Kieft Brothers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jul 21, 2009

13-CA-045023 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 21, 2009)

JD-33-09
Elmhurst, IL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
KIEFT BROTHERS, INC. Cases 13-CA-45023
13-CA-45058
and 13-CA-45062
13-CA-45194
GENERAL TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
SALESDRIVERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL 673
and
JAIME NIEVES,
An Individual
and
CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL
LABORERS, LOCAL UNION #25
Brigid Garrity and Neelam Kundra, Esqs., for the General Counsel.
Linda M. Doyle, Esq., (McDermott, Will & Emery) Chicago, Illinois,
for the Respondent.
John Toomey, Esq., (Arnold & Kadjan) Chicago, Illinois for Charging
Party Teamsters Local 673.
Robert Cervone, Esq. (Dowd, Bloch & Bennet) Chicago, Illinois for
Charging Party Laborers Local Union #25.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
ARTHUR J. AMCHAN, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Chicago,
Illinois, from April 13-16, 2009. Teamsters Local 673 filed the charge in case 13-CA-45023 on
November 24, 2008. Jaime Nieves filed the charge in 13-CA-45058 on December 16, 2008.
Laborers Local # 25 filed the charge in 13-CA-45062 on December 17, 2008. On February 1,
2009, the Region issued a Consolidated Complaint.
On the entire record,1 including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and

1 I grant the General Counsel’s July 1, 2009 motion to correct the transcript. I would note
that the first correction is at page 12 lines 16-17, rather than at line 12 as stated in the motion.
These corrections are logical and consistent with the context of the testimony. For purposes of
this decision the most important corrections are as follows:
Tr. 160, lines 10-12: I find that witness Jaime Nieves testified that, “I told them that we
already had problems with OSHA…”
Tr. 238, lines 15-16: I find that witness Virgilio Nieves testified that, “He said well, I don’t
Continued
JD-33-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Respondent and Charging Party
Teamsters Local 673, I make the following
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
Respondent Kieft Brothers, Inc. manufactures precast concrete manholes at its facility in
Elmhurst, Illinois. It also sells and delivers manholes and other plumbing products, such as
sewer pipe, from this location. During 2008, Respondent purchased and received goods,
products and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from points outside of Illinois. Respondent
admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Unions, Teamsters Local 673 and Laborers Local #25
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
Overview
The General Counsel alleges that agents of Respondent threatened employees on
several occasions in violation of Section 8(a)(1) in October and November 2008. He also
alleges that Respondent interrogated an employee about his union sympathies in violation of
Section 8(a)(1).
Respondent laid off four employees on November 7, 2008 and five more on November
21, 2008. The General Counsel alleges that these lay-offs and Respondent’s failure to reinstate
these employees were discriminatorily motivated and thus violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1). The
General Counsel contends that not only was the decision to have a lay-off discriminatorily
motivated, but that anti-union animus also contributed to Respondent’s choice of which
employees were chosen for lay-off.
Furthermore, the General Counsel alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) in failing to give Teamsters Local 673 prior notice and an opportunity to bargain with respect
to the layoffs of the five employees who were truck drivers and the effects of the layoffs. The
Board certified Local 673 as the bargaining representative of Respondent’s drivers on October
22, 2008, two weeks before the first lay-offs occurred.2
Finally, the General Counsel alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) in
refusing and failing to provide Local 673 information the Union had requested about the
company’s health care plan and its financial records.
Statement of Facts
Respondent, Kieft Brothers, Inc., has been in business for more than thirty years. It
produces manholes for use in the storm water and waste water markets. Respondent also
_________________________
think Larry is going to be really happy.”
Tr. 675, lines 5-7, 9, 12, 20-21: The references to Ms. Kundra should be to Ms. Doyle.
In addition, Tr. 864, line 17: 2007 should read 2008.
2 Respondent’s obligation to bargain with the Union, however, began on the date of the
election, October 10, 2008.
JD-33-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
purchases, sells and delivers sewer pipe. Its products are used in residential construction and
in highway construction. Thus, Kieft’s customers include private developers and governmental
entities.
Until November 2005, Kieft Brothers was a family owned business. In that month, the
Kieft family sold the business to KBI Holdings, Inc., which is managed by Freedom Venture
Partners. George Smith is the Chief Executive Officer of KBI Holdings and thus the owner of
Kieft Brothers. Ed Carroll is Respondent’s Chief Financial Officer. Although the Kieft family no
longer owns Respondent, Larry Kieft, a son of the founder, remains with the company as
President. His brother, Tom Kieft, was Respondent’s Vice-President of Operations until
November 2008. Larry’s father, Bob Kieft, retains a position as a consultant to Respondent.3
On July 28, 2008, George Smith sent a letter to all Kieft Brothers employees, GC Exh. 7.
The stated purpose of the letter was to provide Respondent’s employees with information
regarding wage changes, cash bonuses and the company’s discretionary bonus program.
Smith informed the employees that wage changes, cash bonuses and the discretionary
bonus would be influenced by Kieft’s financial performance and management’s assessment of
each employee’s performance for the past year. Further, he informed employees that
compensation would be based on a three-tier employee assessment. Employees, he wrote,
had already been ranked and placed in three categories; those who in the past year exceeded
expectations; those who met expectations and those whose performance was below
expectations. Smith stated that the bonus program was designed to provide incentives for
employee performance and to reward Kieft’s top performers.
Smith continued:
Kieft is experiencing a downturn in its business due to decreased levels of construction
activity in the suburbs and Chicago market. The Company is also experiencing
significant price increases related to its raw materials, supplies and fuel. As a result of
these conditions, the Company’s financial performance has declined relative to recent
years. Given this financial performance, management has made the decision this year
to reduce the level of raises and cash bonuses. In addition, management has made the
decision to forego the discretionary bonus program during 2008.
***
…We are hopeful that the economy will improve during fiscal year 2009 and that the
company will be in a position to increase the annual wage and cash bonus levels and to
fund the discretionary bonus program again.
