T-Mobile USA, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Apr 3, 2017

14-CA-170229 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 3, 2017)

JD−23−17
Wichita, Kansas
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
T-MOBILE USA, INC.
Respondent
and Case 14-CA-170229
COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Mark Theodore, Irina Constantin, and Robert Escalante, Esqs.,
for Respondent
William F. LeMaster, Esq.
for General Counsel
Glenda Pittman, Esq. and Meron Kebede, CWA Law Intern
for Charging Party
DECISION
Sharon Levinson Steckler, Administrative Law Judge. A trial was conducted in this
matter on October 6 and 7 and November 3 and 4, 2016 in Wichita, Kansas, after opening
telephonically on October 4, 2016. Charging Party Communication Workers of America
(Charging Party) filed the original charge against Respondent T-Mobile USA, Inc. (Respondent)
on February 23, 2016; Charging Party filed an amended charge on June 21, 2016.
The Complaint, issued on June 29, 2016, alleges the following:
T-Voice, a committee within T-Mobile, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act. T-Voice was named as a party-in-interest.
Since at least August 23, 2015 and continuing, Respondent at its call centers, by
soliciting employee complaints and grievances during an ongoing organizing campaign,
promised its employees increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment if
they submitted pain points through T-Voice, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Since at least August 23, 2015 and continuing, Respondent gave assistance and
support to T-Voice by, including, but not limited to: establishing the T-Voice program to address
employee complaints about their terms and conditions of employment; selecting T-Voice
representatives; permitting the dominated union to utilize Respondent’s facilities and
equipment; convening meetings of T-Voice representatives at Respondent’s expense; and,
bargaining with T-Voice representatives concerning employees’ terms and conditions of
employment, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
JD−23−17
2
Since at least August 23, 2015 and continuing, Respondent, at its call centers, granted
benefits in response to its solicitation of grievances during an ongoing organizing campaign by,
including but not limited to, changing Respondent’s policy regarding employee paid time off and
the implementation of an employee loyalty recognition program in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act. 5
Since at least August 23, 2015, Respondent maintained an overly broad rule concerning
employees sharing or communicating information regarding T-Voice, and is labeled “T-Mobile
Internal Use Only,” in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
About January 8, 2016, Wichita Call Center General Manager Jeff Elliott interrogated
employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies by asking employees if 10
Union representatives had visited their homes, in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
Counsel for the General Counsel (General Counsel), Respondent and Charging Party
filed timely post-hearing briefs in support of their positions, which I have duly considered.1 On
the entire record, I make the following findings, conclusions of law, and recommendations.
FINDINGS OF FACT215
JURISDICTION
At all material times, Respondent has been a corporation, with an office and place of
business located in Wichita, Kansas. It is engaged in telecommunications business operations
throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 171, slip op.
at 11 (2016). In conducting its operations during the 12-month period ending December 31, 20
2016, Respondent derived gross revenues in excess of $100,000 and purchased and received

1 Due to illegibility of the original in the transcript, General Counsel moved, without opposition, to
replace General Counsel Exhibit 94 at TMSP0001538 with a legible version. That motion is granted.
2 Although I have included citations to the record to highlight particular testimony or exhibits, my
findings and conclusions are not based solely on those specific record citations, but rather upon my
review and consideration of the entire record for this case. My findings of fact encompass the credible
testimony, evidence presented, and logical inferences. The credibility analysis may rely upon a variety of
factors, including, but not limited to, the context of the witness testimony, 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, 303–305 (2003);
Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB 622, 623 (2001) (citing Shen Automotive Dealership Group, 321 NLRB 586,
589 (1996)), enfd. 56 Fed. Appx. 516 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Credibility findings regarding any witness are not
likely to be an all-or-nothing determination and I may believe that a witness testified credibly regarding
one fact but not on another. Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB at 622.
When a witness may reasonably be assumed to be favorably disposed to the party, an adverse
inference may be drawn regarding any factual question on which the witness is likely to have knowledge.
International Automated Machines, 285 NLRB 1122, 1123 (1987), enfd. 861 F.2d (6th Cir. 1988). This is
particularly true where the witness is the Respondent’s agent. Roosevelt Memorial Medical Center, 348
NLRB 1016, 1022 (2006). When testifying against their employer’s interests, testimony from current
employees tends to be particularly reliable because it is against their pecuniary interests. Gold Standard
Enterprises, 234 NLRB 618, 619 (1978); Georgia Rug Mill, 131 NLRB 1304 fn. 2 (1961); Gateway
Transportation Co., 193 NLRB 47, 48 (1971); Federal Stainless Sink Division, 197 NLRB 489, 491 (1972).
JD−23−17
3
goods and materials valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points outside the State of
Kansas. At all material times, Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Based on the foregoing, I find that this
dispute affects commerce and that the Board has jurisdiction of this case, pursuant to Section
10(a) of the Act.5
I also find that Charging Party has been a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. Respondent’s Operations
A. Overview10
Respondent operates 17 call centers throughout the country. The call centers, also
called “Care,” include locations in Wichita, Kansas, Albuquerque, New Mexico (Menaul),
Meridian, Idaho, Mission, Texas, and Springfield, Missouri. The other locations are: Augusta;
Bellingham; Birmingham; Charleston; Chattanooga; Colorado Springs; Meridian; Nashville;
Oakland; Richmond; Salem; and Tampa. (R. Exh. 14). For a number of years, Charging Party 15
maintained organizing efforts at Respondent’s call centers. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 365 NLRB No.
15 (2017).
Respondent’s chief executive office is John Legere. Its chief financial officer is Mike
Sievert. For most of the relevant period, the executive vice president was Brian Brueckman.
The current executive vice president is Callie Fields. 20
The employees handling the customer calls are known as customer service
representatives (CSRs). Internally, CSRs sometimes are called the “frontline” employees.3
CSRs may be located within different departments within a call center, and not every call center
has the same departments. The General Care department is usually the first level of support,
which customers use to make a payment or make an account change. Closed Loop handles 25
customers who are identified as a high risk of cancellation or dissatisfaction. The Onboarding
department contacts new customers within a short period after signing up for service. The Retail
Support Line interacts with in-store T-Mobile employees selling products. Menaul has two
separate call centers: one that handles regular calls; and one specialized in executive calls, the
highest level of customer service, which is known as Menaul Executive Customer Relations 30
(ECR). The Solutions Center, located in Springfield, Missouri, handles complicated customer
issues by accessing systems that a regular CSR cannot.
CSRs within the call centers work in smaller groups called “pods.” Each pod has a
coach and a senior representative. The coach is a supervisor.

