HY-BRAND INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS, LTD AND BRANDT CONSTRUCTION, CO., SINGLE EMPLOYERS AND/OR JOINT EMP

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Nov 14, 2016

25-CA-163189 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 14, 2016)

JD–109–16
Muscatine, IA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
HY-BRAND INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS, LTD.
AND BRANDT CONSTRUCTION, CO., AS A
SINGLE EMPLOYER AND/OR JOINT EMPLOYERS
and Cases 25–CA–163189
25–CA–163208
25–CA–163297
DAKOTA UPSHAW, an Individual 25–CA–163317
25–CA–163373
DAVID NEWCOMB, an Individual 25–CA–163376
25–CA–163398
RON SENTERAS, an Individual 25–CA–163414
25–CA–164941
AUSTIN HOVENDON, an Individual 25–CA–164945
NICOLE PINNICK, an Individual
Fredric Roberson and Patricia McGruder, Esqs.,
for the General Counsel.
James Faul, Esq. (Hartnett, Gladney Hetterman, L.L.C.),
for the Charging Parties.
Stanley E. Niew and David A. Courtright, Esqs. (Law Offices of Stanley E. Niew, P.C.),
for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. RINGLER, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Davenport,
Iowa from July 12 to 14, 2016. The complaint alleged that Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd.
(Hy-Brand) and Brandt Construction Co. (Brandt) are single and/or joint employers (collectively
called the Respondent), and terminated Dakota Upshaw, Cole Hinkhouse, Austin Hovendon,
Alezzandro Campbell, David Newcomb, Ron Senteras and Nicole Pinnick in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
On the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses’ demeanors, and after
considering post-hearing briefs, I make the following
JD–109–16
2
FINDINGS OF FACT1
I. JURISDICTION5
At all material times, Hy-Brand, a corporation located in Muscatine, Iowa, has performed
construction services as a general contractor. Annually, it provided services valued in excess of
$50,000 to clientele located outside of Iowa. It, thus, admits, and I find, that it is an employer
engaged in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. 10
At all material times, Brandt, a corporation located in Milan, Illinois, has performed
construction services as a highway builder. Annually, it provided services valued in excess of
$50,000 to clientele located outside of Illinois. It, thus, admits, and I find, that it is an employer
engaged in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. 15
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

A. Introduction
20
Brandt performs public works and other construction projects.2 It is a family business,
which is owned by Charles Brandt and his 3 sons, Terrance, Todd and Trent. It employs 140
employees, who act as laborers, operators, ironworkers, carpenters, masons and drivers.
Terrance Brandt (i.e. the eldest son) oversees all major decisions, and supervises Human
Resources Director Lisa Coyne, Safety Director Anna Copeland and Comptroller Kelly Bisbee. 25
Hy-Brand erects steel warehouses and other structures, and employs about 10
ironworkers, carpenters and masons. These workers are supervised by General Manager Randy
Sackville and Superintendent Mike Thurman. Sackville reports to Terrence Brandt.
30
B. Comparing Operations
1. Management and Ownership
The following chart is descriptive:35
Individual Brandt Hy-Brand
Charles W. Brandt President (50% interest) Same role and interest
Terrence L. Brandt Vice-President (25.5% interest) Same role and interest
Todd L. Brandt Secretary(12.5% interest) Same role and interest
Trent L. Brandt Treasurer (12% interest) Same role and interest
(GC Exh. 2).