***
…If we all take a team approach during this time it should help the Company through

3 Respondent’s Answer admits that Larry and Bob Kieft are statutory supervisors and agents
of Respondent and that Tom Kieft was a supervisor at all times relevant to this matter. It also
admits that Chuck Rogers, who allegedly violated Section 8(a)(1) on behalf of Respondent is a
statutory supervisor and agent. While Respondent’s Answer denied that Smith and Carroll are
owners of Respondent, they are clearly agents of Respondent. Moreover, Respondent’s
President, Larry Kieft, described George Smith as “the owner” of Kieft Brothers, Tr. 427.
JD-33-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
these weaker market conditions. We are hopeful that if everyone is focused on the big
picture —which is the health of Kieft—and strives to work efficiently that we will be well
positioned to make it through this economic downturn without lay-offs or a reduction in
our workforce. Please note that pursuant to Illinois law your employment with Kieft is at-
will and your salary or hourly compensation is not a guarantee of employment for one
year or for any other term.
In late August or early September employees rated in the highest tier, the “A” tier,
received a bonus of 3% of their salary based on Respondent’s assessment of their
performance. Employees rated in the second or “B” tier, including drivers Ray Embury and
Chuck Dickerson who were laid off in November, received a 1.5% bonus; employees in the third
or “C” tier, for the first time during their employment with Kieft, did not receive a bonus, Tr. 456,
30, 73-74, 92, 186, R. Exh. 1.4
Teamsters Local 673 began organizing Respondent’s drivers sometime in 2008. The
Union held a meeting on August 28, 2008 at which a number of drivers signed authorization
cards. The Union then filed a representation petition with the Board on August 29. The petition
was faxed to Respondent on September 2, Tr. 649.
In September 2008 Laborers Local 25 began an organizing campaign amongst the
production laborers at Kieft’s facility. It faxed its representation petition to Respondent on
October 20, 2008, Tr. 649.
One week prior to the representation election for the drivers’ unit, which was scheduled
and conducted on October 10, George Smith sent letters to Kieft’s drivers urging them to vote
against union representation, GC Exhs. 3 and 4. His October 3, letter concluded:
The Union cannot guarantee you much and they cannot force the company to do much
of anything. When you evaluate the advantages of being a Kieft employee against the
disadvantages of joining the union and monetary cost of joining that membership, I am
confident that you will see the only answer is to VOTE NO UNION.
In his October 4, letter, Smith again urged Respondent’s drivers to vote against the
Union and stated:
…We are hopeful that with all of the information that has been communicated to you
recently that one message has been made clear - - - we value you as an employee and
we will continue to work hard to maintain our position as a stable employer who provides
a generous compensation package to our employees so that you can support you and
your family.
…Throughout the years, Kieft has maintained a philosophy that it wants to keep its
drivers busy even during slow business periods. During the winter months or rain days
when customers are not accepting deliveries we have made it a point to offer our drivers
non-delivery work assignments to keep them working…

4 The timing of this bonus is critical is assessing Respondent’s claim that it decided to lay-off
nine employees before it knew of the Teamsters’ organizing drive. Payment of the bonus in late
August or September 2008, is established by the uncontradicted testimony of George Kent and
Jaime Nieves. The timing of the payment of a performance bonus to two drivers it later laid off,
Embury and Dickerson, is inconsistent with a determination to lay-off nine employees in August.
JD-33-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
Alleged Section 8(a)(1) violation on October 9, 2009
Teamsters Local 673 held a rally outside of Respondent’s premises on October 9.
During this rally Respondent called the Elmhurst Police twice and complained that participants
in the rally were blocking the road adjacent to its property. The General Counsel alleges in
Complaint paragraph V (a) that Larry Kieft threatened employees with discharge if they attended
this rally.
In support of this allegation, Charles Dickerson, a driver who was laid off by Respondent
a month and a half later, testified that Larry Kieft asked him if he wanted to go out and join the
rest of the unemployed people at the rally, Tr. 87.
Larry Kieft testified in a very ambiguous fashion that he did not tell “an employee” that he
can go join the unemployed if he liked. Kieft testified that he said to “somebody at the union,”
“shouldn’t you be working,” Tr. 808. He also testified that he told Respondent’s employees that
they could join the rally if they wanted to do so, Tr. 421. Larry Kieft did not deny that he spoke
to Chuck Dickerson on the day of the rally. He did not testify about anything he said to
Dickerson. Given Kieft’s failure to testify directly that he did not tell Dickerson that he could go
join the unemployed, I credit Dickerson’s account.
Additional evidence of anti-union animus supports a finding of restraint, interference and
coercion of Chuck Dickerson’s Section 7 rights.
Moreover, given the fact that Kieft called the Elmhurst police twice during the Teamsters’
rally, I do not credit his testimony at Tr. 421-22, which suggests that he spontaneously invited
Kieft employees to attend the Teamsters rally at the end of the day “in a friendly way.” Finally, I
reject the assertion in Respondent’s brief at page 4 that such a statement given the state of the
American economy on October 9, 2008 would be perceived as a joke. To the contrary, his
statement in connecting support for the Teamsters to unemployment, would reasonably coerce
Dickerson and therefore violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, Kona 60 Minute Photo, 277 NLRB
867, 867-88 (1985).
More evidence of anti-union animus
On October 9, on the night before the election, Respondent changed the locks on the
front gate of its facility and then changed the locks back after the election. It also hired a
martial arts fighter as a security guard solely for the purpose of being on its premises during the
election. These measures indicate a substantial degree of anti-union animus on Respondent’s
part. Even assuming that Teamster vehicles blocked the roadway on October 9, as Respondent
contends, Respondent has shown no reasonable basis for it to conclude that its employees
would assist unauthorized persons to gain entry into its premises or that there would be any
activity inside its facility during the election that warranted a security guard’s presence solely for
the election.