3 Respondent’s witnesses gave varying answers to define who was a “frontline” employee. Jason
Richards, who served as senior operations manager in Wichita, considered all personnel working in a call
center, including managers, as “frontline.” (Tr. 718). Nikki Kozlowski from Menaul stated it covered the
CSRs who worked on the phones. (Tr. 806). Senior Manager Tolman, who was in charge of T-Voice,
defined the term as all employees who meet directly with customers. (Tr. 829). For the purposes of this
case, “frontline” employees are CSRs.
JD−23−17
4
At each location, the Resource Processing department schedules CSRs with the goal of
ensuring sufficient staffing. Each call center periodically undergoes a realignment, in which
CSRs bid upon the area within the call center for work and for their schedules. They receive
their bids based upon their rankings, which in turn are based upon performance measurements
called metrics. 5
B. Metrics and CSR Performance
Metrics vary with different types of departments and line of business. Metrics are
various measurements of CSR activity, such as the number of calls, the length of calls, how
quickly is the customer’s concern addressed, and whether the customer calls back with the
same issue within a certain period of time. Some CSRs may have sales metrics.10
Metrics also change from time to time.4 They may vary with new product launches and
rewards for pre-sales of the new products. Respondent witnesses testified that CSRs have no
involvement in determining which metrics apply to their department or the scores that are
deemed adequate or exceptional.
1. Examples of metrics15
Internal One Call Resolution (iOCR) when a customer calls back within a specific time
period about an issue. If a customer does not think he is getting quick enough service, he may
hang up and immediately call again, which results in a negative score for the CSR.
Customer Resolution Time (CRT) measures the average amount of time, measured in
seconds, a CSR spends speaking with each customer. If the average exceeds the standard for 20
the metric, the CSR is considered to be spending too much time on calls.
Coaches and senior representatives also listen to CSRs’ calls or may revisit a recorded
call. The goal is to ensure the CSR made required statements or followed the plans for a call.
The CSR then receives a score. This metric affects both the individual’s performance and the
team’s performance. (Tr. 74-75).5 25
Customer surveys are used to determine metrics known as Voice of the Customer (VOC
or myVOC).6 Customers answer surveys provided by Respondent, with the resultant score
considered an indicator of customer satisfaction.

4 Some metrics may be placed as a core metric versus a power play or “kicker,” depending on how
Respondent wants to emphasize certain goals or behaviors for employee performance. A CSR received
the kicker when he achieved more than a certain percentage of a goal and then received an additional
percentage towards the overall score. Conversely, should the kicker be significantly below the desired
goal, the CSR would have percentage points removed from his overall score. (Tr. 704).
5 Abbreviations used in this decision are: Tr. for Transcript; GC Exh. for General Counsel Exhibit; R.
Exh. for Respondent Exhibit; GC Br. for General Counsel brief; R. Br. for Respondent brief; U Br. for
Charging Party CWA brief. Certain Respondent and GC exhibits have additional numbering based upon
Respondent’s Bates numbers, which are listed as Txxx. I have not cited for every mention in the
transcript or exhibits. Specific citations to the transcript and exhibits are included where appropriate to
aid review, and are not necessarily exclusive or exhaustive.
6 Development and computerization of this metric took approximately 18 months.
JD−23−17
5
CSRs also perform marketing duties through their customer interaction. They are
measured for average sales per productive hour, which vary depending on the business line in
which the CSRs work.
2. Relationship between metrics and employee rewards
Respondent weighs the metrics, which in turn yields a percentage; the percentages are 5
added together to give each CSR a total score. Every six months, when the departments go
through realignment and CSRs bid on departments and schedules, the metrics may determine
whether the CSR receives the bid as employees’ rankings on metrics are compared. CSRs who
want to work in Executive Customer Relations would have to have a history of metrics that
exceed expectations. (Tr. 80). A CSR who has performed well may be able to handle more 10
difficult customer issues or systems and receive the appropriate permissions to do so.7 (Tr.
646, 705). Metrics are used to determine bonuses and awards, such as the Winner’s Circle
national trip. The Winner’s Circle recipients also receive gifts, such as telephones. Failure to
meet the expectations set by the metrics would be grounds for disciplinary action, up to and
including termination. 15
C. Unionization Efforts at T-Mobile
Since 2009, Charging Party has been engaged in ongoing efforts to organize
Respondent’s CSRs. To date, Charging Party has not presented a petition for these
employees. During the course of its organization efforts, Charging Party filed several unfair
labor practice charges. 20
To date, a few cases have been litigated against Respondent. Some involve findings
against Respondent of unlawful rules, e.g., T-Mobile USA, 363 NLRB No. 171 (2016). Others
found discriminatory enforcement of rules, interrogation and threats of discipline. See T-Mobile
USA, Inc., available in Westlaw, 2015 WL 53502027 (September 14, 2015), affg. JD(NY)-34-15 25
(August 3, 2015) and JD-57-16 (June 28, 2016). One Board decision involves a different group
of employees who consist of a bargaining unit of field technicians, switch technicians and
material handlers in Connecticut. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 23 (2017).
II. T-Voice30
In June 2015, Respondent initiated a nationwide program called T-Voice. Although the
term “pain points” has been used for years in Respondent’s call centers, Respondent set up T-
Voice to address the pain points in an organized fashion, rather than a random submission of
pain points. Pain points are perceived problems and complaints.
At issue is whether the pain points gathered and submitted through T-Voice were limited 35
to customer pain points, such as issues with accounts and equipment, or included employee
pain points, those affecting employees’ wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment.
General Counsel contends that Respondent used T-Voice and the pain points to address
employee concerns that involve wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment.
General Counsel also contends that by addressing employee and customer pain points, T-Voice 40
affects the metrics for CSRs. General Counsel contends that, once unfair labor practice charge