1 Unless otherwise stated, factual findings arise from joint exhibits, stipulations and undisputed evidence.
2 Its projects include: asphalt and concrete paving of interstate roads and municipal airports; new and
rehabilitative structural concrete work; water line and sewer construction; and railway construction.
JD–109–16
3
2. Labor Policy and Control
a. Workplace Rules
Both entities maintain these identical workplace rules: Equal Employment Opportunity 5
(EEO policy); Workplace Harassment (harassment policy); Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA policy); and Drug Free Workplace (the Drug policy). (GC Exhs. 3–10). These policies
were drafted by Terrence Brandt and Brandt’s Coyne. Brandt and Hy-Brand employees are also
subject to common safety and mobile phone rules. Hy-Brand has its own safety manual (GC
Exh. 11), which was drafted by Hy-Brand’s Sackville and Brandt’s Copeland.10
b. Payroll and Benefit Administration
Brandt’s Coyne processes payroll and direct deposit, handles health, life and dental
insurance benefits, and maintains W-2 and tax records for both entities. Terrence and Todd 15
Brandt authorize direct deposit releases for both entities.
c. Annual Meeting
Hy-Brand and Brandt employees jointly attend an annual meeting, which is led by the 20
Brandt family. (GC Exhs. 12–14). Common employment, benefit, safety, labor relations and
training policies are reviewed at this meeting. (GC Exh. 13).
d. Hiring and Firing
25
Terrence Brandt makes firing decisions for both entities. (GC Exhs. 16, 18) (Hy-Brand);
(GC Exh. 20)(Brandt). Hy-Brand’s Sackville independently makes hiring decisions, although he
is managed by Terrence Brandt, who is empowered to reverse his decisions.
e. Common Benefits30
Employees of both entities receive identical 401K, health, dental and life insurance
benefits, and are covered under the same workers compensation policy. Hy-Brand reimburses
Brandt for such benefits. (R. Exh. 32).
35
f. Safety Servicing
Brandt’s Copeland provides safety services to Hy-Brand. She visits jobsites, provides
training, and cites deficiencies. (R. Exh. 36; tr. 327).
40
3. Interrelated Operations
a. Personnel
Certain operations are interrelated. Hy-Brand’s Upshaw testified that he worked 45
alongside Brandt employees on several projects, where he dually reported to Brandt and Hy-
JD–109–16
4
Brand managers. He recalled sharing a scissor lift with Brandt’s Adam Warren on a GSTC
warehouse project in 2015,3 and related that Brandt and Hy-Brand workers performed the same
work (i.e., rigging and steel erection) at this jobsite. Hy-Brand’s Hinkhouse and Hovendon, and
Brandt’s Senteras, provided similar testimony regarding the GSTC jobsite.4 Senteras added that
he also worked with Hy-Brand personnel at the Marquis Energy plant and John Deere warehouse 5
jobsites. No examples were offered of employees transferring between entities.
b. Equipment
Hy-Brand’s Upshaw recalled using Brandt equipment (e.g., a telehandler and skid steer). 10
Hy-Brand rented large-scale equipment and rolling stock (e.g., cranes) from Brandt.
c. Services and Billing
Hy-Brand performs construction services for Brandt, and then bills Brandt for such 15
services. (R. Exh. 21). The opposite is also true. (R. Exh. 22; GC Exhs. 26–32).
C. Discharges
1. Upshaw, Hovendon, Campbell and Hinkhouse20
On July 8, Upshaw, Hovendon, and Campbell submitted letters to Hy-Brand announcing
their decision to strike over unsafe working conditions, and substandard wages and benefits; they
also asked to meet over their grievances.5 (GC Exhs. 15, 17). Their letters did not describe an
intention to resign. Thereafter, they began their strike and left the jobsite.6 Although Hinkhouse 25
did not submit a strike letter, he simultaneously joined the strike and stated his intention to strike
to his supervisor, Larry Wendt.7 Upshaw, Hovendon, Campbell and Hinkhouse, who each
possessed strong demeanors and were highly consistent, testified that their sole intent was to
strike, i.e. not resign.8 On July 10, Terrence Brandt notified the employees that they had quit,
and terminated their employment. (GC Exhs. 16, 18, 23; R. Exh. 18A). 30
2. Newcomb
Newcomb testified about the safety concerns that he had, while he was employed at
Hy-Brand (e.g., the absence of a safety spotter and insufficient safety gear. He stated that, 35
consequently, he told Hy-Brand supervisor Andrew Campbell that he was joining the strike on
July 23. He also credibly denied resigning. On July 30, Terrence Brandt advised him that he
had quit. (GC Exh. 24).
40