Driver’s unit election on October 10; Laborer’s representation petition on October 20;
Certification of the Teamsters on October 22,
The Board conducted a representation election on October 10, in which 9 votes were
cast in favor of representation by Teamsters Local 673 and zero votes were cast against such
representation. The Board certified Local 673 as the exclusive authorized bargaining
representative of Kieft’s drivers on October 22.
JD-33-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
A number of laborers signed union authorization cards in October. Local 25 filed a
representation petition on October 20, 2008. This petition was faxed to Respondent the day it
was filed.
Alleged Section 8(a)(1) violation in Complaint paragraph 5(b)
Laborer Miseal Ramirez, who was laid off on November 7, 2009, testified that he had an
encounter regarding the Union with Respondent’s Operations Manager, Chuck Rogers, in
October 2009. Ramirez testified that he walked into Respondent’s production room and saw
Rogers talking on a cell phone. Then Ramirez stated that Rogers told whoever he was talking
to that the union was coming in and somebody was going to get fired. According to Ramirez,
Rogers then turned and stared at him, Tr. 209-10.
Rogers did not directly contradict Ramirez. He testified that he never told any employee
that they might be fired for supporting the union and that he never suggested to any employee
that they might be laid off if they supported the union. He also testified that he ever never had
any conversation with Miseal Ramirez about the union, Tr. 375-76. This is not the same as
denying that he said what Ramirez testified Rogers said in his presence. I therefore credit
Ramirez. I would note that Ramirez’s testimony is consistent with that of Virgilio Nieves,
discussed below, that Rogers told Virgilio that Larry Kieft was really mad about Respondent’s
employees’ union activities. Despite the fact that Rogers was not initially speaking to Ramirez,
his remark constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1), Valley Community Services, 314 NLRB
903, 907, 914 (1994).5
Alleged Section 8(a)(1) violation on November 3, 2009, Complaint paragraph 5(c)
Laborer Jaime Nieves testified that on his way to lunch on November 3, he noticed
Respondent’s Operations Manager, Chuck Rogers, holding a ladder for employee Mark Kieft.
Nieves testified that he said to Rogers that, “we already had problems with OSHA not wearing
our harnesses at work…” He testified further that Rogers responded by saying that Nieves was
probably the one that calls the agencies and who called the unions. Nieves stated he asked
Rogers why he wanted to know and Rogers told him that if he’s the one who made the call, he’d
probably lose his job for it, Tr. 160.
Rogers testified in a confusing manner about a conversation with Jaime Nieves at Tr.
368-372. Rogers first stated that he had a conversation with Jaime Nieves about the economy
which changed to a conversation about the Union. Rogers testified that he told Jaime Nieves
that the economy was really bad and there were a lot of people out of work. According to
Rogers, Jaime Nieves responded by asking him whether his statement was a threat.
Rogers never directly contradicted Jaime Nieves’ testimony, but relied on general
denials about what he told employees, Tr. 375-76. He stated that he never brought up the
subject of union elections or unions and that neither did Nieves. Thus, Rogers’ initial statement
that the conversation changed to a conversation about the Union is unexplained. Finally, Jaime
Nieves’ testimony is consistent with that of his brother, which is discussed below, regarding
statements Rogers made to Virgilio concerning Larry Kieft’s anger about union activity. I credit
Jaime Nieves and conclude that Respondent, by Chuck Rogers violated Section 8(a)(1).

5 Indeed, this is stronger case for a Section 8(a)(1) finding than Valley Community Services
in that Rogers was clearly aware that Ramirez was in earshot when he made his remarks.
JD-33-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
The unprecedented lay-offs on November 7, and November 21, 2008
On November 7, 2008, Respondent laid off four employees, laborers Miseal Ramirez
and Brandon White, and drivers Eracilio “Rocky” Esparza and Mike Kronkow. Respondent did
not provide Teamsters Local 673 prior notice of the lay-offs of drivers Esparza and Kronkow.
On November 21, Respondent laid off three additional drivers, Ray Embury, George
Kent and Charles Dickerson and two additional laborers, Jaime Nieves and Jose Jardon.
Respondent did not give Teamsters Local 673 prior notice of the lay-offs of the three additional
drivers. Kent had worked for Kieft Brothers for over 30 years; Jaime Nieves for 24 years;
Dickerson for 12. Respondent retained employees who had worked for it for only a few years.
In the twenty-five years prior to November 2008, Respondent laid off only one driver for
the winter; it never implemented a mass lay-off like the one in the instant case. Even if I
accepted Respondent’s testimony at face value there is no evidence that it ever laid off more
than one employee at a time prior to November 2008.6 As Respondent stated in its October 4,
2008 letter to its drivers, its practice had always been to keep its drivers working during slow
periods.
Complaint Paragraph 5(d) alleged interrogation by Chuck Rogers7
Virgilio Nieves, one of Respondent’s laborers, who drives a forklift in Kieft Brothers’ yard,
testified that Operations Manager Chuck Rogers asked him what he thought about employees
bringing a union into Kieft a week or two weeks before an NLRB election, Tr. 237-38.8 Virgilio
Nieves told Rogers that the employees were doing what they thought was right for them.
Rogers responded by telling Virgilio that he didn’t understand why employees were bringing in a
union because they were paid twice as much as employees at the firm at which Rogers used to
work. Nieves told Rogers that the pro-union employees were trying to keep the benefits they
already had. He testified that Rogers then said, “Larry Kieft says that he’s not going to be really
happy. I think he’s going to be really mad about it.”
Rogers conceded that he approached Virgilio Nieves and asked him how he felt about
the Union and that he told Nieves how much better compensated Kieft employees were than
employees at other companies for which Rogers had worked, Tr. 373. He recalls this
conversation occurring prior to the Teamster’s election “before the time we knew anything about
a Laborers’ election.” Rogers also testified that his inquiry to Nieves concerned the Teamsters
and the drivers, not the laborers, Tr. 382. I discredit this testimony.