7 Magenta Heroes is a recognition program for employees who are consistently excellent performers.
(Tr. 829). They receive additional permissions to handle higher level customer contacts or issues without
the guidance or assistance of supervisors. (Tr. 705).
JD−23−17
6
14-CA-170229 was filed on February 23, 2016, Respondent changed the focus of T-Voice and
fewer of these employee concerns were addressed; Respondent then concentrated more on the
customer pain points.
Respondent, however, contends that T-Voice was to address only customer pain points.
(Tr. 843). An example of a pain point that affects the CSR’s metrics is a slow computer program 5
that causes the call time to increase, and thereby cause average call time to increase and also
might cause an unhappy customer to rate the CSR poorly. (Tr. 319). Respondent considers
that example as one that is strictly a customer pain point. The record also reflects pain points
about purely employee issues, such as scheduling, rewards, and career advancement.
In reviewing the facts here, I first discuss the initiation of the T-Voice program, how 10
Respondent selected employees to serve as T-Voice representatives, the duties of the T-Voice
representatives, the pain points submitted that deal with employee issues and the apparent
effects of the unfair labor practice charge filed in February 2016.
A. Respondent Initiates T-Voice at Its Call Centers
Respondent started T-Voice first as a pilot program at six call centers in January 2015, 15
and then all call centers in June 2015.8 The stated purpose of T-Voice is to identify, assess and
resolve pain points from CSRs. The stated program also communicates back to the CSRs what
happened with their submissions. Respondent provided all financial support to T-Voice, which
included paid time for the selected employee representatives, their trips, and T-Mobile gear
given away in support of the program. 20
At the time of T-Voice’s inception, Kathy Woods was the vice president for the east
region and the sponsor for T-Voice. As sponsor, she drove the strategy for T-Voice and kept
her peer group apprised of program decisions and strategy. (Tr. 879, 990). Dave Thompson,
who reported to Woods, was the director sponsor who also developed T-Voice strategy. Kim
Tolman, a senior manager for frontline programs, reported to Thompson. Tolman focuses on 25
programs that support customer insights, career development opportunities and “building
partnerships between Care and the Retail sides of the company. Tolman oversees the Magenta
Heroes program and T-Voice. Tolman also was a member of Employee Engagement and
Retention Team (EE&RT).9
Tolman took responsibility for T-Voice in late May or early June 2015. On June 11, 30
2015, Executive Vice President Brueckman issued an email to the customer service team. It
announced that T-Voice would be in place at 18 call centers and who the “frontline
representatives” Respondent selected for each location. Three to four CSRs at each location
served as T-Voice representatives. Brueckman stated the goals for T-Voice and the T-Voice
representatives: 35

8 T-Voice also exists at 25 “service partner” call centers. Respondent does not employ the service
partners’ employees. Although Respondent maintains that service partner representative T-Voice
representatives outnumber its own T-Voice representatives, Respondent does not identify the
significance of this issue. General Counsel has not alleged any violations with the service partners.
9 Tolman’s role on EE&RT only came out during cross-examination and presentation of an email (GC
Exh. 90 at T678-T679). In earlier communications, she was identified as senior manager, T-Voice or
senior manager, Magenta Heroes. She also was involved with “One Team” and Customer Experience
Improvements. (Tr. 908).
JD−23−17
7
. . . raise Frontline and customer pain points to ensure they are resolved
an then results are communicated back to the Frontline . . . . Each member of T-
Voice will serve for six months and then we’ll select a new group of participants.
So, if you’re interested, talk with your Site Senior Manager.
What does this mean to you? You can raise issues by reaching out to 5
your T-Voice representatives. Be vocal, let us know what you think.
T-Voice was created to drive real change in our business and improve the
customer experience by elevating the issues you experience every day.
(GC Exhs. 2, 84).
The following day, on June 12, Vice President Woods issued an email to all CSRs that 10
T-Voice and the frontline resolved “another employee pain-point.” The pain point dealt with paid
time off and calling in on the day needed off. Instead of being issued one type of code for the
absence or an unexcused absence, those with available paid time off would be able to use it.
Woods concluded, “When we do these things we can create both Exceptional Customer
experiences and Exceptional Employee experiences.” (GC Exh. 3).10 15
On June 17, 2016, the Menaul Resource Planning Manager, Krista Thompson, sent an
email to a number of job classifications, including CSRs, entitled “T-Voice followup.” The email
stated that CSRs could contact the resource planner to evaluate the paid time off available and
then contact the coach to request the time off on the same day. However, should the CSR
come in to the facility and request time off, the preferred method would be for the coach to 20
speak with the resource planner to request the time off. (GC Exh. 10).
Once pain points were received, Respondent’s methods and procedures team (M&P,
now known as “customer experience” team)11 reviewed them and decided what to do with them.
The M&P team consisted of M&P senior managers and site senior managers. Based upon
Respondent’s log, it appears assignment was made based upon the type of pain point 25
submitted.
B. Selection of T-Voice Representatives
Respondent selects customer service representatives (CSRs) from the call centers to
serve as T-Voice representatives. Usually within a month of selection, Respondent trains the T-
Voice representatives about gathering and submitting pain points. The early T-Voice 30
representatives served for a six-month period; for later representatives, Respondent extended
that time to 9 months. Respondent’s management decided which employee applicants would
serve as T-Voice representatives.
During December 2015, Jason Richards led Wichita’s managerial efforts to select the
next group of T-Voice representatives. The selection process Richards described: recruiting 35
and communication of spots; screening of interested CSRs; recommendation of who should be

10 Tolman denied that this email was authorized because she was not consulted and T-Voice was not
taking pain points at this time. She testified she had no idea why T-Voice got credit. (Tr. 893). I discredit
this testimony because the email was sent by the vice president in charge of the project and T-Voice had
been accepting pain points since its trial period began in January 2015.
11 Tolman testified to the name change, but never identified when the change took place.
JD−23−17
8
included or excluded and discussions of the same issues with the call center’s senior
leadership.
When soliciting for T-Voice representatives, the representatives’ duties were sometimes
explained. In a Wichita flyer, one duty was described as representing the voice of the frontline
in leadership meetings. (Tr. 343-344; GC Exh. 80). 5
When soliciting CSRs for new representatives in Springfield in December 2015, Drew
Williams discussed the purpose of T-Voice:
As a T-Voice member you will be responsible for collecting pain points
from your peers in Springfield, representing those issues to local and national
leadership teams, and tracking and communicating resolution back to the team. 10
In addition, leadership teams will look to YOU to get feedback on decisions,
ideas, and changes from everything to our local facilities to our national process,
policies and systems. You’ll be given scheduled time to run focus groups, attend
meetings, and meet with local leaders.12
CSR Vann, after discussing his interest with his coach Amond Easley and the coach 15
checking to ensure he was in good standing, also talked with team manager, Michelle Pastor
and subsequently Drew Williams. Williams told Vann the letter Vann would need to submit
should show who would bring fresh ideas, why the interest and why the applicant would be a
good fit with T-Voice. (Tr. 425). Vann also spoke with Kapperman, who repeated some of the
same ideas as Williams. Another T-Voice representative interviewed Vann in early January, 20
during paid working time, for approximately 20 to 30 minutes. During the interview, the T-Voice
representative told Vann that T-Voice was the voice of the employee, how employees can raise,
questions, comments and concerns that they want to see changed, and take matters up with
leadership and management.
At Menual, on December 9, 2015, Kozlowski also sent an email to everyone recruiting 25
new T-Voice representatives. In the email she explained that “T-Voice is responsible for
enhancing Customers and Frontline experience by identifying, discussing and communicating
solutions to roadblocks for internal and external customers.” (GC Exh. 20). In December 2015,
CSR Hernandez attended a table day near the lunch room at the Menaul Call Center. Two T-
Voice representatives, Adrian Majorga and Adama Arya, attended the table, with pamphlets and 30
literature about T-Voice, plus wristbands and T-Mobile trinkets. Hernandez asked how to
become a T-Voice representative. Arya gave him a card to sign that also had a spot for his
supervisor’s signature. The cards would be submitted to management. Hernandez asked what
the perks would be, which Arya identified as time off the phones, communication with other T-
Voice representatives and training in another state. As far as his duties, Arya told him that he 35
collected both customer and employee pain points and he was able to see what outcomes
“could be addressed to improve those concerns . . . .” (Tr. 110).
On January 14, 2016, Tolman welcomed the newly selected T-Voice representatives
and congratulated them “for being an advocate for your Frontline peers!” She also said that the
point was to “resolve your internal and external customer pain points.” She identified the 40
support team, which included Woods, Thompson, a human resources sponsor, Senior Analysis
Ryan McDonald and two administrative staff members. (GC Exh. 99).

