for confirmation of that fact on several occasions. As he testified, it was
made apparent that anyone who wanted to work for Corbel would be hired, but that they were
required to complete the entire employment application.
Dubnau testified that he told Mucci that the workers were represented by the CWA, that
the CWA had a habit of bargaining upward and he looked forward to bargaining with Corbel
over terms and conditions of employment. According to Dubnau, Mucci “made it clear” that he
did not recognize and would not bargain with the CWA, and that his employees were
represented by Local 1430.
Initially, it was not apparent that the IBEW application and dues checkoff authorization
cards were part of the application package, as they were located at the very end. Once the
CWA representatives became aware that these documents were part of the application, they
advised employees not to fill them out. Falcon employee Kirk Collins also told employees not to
complete the union cards, and stated that they had recently voted for the CWA and were
members of that union. He also inquired as to whether Falcon had provided Corbel with a “hit
list” of employees not to hire. He was told that there was no such list.
It is admitted and otherwise undisputed that employees were told by Corbel
representatives that if they did not fill out the IBEW cards attached to the employment
application they would not receive benefits. According to Dubnau, Mucci made such comments
to him in the presence of employees and IBEW representatives and Mucci acknowledged doing
so. Calabrese similarly testified that both Mucci and Cipolla made such comments to
employees.
On cross-examination, Dubnau acknowledged that employees were also told that Corbel
would bring in employees from other regions, in particular the Bronx, should they not have
enough manpower to fulfill Cablevision work requirements in Brooklyn.
E. The CWA Again Requests Recognition and Bargaining
On the following day, September 26, Dubnau sent the following letter to Cipolla:
I represent the Communication Workers of America (“CWA”). We met yesterday at the
meeting you held with Falcon employees doing installation work for Cablevision in
Brooklyn, New York. At the meeting you advised that Corbel had bought some of the
assets of Falcon and would now be doing the Brooklyn Cablevision installation work.
You also gave out job applications to the Falcon workers and advised that every former
Falcon employee who wanted a job would be hired.
You also advised that the terms and conditions of employees at Corbel would be
different from the terms and conditions these employees had with Falcon. Additionally
you stated that at Corbel they would represented by IBEW Local 1430. You included
IBEW Local 1430 sign-up cards as part of the employment application.
As I and other CWA representatives advised you yesterday, CWA represents these
workers. As Corbel is a successor employer our representation rights continue at Corbel.
We hereby request bargaining for these workers and request that you contact me to set
up a meeting as quickly as possible. Further, while CWA applauds any improvements to
the terms and conditions of employment for these workers, they must be bargained with
CWA. That is the law. It is also critical that any bargained improvements are reduced to
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
writing and are enforceable.
F. Corbel Expedites the Hiring of Falcon Employees and Assumes Brooklyn Operations
Mucci testified that because Corbel had to process between 50 and 60 applications from
the former Falcon employees in time for the start of its Brooklyn operation, it developed an
expedited hiring process. Once an employment application was submitted, that employee was
deemed hired. Even employees with incomplete applications were sent out to work because it
was understood that those employees had an interest in coming to work for Corbel. It appears
from the record that by Tuesday, October 2, virtually all the Falcon employees who had applied
for jobs had been hired by Corbel. These included the technicians, warehouse employees, lead
technicians and Lovelace. There was one exception: Kirk Collins, whose situation is discussed
below.
Corbel began operations in Brooklyn on September 30. It did not continue to operate
from the former Falcon facility located on Strickland Avenue. It had, at some prior point in
September, entered into a lease for a facility located on Avenue X and 69th Street in Brooklyn.
Apart from its location, this facility varied from the former Falcon facility in various respects. At
Falcon, employees reported to a parking lot with a trailer and several shipping containers.
Technicians were often required to load and unload their vehicles outdoors. Indoor plumbing
was limited and employees were at times obliged to use a port-a-potty. By contrast, Corbel’s
Brooklyn facility has space for employees to load and unload their vehicles indoors and has
indoor plumbing.
There is no dispute that, after the September 25 meeting, Corbel hired a majority of the
former Falcon employees and that they continued doing essentially the same jobs as previously
performed: i.e., the installation and servicing of cable as a contractor to Cablevision. In addition,
during the period from October 31 through November 18, 5 technicians were transferred from
the Bronx to Brooklyn.
The record establishes that the former Falcon employees began their employment with
Corbel working, as had been previously represented to them, their same schedules, with the
same Cablevision tech ID numbers and driving the same trucks.12 They received necessary
equipment and supplies from Corbel’s Brooklyn warehouse. Customer and quality control issues
were dealt with locally: either by a lead technician or one of two former Falcon local managers:
Lovelace or William “Country” McFarlane. Although Lovelace testified that he does not currently
have a job title, as will be discussed in further detail below, it appears that employees, as well
as Cablevision continue to consider him to be the manager of the facility.
Every technician employed by Corbel is certified to do residential work, and there are
additionally 5 or 6 who are certified to perform commercial work as well, as they were under
Falcon. All the commercial technicians report to a lead technician by the name of Shamroy
Powell, who held this position under Falcon. The residential technicians report to one of four
other lead technicians: McFarlane, Horace Peart, Cornwallis Glover, and Glen Byron. These
lead technicians have the same job responsibilities they had under Falcon, which include quality
control, assisting the technicians, resolving issues which may arise in the field, taking on extra
work which may arise and ensuring that technicians perform their work up to company

12 According to Respondent, many of these trucks became inoperable due to damage from Hurricane
Sandy and had to be replaced. For the initial month of operation, the trucks employed by the Corbel
Brooklyn technicians were the same ones they had used when employed by Falcon.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
standards. There are also 5 warehouse employees who are all former Falcon employees
Regarding employee contact with the central Bronx office, current (and former Falcon)
employees Donnell Slay and Kirk Collins testified that such contact was limited to occasional
inquiries about an estimated time of arrival or to notify them of job cancellations. A witness
called by the Respondent, Phillip Watt (whose testimony is discussed in further detail below)
similarly testified that when assigned to the Brooklyn region, he primarily dealt with the people
there, in particular lead technician McFarlane.
There is also no dispute that the Local 1430 CBA has been applied to the former Falcon
employees. In addition, both Collins and Slay testified that, while they did not execute a dues
checkoff authorization form authorizing Corbel to deduct dues for Local 1430, such union dues
have been deducted from their pay.13 Slay testified that when he saw that his pay stub reflected
a $44.00 dues deduction for Local 1430, he asked Lovelace about it and, after some apparent
initial confusion, Lovelace told him that the union dues were being reimbursed to employees in
the form of an equipment allowance. I note that Article 12(c) of the Local 1430 CBA requires
Corbel to provide an equipment allowance of $45.00 per month to its employees; however this
is seemingly unconnected to any purported offset for union dues. I note that Lovelace, who
testified in this proceeding, did not offer any rebuttal to Slay’s testimony.
G. Corbel’s Relationship with Cablevision and the Assignment of Work to Employees
Respondent maintains that Corbel is obliged to be a “flex workforce” for Cablevision,
providing service installation and repairs throughout the metropolitan region as dictated by
Cablevision’s short and long-term requirements.
The contract between Cablevision and Corbel provides that it is required to have crews
at work at least 8 hours per day, seven days per week upon 5 days written notice from
Cablevision. It also provides that Corbel shall:
Employ at least one (1) non-working supervisor for every ten (10) working field
technicians. Such supervisory personnel shall be responsible for responding to and
investigating customer complaints and promptly and courteously resolving the same. On
a weekly basis, each supervisor shall inspect no fewer than ten percent (10%) of the
work performed by each field technician for the previous week and for contacting the
owners of such locations to ensure customer satisfaction. Inspection results shall be
electronically submitted on a weekly basis to the Contractor manager responsible for
oversight of the work in the region where the work was performed or was to have been
performed. . .
The agreement also provides that:
Contractor shall make such advance arrangements as may be necessary and
appropriate, including but not limited to the preparation for training and hiring, or firing,
temporarily reassigning or layoff off of supervisory personnel or labor, making

13 Counsel for the General Counsel issued a subpoena to both Respondent and Local 1430 seeking
membership and dues authorization cards. Respondent produced one membership card, contained in an
employee personnel file. Local 1430 provided 32 dues authorization cards, executed on various dates
between September 25 and November 20 and represented for the record that it did not have any
membership cards in its possession.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
arrangements for tools, equipment and warehousing and such other arrangements as
may be appropriate in order to meet Cablevision’s anticipated future requirements.
Further Contractor agrees and understands that Cablevision makes no guarantee
hereunder to provide Contractor with any certain amount of Work.
Corbel’s contract with Cablevision also mandates that it:
…assign tech numbers to each Contractor employee and/or permitted subcontractor
working for on behalf of its company and Contractor will keep records by tech number
capable of identifying the individual Employee or permitted subcontractor that performed
any particular job or Work at any point in time in which Contractor is performing Work for
Cablevision;
Corbel is further required to:
On a weekly basis, [ ] supply Cablevision with a written list of each Employee who will
perform Work together with the information required in Section 12(k) hereof.14
In support of its contention that Corbel is a flex force for Cablevision which requires it to
promptly effect short and long-term transfers of employees, Respondent relies, in part, upon
Mucci’s testimony regarding two occasions which occurred during the course of the hearing.
Regarding a requested transfer of employees to New Jersey, Mucci testified:
Last night I received an email from Cablevision in North New Jersey indicating that
they’re seeing a spike in work. They’re overbooking our technicians that are out there
working now and they want us to bring more vehicles, more technicians into New Jersey.
So that’s what we’re looking to do today in looking at all of our facilities and all of our
different locations, and see who we can move to New Jersey to assist.
In another instance during the course of the hearing, Cablevision asked Corbel to
provide additional manpower in the Brooklyn region. As Mucci testified:
And today I think is a perfect example. There is Cablevision has a work stoppage or
some kind of labor issue with CWA going on. We received a text while we were in here
this morning. I received a text on one of our breaks demanding that we send 10 techs
and 10 trucks from Bronx to Brooklyn today, this morning. So that was immediately pull
them out of the field or take/call in extra guys that weren’t working today, move them to
Brooklyn, and more to come. You know we’re slowly digesting the information,
potentially putting more technicians into Brooklyn if this continues.
As Mucci testified, Corbel tools and equipment are interchangeable and may be
switched from service region to service region as needed. Employees wear similar company
uniforms.
H. The Management and Supervision of Corbel’s Brooklyn Operations
Mucci testified that at Corbel’s Brooklyn facility Lovelace is a supervisor who used to
work for Falcon as management. Lovelace is the highest level full-time employee at the facility,
and his role is analogous to that of other supervisors and lead technicians at other Corbel