6 Other than evidence that Respondent laid off driver Robert Boland in 1997, there is no
reliable evidence that it ever laid off any employee. I would note that Respondent called
dispatcher Gary Egerton as a witness and failed to substantiate through him its claim that
Egerton was laid off in 1983.
7 The General Counsel moved to amend the Complaint to include this allegation and that in
paragraph 7(d) and the outset of the trial, Tr. 8-9. I granted the motion over Respondent’s
objection to the addition of paragraph 7(d) relating to an alleged failure to provide the Teamsters
information they requested in January 2009. Respondent did not object to the addition of
paragraph 5(d).
8 Virgilio Nieves is the brother of Kieft laborer Jaime Nieves, who was laid off on November
22.
JD-33-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
I find that the conversation occurred after Rogers was aware that Laborer’s Local 25
filed a representation petition on October 20. It is illogical to conclude that Rogers, who had
responsibility for the laborers and none for the drivers, would be asking Virgilio Nieves, a
laborer, how he felt about the Teamsters’ organizing drive. Moreover, Nieves’ account, which I
credit in its entirety, makes it clear that Rogers was comparing Kieft’s laborers’ wages to those
paid laborers by other employers. Rogers testified that Nieves said he didn’t know how he felt
about the Union.
Rogers’ inquiry violated Section 8(a)(1). The applicable test for determining whether the
questioning of an employee constitutes an unlawful interrogation is the totality-of-the-
circumstances test adopted by the Board in Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984), affd. sub
nom. Hotel Employees Union Local 11 v. NLRB, 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985). In analyzing
alleged interrogations under the Rossmore House test, it is appropriate to consider what have
come to be known as “the Bourne factors,” so named because they were first set out in Bourne
v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964). Those factors are:
(1) The background, i.e. is there a history of employer hostility and discrimination?
(2) The nature of the information sought, e.g., did the interrogator appear to be seeking
information on which to base taking action against individual employees?
(3) The identity of the questioner, i.e. how high was he in the company hierarchy?
(4) Place and method of interrogation, e.g. was employee called from work to the boss’s
office? Was there an atmosphere of unnatural formality?
(5) Truthfulness of the reply.
These and other relevant factors “are not to be mechanically applied in each case.” 269
NLRB at 1178 fn. 20, Medicare Associates, Inc., 330 NLRB 935, 939 (2000).9 I find that the
questioning tended to coerce Nieves because he was not an open supporter of the Union and
because Rogers was high-level management official. Moreover, Rogers let Virgilio know that
company president Larry Kieft was seething with anti-union animus. Nieves’ evasive response
to the questioning also indicates that he was in fact intimidated and was concerned that Rogers
might be seeking information on which Respondent might take retaliatory action.
Rogers’ failure to specifically contradict Virgilio Nieves’ testimony regarding anti-union animus
on the part of Larry Kieft
Respondent’s counsel’s asked Rogers, “Did you say anything else after asking him that
question and getting his response?” Rogers answered, No, Tr. 374. He also answered
negatively to several other somewhat leading questions. However, Rogers did not specifically
address Nieves’ testimony that he told Nieves that Larry Kieft would be really mad about
employees bringing a union into the company. Moreover, Board law recognizes that the
testimony of current employees that contradicts statements of their supervisors is likely to be
particularly reliable. Flexsteel Industries, 316 NLRB 745 (1995), enfd. mem. 83 F.3d 419 (5th
Cir. 1996). The testimony of current employees that is adverse to their employer is “… given at
considerable risk of economic reprisal, including loss of employment … and for this reason not
likely to be false.” Shop-Rite Supermarket, 231 NLRB 500, 505 fn. 22 (1977). I therefore credit
Virgilio Nieves’ account and infer that Larry Kieft had expressed animus towards the union and
pro-union employees to Chuck Rogers.

9 Medicare Associates is frequently cited by the name Westwood Health Care Center.
JD-33-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
That Larry Kieft bore such animus is also indicated by the fact that he called the
Elmhurst police twice on October 9 concerning the Teamsters’ rally adjacent to his property,
changed the locks on Respondent’s gates the night before the election and hired a security
guard solely for the purpose of being on Kieft's premises during the election.10
The election in the Laborer’s unit
The Board conducted an election among Respondent’s laborers on December 1, 2008,
after Respondent had already laid off four of its laborers. Eight laborers voted against union
representation; six voted for the Union; one challenged ballot was not opened. Despite the fact
that the layoffs occurred during the critical period between the filing of the representation
petition and the election, Laborers Local 25 did not file objections to the conduct of the election.
As a general proposition, an employer violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) in unilaterally laying off
represented employees for economic reasons without providing prior notice to their collective
bargaining representative and without giving their labor organization an opportunity to bargain
about the lay-off decision and it effects.
In Lapier Foundry & Machine, 289 NLRB 952 (1988) the Board held that when an
employer lays off represented employees for economic reasons, it must bargain with their
collective bargaining representative over the decision to lay-off and the effects of that decision.
An employer’s decision to lay-off employees for economic reasons is a mandatory subject of
bargaining.
The Board noted that the a decision to lay off turns on labor costs and must be
bargained. A union can offer alternatives to the layoff, such as wage reductions, modified work
rules, or part-time schedules for a larger group to save the company money during an economic
downturn. The Board requires an employer to bargain over economic layoffs to insure that its
employees’ bargaining representative will have the opportunity to proposed less drastic
alternatives.
An employer may implement a decision to lay-off represented employees for economic reasons
without prior notice to their union if the decision to conduct the lay-off was made prior to its
employees’ selection of a bargaining representative
The Board has held that an employer who decides to lay-off employees before its
employees select a bargaining representative does not violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) if it
implements that decision after the selection of the bargaining representative, Starcraft
Aerospace, Inc., 346 NLRB 1228 (2006); SGS Control Services, 334 NLRB 858 (2001);
Consolidated Printers, Inc., 305 NLRB 1061, 1061 n. 2, 1067 (1992).