12 This statement contrasts with Williams’ prior statement, that T-Voice was a direct line to provide
Frontline feedback to senior leadership.
JD−23−17
9
C. Duties of T-Voice Representatives
The selected T-Voice representatives encourage fellow CSRs to submit pain points,
which are presented to management through meetings and in writing. Every employee signs a
confidentiality agreement, but T-Voice representatives sign an additional confidentiality
agreement that permits the T-Voice representatives early access to non-public, or “dark,” plans 5
for marketing initiatives, such as iPhone and Un-Carrier launches. (Tr. 673). The T-Voice
representatives typically receive four hours per week off phone duties to take care of T-Voice
matters and Respondent pays them for their time. The parties stipulated that T-Voice was
funded entirely by T-Mobile.
1. Attend summits10
T-Voice representatives also attended T-Voice national summits, first in October 2015 in
Charleston, South Carolina and, in May 2016, in Tampa, Florida. CEO John Legere, several
vice-presidents, and managers also attended the summits with the T-Voice representatives. The
summits lasted 2 ½ days. The sessions at the summits discussed new products and, as
Tolman answered to leading question on direct examination, were all customer experience 15
related. The Charleston summit included a presentation on myVOC and the “strategy.” Tolman
and another manager led a session to “gain feedback” from T-Voice representatives. Tolman
denied that any pain point consensus was reached or any solutions discussed. However, in a
series of emails about the planning of the Charleston summit, Tolman instructed the T-Voice
team, including vice presidents, to prepare for employee engagement and T-Mobile culture, 20
which included frontline focus programs, and metrics as a topic of discussion for focus groups.
(Tr. 928-933; GC Exh. 90 at T4960-T4963; R. Exh. 16). Respondent summarized the summit
afterwards ,stating that “65 T-Voice Reps rolled into Charleston, S.C., last week to obliterate
customer and employee pain points . . . .” and to resolve them. (GC Exdh. 94 at TMPS1538).
For the Charleston summit, Tolman and other managers discussed whether Adam Irvin, 25
a senior analyst for metrics on the EE&RT, should attend. EE&RT calls involved directors with
thin the sites and “identifying items with the culture of our call centers.” (Tr. 903-904). Irvin’s
manager, Angela Joslin, who handles EE&RT and metrics, agreed that Irvin should attend the
summit to represent EE&RT and “capture any metrics-related conversations and bring back to
me.” She stated that EE&RT had “closely partnered” with T-Voice to support addressing their 30
concerns and improving implementation of ideas. Tolman commented by email, “I think this is a
great opportunity for you guys to see what T-Voice is planning to take and how can we utilize
them to drive performance and recognition at each of the site levels in 2016.” (Tr. 903-905; GC
Exh. 90 at T678-T679).
2. Collect pain points and educate CSRs35
The primary duties for T-Voice representatives were to collect and give feedback on pain
points and educate their colleagues on new marketing programs and equipment. Respondent
released the T-Voice representatives from their phone duties to perform T-Voice duties. In order
to be released, the T-Voice representatives worked with their local Resource Planning
department to ensure adequate staffing while the T-Voice representatives performed their 40
duties.
Once selected, T-Voice representatives solicited pain points through various means.
CSRs learned of a few ways to submit pain points to T-Voice representatives through literature
left on their desks or emails. To submit pain points, suggestion boxes, frequently in
JD−23−17
10
Respondent’s magenta, were placed in locations in each call center. CSRs did not have to sign
the pain points submitted to the T-Voice box and, for the anonymous submissions, would learn
about the results through a general email. The T-Voice representatives retrieved the pain
points from the boxes. CSRs also could submit the pain points directly to T-Voice
representatives. T-Voice also had a dedicated email link to submit pain points to a group of T-5
Voice representatives.
T-Voice representatives held “table days” in the call centers. The table days were used
to collect pain points or address new equipment, such as a new iPhone, or an application, which
Respondent identified as an educational need. Jason Richards, Wichita senior manager of
operations and support, or Tolman would raise an issue (could be regional or national). 10
Richards frequently directed the T-Voice representatives on what to present at the table days.
Sometimes Wichita table days gave out apples to CSRs who submitted a pain point. (Tr. 583-
584).
In at least one location, T-Voice also posted signs, called Flush Facts, on bathroom stall
doors. One such Flush Facts in Menaul announced promotions for customers, such as 15
discounts on cellular telephones. Kevin Elder testified that the promotion related to a metric that
gave CSRs a 10 percent of the cost of accessories back as Reward Zone (also called
Appreciation Zone) points. He did not know how long the Reward Zone in place. In Wichita, a
sign promised Reward Zone points to CSRs when their submitted pain points for policies or
systems were fixed. (GC Exh. 81). As the CSR accrued the Reward Zone points, the CSR 20
could redeem them for gift cards, vacations and other items.
T-Voice representatives also conducted “knowledge checks” in which the
representatives went to the working pods and talked to CSRs new equipment and applications
during work time. As before, the T-Voice representatives obtained authorization for the paid
time through resource planning. (Tr. 556-557, 585). At the end of a knowledge check meeting 25
with a pod, the T-Voice representative also asked for any pain points. (Tr. 586).
3. Keep track of pain points and recording them in the database
Respondent established a database called SharePoint for T-Voice input of pain points.13
A T-Voice representative or manager entered the data in the program. If the pain point included
a CSR’s name, the CSR received an email that the pain point was received. (Tr. 559, 666, 30
749). Every submitted pain point, almost verbatim, was supposed to be entered into the
system. The M&P project manager then directs the pain point to the appropriate manager. (Tr.
852).
Respondent’s headquarters customer service methods and procedures group (M&P)
reviewed the submitted pain points. Different management groups had different responsibilities 35
for review and assessment of pain points. A support team reviewed the pain point, assessed it
and gave feedback to the group submitting the pain point. Other pain points were directed to
customer experience management group, such as general care. (Tr. 664-665). Respondent
maintained that once the pain point was assigned, the T-Voice representatives had no further
input and the assigned manager was responsible. (Tr. 855). 40