3 All dates are in 2015, unless otherwise indicated.
4 Hy-Brand’s Newcomb indicated that, at the GTSC job, Brandt operated a crane, while Hy-Brand worked
the roof.
5 Campbell’s strike letter was not produced.
6 The strike was unaccompanied by picketing; it solely involved withheld labor.
7 Wendt was never called to rebut such testimony, which has been credited.
8 Such testimony was consistent with their strike letters and other undisputed record evidence.
JD–109–16
5
3. Senteras
On October 12, Senteras joined the strike. (GC Exh. 19). He credibly stated that he did
not resign. On October 12, Terrence Brandt advised him that he had resigned. (GC Exh. 20).
5
4. Pinnick

On November 18, Pinnick joined the strike. (GC Exh. 21). On November 19, she
received a similar discharge letter. (GC Exh. 22). In a November 25 letter, she advised Brandt
that she did not resign, was striking, and requested a meeting. (R. Exh. 9A). He did not reply. 10
5. Terrence Brandt’s Contentions

Terrence Brandt averred that the workers were not fired, were not classified as
resignations, and he knew that it was unlawful to fire strikers. (Tr. 517). He said that only 15
Hinkhouse was fired because he never tendered a strike letter.
6. Credibility Resolution
Terrence Brandt’s claim that the strikers were neither fired nor handled as resignations is 20
incredible. This testimony is irreparably contradicted by his letters, which repeatedly described
their resignations. His letters omitted any discussion of the strike or their connected employment
rights. I find, accordingly, that he fired the strikers, and falsely stated that they had quit.
III. Analysis25
A. Single Employer Status9
Brandt and Hy-Brand are a single employer. In Cimato Brothers, Inc., 352 NLRB 797,
798 (2008), the Board held:30
In determining whether two nominally separate employing entities constitute a
single employer, the Board examines four factors: (1) common ownership, (2)
common management, (3) interrelation of operations, and (4) common control of
labor relations. No single factor is controlling, and not all need be present. 35
Rather, single-employer status ultimately depends on all the circumstances. It is
characterized by the absence of an arm’s-length relationship among seemingly
independent companies.
This inquiry assesses whether nominally “separate corporations are not what they appear to be, 40
[and] that in truth they are but divisions or departments of a single enterprise.” NLRB v. Deena
Artware, Inc., 361 U.S. 398, 402 (1960). Centralized control of labor relations is, generally,
considered to be the most important factor in this analysis. See, e.g., Geo. V. Hamilton, Inc., 289
NLRB 1335, 1337 (1988). “[C]ommon ownership, while significant, is not determinative in the
absence of centralized control over labor relations.” Mercy Hospital of Buffalo, 336 NLRB 45

9 This allegation is listed under complaint par. 3.
JD–109–16
6
1282, 1284 (2001).
1. Common Ownership and Management
Common ownership and management favors single employer status. Both entities have 5
the same owners in identical percentages, with common presidents, vice-presidents, secretaries,
treasurers, safety officers, and human resources officials.
2. Central Control of Labor Relations
10
This factor heavily supports single employer status. First, Hy-Brand lacks a human
resources department and delegates this key labor relations function to Brandt, which administers
payroll, tax, and direct deposit matters for both entities. Second, both entities are subject to
identical EEO, harassment, FMLA, drug, safety and cell phone polices. Third, both entities offer
identical health, life, dental, and retirement benefits, which are administered by Brandt. All 15
workers are covered under the same workers compensation insurance policy. Fourth, all
employees attend an annual meeting, which addresses several common employment issues.
Additionally, Terrence Brandt makes firing decisions at both entities, and Copeland provides
safety consulting services to both entities.
20
3. Interrelationship of Operations
This factor favors single employer status. Employees of both entities work together on
certain projects, and periodically share equipment. Brandt rents equipment and machinery to
Hy-Brand, and receives reimbursement. Hy-Brand performs construction services for Brandt, 25
and vice versa, and then bills the other entity. No evidence was presented, which established that
these arrangements were arms-length deals involving a market rate of compensation.
4. Conclusion
30
Respondent is a single employer. All factors were satisfied; there is a clear lack of an
arm’s-length relationship.
B. Joint Employer Status10
35
Respondent is also a joint employer, on the basis of much of the same evidence that
prompted a single employer finding. In BFI/Newby Island Recyclery, 362 NLRB No. 186, slip
op. at 15 (2015), the Board described the following joint employer test:
The Board may find that two entities …are joint employers of a single work force 40
if they are both employers within the meaning of the common law, and if they
share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions
of employment. [citations and footnotes omitted].