The General Counsel has made out its prima facie case that Respondent’s lay-off of its
employees in November 2008 was discriminatorily motivated and specifically that Respondent
decided to implement these lay-offs after it was aware of union activity on the part of both its
drivers and laborers.

10 Larry Kieft testified that the police asked the Teamsters to move their vehicles off a public
road twice, Tr. 787. Union organizer Santiago Perez testified that Teamster vehicles were not
blocking ingress or egress. There is no police report in this record.
JD-33-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
Respondent has not met its burden of proving non-discriminatory motivation for the lay-off or
that it decided upon the lay-offs prior to its awareness of its employees’ union activities, or prior
to its drivers’ selection of Local 673 as their collective bargaining representative.
In order to establish a violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1), the Board generally requires
the General Counsel to make an initial showing sufficient to support an inference that the
alleged discriminatees’ protected conduct was a ‘motivating factor’ in the employer’s decision.
Then the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the same action would have taken
place even in the absence of protected conduct, Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662
F.2d 889 (lst Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation
Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 399-403 (1983); American Gardens Management Co., 338
NLRB 644 ( 2002). Unlawful motivation and anti-union animus are often established by indirect
or circumstantial evidence.
However, in the case of a mass lay-off or discharge, the General Counsel is not required
to show a correlation between each employee’s union activity and the termination of his
employment. The General Counsel must only show that the decision to discharge or lay-off was
ordered to discourage union activity or retaliate against the protected conduct of some
employees, Davis Supermarkets, 306 NLRB 426 (1992). Thus, the General Counsel in this
case was not required to prove employer knowledge of each employee’s union activity or
support.
Nevertheless, Respondent knew prior to the lay-offs that every one of its drivers voted in
favor of representation by Teamsters Local 673 and that Ray Embury, one of the two drivers
who had been rated a “B” (his performance met expectations), had been the Teamsters’
observer at the October 10 election. Further, Larry Kieft’s October 9, comments to Chuck
Dickerson, the other “B” driver, leads me to conclude that Kieft was aware that Dickerson
actively supported the Union.
The lay-offs of Embury and Dickerson are particularly powerful indicia of discriminatory
motivation. Even assuming that Respondent had decided to lay-off some employees, it has not
presented any credible evidence that it decided to lay-off nine employees prior to its knowledge
of its employees’ union activity. Thus, there is no credible evidence as to when it decided to lay-
off two “B” employees, who I find it knew were among the more active union supporters.
I do not credit the testimony of Larry Kieft, as to how Respondent decided to lay-off
Embury and Dickerson, as opposed to other “B” employees. Although, he testified that a
decision to lay-off Embury and Dickerson was made on the basis of “cross-training,” Kieft did
not testify as to when this decision was made or by whom. Moreover, I find Kieft to an
incredible witness given his evasiveness with regard to his alleged comments to Dickerson at
the time of the Teamsters’ October 9 rally.
I also discredit Kieft on the basis on his testimony that he was unaware of the
Teamsters’ organizing drive until mid to late September 2008, Tr. 740. The parties stipulated
that the Teamsters’ representation petition was faxed to Respondent on September 2. Kieft, as
Respondent’s President, would have been aware of the petition almost immediately upon its
receipt. Finally, Kieft’s testimony regarding prior lay-offs, none of which, except one, are
documented, leads me to discredit him generally.
Discriminatory motivation and anti-union animus may reasonably be inferred from a
variety of factors, such as the company’s expressed hostility towards unionization combined
with knowledge of the employees’ union activities; inconsistencies between the proffered reason
JD-33-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
for its decision and other actions of the employer; a company’s deviation from past practices in
implementing its alleged discriminatory decision; and the proximity in time between the
employees’ union activities and their discharge, Birch Run Welding, 269 NLRB 756, 765-66
(1984); Birch Run Welding v. NLRB, 761 F.2d 1175 (6th Cir. 1985); W.F. Bolin Co. v. NLRB, 70
F. 3d 863, 871 (6th Cir. 1995).
I conclude that the General Counsel has made out a prima facie case of discriminatory
motivation that has not been rebutted. The timing of the lay-offs soon after the drivers
unanimously chose union representation suggests discriminatory motivation in conjunction with
Respondent’s stated opposition to unionization and its unprecedented mass-layoff.11
By the time of the lay-offs, Respondent knew that all nine of its drivers had voted in favor
of representation by Teamsters Local 673. Thus, Respondent knew that each driver had
engaged in protected activity prior to the lay-off. It also was aware that Laborers Local 25 had
filed a representation petition.12
There are also other indicia of discriminatory motive that Respondent did not rebut other
than by self-serving oral testimony, which I decline to credit. In its July 28, letter, Respondent
communicated to its employees its hope that Respondent would make it through the economic
downturn without lay-offs. In late August or early September, it paid cash bonuses to 2/3 of its
employees, including two that it later laid off. On October 4, Respondent reminded its drivers of
its philosophy (and past practice) of keeping its drivers busy even during slow periods and
giving them non-delivery work assignments during the winter months. In light of what occurred
after the election, the October 4 letter suggests that Respondent was willing to continue this
past practice only if its drivers rejected union representation.
Moreover, the record is replete with evidence of strong anti-union animus, particularly on
the part of President Larry Kieft. Therefore, I do not credit Respondent’s self-serving testimony
that it did not mean any of the reassuring statements made to employees on July 28, and
October 4, e.g. Tr. 504. Rather, I conclude that it decided to abandon its past practice of finding
work for its employees during slow periods after its drivers voted unanimously to be represented
by the Teamsters.

11 It is clear that in the thirty plus years it has been in business, prior to November 2008,
Respondent had never implemented a mass lay-off. Assuming that Kieft had previously laid off
employees, there is no evidence that it ever laid off more than one at a time prior the lay-offs at
issue in this case.