13 On June 29, 2015, a program manager on the M&P team sent an email to Tolman about how to
use the database. The email addressed only inclusion of customer experiences. (R. Exh. 11; Tr. 844-
846).
JD−23−17
11
Richards testified that duplicate pain points and non-customer pain points were not be
entered into SharePoint. (Tr. 666-667). Respondent maintained that the T-Voice
representatives or management entered only customer pain points, not employee pain points,
into SharePoint. However, Respondent’s documentation and CSR testimony reflects that T-
Voice accepted and addressed employee pain points until at least February 2016. In some 5
cases, T-Voice representatives also made suggestions about how to solve pain points. For
example, in September 2015, a representative from Oakland suggested changes to errors that
would result in more customer satisfaction and yield a decrease in iOCR. He sent his
suggestions to Vice President Woods, who forwarded it to Tolman and others. Tolman
responded that the Solutions Center was working on improvements and “This much detail is 10
helpful for them to identify priority focuses.” (GC Exh. 91 at T5218-5219).
Tolman testified that the employee-related pain points were not assigned to the M&P
managers, nor discussed with T-Voice representatives. However, a number of these reflect
assignment to Tolman, who was also involved in the Employee Engagement and Retention
Team (EE&RP). As will be seen below, some were assigned to the Metrics analysis group for 15
T-Voice.
The SharePoint spreadsheet reflected the person who entered it, the name of person
submitting the pain point if available, the call center location, a title/category of the pain point,
and an overview of the pain point submitted. The next columns reflected the support team
response and the support team answer, which would be question answered, use existing policy, 20
new pain point or existing pain point. The following column showed the date the modified and a
date that showed the date entered. (Tr. 863-865).
4. Meet in national and regional meetings and with local management
T-Voice representatives met with managers in charge of the T-Voice program at their
respective call centers. The topics included what their activities would be for the upcoming 25
week, pain points, and needs for knowledge checks. Managers Richards and Nikki Kozlowski
testified about these meetings. For Richards, located in Wichita, meeting topics included
previous T-Voice activities, identify the activities’ successes and disappointments, and plan the
upcoming activities. Discussions also included effective communication for obtaining pain
points. (Tr. 672). For Kozlowski, located in Albuquerque, the meeting discussion included the 30
number of pain points submitted and if any major or repetitive pain points are showing up, then
plan upcoming activities. (Tr. 755).
T-Voice representatives attended managers’ meetings and presented information similar
to that shared with the manager. (Tr. 564). Manager Kozlowski testified to leading questions
that pain points were not resolved in these meetings. T-Voice representatives were not present 35
for the entire meetings, usually making their presentations at the beginning or end of the
meetings.
T-Voice representatives also participated in regional and national conferences calls with
each other. Managers from various locations and T-Voice support staff also participated in
these calls. (Tr. 565). Each call center presented its plans and previous activities. (Tr. 566). 40
The national meetings, run by Kim Tolman, include the support organization and T-Voice
representatives from around the nation. Feedback is provided on the pain points and
representatives give personal opinions, similar to a focus group, but Respondent witnesses
denied that the T-Voice representatives presented any suggestions. Tolman developed the
agendas for the national meetings. 45
JD−23−17
12
Tolman also conducted T-Voice focus groups. She stated the purpose was to share
ideas and provide educational response and experiences from the frontline. (Tr. 839).
However, she denied that any kind of focus group was specific to T-Voice. (Tr. 840). Despite
this statement, Tolman also traveled to some of the call centers and conducted focus groups
about T-Voice. She said that at three call centers, the topics of discussion deviated from 5
customer pain points. One occurred at Springfield in September 2015. Tolman did not identify
when the other focus groups took place. On cross-examination, however, it became apparent
that some focus groups were specific to T-Voice and, at other times, T-Voice representatives
were in meetings to propose solutions to certain customer pain points.
T-Voice representative Boydo testified that, in one meeting, one of the T-Voice teams 10
was working on “career pathing,” which addressed the number of positions, problems with
bidding, and attempts to obtain promotions given the limited number available. In response,
Boydo and two other T-Voice representatives created a career wall after examining t-
mobile.com, determining the open positions and the requirements for each position. (Tr. 566-
567). The regional calls also discussed T-Voice best practices, such as how to run table days 15
or knowledge checks.
National calls, held on a bi-weekly basis, included a national managerial representative
with T-Voice representatives; however, the T-Voice representatives attended only monthly.
Richards testified that no pain points were resolved in the national meetings, nor did T-Voice
representatives submit recommendations. 20
T-Voice representatives also attended leadership management meetings in Wichita.
Richards testified that the representatives would not attend the entire meeting, but only the last
10 to 15 minutes. The representatives presented a standing agenda to update management on
T-Voice. According to Respondent’s witnesses, pain points were not resolved during these
meetings. (e.g., Tr. 677). 25
D. T-Voice Solicits Pain Point Submissions
A review of the exhibits and testimony demonstrate that the pain points were consistent
with the stated goal of dealing with frontline and customer pain points. The customer pain
points, by far the majority submitted, dealt with a number of diverse issues, from billing, fraud
procedures, and access to computer programs to complaints about the type of music customers 30
were subjected to while on hold. (R. Exh. 12). These are not disputed.14 However, a number
of pain points dealt with employee concerns.
Tolman prepared an agenda for a T-Voice national meeting for August 19, 2015. The
national meeting covered issues in billing and simplification. Tolman sent the agenda to
management and the T-Voice representatives. Action items for August included “Continue to 35
trend and discuss top issues within your sites focus groups” and “Seek solutions and creative
ideas to overcome pain points.” However, Tolman identified for follow up the top pain point from
July: Improvements in myVOC. The improvements are later described in an attached Power
Point presentation. (GC Exh. 90 at T5716-T5724). Tolman contended testified that myVOC