14 It does not appear that the contract in evidence contains a section 12(k).
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
facilities. Lovelace ensures that employees get their routes and are working up to company
standards.
Mucci also testified as to certain limitations on Lovelace’s authority. For example,
Lovelace has no authority to fire or discipline employees, unless directed to do so by Harris or
Robinson, or to hire employees, raise or lower compensation or otherwise affect employee pay
level, grant leave, or approve or deny grievances. Rather, such authority lies with Harris or
Robinson who are the only individuals within the company (other than its owners) who have the
authority to effectuate any of the foregoing personnel actions.
With regard to a routine request for time off, Mucci testified that Lovelace is not
authorized to grant such a request and, although he will sign off on a written request submitted
by an employee, this must go to the Bronx for approval. In this regard, it should be noted that
under the Local 1430 CBA, employees are not entitled to paid time off until after one year of
employment. Thus, at the present time any leave taken by Corbel’s Brooklyn employees would
be unpaid.
Mucci initially maintained that he did not know whether Lovelace was authorized to
interview job applicants or whether he had, in fact, spoken with anyone before their applications
were processed in the Bronx. Mucci pointed to the fact that in November or December, the
company switched over to an online application system. On cross-examination, however, Mucci
acknowledged that, in his pre-trial affidavit, he stated that if a lead tech/supervisor interviewed
an applicant for a position and provided the requisite approval, the paperwork would then
proceed to the Bronx where a background check, drug test and other investigation would take
place. After clearance, the applicant’s paperwork would then be submitted to Cablevision for
review and approval. Once such approval was received, a tech number would be issued to the
applicant and he would be hired.
Wilton (“Country”) McFarlane reports to Lovelace and is considered a lead technician. It
appears from the record generally that he had previously been considered by employees to be
Falcon management at the Brooklyn facility.
Lovelace testified that he had previously been employed as a manager by Falcon for
about one year. While he claimed to hold no official position with Corbel, he did state that he
works in “management.” While Lovelace had been employed with Falcon, company owner
Spiewack had been onsite on a daily basis. At Corbel, the individuals in charge -- Mucci, Harris
and Robinson -- do not have the same level of interaction with employees: either Harris or
Robinson visit Brooklyn approximately once or twice per week.
Lovelace also drew certain distinctions between his former and current job
responsibilities. At Falcon, while the decision to actually hire someone fell within Spiewack’s
control, Lovelace could decide whom to hire. He does not fulfill this function at Corbel as various
facilities are involved and the company needs to assess the full scope of operations to decide
where employees are required. Lovelace attested to the fact that, at Falcon, he could fire an
employee for misconduct, although he rarely did so. By way of example, he recalled, without
any specificity, one instance where he received an order from Cablevision to discharge an
employee. He provided no others.
Lovelace acknowledged that on one occasion while employed by Corbel he received an
email from Cablevision addressed to him as “manager,” which was sent to Harris and Robinson
as well, regarding an employee who was the subject of a customer complaint, whereby
Cablevision directed that this employee be removed from the field. Robinson instructed
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
Lovelace to remove the technician and confiscate his keys, identification and related material
and return them to Cablevision. As Lovelace testified, the email from Cablevision came to
everyone “in the upper level.”
Lovelace testified that while employed at Falcon he had the authority to suspend
employees without pay, although he did not recall any specific occasion where he did so. He
attested that he did not have such authority at Corbel. He further stated that at Falcon he could
approve requests for paid leave, but at Corbel such requests must be submitted to either Harris
or Robinson for approval. Lovelace further stated that he is without authorization to adjust time
cards and employee pay. All such inquiries are to be submitted to either Harris or Robinson. He
similarly testified that requests for unpaid leave are submitted through him but must be
approved by Harris or Robinson. In the event of a last-minute call out, he will contact Harris or
Robinson to approve the employee’s absence.
Lovelace also admitted, however, that when employees are unable to report to work they
will simply call him. On occasion, employees have also called out by sending a text message;
however, he has advised employees that this is not an acceptable form of call out because he
may not pick up the message in a timely fashion. Lovelace further admitted that in the event an
employee reports to work late (i.e. after 8:00 a.m.) he has the discretion to send the employee
home for the day without pay.
The General Counsel presented certain testimony from employees Slay, Collins and
Justin Taylor seeking to rebut Respondent’s contentions as to the limitations of Lovelace’s
authority, and to otherwise show that operations under Corbel are substantially the same as
they were under Falcon. While some of this testimony does rebut the categorical assertions
made by Mucci and Lovelace, other evidence adduced is equivocal.
Slay, who had been employed by Falcon since March 2012, commenced working for
Corbel on or about October 1. He testified that after Corbel assumed operations, Lovelace had
assured him that he continued to be the manager of the facility and that McFarlane was the
assistant manager. According to Slay, his work day remains essentially unchanged. The primary
difference is that Corbel has installed an automated system to provide employees with
equipment for their routes. Slay drives the same truck he drove for Falcon and the number has
remained the same. Slay maintained that in the course of his workday he has minimal contact
with the Bronx office. On occasion, he may contact that office to get information about picking
up a job or if he does not have the appropriate paperwork.
Slay testified that if he needs to take a day off from work, he will approach McFarlane or
Lovelace, fill out a time off request form, sign it and submit it. Slay did not know, however,
whether either Lovelace or McFarlane would have to speak with anyone else prior to giving
approval. Although Slay testified that Lovelace can deny permission to an employee for a day
off, he did not offer any particular details about if or when this might have occurred to him.
On cross-examination, Slay testified to a time that he had once complained to Lovelace
that commercial technicians were being paid at the (lower) residential rate. However, that issue
was resolved by Robinson and Mucci. In particular, Robinson came to the Brooklyn facility,
spoke with the affected employees and assured them the issue would be resolved, which it was.
Slay also referenced a time when he complained to Lovelace that he had not been paid for
certain jobs performed. He was instructed to submit paperwork to Lovelace, who would then
forward it on to have the discrepancy corrected.
Employee Kirk Collins testified that he can go for days or weeks without any contact with
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
the dispatchers in the Bronx. On occasion they will call him and ask for an estimated time of
arrival at a particular job. Collins testified that on one particular occasion, in connection with an
initial dispute over pay rates, Lovelace asserted he was the manager of the facility and that this
was reiterated by Mucci who stated that Lovelace and McFarlane were the managers and would
determine employee pay rates. Neither Mucci nor Lovelace specifically rebutted this
testimony.15
According to Collins, Lovelace runs the facility, hands out work, administers discipline
and deals with pay issues. The General Counsel attempted to adduce hearsay evidence
regarding discipline Lovelace had administered to other employees. At some point I cut this
area of inquiry off inasmuch as it was vague, without foundation and uncorroborated by any
other probative evidence. When directed to address instances which affected him personally,
Collins asserted that when he attempted to speak with Harris about a payroll issue, Harris
advised him that if he had problems with his compensation he should go through the “chain of
command” and speak first Lovelace or McFarlane.
Field technician Taylor testified that when he began working for Corbel, and was late in
reporting to work, Lovelace would send him home without his route, and that this had occurred,
on occasion, as frequently as once or twice per week. He also contended that on recent
occasions he has been sent home by Lovelace when work was not available and that, to his
understanding, this has happened to others as well. Taylor further testified to a time when he
took a company truck home, without permission. When Lovelace found out that he had done so,
he instructed Taylor to leave his truck at the shop for the week and ask him at the end of that
period whether he could resume his practice of taking it home.16 Taylor was unaware whether
Lovelace had consulted with any other Corbel manager prior to making any of these disciplinary
decisions, but did not see him do so. I note that Lovelace, who testified on the same day as
Taylor, did not rebut or offer any explanation to provide context to the foregoing testimony.
I. Evidence of Employee Interchange
Respondent contends that the accretion of the Brooklyn employees into the Local 1430
bargaining unit is lawful based, in significant measure, due to the amount of long- and short-
term functional integration among its facilities including extensive employee interchange.
Respondent relies upon Mucci’s testimony that Cablevision frequently exercises its authority to
dictate work levels on short notice. In addition, Mucci testified that advance notice of shifting
work levels is provided when Cablevision plans certain large scale projects, and Corbel is
expected to meet those demands.17
Respondent adduced testimony from employee Phillip Watt regarding his work history
and claims it is illustrative of its pattern and practice of transferring employees. Watt

15 In this regard I note that Mucci testified on several occasions during the course of the hearing and
would have had ample opportunity to do so.
16 As Taylor testified, the truck he typically used became damaged and had to go into the shop. He
was then provided with a loaner truck which he took home. Taylor was out of work for the following week
and the truck was unavailable for use by another employee. When Lovelace learned about this situation,
he told Taylor that he could not take his truck home for the week.
17 Respondent points to the after-effects of Hurricane Sandy, where Cablevision was faced with
restoring service to numerous customers who had lost service in Brooklyn, As it happened, Corbel’s new
facility was in a vulnerable area and they lost the majority of the trucks they had purchased from Falcon to
the destructive effects of salt water. This required a major shuffling of equipment and personnel.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
commenced working for Corbel in June 2012, and was assigned to the Bronx. After about one
month, he was reassigned to Mamaroneck. Three months later he was sent to Brooklyn and
three weeks later reassigned to Mamaroneck. After one month, Watt went to Brooklyn and
subsequently returned to Mamaroneck.
Pursuant to a subpoena issued by the General Counsel, Respondent produced
documents to show work assignments for its employees for a 15-week period from September
2012 through mid-January 2013. Of the records produced to the General Counsel, which were
voluminous in nature, Respondent sought to (and did) introduce into evidence 159 reports,
which represent temporary employee transfers among its facilities for this period of time.
Respondent contends that these records show that Corbel directed technicians to perform work
in multiple regions within a period of a single week on at least 150 occasions; but provided no
specific analysis of these records for my review.
Based upon the records produced by the Respondent, the General Counsel maintains
that 16 of these 159 reports show employees from other regions working in the Brooklyn region
for a total of 56 days during the representative 15-week period.18 In addition, one report shows
that a Brooklyn-based technician, Gelpis Diaz, worked out of the Bronx facility from October 16
to 20. He was then permanently transferred to the Bronx facility effective October 22.19
In a similar vein, the Charging Party conducted an analysis of the documents and arrived
at the same conclusion: that there were 56 daily occasions on which technicians assigned to
other facilities worked in Brooklyn during the 15 weeks between September and January.
Reviewing the records in evidence regarding employee interchange during the 15 week
period at issue; again, without any analysis provided by the Respondent, I find that the records
fail to show any interchange involving the New Jersey region. Relying upon the analysis of the
records provided by the General Counsel, the Charging Party and my own review, it appears
that there were company-wide short-term transfers that involved approximately 36 employees in
total (8 of whom performed work in Brooklyn). These instances of interchange occurred
primarily between the Bronx and Mamaroneck regions, which are the two most geographically
proximate. As noted above, there were 56 identified days where employees from other regions
worked in Brooklyn. To a far lesser extent the records reflect some interchange with Bridgeport.
Mucci testified that during this same period, Corbel had longer term transfers, for which
records were not available, which constituted between 10 and 15 percent of its workforce. Such
transfers would range from a week to several months. Although Mucci claimed that no
documents exist which could easily and accurately reflect such long-term assignments, there
was no specific explanation provided as to why this would be the case.
J. The Alleged Change in Terms and Conditions of Employment
As noted above, sometime after Corbel hired the former Falcon employees, and after
Dubnau requested bargaining over terms and conditions of employment, Respondent began
receiving complaints from its Brooklyn employees regarding their compensation. It appears that
the Falcon and Corbel pay levels were not consistent and certain employees hired at the “B”