I note that had Respondent established that the November lay-offs were consistent with past
practice, this would not only cut against a finding of discriminatory motive, it would be a valid
defense to the Section 8(a)(5) allegation. However, to prove that it was entitled to lay-off drivers
without providing the Teamsters with notice and an opportunity to bargain, Respondent would
have to show that the practice occurred “with such regularity and frequency that employees
could reasonably expect the ‘practice’ to continue or reoccur on a regular and consistent basis.”
Sunoco, Inc., 349 NLRB 240, 244 (2007); Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 340 NLRB 349,
353 (2003), enfd. mem. 112 Fed. Appx. 65 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
12 It is well established that an employer's failure to take adverse action against all union
supporters does not disprove discriminatory motive, otherwise established, for its adverse action
against a particular union supporter, Master Security Services, 270 NLRB 543, 552 (1984);
Volair Contractors, Inc., 341 NLRB 673, 676 fn. 17 (2004).
JD-33-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
The most appealing factor in Respondent’s favor is the fact that by the fall of 2008, the
worst global recession since World War II had already begun. Respondent’s documentary
evidence also shows declining sales in 2008 as opposed to prior years. However, a decline in
business does not meet Respondent’s burden of proving a nondiscriminatory motive given the
strength of the General Counsel’s prima facie case. Indeed, Respondent’s Chief Financial
Officer, Ed Carroll testified that there is no one document that he could point to that precipitated
the decision to layoff particular people or lay-off anybody on November 7, or November 21,
2008, Tr. 929-30. Thus, Respondent’s affirmative defense rests entirely on the credibility of
testimony of its management witnesses.
Owner George Smith testified that it was liquidity, i.e., the assets Respondent had
available to cover its loan from its bank that triggered the November lay-off, Tr. 555-56.
Respondent’s reliance on liquidity concerns as its nondiscriminatory basis for a lay-off decision
in August is not credible.
Ed Carroll, Respondent’s Chief Financial Officer, discussed Respondent’s liquidity
concerns as reflected by its “borrowing base reports” at great length. Respondent filed these
reports, R. Exh. 9, with First Chicago Bank and Trust anywhere from five to fifteen days after the
end of the month for which they were submitted. According to these documents, Respondent
had the following amounts available to cover its loan in the period between April 30, 2007 and
January 31, 2009:
April 2007 $1,304,887.90 report submitted May 15, 2007
May 2007 $1,071,835.86 report submitted June 13, 2007
June 2007 $1,402,409.43 report submitted undated
July 2007 $1,343,100.58 report submitted August 6, 2007
August 2007 $1,204,068.50 report submitted September 13, 2007
September 2007 $620,975.33 report submitted October 12, 2007
October 2007 $1,392,411.65 report submitted November 9, 2007
November 2007 $918,851.48 report submitted December 5, 2007
December 2007 $232,081.48 report submitted January 15, 2008
January 2008 $122,808.56 report submitted February 14, 2008
February 2008 $168,485.99 report submitted March 13, 2008
March 2008 $ 95,174.04 report submitted April 11, 2008
April 2008 $303,018.08 report submitted May 14, 2008
May 2008 $990,284.68 report submitted May 12, 200813
June 2008 $521,603.07 report submitted undated
July 2008 $728,651.85 report submitted August 15, 2008
August 2008 $666,270.40 report submitted September 15, 2008
September 2008 $352,131.39 report submitted October 14, 2008
October 2008 $330,515.41 report submitted November 14, 2008
November 2008 $ 49,149.42 report submitted December 15, 2008
December 2008 $203.571.54 report submitted January 13, 2009
January 2008 $321,000.01 report submitted February 13, 2009
These figures alone, or in conjunction with the testimony of Respondent’s witnesses do
not establish a nondiscriminatory motive for the lay-offs. I would note first that there is no
evidence that Respondent’s bank threatened foreclosure or that Respondent had any

13 The date of this report looks like May 12, 2008, but if this report was for May it had to
have been submitted in June.
JD-33-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
discussions regarding its financial situation with this lender, or any other financial institution to
alleviate its liquidity concerns. The lack of such evidence contributes to my conclusion that
Respondent has failed to make out its affirmative defense, Huck Store Fixture, Co., 334 NLRB
119, 120 (2001).
Further, there is no credible explanation why, for example, the borrowing base figure for
March 2008 did not lead to a lay-off while the figure for November 2008, which Respondent did
not have until December 3, allegedly was a motivating factor for such a reduction in force.
Moreover, Respondent’s borrowing base improved slightly in July and August, when
Respondent claims to have made its decision to lay-off nine employees, as compared to June.
As the General Counsel sets out at page 27 of its brief, Respondent’s records regarding
concrete production and delivery, R. Exhibits 6 and 7, also fail to establish a nondiscriminatory
motive for the lay-offs. Concrete production increased from July to August 2008; deliveries of
concrete decreased somewhat. The decrease in concrete production and delivery, compared to
2007, are smallest for any months of the year.
Respondent has not established when it decided to lay-off employees, who made this decision
or decisions and/or the means by which this decision was finalized.
Larry Kieft testified that by the end of 2007 work was slowing down. George Smith also
testified that Kieft’s business started to decline in the third quarter of 2007, Tr. 458. According
to Kieft, by April-May 2008, Respondent knew 2008 was going to be “kind of a lean year,” Tr.
410-11. Kieft testified that in the “spring-summer” Dempsey Ing, Incorporated, which accounted
for 8-10% of Kieft’s business went bankrupt. Smith testified that in May 2008 Dempsey owed
Kieft $775,000.
Kieft intimated that George Smith and Ed Carroll first spoke to him about lay-offs in June
or July, Tr. 427. Carroll indicated that he told Kieft and Smith that Respondent needed
economic savings through reduced labor costs, Tr. 931. If credited, his testimony leaves open
the possibility that this reduction could have been realized through means other than lay-offs,
such as wage cuts, reduced hours and/or furloughs. There is no evidence that Respondent
considered any way to reduce labor costs other than by lay-off. Given the fact that I find that
this decision was made after Respondent knew about the Teamster’s election victory,
Respondent was legally obligated to bargain about such matters with Local 673.