14 On August 25, 2015, for example, Wichita Manager Amy Carlson sent on behalf of the T-Voice
representatives an email requesting ranking of pain points, none of which were specific to wages, hours,
or terms and conditions of employment. (GC Exh. 87)..
JD−23−17
13
was a point for T-Voice representatives to educate CSRs. Nonetheless, the actions on myVOC
scores followed some criticisms of T-Voice, as noted in Respondent’s SharePoint program.
On August 21, 2015, Vice President Woods sent to senior managers, directors, and
location managers an email with a T-Voice update. Some of the accomplishments were:
T-Voice has worked with NCSQ [National Customer Service Quality team] to help 5
improve the MyVOC SMS Survey experience, provided feedback to make sure
customers received their . . . discounts on the latest rate plans, helped update a
number of documents to improve the frontline process, and partnered with site
leadership to enhance the culture15 in each of the call centers.
10
(GC Exh. 90 at T662-T663).
CSR Vann spoke with T-Voice representative Kapperman several times about the VOC
disputes and iOCR issues, and put suggestions in the suggestion box as well. September 6,
2015, Springfield T-Voice representative Jason Kapperman updated employees about some of
the topics discussed. In addition to addressing the computer issues, Kapperman addressed 15
VOC concerns and said that VOC would stay as part of the metrics b/c important to measure
what customer thinks; any further concerns should be addressed to coach or business support
team members. For unpaid time off for emergency sick days, Kapperman stated the
employees’ feedback had been sent for review and in the meantime, review the policy.
Regarding reserved realignment spots for bids, the answer was that it would not be fair to 20
require all new hires to work the graveyard or 6 a.m. shifts so that the teams remain balanced.
Regarding obtaining more equipment for the facility’s workout room, “We are working with
facilities to determine, what, if any, can be added based on employee safety and overall cost
and upkeep of the equipment. Stay tuned.” (GC Exh. 37). In Springfield, T-Voice was credited
with obtaining a charging station in the break room for employees to charge their electronics. 25
(Tr. 418; GC Exh. 39). Shortly after discussions about more equipment in the exercise room, a
punching bag and a few other items appeared. (Tr. 418)
CSR Victoria Singer testified that, in Menaul, around Christmas 2015, she attended a
team meeting in her pod, which included the entire team, Coach Aja Wood and Senior
Representative Everett Anaya. Wood said T-Voice was “our voice” and that it was there to 30
solve pain points by submitting them in the T-Voice box or contacting the new T-Voice
representative, Alex Garcia, directly. Asked what could be submitted, Garcia said anything at
all. A coworker raised that the women’s bathroom did not have hot water and Garcia said to
submit anything.
CSR Hernandez submitted several pain points to T-Voice. Another pain point was 35
differentiating paid sick time versus vacation time. The third was requesting reinstatement of
employee phone discounts. One was about employee schedules upon bids. Regarding
scheduling, Hernandez spoke to his supervisor, Brian Trent. Trent told him to submit the issue
to T-Voice and reminded him about the T-Voice suggestion boxes. In August 2015, after he
heard nothing about his pain point, Hernandez spoke with a T-Voice representative, Adrian 40
Mayorga. Hernandez asked how long it took for T-Voice to respond and how T-Voice handled

15 Tolman testified that “enhancing the culture” means “engaging and creating awareness that T-
Voice is available and an avenue of getting feedback to leadership members for customer experience
items.” (Tr. 902). This explanation seemed more of an exercise in using buzzwords than in explaining
what a short phrase meant. Woods was not called to testify about what her email meant.
JD−23−17
14
its process. Mayorga told Hernandez that the pain points were submitted to management and
management would review them; the T-Voice representative would provide findings and results
after management decided what to do with the pain point. Hernandez never received any
emails resolving his submitted pain points.
CSR Kevin Elder (Menaul) was directed by supervisor, Roxanne Garza, to contact a T-5
Voice representative about his concern with a lack of dispute process for VOC scores. Elder
stated sometimes he received zeros on an UP score because he did not have authority to make
the changes the customer wanted or he was unable to access the account. When Elder spoke
to T-Voice representative Garza about his concern, she told him, “They [T-Voice] were
discussing it.” (Tr. 157-158). He discussed the matter with another T-Voice representative and 10
received a similar response.
In December 2015, Kim Tolman, senior manager for frontline programs, sent an email
with an attached Power Point presentation to discuss the 2016 T-Voice Roadmap. In January
2016, managers received an email received a T-Voice update covering December 2015. The
update included a review of pain points from December 2015. The update included the number 15
of forms submitted by category. Most related to dealing with devices, accounts, plans and
offers and troubleshooting. However, 12 forms were submitted each regarding “departments”
and “call center management”; another 8 involved employee metrics.16
Tolman admitted that Respondent did not instruct T-Voice representatives to limit
submitted pain points, but testified, “As of today, we ensure that the T-Voice reps have the 20
resources at site level, so if they receive it at the site, it won’t be submitted because at that point
they’ve directed that employee to work with site leadership.” However, she also testified that she
instructed T-Voice leaders, after the national roll out, to review for duplicates and deal with site
leadership times, but then said she would conduct them with senior leadership teams by
telephone. (Tr. 872-873). Kozlowski, who was involved since the national T-Voice roll out, did 25
not testify to receiving those reminders.
E. Particular Submissions and Actions upon Employee Pain Points
Respondent’s brief argues that the emphasis was on customer pain points and a few
others slipped through the system. Respondent argues that employee pain points were not a
large number between inception of the program and the first week of August 2016, when its 30
submitted record keeping ended. The submitted pain points involved problems experienced by
customers. Anyone, including managers, could submit a pain point. Respondent contends that,
for the pain points submitted through the first week of August 2016, only 2.5% of the pain points,
or 53 items, fell outside Respondent’s goal to collect customer pain points. This representation
is misleading, as most of the employee-related pain points occurred before the unfair labor 35
charge was filed in late February 2016. A number dealt with employee issues, including
metrics.
Respondent’s brief does not address how it handled the employee pain points before the
charge was filed. I therefore am compelled to provide some of the submissions and actions,

16 Manager Richards testified contradictorily about seeing the pain points. Although he was not
involved with T-Voice in December 2015, he first testified that he entered pain points into SharePoint. He
later testified that he did not see the pain points and only knew of the pain points from interactions with
the T–Voice representatives. (Tr. 728).
JD−23−17
15
which are located primarily in Respondent’s SharePoint spreadsheet, R. Exh. 12, a 900-plus
page document in 6-point Calibri font. 17
1. Respondent maintains that the focus of the T-Voice program was to collect
customer pain points, not employee pain points
At issue is whether Respondent made clear through its managers and T-Voice 5
representatives that T-Voice was collecting customer pain points only. Tolman and Richards
testified that T-Voice representatives were supposed to only collect customer pain points. (Tr.
658, 849). Richards testified that pain points unrelated to the customer experience should be
directed to the appropriate person, such as a team manager, coach, or site director. (Tr. 667).
Richards also testified that the T-Voice representatives had no discretion in determining whether 10
to submit a pain point. (Tr. 670). Tolman said that any a T-Voice representative only had
discretion to not enter into the database non-customer related issues and duplicates. (Tr. 850).
At the same time, T-Voice representatives were to submit a pain point without any evaluation.
(Tr. 851).
According to CSR Boydo, a T-Voice rep at Wichita Call Center, if a pain point was not 15
customer related, subjects like pain time off or bonuses, he would refer the CSR to managers or
the human resources department. (Tr. 561-562). However, Boydo did not begin his service in
T-Voice until 2016 and this testimony was contradicted by early communications to the CSRs
and emails touting T-Voice accomplishments. Additionally, several CSRs who spoke with T-
Voice representatives and managers were told pain points could be either customer related or 20
employee related and should submit them all.
On July 9, 2015, Wichita T-Voice representative Mike Ringer sent an email to the on-
boarding department, including CSRs, coaches and managers, about what was happening with
T-Voice. In relevant part, the email told the recipients:
Reach to you all and gather ideas that will help solve our customer’s pain points, 25
as well as our own.
. . .
I know we talk to a lot of customers that end up somewhat dissatisfied, and it 30
relies on us to make it right, and sometimes, there are certain things we wish we
could do, but the system won’t allow us to perform these actions in real time.
 My job is to eliminate that.
35
 This is our chance to address these issues, and make it more pleasant on
both ends, for the customer, AND the company.
 So if you could please, write these issues/conveniences down, forward
them to me, and I will address them the first chance I get, and resolved as 40
quickly as possible.