The Board does not require actual control over essential terms and conditions of employment; it 45

10 This allegation is listed under complaint par. 4.
JD–109–16
7
is sufficient that the alleged joint employer has the authority to do so.11 Terms of employment
such as hiring, firing, disciplining, supervising and directing employees as well as wages and
hours are examined to determine whether such authority exists. Other examples include
dictating the number of workers, controlling scheduling, seniority and overtime, assigning work,
and determining the manner and method of work. Id.; see also, Retro Environmental, Inc., 364 5
NLRB No. 70, slip op. at 5 (2016).
Respondent is a joint employer; employees’ essential terms and conditions of
employment are jointly governed. Both entities share payroll, tax, overtime, timesheets, and
direct deposit duties. They administer identical workplace policies and rules covering EEO, 10
harassment, FMLA, drug, safety, workers compensation, and cell phone issues. They share in
the administration of several identical benefits, including health, life, dental, and retirement
benefits. Day-to-day safety issues are jointly administered by Copeland, who services both
Brandt and Hy-Brand. Joint governance is reinforced at annual meetings. Finally, VP Terrence
Brandt makes firing decisions at both entities and is unequivocally empowered to make all key 15
personnel decisions, even though he delegates many ministerial tasks to lower level supervision.

C. Discharge Allegations12
Respondent unlawfully discharged Upshaw, Hinkhouse, Hovendon, Campbell, 20
Newcomb, Senteras, and Pinnick (collectively called the strikers). They were fired for engaging
in a work stoppage, and were intentionally mislabeled as resignations. Respondent failed to
show that they abandoned their employment before their firings.
1. Legal Precedent25
In Atlantic Scaffolding Co., 356 NLRB 835 (2011), the Board held as follows:
[W]hen an employer asserts that employees were discharged because they would
not return to work after commencing a work stoppage, the assertion suggests that 30
the discharge was for engaging in the work stoppage itself…. In order to show
that employees truly abandoned their jobs, an employer must present
“unequivocal evidence of intent to permanently sever [the] employment
relationship.” ….
35
Where …employees are terminated for engaging in a protected concerted work
stoppage, Wright Line is not the appropriate analysis, as the existence of the
8(a)(1) violation does not turn on the employer’s motive…. Rather, when the
conduct for which the employees are discharged constitutes protected concerted
activity, “the only issue is whether [that] conduct lost the protection of the Act 40
because … [it] crossed over the line separating protected and unprotected

11 Thus, the Board overruled prior precedent to the extent those cases held that mere authority to control
employees’ terms and conditions of employment was an inadequate indicia of joint employer status unless
the authority was exercised directly and immediately and not in a limited and routine manner. BFI, supra,
slip op. at 16.
12 These allegations are listed under complaint pars. 6 and 7.
JD–109–16
8
activity.”
Id. at 838 (citations omitted).
2. Analysis5
The strikers engaged in protected activity, when they conducted a work stoppage
regarding safety, wages and benefits. The essence of their work stoppage was repeatedly
communicated in their strike letters.13 (GC Exhs. 15, 17, 19, 21, 22).
10
Respondent did not show that they had quit, as asserted in their termination letters. The
strikers credibly testified that they did not resign, and such testimony was consistent with their
strike letters. Respondent, as a result, fell vastly short of proving that they “unequivocal[ly] …
intend[ed] to permanently sever [their] employment relationship.” L.B. & B. Associates, Inc.,
346 NLRB 1025, 1029 (2006), enfd. 232 Fed. Appx. 270 (4th Cir. 2007). Respondent similarly 15
failed to show that the strikers lost the protection of the Act by engaging in misconduct. See
Atlantic Scaffolding Co., supra 356 NLRB at 836. There was no showing in this regard.
In sum, the record clearly shows that the Respondent fired the strikers because they
participated in a protected, concerted work stoppage. Any claims that they had quit or lost the 20
Act’s protection was a sham. Their discharges, therefore, violated the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Brandt and Hy-Brand, which collectively comprise the Respondent, are single and 25
joint employers, and are jointly and severally liable for the violations found herein.
2. Brandt and Hy-Brand are individually, and as single and joint employers,
employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
30
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging Upshaw, Hinkhouse,
Hovendon, Campbell, Newcomb, Senteras, and Pinnick for participating in a work stoppage.
4. The unfair labor practices set forth above affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.35
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent committed unfair labor practices, it is ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the Act’s policies. It must40
offer the strikers full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if such jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed. It must also make them whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of their discrimination. Backpay shall be computed in accordance
with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New 45