Kieft testified on cross-examination that a decision to have a lay-off was made in June
and the decision as to how many employees were to be laid off was made in August, Tr. 752-
53. He also testified that the decision to lay-off employees “was officially made” in August, Tr.
428. Larry Kieft also testified that he thinks the decision to lay-off four laborers and five drivers
was made in August, Tr. 429. Later, he recalled that the decision was made at a meeting at
Respondent’s facility attended by himself, Larry Sims, Jr., Respondent’s General Manager and
George Smith, Tr. 749, but could not testify as to the date this decision was made, Tr. 759.
George Smith testified that he and Carroll starting considering lay-offs in May 2008, Tr.
464. He further stated that the decision on the quantity of lay-offs was made in the early part
August, but could not testify as to the date this decision was made and testified that there is no
documentation as to when this decision was made, Tr. 498-500. He testified that it could have
been either the first or second week of August. Smith also testified that the decision as to which
employees would be laid off was made in early August, Tr. 505, 507.
JD-33-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
Ed Carroll’s testimony as to when the critical decisions regarding the lay-off is even more
tentative. When asked when specific decisions were made, Carroll testified, “sometime in
August, I believe, it was,” Tr. 727. As to the number of employees to be laid off, Carroll testified
this was determined, “sometime in that August timeframe,” Tr. 728. Carroll’s testimony
suggests that the decision to lay off employees and the number to be laid off may have been
made at different times. The testimony of Smith and Larry Kieft suggests that a decision to lay-
off nine employees was made at the same time a decision was made to have any lay-off.
However, neither testified as to how it was determined that it was that nine employees, as
opposed to a lesser or greater number was chosen or who made that determination, Tr. 803-04,
Carroll also testified that he calculated the cost savings Respondent would realize from
the lay-off of nine employees in August. However, Respondent has no documentation to
support his testimony and I do not credit it.
The fact that Respondent paid cash bonuses to Ray Embury and Chuck Dickerson in
late August or early September makes it very unlikely that Respondent had decided to lay them
off before that date—particularly since neither Embury nor Dickerson knew they were getting a
bonus until the bonus appeared in their paychecks.
As to the exact timing that the layoffs would occur, Smith testified that Respondent
wanted to make it to Thanksgiving before laying off any employees, but decided to lay-off four
on November 7, due to a deteriorating liquidity situation, Tr. 555-56. He did not specify when
this decision to accelerate the lay-off of four employees was made.
Respondent’s liquidity problem markedly improved in December 2008 when Dempsey,
Ing paid Respondent $400,000 of the $775,000 it owed to Kieft Brothers and Respondent
determined that it had $150,000 in inventory more than what it showed on its books.
Ed Carroll testified that “right around Thanksgiving,” Respondent received notice that
$400,000 worth of liens on money due from Dempsey, Ing, were going to be processed, Tr. 872.
Respondent presented no documentary evidence to support this testimony. The exact date that
Respondent became aware that it was going to receive this money is critical to this case, in that
if Kieft knew it was receiving the $400,000 prior to November 21, it would have obviated the
need for some or all of the lay-offs. The date as of which Respondent knew or suspected that it
had additional inventory to cover its loan is also critical to Kieft’s contentions that it had to lay-off
nine employees in November to avoid foreclosure.
Respondent’s failure to present precise testimony as to when critical decisions were
made, who made those decisions and on what basis these decisions were made and its failure
to present precise and consistent testimony as to when it was aware of critical facts leads me to
discredit its affirmative defense. I thus conclude it has failed to rebut the General Counsel’s
prima facia case. Further I conclude that the decision to lay-off employees was discriminatorily
motivated and was made after the Teamsters prevailed in the October 10, representation
election.
The Teamsters’ Information Request
At the second bargaining session between Respondent and Teamsters Local 673 on
January 6, 2009, the Union proposed that Respondent agree to participate in its health
insurance and pension plan. Respondent rejected that proposal and stated it wished to remain
with its health insurance plan. Roger Kohler, Secretary-Treasurer of Teamster’s Local 673
asked Respondent for a copy of its health insurance plan, Tr. 281.
JD-33-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
When a collective bargaining representative seeks information from an employer
regarding matters pertaining to bargaining unit employees, the request is presumptively relevant
and the employer generally has a duty to provide such information. Respondent appears to
concede that the Union is entitled to the information it requested. Its defense is that it has not
refused to provide the information nor has it been dilatory in responding to the Union’s requests.
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) in failing to provide the Union a copy of its
health insurance plan in a timely fashion. This request was made orally to Respondent on
January 6. A request for information need not be in writing to commence an employer’s
obligation to provide the requested material, A.W. Schlesinger Geriatric Center, 304 NLRB 206,
207 n. 7 (1991); LaGuardia Hospital, 260 NLRB 1455 (1982). An employer must respond to an
information request in a timely manner. An unreasonable delay in furnishing such information is
as much of a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act as a refusal to furnish the information at all,
American Signature Inc., 334 NLRB 880, 885 (2001).14 In the instant case, Respondent’s
failure to provide the Union a copy of its health insurance plan from January 6, through April 14,
is an unreasonable delay and violates Section 8(a)(5).
Roger Kohler testified that his February 2, 2009 written information request was sent to
Respondent in the mail. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent received this letter.
However, on February 26, 2009, the Union sent a three page fax to McDermott, Will & Emery,
Respondent’s counsel’s law firm, GC Exh. 30. Only the cover sheet is in this record. That
sheet reflects a fax of three pages pertaining to an information request to Kieft Brothers. On
March 24, the Union sent a two page fax specifically addressed to Ms. Doyle at McDermott, Will
& Emery, GC Exh. 29. George Smith testified that he did not see the February 2, letter until late
March or early April, Tr. 518-19.