18 It appears that there are 8 such employees: Trevor Best, Osbert Daniel, Rowan Johnson, Bevan
McFarlane, Vivian McIntosh, Durraine McKenzie, Whitney Titus and Phillip Watt.
19 In addition, as noted above, five employees from the Bronx region were transferred on a long term
basis to Brooklyn during the period between October 31 and November 18.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
level thought they should be receiving pay at Corbel’s “C” level. As both Collins and Lovelace
testified, to address these concerns, Mucci held a meeting with employees and told them that
changes in their compensation rate would be made. Lovelace said that Mucci told employees
that Corbel would be looking at everyone’s statistics and would adjust pay based upon
experience and that he would be working with Lovelace to compile a list of how employees
should be compensated, based, in part, upon Lovelace’s knowledge of their skills and
experience. As Collins testified, his compensation was adjusted thereafter. Respondent has
offered no evidence to show that it did not adjust the pay level of certain of its employees, as
had been represented to them during the meeting. Although Lovelace asserted that he did not
know what Respondent did with the information he had provided, there is no evidence that
Corbel conducted any further investigation regarding the skills and experience of this particular
group of employees prior to making salary adjustments.
K. The Alleged Delay in Hiring Kirk Collins
Collins had previously been employed by an entity owned and operated by Mucci and
Cipolla (Muc-Cip) from 1990 to 2005. During this period of time, he served as a shop steward
for Local 3, IBEW, the union representing Muc-Cip’s employees. He was also a bargaining
committee member while in their employ.
He was active in the CWA campaign under Falcon and served as the union observer
during the election. At the mandatory meeting held on September 25, Collins questioned
Respondent’s owners about an alleged “hit list” of certain employees, an allegation they denied
at the time and which Mucci denied at the hearing.20 When Mucci told employees that they must
complete the employment applications in their entirety, Collins, along with the CWA
representatives, told employees not to sign Local 1430 cards because they had already voted
for the CWA and were members of that union.
As Collins testified, he did not submit a job application at the time. Rather, on September
29, he gave one to McFarlane, who placed it in the office with a stack of others. On the following
day, September 30, Collins went to the Falcon Strickland Avenue facility where he encountered
CWA representatives Calabrese and Dubnau. The facility was empty. Collins contacted certain
coworkers and learned that Corbel had moved its operations to the 69th street lot and the three
men proceeded to that location.
When they arrived, McFarlane came out and asked Collins what he was doing there. He
replied that he was there to check out the new place. McFarlane told Collins that he was not
scheduled to work and to leave. He closed the gate in Collins’ face. That night certain coworkers
called Collins and informed him that they had been told to come in to pick up their gas cards,
but Collins received no such call.
Collins returned to the Corbel facility the following day, and asked Lovelace if he could
pick up his gas card. Lovelace told him that it was not his scheduled work day and he did not
know if Collins would be working there as he had not received an employment application from
him. Collins replied that he had left one with McFarlane on Saturday; but Lovelace replied he did
not know about that. Collins approached McFarlane and asked him whether he had received an
employment application from him and he said that he had. McFarlane then said that he had
given the applications to Robinson and that they would be in his office. Collins provided this
information to Lovelace, who insisted that there had been no application received from him.

20 Mucci denied having any discussions with Spiewack about whom to hire.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
Collins then offered to complete another application at the time and Lovelace told him to take
one with him and complete it off premises. Lovelace then escorted Collins from the facility,
without affording him an opportunity to obtain an employment application.
Collins testified that while present at the Corbel facility on that day he encountered other
workers who had work orders, gas cards and keys with applications visibly rolled up in their
back pockets.21 He further observed that two employees were allowed to proceed upstairs to
the office area where they were intending to complete the application process.
On the following day, Tuesday, October 2, Collins reported to the Corbel facility as it was
his regularly scheduled work day. Lovelace and Cipolla were in the warehouse distributing
routes and told Collins that there was no work for him. Cipolla stated that there had been no
application received from him and that he was hiring only 12 men and was planning to bring the
others in from the Bronx. Collins asked whether he was being blackballed and Cipolla stated
that he was not going to say that; but he didn’t have an application for Collins. Collins offered to
fill out another, but he was escorted off the premises by Cipolla. Collins testified that on this
occasion he saw lead technician Delano Peart and asked him if he had completed his
application, and Peart replied he had not; that it was his first day in.22 Peart had his keys and his
vehicle was running. He removed the uncompleted application from his pocket and showed it to
Collins. Collins also had a conversation with Local 1430 representative Josh Gottleib and asked
him to find out why Corbel was not hiring him. On the following day, October 3, Collins received
a phone call from another Local 1430 representative who advised him to file an unfair labor
practice charge.23
On October 3, at about 6:30 p.m., Collins returned to the Corbel facility to submit another
job application. He completed it while sitting in the upstairs reception area. Also present were
employee Derrick Vaz, who was doing the same, and lead technician Cornwallis Glover. Glover
received a phone call and reported that Collins was submitting an application. After Glover got
off the phone, he told Collins that he had to lock up and asked Collins how much longer he
would be there. Collins replied that he was almost finished. Shortly thereafter, McFarlane
appeared and collected the employees’ applications.
The following evening, Collins received a telephone call from McFarlane, instructing him
to call Harris.24 When they spoke the following morning, on Friday October 5, Collins was told to
come to the Bronx office for a meeting. He met with Harris and Robinson. Harris told Collins that
they wanted to see where Collins’ head was at; that the CWA was gone and they were with
Local 1430. Collins replied that this was something for the courts to decide. He spoke about the
poor working conditions at Falcon that had prompted the employees to seek union
representation and complained that he should not have been blackballed because of his
organizing efforts and attempts to help employees. While there, Collins filled out another
employment application. He was called the following day and offered employment and began

21 Collins identified these employees as Thurman Joseph and George Gallon.
22 Peart’s application is dated October 4.
23 The CWA had filed an unfair labor practice charge on October 2 which, among other things,
referenced Respondent’s failure to hire Collins.
24 Collins also testified about a telephone call he received from coworker George Cowan that evening
who recounted the details of a meeting held with Harris where he had been about Collins’ union activities
with the CWA. Although this testimony is clearly hearsay, I find it to be of some probative weight as it is
corroborated by the direct and unrebutted evidence relating to Collins’ subsequent discussion with Harris,
an admitted supervisor of Respondent.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
working for Respondent on Tuesday, October 9.25
Lovelace did not address the circumstances involving the employment of Collins in his
testimony. The only evidence adduced in this regard from Respondent was the following
testimony from Mucci:
Q: [by respondent’s counsel] To your knowledge, did Mr. Collins immediately file a
written application for employment with Corbel after the September 25th meeting?
A: He did not.
Q: Did he eventually submit a written application?
A: Yes, he did
Q: Do you know when he submitted that written application?
A: It was a few days after we began working in Brooklyn. I don’t know the exact day of
the week, but I, I do remember seeing him at the Bronx office sometime that week,
meeting with Alphie Robinson and Sam Harris.
Q: Was Mr. Collins eventually hired by Corbel?
A: Yes.
Q: When was he hired by Corbel?
A: I think after the meeting with Mr. Harris and Mr. Robinson. They talked to him the
following morning and told him that he, you know, gave him a schedule to start work.
Q: Did Corbel delay the process of hiring Mr. Collins in any way because of his activities
on behalf of the CWA?
A: No.
Q: Did Corbel inhibit or delay the hiring of Mr. Collins because of his activities for a
company that you previously owned?
A: No.
Q: Did Corbel inhibit or delay the hiring of Mr. Collins because of his activities on behalf
of the union when he was employed by Falcon?
A: No.
In reply to Respondent’s asserted position regarding the reason it did not initially hire
Collins, General Counsel adduced evidence that a number of employees worked for Corbel
prior to the date of their applications.26 In response, Mucci testified that it might have been the
case that the initial applications submitted by these employees were incomplete and they were
asked to complete another, which would have a later date. Mucci failed supplement such
speculation with specific evidence as to whether this occurred with regard to any particular
employee.
III. Analysis and Conclusions
A. Contentions of the Parties