13 Knowledge of the strike was also conceded by Terrence Brandt.
JD–109–16
9
Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical
Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). Moreover, in accordance with King Soopers, Inc., 364 NLRB No.
93 (2016), it shall compensate them for their search-for-work and interim employment expenses,
if any, regardless of whether those expenses exceed interim earnings. Search-for-work and
interim employment expenses shall be calculated separately from taxable net backpay, with 5
interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, supra, compounded daily as prescribed in
Kentucky River Medical Center, supra. It is further ordered to compensate the strikers for any
adverse tax consequences associated with receiving a lump-sum backpay award and to file with
the Regional Director a report allocating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar year.
AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016). It is must also remove from its files 10
any references to these unlawful discharges, and within 3 days thereafter to notify the strikers in
writing that this has been done and that their discipline will not be used against them in any way.
It shall also post the attached notice in accord with J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB 11 (2010).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the entire record, I issue the 15
following recommended14
ORDER
Respondent, a single and joint employer, which consists, inter alia, of Hy-Brand 20
Industrial Contractors, Ltd. (Hy-Brand) of Muscatine, Iowa, and Brandt Construction Co.
(Brandt) of Milan, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
25
a. Firing or otherwise discriminating against its employees for participating
in a work stoppage or engaging in any other protected concerted activities.
b. In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.30
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
a. Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Upshaw, Hinkhouse,35
Hovendon, Campbell, Newcomb, Senteras and Pinnick full reinstatement to their former jobs or,
if such jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
b. Make these employees whole for loss of earnings and other benefits 40
suffered due to the discrimination against them, as set forth in this decision’s remedy section.
c. Compensate these employees for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of

14 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–109–16
10
receiving a lump-sum backpay award, and file with the Regional Director, within 21 days of the
date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the
backpay award to the appropriate calendar year.
d. Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from its files any 5
reference to these unlawful discharges, and within 3 days thereafter, notify the strikers in writing
that this has been done and that their discharges will not be used against them in any way.
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 10
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 due under the terms of this
Order.
15
f. Within 14 days after service by Region 25, post at its Milan, Illinois and
Muscatine, Iowa facilities copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”15 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director, 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 20
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. If the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in 25
these proceedings, it shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all
current employees and former employees employed by it at any time since July 10, 2015.
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 30
steps that it has taken to comply.
Dated Washington, D.C. November 14, 2016
35

15 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.”
Robert A. Ringler
Administrative Law Judge
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against you for participating in a strike or
engaging in any other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights set forth above.
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Upshaw, Hinkhouse,
Hovendon, Campbell, Newcomb, Senteras and Pinnick full reinstatement to their former jobs or,
if such jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make these employees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting
from their discharges, less any net interim earnings, plus interest, plus reasonable search-for-
work and interim employment expenses.
WE WILL compensate them for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum
backpay awards, and WE WILL file with the Regional Director, within 21 days of the date the
amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the backpay
award to the appropriate calendar year for these employees.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any
reference to the unlawful discharges of these employees, and WE WILL, within 3 days
thereafter, notify them in writing that this has been done and that their discharges will not be
used against them in any way.
HY-BRAND INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS,
LTD. AND BRANDT CONSTRUCTION CO.,
SINGLE AND JOINT EMPLOYERS
(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.
575 North Pennsylvania Street, Federal Building, Room 238, Indianapolis, IN 46204–1577
(317) 226–7382, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/25-CA-163189 or by using the
QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National
Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING
AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE
DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (317) 226–7413