Respondent suggests that it was not aware of the February 2, letter until March 24, and
thus has not been unreasonably dilatory in responding to it. Given the fact that it has not been
established that Respondent was aware of the request for financial records until two to three
weeks prior to the hearing, I decline to find that it had violated Section 8(a)(5) in this regard as
of April 15. I would note, however, that if Respondent has not satisfied this request as of the
date of this decision, its failure to do so would be unreasonable.
Summary of Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent, by Larry Kieft, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on October 9, 2008,
when he asked employee Chuck Dickerson whether he wanted to join the rest of the
unemployed people at the Teamsters Local 673 rally.
2. Respondent, by Chuck Rogers, violated Section 8(a)(1) in October 2008 by stating in
the presence of employee Miseal Ramirez that the Union was coming in and somebody was
going to get fired.
3. Respondent, by Chuck Rogers, violated Section 8(a)(1) on or about November 3,
2008 by telling employee Jaime Nieves that if he was the one calling the agencies and the
unions he would probably lose his job.

14 This case has also been cited under the name of Amersig Graphics, Inc.
JD-33-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
4. Respondent, by Chuck Rogers, violated Section 8(a)(1) in October or November
2008 by interrogating Virgilio Nieves about whether he supported or sympathized with an
organizing drive at Respondent’s facility.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) in laying off four employees on
November 7, 2008 and five more employees on November 21, 2008.
6. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to give Teamsters Local 673
advance notice of its lay-off of five employees represented by Local 673 and failing to give the
Union an opportunity to bargain about the lay-off and/or its effects.
7. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) in failing to provide Teamsters Local 673
a copy of its health insurance plan in a timely manner.
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.
The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged employees, it must offer them
reinstatement and make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed on a
quarterly basis from date of discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement, less any net
interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as
computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
The Remedy for Respondent’s failure to give Teamsters Local 673 advance notice and an
opportunity to bargain over the November lay-offs.
The Board held in Lapier Foundry and Machine, supra, that the remedy for a failure to
bargain over a decision to lay off employees is reinstatement of the laid-off employees with
backpay, Id., at 955. It reiterated this holding in Ebenezer Rail Car Service, 333 NLRB 167
(2001).
The Board noted that this remedy provides an economic incentive for an employer to
comply with the rules that requires an employer to negotiate with the union before changing the
working conditions in the bargaining unit thereby preventing the employer from undermining the
union by taking steps which suggest to the workers that the union is powerless to protect them.
Thus, I will order Respondent to reinstate employees Esparza, Kronkow, Dickerson, Kent and
Embury as a remedy for Respondent’s failure to bargain, as well as for its discriminatory lay-off.
Respondent’s backpay liability shall run from the date of the lay off until the date the employees
are reinstated to their same or substantially equivalent positions or have secured equivalent
employment elsewhere.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended15

15 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-33-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
ORDER
The Respondent, Kieft Brothers, Inc., Elmhurst, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interfering with, restraining and/or coercing employees in the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, by coercively interrogating them regarding their union sympathies or
support or threatening retaliation against them for supporting any union;
(b) Failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with Teamsters Local 673 with regard to
the wages, hours and working conditions of members of its drivers’ bargaining unit;
(c) Failing to respond with reasonable promptness to information requests from
Teamsters Local 673;
(d) Discriminating or retaliating against any employees due to their support or the
support of any other employees for a labor organization;
(e) 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 Teamsters Local 673 as the exclusive representative of
the employees in the truck drivers’ bargaining unit concerning terms and conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed
agreement;
(b) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Miseal Ramirez,
Brandon White, Eracilio “Rocky” Esparza, Mike Kronkow, Ray Embury, George Kent, Charles
Dickerson, Jaime Nieves and Jose Jardon full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(c) Make Miseal Ramirez, Brandon White, Eracilio “Rocky” Esparza, Mike Kronkow, Ray
Embury, George Kent, Charles Dickerson, Jaime Nieves and Jose Jardon whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(d) 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 due under the terms of this
Order.
JD-33-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Elmhurst, Illinois facility,
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix”16 in both English and Spanish. Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not 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 October 9, 2008.
(f) 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.
Dated, Washington, D.C., July 21, 2009.
____________________
Arthur J. Amchan
Administrative Law Judge

16 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-33-09
Elmhurst, IL
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 threaten to fire you or lay you off because you support Teamsters Local 673,
Laborers Local Union 25, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT interrogate you about your activities, sympathies for, or support of any labor
organization, nor will we interrogate you about the union activities, sympathies or support of any
other employee.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to bargain collectively and at reasonable times upon request
concerning wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment with Teamsters Local
673, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all our full time and regular part time drivers.
WE WILL NOT layoff our drivers without notice to Teamsters Local 673 and providing Local 673
the opportunity to bargain with regard to any lay-off and its effects.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to provide information in a reasonably prompt manner to
Teamsters Local 673 upon a written or oral request when such information is relevant to Local
673’s responsibilities relating to collective bargaining.
WE WILL NOT lay-off employees in retaliation for their support, or the support of other
employees, for Teamsters Local 673, Laborers Local Union 25 or any other union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Miseal Ramirez, Brandon White,
Eracilio “Rocky” Esparza, Mike Kronkow, Ray Embury, George Kent, Charles Dickerson, Jaime
Nieves and Jose Jardon full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Miseal Ramirez, Brandon White, Eracilio “Rocky” Esparza, Mike Kronkow, Ray
Embury, George Kent, Charles Dickerson, Jaime Nieves and Jose Jardon whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits resulting from their discriminatory lay-off, less any net interim
earnings, plus interest.
JD-33-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20
WE WILL promptly provide Teamsters Local 673 with any information it requests either in
writing or orally which is relevant to its duties as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of our truck drivers.
KIEFT BROTHERS, 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.
209 South LaSalle Street, Suite 900
Chicago, Illinois 60604-1219
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
312-353-7570.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 312-353-7170.