17 I also include some employee pain points that arose before the 10(b) period, which began August
23, 2015, to demonstrate Respondent’s pattern in handling these issues. Some of the issues in this
document will be covered in a subsequent protective order. In my discussion, I have taken care not to
reveal specific marketing plans, other corporate secrets, or how metrics are calculated.
JD−23−17
16
 Looking forward to hearing from all of you and continuing on our Un-
Carrier move!
(GC Exh. 86).5
In Springfield, CSR and T-Voice representative Jason Kapperman sent an email
announcing T-Voice as a voice of the employee and a way to bring up concerns, or pain points,
to management. Coach Dustin Beasley spoke with his team, which included CSR Jason Vann,
a few times and employees raised the issues. Vann testified that employees raised the VOC 10
survey and ratings based upon the survey and the iOCR. In addition, the employees in
Springfield raised navigation and functionality of the computer systems. (Tr. 391-392).
At Menaul, on July 11, 2015, Manager Kozlowski sent to everyone at Menaul an email
announcing the T-Voice representatives with the stated purpose of resolving pain points for
“Customers and Yourself.”18 Similarly, on August 11, 2015, T-Voice representative and Menaul 15
CSR Ani Martinez emailed that her T-Voice job was to raise frontline and customer pain points
to ensure they are resolved and then communicate those results. (GC Exh. 17).
After the Charleston summit, Respondent posted an article, dated November 2, 2015,
available to all employees, to summarize the event. The first lines of the article stated:
 A group of Frontline reps known as T-Voice gathered in S.C. to talk employee 20
and customer pain points
 T-Voice is a direct line of Frontline feedback for senior leadership
The next line stated that the purpose of the meeting was to “obliterate customer and employee
pain points.” (GC Exh. 94 at TMPS1538).
Kozlowski, in recruiting new representatives in December 2015, used language 25
reflecting resolving issues for internal and external customers. After the unfair labor practice
charge was filed, Kozlowski’s subsequent email for recruiting clearly stated that the program
was to resolve customer issues and made no reference to employees or internal customers.
2. Employee Loyalty Program
SharePoint reflects that employees submitted recommendations to T-Voice about the 30
loyalty program, also called milestone anniversary gifts. As an example, Respondent gave an
August 21 response to a New Mexico TC entry, dated August 2, 2015:
This is great feedback. I am working closely with the Employee Engagement
team to implement a recognition program for employee tenure. There will be 35
more to come over the next few weeks.
(R. Exh. 12 at T145 and T605; also see at R. Exh. 12 at T20, Bellingham).

18 Kozlowski’s testimony on this email conflicted with evidence that showed employees submitted pain
points affecting their wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment. Her testimony here did not
specifically deny that the employees could submit pain points on their wages, hours and terms and
conditions of employment at that time and sounded like a post hoc excuse.
JD−23−17
17
On October 22, 2015, Vice President Woods sent to all customer service employees an
email announcing that, because of feedback and “the efforts of the T-Voice team,” Respondent
was initiating a new employee loyalty program. On the same date, Karen Viola, the site
manager at Menaul, announced by email an employee loyalty recognition program that gave 5
awards, such as t-shirts and jackets and up to an excursion to a spa, based upon the number of
years served with Respondent. After encouraging CSRs to keep the feedback coming, the
email said” “#bestteam ever #tvoicerocks.” (Tr. 101; GC Exh. 4).19 When Viola received
questions about whether the program was retroactive, she sent her question “up to the national
T-Voice team and will get you an update this week.” (GC Exh. 4). 10
After Woods’ email, T-Voice continued to receive pain points about its loyalty program.
One pain point suggested that employees receive telephone discounts and free telephones after
five years’ tenure. As of approximately October 29, 2015, the item was marked as no change
and with further comments:
15
This item has been reviewed with the Employee Engagement team and Care
leadership group. We will continue to align with our current process and support
the company strategy . . . .
(R. Exh. 12 at T192 and T652, Springfield).20
One from Salem recommended the program to include T-Mobile pants or athletic shorts
and lunch or dinner with a manager. The response, on November 12, 2015, stated: “These are
great suggestions. I am going to work with the HR teams and site directors as options into the
new loyalty program.” (R. Exh. 12 at T182 and T642). Another, submitted January 19, 2016
from Bellingham, asked to change back to a gift that was removed or alternatively use 25
Appreciation Zone points for employees with 10 years’ service. That item was marked as
awaiting response and had nothing entered in the notes. (R. Exh. 12 at T290 and T750).
At Menaul, about December 2015, a slick-looking T-Voice poster promoted T-Voice’s
accomplishments for the year 2015. Of 1272 pain points submitted, 1143 were 30
“answered/resolved.” It touted the new employee loyalty program, with the note “Feedback
shared and project delivered!” It also said “Frontline advocates through focus groups, table
days, monthly incentive support.” It further identified T-Voice’s 2016 goals, including “building
working partnerships with the Customer Care Leadership” and expanding the partnerships so
that all teams could access T-Voice. (GC Exh. 11).35

Tolman explained that T-Voice received an idea for a 10-year recognition program.
Despite a number of call centers having their own loyalty programs, Tolman decided that a
consistent program should be shared with Human Resources. (Tr. 869-870). However, Tolman
demurred and said it was not the first time the loyalty program had been a point of feedback 40
from the front line. She denied that the loyalty program was assigned to a M&P manager. (Tr.
870). She further denied, to a series of leading questions, that she ever discussed the
employee recognition program with T-Voice representatives or a focus group. (Tr. 871). The
suggestion was not the same as the ultimate loyalty program, which Tolman stated she
designed. (Tr. 871). 45