25 Collins was initially told to report to work on Sunday, October 7 but he declined to do so as it was
not his regularly scheduled day for work.
26 For example, technician Geatjens Boutros’ application was dated October 15, but work orders
show that he worked from October 2 through 6. Delano Peart’s application was dated October 4, but he
worked on October 2 through 6 (I note that this corroborates Collins’ account of their interaction regarding
this matter). Chad Sears’ application was dated October 1 and was sent to work on the same day. In
addition, Marlon Wright’s application was dated October 17 but Respondent’s work orders show that he
worked on September 30 and October 3 through 6.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
Respondent, joined by Local 1430, argues that the Brooklyn region is a valid accretion to
the existing Local 1430 bargaining unit. As an initial matter, Corbel asserts that it does not
operate its facilities as individual independent bargaining units because of the need to transfer
technicians from shop to shop to fulfill its commitment to be a “flex force” for Cablevision.
Moreover, Corbel argues that it is not a successor to Falcon because it has instituted significant
operational changes from Falcon’s model.
Corbel disputes the assertion that it continued Falcon’s operation without substantial
interruption or change. In support of these contentions, Respondent argues that it opened a new
facility unaffiliated with Falcon, which offers superior conditions; that the Brooklyn facility is a
field service facility rather than a primary base of operations; that Corbel moved trucks and
equipment to supplement those purchased from Falcon; that its dispatch, human resource and
office operations are centralized in the Bronx; that Brooklyn technicians are required to perform
work throughout the metropolitan region; that Corbel’s time keeping and warehouse
management systems are electronic and different from those maintained by Falcon; that its
compensation scheme and policy manuals and procedures are different from Falcon’s and that
employees wear Corbel rather than Falcon uniforms.
Respondent next argues that, even if Corbel is found to be a successor to Falcon, it
properly accreted the former Falcon employees into a single bargaining unit of service
technicians. In support of this contention, Respondent argues that its IBEW-represented
employees predominate over the employees formerly represented by the CWA; that its
functional integration requires a single bargaining unit of service technicians; that its overall and
daily operations are centralized and controlled from its Bronx operations; that Corbel’s human
resources and labor relations are centralized with no local autonomy over such matters; that
Corbel’s service technicians possess the same skills, functions and working conditions
regardless of working location; that Corbel’s bargaining history weighs in favor of a single
bargaining unit; that its facilities are in close geographic proximity and that there is substantial
employee interchange among the service technicians working in different regions.
Respondent further denies providing unlawful assistance to Local 1430 or unlawfully
delaying the hiring of Kirk Collins
The General Counsel the CWA argue that Respondent is a successor to Falcon; that
Corbel assumed the bargaining obligations of its predecessor; that the Brooklyn region
continues to be a separate appropriate single-location bargaining unit and, accordingly
Respondent unlawfully recognized and assisted Local 1430. This unlawful assistance included
maintaining and enforcing a collective-bargaining agreement which contained union security
and dues checkoff provisions. General Counsel further contends that Respondent changed the
pay for its Brooklyn technicians without notifying the CWA or providing it with an opportunity to
bargain; that Respondent delayed in hiring Collins because of his protected concerted and
union activities and that Respondent further violated the Act by unlawfully assisting Local 1430
during the September 25 meeting
B. Successorship
In NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272 (1972), the Supreme Court upheld the
proposition that a mere change in employers or ownership of an enterprise did not mean that
the new employer had no obligation to bargain with the representative its predecessor’s
employees. In the circumstances of that case, where the bargaining unit remained unchanged
and a majority of employees hired by the new employer were represented by a certified
bargaining agent, the Court found a duty to bargain on the part of the new employer. This
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
19
doctrine was further refined in the Court’s holding in Fall River Dyeing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S.
27 (1987), where the Court explained that where an 8 (a)(5) violation is alleged in the context of
an employer assuming the operations of a predecessor employer, the General Counsel must
demonstrate both the majority status or constructive majority status of the union in an
appropriate unit, and a “substantial continuity” between the employing enterprises. In following
the direction of the Court, the Board has found the threshold test for determining successorship
is: (1) whether a majority of the new employer’s work force in an appropriate unit are former
employees of the predecessor employer; and (2) whether the new employer conducts
essentially the same business as the predecessor employer. See GFS Bldg. Management, Inc.
330 NLRB 747 (2000); Sierra Realty Corp., 317 NLRB 832 (1995).
The above factors are to be assessed from the perspective of the employees, ‘whether
those “employees who have been retained will. . . view their job situations as essentially
unaltered.’” Fall River Dyeing, supra, quoting Golden State Bottling Co.v. NLRB, 414 U.S.168,
184 (1963).
Here, in agreement with the General Counsel and the CWA, I find that Corbel is a Burns
successor to Falcon.27 By September 30, Respondent had hired the vast majority of Falcon’s
employees, as it had told employees it would. At this point in time, Corbel’s Brooklyn workforce
consisted solely of former Falcon technicians and warehouse employees. As Falcon ceased its
operations, Corbel initiated theirs without any hiatus and utilized the former Falcon employees
to continue the same installation work, within the same geographic region, assuming virtually
identical operations for the same customer. As was told to the technicians at the September 25
meeting, and not demonstrated otherwise, the technicians maintained their same work
schedules, retained the same technician identification and, at least at the outset, drove the
same trucks as they had for Falcon. The facility manager (Lovelace) and the lead technicians
were all former Falcon employees, who had occupied substantially similar positions. Generally,
employees obtained work supplies at Corbel’s Brooklyn facility. The employees who testified at
the hearing stated that, in their view, their jobs remained essentially unchanged after Corbel
assumed operations.
Respondent maintains that there were various fundamental changes in operations
sufficient to rebut a finding of successorship. One specifically pointed to is the nature of the
supervision of the service technicians. Respondent maintains that they are supervised by
personnel based in the Bronx who make visits to the Brooklyn facility once or twice per week.
Respondent also argues that terms and conditions of employment are set by personnel located
in the Bronx for all technicians and that the authority to hire, discipline and discharge employees
is centrally determined as well. As will be discussed in further detail below, I find that these
claims to be somewhat overstated. While it may be the case that Harris and Robinson oversee
various personnel matters, the fact remains that Corbel hired Lovelace, a former Falcon
manager, not as a field technician but rather, to run the Brooklyn facility. While Lovelace’s

27 I do not find that Corbel was a “perfectly clear” successor to Falcon, which would have required it
to consult with the employees’ bargaining representative prior to setting initial terms and conditions of
employment. NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. at 294-295. This doctrine applies when the
successor employer has represented or led employees to believe that they would be retained without any
change in their terms and conditions of employment or when the successor employer has failed to
announce such changes prior to inviting the predecessor’s employees to accept employment. Garden
Grove Hospital & Medical Center, 357 NLRB No. 63, slip op. at 4 (2011). Here, as the evidence shows,
and as the General Counsel apparently concedes, Respondent announced certain changes to the terms
and conditions of employment at its initial meeting with employees on September 25. See Spruce Up
Corp., 209 NLRB 194, 195 (1974), enfd. 529 F.2d 516 (4
th
Cir. 1975).
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20
authority to take independent action may be more circumscribed than it was under Falcon, he
continues to oversee the day to day operations much in the same fashion. In particular, I note
that even though the company’s dispatchers are located in the Bronx, Brooklyn technicians
obtain their daily work assignments from Lovelace, who has the authority to adjust employee
workload and routes as required. Similarly, the lead technicians were also hired and for the
most part have continued to do the same jobs in the same manner they did under Falcon, in
accordance with Corbel’s contractual undertaking with Cablevision. With respect to terms and
conditions of employment for Corbel employees, I note that for the most part these are
established by the Local 1430 CBA. For Respondent to argue that there is no successorship
because such terms have been applied to the Brooklyn-based employees is simply an exercise
in circular reasoning.
The other changes cited by Respondent relating to changes in its facility including the
computerization of its time keeping and equipment management system are not persuasively
significant to the foregoing analysis.
In general, the as set forth above, Corbel has continued to operate in Brooklyn in very
much the same fashion as did Falcon. The distinctions pointed to by the Respondent, in addition
to those outlined above,28 are simply insufficient to rebut the foregoing evidence of “substantial
continuity” in operations.
C. The CWA’s Representation of Former Falcon Employees
The Board has held, consistent with Supreme Court precedent, that a successor
employer inherits the collective-bargaining obligation of its predecessor if a majority of the
successor’s employees in an appropriate bargaining unit were employed by the predecessor,
and if there exists substantial continuity between the enterprises. Specialty Hospital of
Washington-Hadley, LLC, 357 NLRB No. 77, slip op. at 2 (2011); Van Lear Equipment, Inc., 336
NLRB 1059, 1063 (2001).
Moreover, it is well-settled that the representation rights of an incumbent union are
protected for 1 year following an NLRB certification of that union as the collective bargaining
representative for an appropriate unit of employees. Brooks v. NLRB, 348 U.S. 96 (1954); NLRB
v. Star Color Plate Service, 843 F.2d 1507, 1509 (2d Cir. 1988). Here, where the CWA was
certified in July 2010, it ordinarily would have been insulated from challenge for a period of
approximately 10 months after Corbel assumed operations.
Moreover, the evidence is undisputed that at the September 25 meeting the CWA
requested that Corbel recognize it as the collective bargaining representative of its Brooklyn
employees and bargain over terms and conditions of employment. The CWA was told that Local
1430 would be representing the Corbel employees. Dubnau reiterated the CWA’s demands by
letter on the following day, and there is no evidence of any response.
D. Respondent’s Accretion Defense

28 These include the fact that Corbel operates from a new, improved facility; that technicians are not
required to unload their trucks at the end of the work day; the centralized location of dispatch, human
resources and other company personnel and the institution of electronic time-keeping and warehouse
management systems. To the extent it is contended that Corbel maintains company-wide policies and
procedures apart from the IBEW CBA, specific evidence of such was not adduced in this record.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
21
As noted above, Respondent contends that even if Corbel is deemed a successor to
Falcon, it properly accreted the former Falcon employees into a single bargaining unit of service
technicians, represented by Local 1430.
With regard to the issue of accretion, the Board has held that the fundamental purpose
of the accretion doctrine is to “preserve industrial stability by allowing adjustments in bargaining
units to conform to new industrial conditions without requiring an adversary election every time
new jobs are created or other alterations in industrial routine are made.” NLRB v. Stevens Ford,
Inc., 773 F.2d 468, 473 (2d Cir. 1985). However, because accreted employees are absorbed
into an existing bargaining unit without an election or other demonstrated showing of majority
status, the accretion doctrine's goal of promoting industrial stability places it in tension with the
right of employees to freely choose their bargaining representative. Accordingly, the Board
follows a restrictive policy in applying the accretion doctrine. Safeway Stores, 256 NLRB 918
(1981); Wackenhut Corp., 226 NLRB 1085, 1089 (1976). One aspect of this long-standing
restrictive policy, set forth in E. I. Du Pont de Nemours, Inc., 341 NLRB 607, 608 (2004), has
been to permit accretion “only when the employees sought to be added to an existing
bargaining unit have little or no separate identity and share an overwhelming community of
interest with the preexisting unit to which they are accreted” (quoting Ready Mix USA, Inc., 340
NLRB 946, 954 (2003)).
As the Board has observed:
This test is different than the traditional community-of-interest test that the Board applies
in deciding appropriate units in initial representation cases. In that context, the Board will
certify any unit that is an appropriate unit, even if it is not the most appropriate unit.
Bartlett Collins, 334 NLRB 484 (2001). In the accretion context, however, “[a] group of
employees is properly accreted to an existing bargaining unit when they have such a
close community of interest with the existing unit that they have no true identity distinct
from it.”
Frontier Telephone of Rochester, 344 NLRB 1270, 1271 fn. 6 (2005)(quoting NLRB v. St. Regis
Paper, 674 F.2d 104, 107-108 (1st Cir. 1982).29
In determining, under this standard, whether the requisite “overwhelming community of
interest” exists to warrant an accretion, the Board will consider many of the same factors
relevant to unit determinations in initial representation cases, i.e., integration of operations,
centralized control of management and labor relations, geographic proximity, similarity of terms
and conditions of employment, similarity of skills and functions, physical contact among
employees, collective bargaining history, degree of separate daily supervision, and degree of
employee interchange. E. I. Du Pont, supra at 608; Compact Video Services, 284 NLRB 117,
119 (1987). However, as stated in E. I. Du Pont, the “two most important factors” which have

29 Even in the context of representation cases, the Board will not, “under the guise of accretion
compel a group of employees, who may constitute a separate appropriate unit, to be included in an
overall unit without allowing those employees the opportunity of expressing their preference in a secret-
ballot election or by some other evidence that they wish to authorize the union to represent them.” Melbet
Jewelry Co, Inc., 180 NLRB 107, 110 (1969). And, “when the relevant considerations are not free from
doubt,” the Board and courts are in agreement that “it would seem more satisfactory to resolve such close
questions through the election process rather than seeking an addition of the new employees by a finding
of accretion” because “as a general rule, the accretion doctrine should be applied restrictively since it
deprives the new employees of the opportunity to express their desires regarding membership in the
existing unit.” Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. NLRB, 440 F.2d 7, 11 (2d. Cir. 1971)
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
22
been identified as “critical” to an accretion finding are employee interchange and common day-
to-day supervision. Super Valu Stores, 283 NLRB 134, 136 (1987), citing Towne Ford Sales,
270 NLRB 311, 312 (1984).
In this case, there are certainly some community of interest factors that favor accretion.
This is not unusual, as cases are “rare” in which every factor points to or against accretion. E. I.
Du Pont, supra. Many of the arguments advanced by Respondent are set forth above in the
context of the successorship issue. Additionally, Respondent contends that further factors
favoring accretion are: that Corbel’s senior executives and management make all significant
decisions affecting business affairs, that the same executives and managers are the primary
contact with Cablevision involving all but ancillary company issues; that financial and other
records are centrally maintained; and that timecard information, tools and equipment and
inventory management are centralized.30
In its post hearing brief, Respondent argues that 43 technicians formerly employed by
Falcon were merged with approximately 180 “legacy” Corbel technicians thereby comprising
approximately 24 percent of the total workforce and that this is less than the 30 percent of the
bargaining unit that the Board would conclude would be needed to establish a substantial claim
of interest by the CWA. As an initial matter, it is unexplained how Respondent arrived at this
precise number (43), particularly since at various points throughout the hearing Mucci
continually indicated that Corbel had hired between 50 and 60 of Falcon’s employees.31 In any
event, the thrust of this argument is generally inapposite insofar as it addresses the percentage
of employee support (i.e. the “showing of interest”) which is sufficient to support a petition for a
representation election, and does not address itself to the issue of accretion. Contrary to
Respondent, I find that the significant number of employees operating out of the Brooklyn region
may be viewed as a factor which militates against accretion and toward a finding of separate
appropriate unit.
Respondent further argues that Corbel’s human resources and labor relations are
centralized with no local autonomy over such matters. Respondent, relying primarily upon Petrie
Stores Corp., 266 NLRB 75 (1983) and Queen City Distributing Co., Inc., 272 NRB 621 (1984),
argues that any single unit presumption which the Board may apply is rebutted by evidence of
centralized labor relations and personnel policies and procedures. These cases, involving initial
petitions for an election, are arguably distinguishable on that basis. As noted above, the Board
has stated that it will apply a more stringent standard when a group of employees is accreted
into an existing unit. Frontier Telephone of Rochester, supra. These cases are otherwise
distinguishable. Thus, in Petrie Stores Corp., the issue was not one of single facility versus a
companywide unit. Rather, the employer took the position that the units should be no smaller
than the clothing stores located within the same and adjacent malls. Moreover, the individual
store manager had strictly circumscribed authority – to the extent that he was not even involved
in the scheduling of employees. Similarly, in Queen City Distributing, the local manager’s
authority was limited. Respondent also relies upon Ohio Valley Supermarkets, 269 NLRB 355

30 In this regard, Respondent has made additional assertions in its post hearing brief which are
unsupported by any reference to the transcript or exhibits in this matter. After reviewing the record, I find
that they are unsubstantiated and decline to consider them.
31 In fact, Mucci testified that as of the time of the hearing there were 65 technicians at the Brooklyn
facility. The record shows that five employees were permanently transferred from the Bronx thereby
indicating that Corbel had initially hired approximately 60 former Falcon employees. He later testified that
there were 50 technicians reporting to a team of lead technicians and an additional 5 warehouse
employees.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
23
(1984). In that case, the Board held that a unit limited to one of the employer’s retail stores was
not an appropriate unit for collective bargaining, where there were three stores that were the
only ones operated by the employer, located several miles apart and where a manager visited
each store on a daily basis and called at 3-hour intervals for sales readings. It was also found
that individual store managers had limited authority.32
Respondent argues that the Brooklyn technicians share an overwhelming community of
interest with its other employees due to the similarity in their terms and conditions of
employment. In Deaconess Medical Center, 314 NLRB 677, 677 fn. 1 (1994), the employer
argued accretion based, in part, on the fact that the two groups of employees in question shared
the same wage and benefit structure after a merger. The Board found such an argument to beg
the question, noting that the employees shared the same wage and benefit structure because
there, as here, the employer refused to bargain with the union representing the employees and
had unilaterally imposed such terms and conditions of employment.
Respondent further contends that, due to the centralization of Corbel’s human resources
and labor relations operations, the highest ranking employee at its various service depots are
without supervisory or managerial authority, and that Harris and Robinson function as
supervisors for all employees in the Bronx, Mamaroneck, New Jersey, Connecticut and
Brooklyn regions. Centralized functions pointed to by Respondent include: grievance
processing, payroll, time-keeping, wages, assignment of daily routes, personnel policies and
forms, employee evaluations, fringe benefits, the assignment of work and disciplinary rules,
investigation of misconduct, requests for paid or unpaid leave, processing of employment
applications, determination of company seniority by date of hire and Bronx-based orientation of
employees.
As the General Counsel has acknowledged, the evidence shows that Respondent has a
centralized operation with most decisions regarding policies, procedures and labor relations
being made at its Bronx facility The General Counsel further maintains, however, that the
evidence regarding the two most significant factors: common day-to-day supervision and
employee interchange is insufficient to warrant a finding of accretion here.
In assessing the issue of local autonomy generally, I note that Corbel’s contract with
Cablevision, the relevant terms having been set forth above, requires it to maintain a certain
level of local supervisory authority, including maintaining 1 non-working supervisor for every 10
working field technicians. These supervisors are responsible for investigating and responding to
customer complaints, inspecting 10 percent of the technicians’ field work on a weekly basis and
reporting the results to the manager responsible for oversight of the work in the region where
the work was performed. In this regard, I note that at the outset of his testimony, Lovelace
stated that, although he did not presently have a job title, he worked for Corbel in
“management.” It appears from the record that Cablevision continues to consider him a
manager under Corbel, as an email requesting the removal of a technician was sent, not only to
Harris and Robinson, but to Lovelace as “manager” as well. Moreover, it was he who
effectuated the discharge of the employee in question. Further, employee testimony is that
Lovelace continues to hold himself out to them as the “manager” of the facility.

32 I note that in a subsequent case involving the same employer, the Board found a single facility unit
to be appropriate based, in part, upon the increase in the number of stores operated by the employer and
the increased authority of local management. Ohio Valley Supermarkets, Inc. d/b/a Foodland of
Ravenswood, 323 NLRB 665 (1997).
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
24
The foregoing discussion brings me to an analysis of the actual role that Lovelace plays
in the day-to-day operation of the Brooklyn region. As has been noted above, Respondent
adduced testimony from Lovelace to the effect that he had a certain level of authority when
employed by Falcon which he no longer possesses as an employee of Corbel. For the most
part, I find that such testimony was generally conclusionary and without specific probative detail.
Moreover, the General Counsel adduced testimony from its witnesses which, in part, rebuts
these categorical assertions.
Notwithstanding Respondent’s general denials of local supervisory or managerial
authority, it appears from the record that Lovelace continues to manage the day-today affairs of
the Brooklyn region much as he had done in the past. Lovelace does not drive a truck or install
or remove cable; rather, he runs the operations of the Brooklyn facility. In this regard, he
distributes routes to the technicians, and has authority to adjust or alter them as necessary. In
the event employees are unable to come to work, the evidence establishes they will contact
Lovelace directly. Written requests for time off are submitted initially to, and signed off on, by
Lovelace. Employees Slay and Collins testified that payroll issues would be addressed to
Lovelace, or to McFarlane. It was Collins’ unrebutted testimony that, when he approached
Harris with a payroll issue, he was instructed to discuss these issues with Brooklyn and follow
the “chain of command.” Both Slay and Collins testified that their encounters with the Bronx
office were occasional in nature, and that their primary contacts for personnel and other matters
were with Lovelace and McFarlane.33
General Counsel further adduced evidence that Lovelace has, on several occasions,
refused to assign a route (which according to Corbel and Cablevision protocol, would have
previously been designated to an employee on the workforce planner for the day) to employee
Justin Taylor because he was late to work. While Taylor admitted that he did not know whether
Lovelace consulted with either Harris or Robinson about such discipline it appears from Taylor’s
testimony that the nature of his encounters with Lovelace were spontaneous in nature, and that
Lovelace was acting on his own initiative; thereby denying Taylor a paid work day on repeated
occasions. Moreover, Lovelace, who testified on the same day as Taylor, failed to rebut Taylor’s
testimony or to explain any contact he may have had with or approval he received from Corbel
upper management about such disciplinary actions. It is apparent that such testimony was
clearly available, relevant to the issues under consideration and it would have been in
Respondent’s interest to produce such evidence had it been supportive of Respondent’s
contentions here. In this regard I note that Lovelace generally admitted that he has discretion to

33 I note that several provisions of the employment application that Corbel distributed to the Falcon
employees (General Counsel’s Exhibit 7) tend to support this testimony. For example, the “Corbel
Installations Parking Ticket Policy” assures that Corbel will be responsible for certain parking and traffic
lane violations if the employee complies with certain procedures which include submitting the ticket and
workorder to “your manager or supervisor” for signature. The “Benefit Day Policy” requires an employee
to “call into a manger to report that you will be out sick. A request for the paid sick day must be submitted
on your first day back and approved by the manager you called.” As noted above, the evidence adduced
in this record is that the practice in the Brooklyn region has been and continues to be to call Lovelace.
Corbel’s “Equal Employment Opportunity Policy” advises employees that to request a reasonable
accommodation to their religious beliefs they should “contact your Supervisor or Paul Mucci or Robert
Cipolla.” In a similar vein employees are directed to report allegations of “Sexual and Other Harassment”
to “their Supervisor, Paul Mucci or Robert Cipolla.” Nowhere in any of these policies are employees
directed to refrain from reporting such matters to their regional supervisor or manager or direct inquiries
solely to the Bronx office. Rather, these policies, on their face, contemplate that the “chain of command”
commences with local managerial or supervisory personnel.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
25
send employees home without work.34
I further note that Mucci acknowledged that, while employment applications are currently
submitted online, it has been the case that, under Corbel ownership and control, Lovelace has
been authorized to interview job applicants and forward their applications to the Bronx for further
processing. Lovelace was also relied upon to make recommendations on employee skill levels
in conjunction with adjustments to their pay. I infer from the record that these recommendations
were relied upon as there is no evidence that either Mucci, Harris or Robinson had the requisite
familiarity with the Falcon workforce as a whole or conducted any independent investigation with
regard to the appropriate level of employee compensation.
Moreover, I find Respondent’s contention that Harris and Robinson are the only two
supervisors for Corbel’s approximately 245 field employees and that, in addition to overseeing
work assignments and transfers, they address all matters relating to payroll and personnel, sign
off on all time off requests and address all issues of employee discipline no matter how routine
or minor is, frankly, inherently improbable. See Flamingo Hilton-Laughlin, 324 NLRB 72, 122-
123 (1997), citing Iron Mountain Forge Corp., 278 NLRB 255 (1986) (disproportionately high
employee to supervisor ratio). I further note that Respondent has failed to provide specific
evidence, documentary or otherwise, of any time off request, disciplinary action, hour or wage
adjustment (other than what has been discussed above) or other supervisory or managerial
matter submitted by Lovelace to either Harris or Robinson for their review, approval or rejection.
Respondent’s contention that Lovelace is without local authority is further undermined by
the fact that he is the highest-ranking employee present for most, if not virtually all, of Corbel’s
daily operations in the Brooklyn region. Assuming it to be the case that either Harris or
Robinson visits the facility once or twice per week, that leaves Lovelace in charge of the facility
for the remainder of this time. By contrast, I note that under Falcon, where Lovelace presumably
had more independent authority, company owner Spiewack was there on a daily basis.
In sum, while there is testimony to the effect that Lovelace’s authority under Corbel may
be more circumscribed than it appears to have been under Falcon,35 I do not credit
Respondent’s contention that he is without local authority. It is apparent from the testimony of
various witnesses, including Lovelace, and the documentary evidence in the record, that he
manages the regular daily operations of the Brooklyn region and does so in a fairly autonomous
manner. See e.g. Esco Corp., 298 NLRB 837, 838 (1990) where the Board found it “significant”
that the employer relied upon a leadman who exercised “limited local autonomy” to oversee
operations.36

34 I further note that Collins, Slay and Taylor are all current employees of the Respondent. This tends
to make their testimony reliable, as it is arguably against their interests. Advocate South Suburban
Hospital, 346 NLRB 209 fn. 1 (2006), quoting Flexsteel Industries, 316 NLRB 745 (1995), affd. mem.
NLRB v. Flexsteel Industries, 83 F.3d 419 (5
th
Cir. 1996) (current employees area likely to be particularly
reliable because these witnesses are testifying adversely to their pecuniary interests); see also American
Wire Products, Inc., 313 NLRB 989, 993 (1994)(current employee providing testimony adverse to his
employer is at risk of reprisal and thus likely to be testifying truthfully).
35 As discussed above, such contentions are supported predominantly by conclusory, generalized
evidence and to the extent particular instances were adduced in the record they call such categorical
assertions into question. For example, Lovelace testified to one occasion where he discharged an
employee when employed by Falcon. As he explained, however, the instruction to do so came from
Cablevision. Similarly, the single discharge effectuated by Lovelace under Corbel was also requested by
Cablevision.
36 The General Counsel has not alleged in the complaint that Lovelace is a statutory supervisor or
Continued
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
26
E. Employee Interchange and Related Factors
Respondent contends that the centralized nature of its operations and the extent of
employee interchange establishes that the Brooklyn region was properly accreted into its larger
unit of service technicians. In support of these arguments Respondent points to Mucci’s
testimony that the tools and equipment used by Corbel are interchangeable and both service
technicians and equipment are switched from region to region as needed. In this regard, the
warehouse manager located in the Bronx regularly audits inventory and directs that equipment
be transferred as needed. Service technicians are temporarily assigned to different sites based
upon company need and when so transferred, their work is supervised by the lead technicians
based in that region.
In its post hearing brief, Respondent has contended that at any given time approximately
10 to 15 percent of the Corbel workforce is on long- or short-term transfer. The citation to the
record which supports this assertion is Mucci’s testimony to such effect. As noted above,
Respondent also adduced records showing short-term (within the time frame of one work week)
transfers of employees between or among various regions.
Regarding long-term transfers, Respondent contends that, “given the centralized nature
of Corbel’s operations and the ease of technician interchange between service depots, Corbel
has no reason and does not track exact statistics of technicians who have been transferred for a
week or longer.” The record fails to support this assertion. In particular, as set forth above,
Corbel’s contract with Cablevision specifically requires it to assign tech numbers to each
employee, keep records by technician number capable of identifying any individual employee
performing particular work at any point in time in which Corbel is performing work for
Cablevision and, further, supply Cablevision with a written list of employees who will perform
work on a weekly basis.
The thrust of these provisions, which is natural and logical, is that Corbel is obliged to
keep records of and track those employees it sends into people’s homes and businesses and to
document when and where they are assigned to work. For Respondent to claim to the contrary
is simply not credible.37
Further, Respondent’s claim that its operations are centralized and computerized tends
to undermine its assertion that it would be unable to discern within any particular time frame
which of its employees had been reassigned to any particular region. With respect to the
Brooklyn region in particular, Respondent had a clear baseline to work from: the initial
contingent of employees hired from Falcon. Respondent clearly could have identified who, if
anyone, had been transferred in or out of this region. I note that the only specific evidence on
this issue, adduced from subpoenaed records, was presented by the General Counsel.
Thus, I find that Respondent has failed to substantiate its claims regarding the long-term
transfer of employees generally. See New Britain Transportation Co., 330 NLRB 397
(1999)(where employer provided neither documentation to support its claim nor specific
testimony regarding the context surrounding alleged instances of interchange, such assertions
_________________________
agent within the meaning of the Act. In my view, this does not obviate the evidence supporting a
conclusion that he is charged with the oversight and operation of Corbel’s Brooklyn facility, and exercises
his authority in such regard.
37 In addition, I found Mucci’s testimony on this issue to be evasive and equivocal.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
27
are of little evidentiary value). With respect to the Brooklyn region in particular, I find that there is
evidence of five long-term transfers from the Bronx to Brooklyn, and one instance where an
employee was transferred trom the Brooklyn to the Bronx, which have been discussed above.38
Regarding short-term transfers, Respondent relies upon certain records placed into
evidence involving approximately 159 weekly work reports which, as asserted in its post hearing
brief, demonstrates approximately 25 to 30 short term transfers per week. Respondent does
not, however, offer any meaningful analysis of these records to substantiate its claim. Even
assuming this to be the case, however, the focus here is not whether an overall unit of Corbel
facilities would be an appropriate unit, or even the most appropriate unit, but whether the
Brooklyn region remains in and of itself an appropriate unit. Melbet Jewelry Co., 180 NLRB 107
(1969); Frontier Telephone of Rochester, Inc., supra. In this regard, temporary transfers in and
out of that particular region are significant, far more so than transfers among other Corbel
facilities.
As noted above, both the General Counsel and the CWA conducted an analysis of the
weekly work summaries introduced into evidence by both the General Counsel and the
Respondent. In sum, there were 16 weekly reports found within a 15 week period which
demonstrated that 8 technicians otherwise assigned to other regions performed work in
Brooklyn for a total of 56 work days during this period of time. In addition, according to the
records, company-wide short-term transfers involved approximately 36 employees in total
(including the 8 who worked in Brooklyn) involving work primarily performed in Mamaroneck, the
Bronx and to a far lesser extent Bridgeport, Connecticut.39
The parties have each cited cases where particular numbers, in conjunction with various
other factors, were found sufficient or insufficient to establish employee interchange.
Respondent and Local 1430 rely upon Petrie Stores Corp., supra at 76 (3 to 4 transfers per
week out of a workforce of approximately 200 employees). Respondent additionally cites to
Dayton Transport Corp., 270 NLRB 1114 (1984) (sufficient interchange where there were 400 to
425 temporary transfers in a single year for a workforce of 87 employees – approximately 8 per
week). The General Counsel, by contrast, relies upon Purolator Courier Corp., 265 NLRB 659,
661 (1982) (50 percent of the work force came within the jurisdiction of other branches on a
daily basis and and were supervised at those locations) and distinguishes Dayton Transport,
supra, by noting the temporary employees there were directly supervised by the terminal
manager from the point of dispatch. The CWA relies in part on Cargill, Inc, 336 NLRB
1114(2001) where the Board found that 13 or 14 instances of interchange between two facilities
in an 8 month period were not sufficient to defeat the petitioned for unit.40

38 I note that the Board distinguishes between permanent and temporary transfers and regards the
latter as a more significant indicator of employee interchange. Novato Disposal Services, 330 NLRB 632
fn. 3 (2000).
39 Although there is no specific evidence to this effect in the record, both Local 1430 and the CWA
have represented that the distance between the Bronx and Brooklyn facilities is in excess of 20 miles. I
take administrative notice of the fact that the Bronx and Mamaroneck regions are more proximate to each
other. The regional facilities in New Jersey and Bridgeport are further away.
40 All of the foregoing cases involved initial organizing situations where employees would have had
the opportunity to indicate their desire to be represented by and then to vote on whether or not they
wished to be represented by the petitioning labor organization, a circumstance not present here. I further
note that in Purolater, cited by the General Counsel, the petition was filed by a union representing non
guards. The Board found that the unit sought was of employees found to be guards within the meaning of
Section 9(b)(3) of the Act, and although the Board did discuss the unit issue, the petition was dismissed
on this statutory basis.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
28
As the General Counsel has noted, Corbel employs approximately 65 technicians
assigned to the Brooklyn region, who each work approximately 5 days per week as a normal
work schedule. This amounts to well over 4,000 work days in total for all Brooklyn employees
during the 15 week period encompassed by the records entered into evidence. Looking at the
numbers in another way, the 56 days of short-term employee transfers amount to an average of
slightly less than 4 instances per week during the 15 week period after Corbel initiated its
Brooklyn operations, a period which included an increase in workload in that region due to the
effects of Hurricane Sandy. I further note that Respondent has pointed to no evidence that
Corbel’s Brooklyn employees regularly or even occasionally perform work in other Corbel
facilities.
While the foregoing evidence of work performed in Brooklyn by employees from other
Corbel regional facilities is indisputably some degree of employee interchange, I agree with the
General Counsel that taken within context it is not sufficient to establish that the Brooklyn region
fails to maintain its status as a separate appropriate unit. “There is nothing in the statute which
requires that the unit for bargaining be the only appropriate unit or the ultimate unit or the most
appropriate unit; the act only requires that the unit be appropriate.” Morand Bros. Beverage Co.,
91 NLRB 409, 418 (1950). I further note that, as Phillip Watt testified, transferred employees
deal primarily with local supervision.
It is also the case that the Board has continued to affirm a longstanding concept that “the
issue of whether a group of employees constitutes an accretion to an existing bargaining unit
must be determined on the facts that existed on the date of the Union’s demand.” Ready Mix
USA, supra at 954, and cases cited therein. Here, at the time the CWA made its demands for
recognition and bargaining, on September 25 and 26, no interchange of any kind had occurred
between the Brooklyn region and any other Corbel facility. The first short-term transfers
occurred on October 6, a week after Corbel commenced operations. There were no long-term
transfers to or from Brooklyn until later in that month. And, as employees testified without
rebuttal, essentially nothing else changed for the former Falcon employees but for the location
of the new facility they were to report to and operate out of.
To the extent Respondent relies upon anecdotal evidence from Mucci about the
prospect of transferring employees from other regions to New Jersey and Brooklyn due to
anticipated increases in work demands, I find such evidence to be unpersuasive. There is no
evidence that Respondent transferred any Brooklyn employee to New Jersey during the course
of the hearing, and Respondent has pointed to no documentation that any such transfers
occurred at any point since Corbel initiated its operations in Brooklyn. As for the prospect of
supplementing the Cablevision workforce due to a labor dispute, again there was no specific
evidence presented that transfers had been made or that specific plans had been drawn to
effect those transfers. In all fairness, the timing of events might not have allowed Respondent
the opportunity to adduce evidence to show who was transferred and when. Nevertheless,
Respondent has failed to show that this sort of large-scale transfer of employees is a regular
aspect of its business operations.
Respondent and Local 1430 have argued that to allow the CWA to remain as the bargaining
representative of the Brooklyn-based technicians would be unfeasible from a business
standpoint. These arguments are speculative in nature. Nevertheless, I am not unsympathetic to
the position advanced by Respondent that it would be to their business advantage to deal with
one collective-bargaining representative and agreement covering all its employees. And, it may
well be the case that under other circumstances a geographically comprehensive unit of Corbel
employees in the New York metropolitan area and surrounding environs would constitute an
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
29
appropriate unit. However, as noted above, this does not compel the conclusion that this is the
only appropriate unit.
The Board and the courts have recognized that in evaluating community of interest, “the
overriding policy of the act is in favor of the interest of employees to be represented by a
representative of their own choosing for the purposes of collective bargaining.” Meijer, Inc., v.
NLRB, 564 F.2d 737, 743 (6th Cir. 1977). Here, the Brooklyn technicians had recently voted and
chosen the CWA to be that representative. Their having done so is a fundamental Section 7
right that cannot be summarily discarded particularly where, as here, it has not been shown that
the Corbel Brooklyn employees have such a close community of interest with the existing Local
1430 unit that they have no true identity distinct from it. Frontier Telephone of Rochester, 344
NLRB at 1261, fn.6; Ready Mix, USA, 340 NLRB at 954.
Based upon the foregoing, I find that the Brooklyn region is and continues to be an
appropriate single location unit.41 While the Employer has centralized control over personnel
and labor relations policies, payroll, wages and benefits, formal discipline and new-hire training,
such matters have been found not to be necessarily determinative, where the evidence also
demonstrates significant local autonomy. See, e.g. New Britain Transportation Co., supra. In
addition to the apparent geographical separation of the Brooklyn region from other Corbel
facilities, here there is significant evidence of local autonomy including: decision-making over
employee work assignments; handling and resolving problems encountered by technicians and
customers in the course of the workday; interviewing job applicants and forwarding their
applications for further processing; making recommendations regarding employee
compensation; otherwise managing payroll issues at the initial stage; processing and approval
of time off requests and the imposition of discipline including sending employees home without
pay. Lovelace is also the highest-ranking employee on site for the majority of the work week and
is responsible for carrying out Respondent’s decisions involving formal discipline. In addition,
the record establishes that, when employees from other regions perform work in Brooklyn, they
are accountable to the supervisory personnel there. And, as noted above, I do not find that the
record evidence regarding employee interchange mandates any other conclusion. Accordingly, I
cannot conclude that the Brooklyn region has lost its “true identity” such that it must be accreted
into the larger unit of Corbel employees.
F. Respondent’s Unfair Labor Practices
1. The failure to recognize and bargain with the CWA
Having found that the Brooklyn region remains a separate appropriate unit, there are
several conclusions which flow from this determination. Because Corbel is a successor to
Falcon and inherited its bargaining obligation, Respondent has failed and refused to recognize
and bargain with the CWA as the certified exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the Brooklyn region in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Respondent
further violated the Act by thereafter unilaterally changing certain terms and conditions of
employment (in particular, the wage rates of employees) without notice to and bargaining with
the CWA. See Banknote Corp. of America, 315 NLRB 1041 (1994), enfd. 84 F.3d 637 (1996),
cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1109 (1996).

41 As is well-settled, a single facility unit is presumptively appropriate unless it has been so effectively
merged into a more comprehensive unit, or is so functionally integrated, that it has lost its separate
identity, J&L Plate, Inc., 310 NLRB 429 (1993); Red Lobster, 300 NLRB 908 (1990).
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
30
2. The unlawful recognition of and assistance to Local 1430
I further find that Respondent unlawfully recognized Local 1430 in violation of Section
8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. In this regard, it is well established that an employer violates Section
8(a)(2) of the Act when it extends recognition to a union that does not represent an uncoerced
majority of employees. Ladies Garment Workers v. NLRB (Bernhard-Altmann), 366 U.S. 731
(1961); Dairyland USA Corp., 347 NLRB 310, 311 (2006), enfd. 273 Fed Appx. 40 (2d Cir.
2008). Respondent further maintained and enforced a collective-bargaining agreement with
Local 1430 containing union security and dues checkoff provisions at a time when Local 1430
did not represent an uncoerced majority of employees in the Unit in violation of Section
8(a)(1),(2) and (3) of the Act. Duane Reade, Inc., 338 NLRB 943, 944 (2003), enfd. 99 Fed.
Appx. 240 (D.C. Cir 2004).
The evidence further establishes that on September 25 both Mucci and Cipolla informed
employees that they must, as a condition of employment, complete employment applications
containing membership cards for Local 1430. I find that such conduct was coercive, an unlawful
interference with employees’ rights to select their own representative, and constitutes unlawful
assistance to Local 1430, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. Duane Reade, supra;
Meyers Transport of New York, 338 NLRB 958, 970 (2003); Baby Watson Cheesecake, Inc.,
320 NLRB 779, 786 (1996).42
Moreover, even if Respondent’s recognition of Local 1430 had been lawful, Board law
would not permit Respondent to direct applicants for employment to sign cards for that union or
to tell them they must sign union cards to work for Respondent. Under the Local 1430 CBA, an
employee has 30 days to join that union. In any event, since I find that both the recognition and
application of the Local 1430 CBA to the Brooklyn facility were unlawful, Respondent’s
instructions to employees were unlawful as well.43
It is undisputed that Respondent further told employees that they would not receive
benefits unless they signed Local 1430 membership cards. Such conduct is coercive and
constitutes unlawful assistance in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. Baby Watson,
supra, Christopher Street Owners Corp., 286 NLRB 253, 254 (1987); Mar-Jam Supply Co., 337
NLRB 337, 350 (2001).
The unrebutted testimony of Collins and Slay, as well as the documentary evidence in
the record, further establishes that Respondent deducted union dues from the salaries of its
employees, even though they had not executed Local 1430 checkoff authorizations. This is a
violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. Mashkin Freight Lines, 261 NLRB 1473, 1481
(1987), American Geriatric Enterprises, 235 NLRB 1531 (1978).44

42 I note that the distribution of union cards to employees with a request that they be signed is
deemed coercive and unlawful even in the absence of any threat or benefit. Baby Watson, supra at 705;
Famous Castings Corp., 301 NLRB 404, 407 (1991).
43 Although the complaint does not specifically allege that Respondent unlawfully required employees
to sign dues checkoff authorization cards, I note that it is well-settled that dues checkoff authorizations
must be voluntary, even with a valid union-security clause. Thus, where, as here, employees were told
they must complete such forms in order to be employed by Respondent, such conduct would be further
violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. Service Employees Local 74 (Parkside Lodge of
Connecticut), 323 NLRB 2879, 293 (1997); Rochester Mfg. Co., 323 NLRB 260, 262 (1997); Zurn
Nepco,316 NLRB 811, 819 (1995).
44 In disagreement with the General Counsel, I find that the evidence fails to support the allegation
that Respondent stated that it would “never” bargain or deal with the CWA, and recommend that the
Continued
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
31
3. The Delay in Hiring Kirk Collins
The legal standard for evaluating whether an adverse employment action violates
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act is generally set forth in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980,
enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982). To sustain a finding of
discrimination, the General Counsel must make an initial showing that a substantial or
motivating factor in the employer’s decision was the employee’s union or other protected
activity. Pro-Spec Painting, Inc., 339 NLRB 946, 949 (2003). The General Counsel satisfies an
initial burden by showing that (1) the employee engaged in union activity; (2) the employer had
knowledge of that union activity; and (3) the employer bore animus towards the employee's
union activity. Consolidated Bus Transit, Inc., 350 NLRB 1064, 1065 (2007), enfd. 577 F.3d 467
(2d Cir. 2009). Unlawful motivation may be demonstrated not only by direct evidence, but by a
variety of circumstantial evidence such as timing, disparate or inconsistent treatment, departure
from past practice and shifting or pretextual reasons being offered for the action. Real Foods
Co., 350 NLRB 309, 312 fn. 17 (2007). In addition, proof of an employer's animus may be based
upon other circumstantial evidence, such as the employer's contemporaneous commission of
other unfair labor practices. Amptech, Inc., 342 NLRB 1131, 1135 (2004). If the General
Counsel meets its initial burden, the employer may defend by proving that it would have taken
the adverse action even in the absence of the employee's union activity. See, e.g., Consolidated
Bus Transit, Inc., supra at 1066; Pro-Spec Painting, supra at 949. If, however, the General
Counsel shows that the reasons the employer provides for its action are pretextual--that is,
false, or not in fact relied upon--the employer fails to carry its rebuttal burden by definition. Id.
The evidence shows that Collins was a supporter of the CWA and, under all the
circumstances I infer that Respondent was aware of that fact. Mucci admitted that he was aware
that the CWA represented the Falcon employees. Everyone knew of Collins’ union activities on
behalf of that union. Under the circumstances, it is simply not credible that Spiewack and Corbel
would not have had a discussion of these facts.45 Nevertheless, it remains the case that even
assuming Mucci and Cipolla did not know of Collins’ activities in support of the CWA prior to the
September 25 meeting, it would have been apparent to them at that time when Collins joined
the CWA representatives in urging employees not to complete Local 1430 applications and
dues checkoff authorization cards, citing their membership in the CWA. He also questioned
Mucci and Cipolla about whether there was a blacklist of certain employees who would not be
hired. I note that Respondent’s knowledge of Collins’ support for the CWA is also evident in his
subsequent interview with Harris and Robinson where he was questioned as to “where his head
was at” and specifically told that the CWA was out.
Evidence of animus toward the CWA is apparent in the unlawful recognition of and
support for Local 1430, the demands that employees sign cards for Local 1430 as a condition of
employment, and threats to employees that they would not receive benefits should they fail to
do so. There is additional evidence of animus in the manner in which Respondent dealt with
Collins when he attempted to visit Corbel’s new facility and fill out additional employment
applications.
In this context it must be noted that Corbel had expedited its hiring process and was, by
its own admission, interested in hiring anyone who expressed an interest in coming to work for
_________________________
allegations of the complaint relating to such conduct (paragraphs 17(c) and 18) be dismissed.
45 I also note that Collins served as a union shop steward when previously employed by Mucci and
Cipolla.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
32
that company. In addition, there is evidence that certain technicians were hired prior to
completing employment applications. In this regard, Collins testified, without rebuttal, that he
spoke with certain technicians who had not submitted applications who, nevertheless, had been
provided with routes, trucks and keys.
I credit Collins that he submitted his initial employment application on September 29 and
that it was placed with others in the facility office. Respondent then claimed that it had not
received an application from Collins, and he was repeatedly escorted from company premises. I
further credit Collins that he completed a second employment application which he gave to
supervisor Cornwallis Glover on the evening of October 3.
I find additional evidence of animus in Collins’ unrebutted testimony that, when he
confronted Cipolla about his employment situation, Collins was told that Respondent was hiring
only 12 technicians, clearly a falsehood. Collins was then again escorted from the premises.
On October 2, the CWA filed an unfair labor charge alleging that Corbel had unlawfully
refused to hire Collins. Two days later, Collins received a call from a coworker directing him to
contact Harris; he received a similar instruction from McFarlane. At a meeting at Corbel’s Bronx
headquarters, held with Harris and Robinson, Collins’ support for the CWA was discussed, and
he was instructed in no uncertain terms that the CWA was out, and Local 1430 represented the
Corbel employees. On these terms and after completing yet another application, Collins was
subsequently offered employment to commence on Sunday, October 6.
Respondent has claimed that it did not initially hire Collins due to his failure to complete
an employment application. I find that this is not supported by the evidence. Rather, Collins
credibly offered detailed, specific testimony about his application process and various
interactions with company managers, including Lovelace, to which no meaningful rebuttal was
offered. Mucci’s testimony, that “to [his] knowledge” (counsel’s words) Collins did not “initially”
submit an application for employment fails to successfully rebut Collins’ precise account of his
attempts to apply for work. In addition, the General Counsel adduced evidence that certain
other employees commenced working prior to the dates listed on their employment applications.
Although Mucci attempted to minimize the significance of this evidence by asserting that certain
employees may have initially submitted an incomplete application, which was then returned to
them for further processing, this vague and speculative testimony is inconclusive and without
probative force. Even if I were to credit Mucci, however, this would not help Respondent’s
position here, as it would be apparent that Respondent allowed a number of employees to
commence work without submitting a complete application, something they had been clearly
instructed to do.
Accordingly I find that Respondent’s excuse for not initially hiring Collins is pretextual in
nature. Moreover, even if I were to find that it was not pretextual, it is clear from the credible
evidence that Collins was treated in a disparate fashion from other employees who were
allowed to commence work even though their employment applications were not yet complete
or submitted to Respondent.
Thus, I find that the General Counsel has adduced the requisite elements of union
activity, knowledge and animus and Respondent has failed to show, by a preponderance of the
credible evidence that it would have treated Collins in the same fashion absent his union
activities. Accordingly, I find that Respondent’s delay in offering employment to Collins was
discriminatory in violation of Section 8(a)(3)and (1) of the Act.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
33
Conclusions of Law
1. The Respondent, Corbel Installations, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA) and the International
Brotherhood of Electricians, Local 1430 (Local 1430) are both labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the following acts and conduct Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)(2)(3) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
(a) By failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with Communications Workers of
America, AFL-CIO (CWA), as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the
following Unit at its facility located in Brooklyn, New York (Brooklyn facility), Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act:
All full and part-time technicians, warehouse workers and dispatchers
employed by the Employer at or out of Falcon's Strickland Avenue
facility, excluding all managerial employees, confidential employees,
guards and supervisors as defined under the Act.
(b) By unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of employment for the employees
in the above-described Unit without first giving notice to and bargaining with the CWA about
such changes, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
(c) By recognizing and contracting with Local 1430, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Local 1430) as the bargaining representative of employees in the
Unit, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
(d) By giving effect to and enforcing the September 1, 2012 collective-bargaining
agreement with Local 1430, including a union security provision, or any modification thereof, at
a time when Local 1430 did not represent an uncoerced majority of the Unit, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
(e) By enforcing a dues checkoff provision in its collective bargaining agreement with
Local 1430 by deducting dues from the salaries of employees at a time when the CWA
represented the Unit and Respondent did not have lawful authorization to deduct dues from
employee wages, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1),(2) and (3) of the Act.
(f) By telling or directing employees or applicants for employment, as a condition of
employment, to sign cards authorizing Local 1430 to represent them Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
(g) By telling employees that they would not receive benefits if they did not sign union
authorization cards in support of Local 1430, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the
Act.
(h) By delaying in hiring Kirk Collins because of his support for the CWA, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
34
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent should be ordered to recognize and, upon request, bargain with the
Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO (the CWA) as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the above-described Unit and if such an agreement is
reached embody such understanding in a signed agreement. Respondent should be required to
provide notice to and bargain to agreement or impasse with the CWA prior to instituting any
change to the terms and conditions of employment for Unit employees. Respondent should also
be ordered to withdraw recognition from the International Brotherhood of Employees, AFL-CIO,
Local 1430 (Local 1430) as the representative of the employees in the Unit and cease enforcing
or giving effect to its September 1, 2012 collective-bargaining agreement with Local 1430 or to
any related memorandum of agreement including all renewals, extensions and modifications
and to cancel it entirely. However, nothing in the Board’s order herein should be deemed to
authorize or require the withdrawal or elimination of any wage increase or other improved terms
and conditions of employment that may have been established pursuant to any agreements with
Local 1430, absent a request by the CWA. Respondent should be ordered to reimburse all
present and former Unit employees for all initiation fees, dues and other moneys paid by them
or withheld from them pursuant to the September 1, 2012 collective-bargaining agreement with
interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987),
compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8, enf.
denied on other grounds sub. nom. Jackson Hospital Corp. v. NLRB, 647 F.3d. 1137 (D. C. Cir.
2011. However, reimbursement shall not extend to those employees who voluntarily joined and
became members of Local 1430 prior to September 25, 2012. Respondent should also be
ordered to cease and desist from delaying in hiring employees because of their support for the
CWA and to make Kirk Collins whole for any loss of wages or benefits he may have suffered
due to Respondent’s discriminatory conduct, with interest, as set forth in New Horizons for the
Retarded and Kentucky River Medical Center, supra. Respondent shall also file a report with
the Social Security Administration allocating backpay to the appropriate calendar quarters, and
shall compensate Collins for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more
lump-sum backpay award covering periods longer than one year. Latino Express, Inc., 359
NLRB No. 44 (2012).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended46
ORDER
The Respondent, Corbel Installations, Inc., Mt. Vernon, New York, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with Communications Workers of

46 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
35
America, AFL-CIO (CWA), as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the
following Unit of employees employed at its facility located at 2400 East 69th Street,
Brooklyn, New York (Brooklyn facility):
All full and part-time technicians, warehouse workers and dispatchers
employed by the Employer at or out of Falcon's Strickland Avenue
facility, excluding all managerial employees, confidential employees,
guards and supervisors as defined under the Act.
(b) Unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of employment for the employees in
the above-described Unit without first giving notice to and bargaining with the CWA about such
changes.
(c) Recognizing and contracting with Local 1430, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Local 1430) as the bargaining representative of employees in the
Unit.
(d) Giving effect to and enforcing the September 1, 2012 collective-bargaining
agreement with Local 1430, or any modification thereof, at a time when Local 1430 does not
represent an uncoerced majority of the Unit.
(e) Enforcing a dues checkoff provision in its collective bargaining agreement with Local
1430 by deducting dues from the salaries of employees at a time when the CWA represents the
Unit and Respondent does not have lawful authorization to deduct dues from employee wages
(f) Telling or directing employees or applicants for employment, as a condition of
employment, to sign cards authorizing Local 1430 to represent them.
(g) Telling employees that they will not receive benefits if they do not sign union
authorization cards in support of Local 1430.
(h) Delaying in hiring employees because of their support for the CWA.
(i) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Communication workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA)
as the exclusive representative of the employees in the above appropriate Unit concerning
terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the
understanding in a signed agreement:
(b) Withdraw recognition from International Brotherhood of Electricians, Local 1430,
AFL-CIO (Local 1430) as the representative of its employees in the Unit and cease enforcing or
giving effect to its September 1, 2012 collective-bargaining agreement with Local 1430 or to any
related memorandum of agreement including all renewals, extensions and modifications and to
cancel it entirely. However, nothing herein should be deemed to authorize or require the
withdrawal or elimination of any wage increase or other improved terms and conditions of
employment that may have been established pursuant to any agreements with Local 1430,
absent a request by the CWA.
JD(NY)–20–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
36
(c) Make Unit employees whole for all initiation fees, dues and other moneys paid by
them or withheld from them pursuant to the September 1, 2012 collective-bargaining agreement
with Local 1430 in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(d) Make Kirk Collins whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the
decision.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the
Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay or other sums due under the
terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Brooklyn, New York
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”47 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 29 after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
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. In
addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as
by email, posting on an intranet or internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the
Respondent customarily communicates by employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since September 25, 2012.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 15, 2013
____________________
Mindy E. Landow
Administrative Law Judge

47 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice
reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
JD(NY)–20–13
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to recognize and bargain with Communications
Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA), as the collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in the following Unit located at and out of our facility located at 2400 East 69th
Street, Brooklyn, New York (Brooklyn facility):
All full and part-time technicians, warehouse workers and dispatchers
employed by the Employer at or out of Falcon's Strickland Avenue
facility, excluding all managerial employees, confidential employees,
guards and supervisors as defined under the Act.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change the terms and conditions of employment for the
employees in the Unit without first giving notice to and bargaining with the Union
about such changes.
WE WILL NOT recognize or contract with Local 1430, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Local 1430) as the bargaining representative of our
employees in the Unit.
WE WILL NOT give effect to or enforce our September 1, 2012 contract or
Memorandum of Agreement with Local 1430, or any modification thereof; provided,
however, we will not eliminate any wage increase, or other improved benefits or terms and
conditions of employment, that may have been established pursuant to the
performance of the above collective-bargaining agreements without a request from the CWA.
WE WILL NOT deduct dues for Local 1430 from the salaries of our employees unless
or until Local 1430 has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the
collective-bargaining representative of our employees at the Brooklyn facility.
WE WILL NOT tell or direct our employees or applicants for employment, as a
condition of employment, to sign cards authorizing Local 1430 to represent them.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that they will not receive benefits if they
do not sign union authorization cards in support of Local 1430.
WE WILL NOT delay in hiring employees because of their support for CWA.
JD(NY)–20–13
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you
in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain collectively with CWA as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the Unit described above, with regard
to your wages, hours, working conditions, and other terms and conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local 1430 as the collective-bargaining
representative of our employees.
WE WILL make whole Kirk Collins for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of our discrimination against him, less any net interim earnings,
plus interest.
WE WILL reimburse, with interest, all our present and former Unit employees for all initiation
fees and dues, plus interest, paid by them or withheld from them pursuant to the dues check-off
and union security clauses in the September 1, 2012 contract with Local 1430.
CORBEL INSTALLATIONS, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
Two MetroTech Center (North), Jay Street and Myrtle Avenue, 5th Floor
Brooklyn, New York 11201-4201
Hours: 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
718-330-7713.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 718-330-2862.