19 Manager Kozlowski denied knowledge that this email was the result of any T-Voice submission.
Respondent did not call Vice President Woods or Viola to testify about what their emails meant and the
emails directly contradict Kozlowski’s testimony.
JD−23−17
18
This explanation rings hollow as Respondent’s documents reflect that it gave T-Voice
the credit for the customer loyalty program changes in late 2015. Further, the response to the
Salem pain point demonstrates that T-Voice, upon receipt of the pain point, intended to work
with human resources and the locations, instead of immediately directing the employees to their
sites’ management or to human resources directly. 5
3. Scheduling and Time Off
A number of submitted pain points related to how CSRs received paid time off or
requests for additional forms of time off. Some also addressed problems in scheduling or
dealing with the resource planning department, in charge of scheduling at each facility. Others
dealt with how Respondent should schedule holiday time or distribute time off. 10
From Richmond, a July 28, 2015 submission requested a better work-life balance by
increasing paid time off per pay period or adding sick days. (R. Exh. 12 at T161). The August
21, 2015 summary of Respondent’s action was:
This feedback is something we are reviewing with HR and employee15
engagement team. We are always trying to help create a strong work life balance
and provide options for all employees to have the time they need outside of T-
Mobile. I will continue to work with them and help find creative ways to meet the
frontline need.
20
The SharePoint close date shows December 17, 2015 with a notation of “no change.”
In December 14, 2015, T-Voice Senior Analyst Ryan McDonald sent an email to Tolman
and senior management about nationwide T-Voice pain point submissions, feedback and
responses from support teams. A pain point McDonald identified as “trending” was requests 25
from CSRs to automatically have their birthdays off. McDonald stated he would be creating a
new pain point and “will have more details within the first quarter of 2016.” (GC Exh. 90 at
T1043-T1049).20 It also mentioned in December pain points as a new pain point in the T-Voice
feedback monthly update for December 2015. (GC Exh. 90 at T1043 et seq.).
30
One Springfield suggestion, first noted July 12, 2015, was a reward for perfect
attendance and to use it as a bump in realignment ranking as an incentive. (R. Exh. 12 at T190).
It appears Respondent made two responses, one July 15 and the second August 21, 2015:
7/15: Thank you for submitting your pain point. I am reviewing this item with
additional Customer Service Support team resources. Please give me a couple 35
of weeks to provide additional updates and possible resolution to your item.
I am working with the Employee Engagement team on Tenure and Attendance
recognition programs. There will be more details to come. I also recommend talk

20 About November 12, 2015, this pain point arose from Albuquerque, with the entry of “various
representatives have approached [the T-Voice representative] with this pain point.” The action noted,
about December 10, 2015, was “will review with our HR teams and reachout to your leadership team with
updates.” The last date entry was December 17, 2015. Another pain point from Charleston, submitted on
February 22, 2016, suggested birthdays off without using paid time off. It was marked awaiting response
and had no further updates to it. (R. Exh. 12 at T342 and T802).
JD−23−17
19
with your site leaders on how to create a Springfield recognition program for
perfect attendance. As T-Voice members this is something I think you can work
with Vince and your TM teams to create and show them the changes they are
helping create.
5
The pain point is marked closed effective December 17, 2015 as “question answered.” (R. Exh.
12 at T650).21
Another pain point from Salem also suggested sharing paid time off and awaited a
response. (R. Exh. 12 at T255, T715). Some of the pain points related to paid time off during
the holiday season. One such point suggested moving paid time off to be used to September. 10
The response, apparently dated October 29, 2015, stated:
This is great feedback. I will work with the local leadership team to address these
concerns.
(R. Exh. 12 at T177 and T637, Salem).22 15
Another pain point on holiday work arose from Springfield. It was entered as of July 12,
2015, and apparently answered October 29, 2015. The pain point suggested that Respondent
first solicit volunteers for holiday work and assign if not enough volunteered. After initially
thanking the submitter and asking for some time to provide additional updates and possible
resolution with the Customer Service Support team, the response to the pain point read:20
This is a great suggestion and one I am reviewing with the employee
engagement team. At this time we are going to follow normal process to allow for
proper forecasting for all lines of business. We will see how we can improve
Holiday coverage and ensure a work life balance for all of our employees
25
(R. Exh. 12 at T192 and T652).
Pain points also dealt with scheduling. From Tampa, one suggested e-mail notification if
the e-scheduler changed. (R. Exh. 12 at T244). Respondent’s action was “awaiting response.”
Another, from Mission, wanted to be able to view schedules away from work as well as be able
to request paid off when not at work. It first appeared on September 9, 2015 and the last 30
response date was December 16, 2015. Respondent’s action, under review as of December
17, 2015, stated:
I am sharing this with the HR and RP team to see if this is something they
are able to build in 2016. They are always looking on how to improve that
work life balance and tools available.35

21 About the same time, another Springfield pain point suggested using unpaid sick days for
emergencies instead of vacation (R. Exh. 12 at T191). The answer also was somewhat similar: no
change first asked to give a few weeks to provide additional updates (7/15/15), then response on 8/21/15
of “a number of changes to sick days and I will continue to review this with the employee engagement
team, but believe the new process of no today codes addresses this.” (R. Exh. 12 at T651).
22 Another holiday pain point suggested that employees be allowed to give back holidays. The entry
further noted, “not a way to list all the people that have approached us.” On the same page, another pain
point was to pay out the time or use as a gift to others. (R. Exh. 12 at T244, Salem).
JD−23−17
20
(R. Exh. 12 at T129 and T589).23
A pain point submitted in December 2015 also had a response on December 16, 2015.
The pain point, submitted from Mission, was a complaint about difficulty in requesting and
obtaining approval for time off. The response was: “sharing feedback with benefits and
leadership team to ensure you voice is heard as we continue to look at opportunities to enhance 5
and/or ensure our benefits are meeting the needs of all employees” (R. Exh. 12 at T245 and
T705). 24
“A substantial amount of reps” requested grandparent maternity leave. Last modified
apparently on August 19, 2015 and awaiting a response, Tolman was the ultimate point of
contact. (GC Exh. 90 at T5089).10
4. Appreciation Zone and Other Awards
Respondent’s SharePoint log also showed that T-Voice received a number of
suggestions on how to improve its Appreciation Zone program, which rewarded points to
employees that eventually yielded gifts. Most of these pain point entries precede the unfair
labor practice charge. 15
A pain point from Salem, with a first entry date of September 29, 2015, wanted more
Appreciation Zone points awarded. (R. Exh. 12 at T176). The noted action was:
I have escalated this to the Employee Engagement Team and we have begun
[sic] discussion on how to integrate additional appreciation zone points for
performance metrics. This item will be reviewed with each team review and how 20
we reward monthly items
(R. Exh. 12 at T636, answered question November 12, 2015).
A pain point from Bellingham, with the first entry date as October 29, 2015, suggested25
Appreciation Zone choices for employees. The response, apparently on November 19, 2015,
stated:
Thank you for the feedback and I have shared this item with our Rewards and
Recognition team for review. They can work with the vendor and see how to best
implement feedback that we receive from the Frontline Teams.30
At this time there are no identified changes based on feedback but they will
continue to review options and update based on feedback.

23 One additional submission raised the pain points of scheduling through the computer program
and eSchedule Planner and incorrect information regarding paid time off availability, with a suggestion
provided. It was submitted from Albuquerque about October 31, 2015, with a response on November 19,
2015. The closed date was March 28, 2016. (R Exh. 12 at T414 and T874).
24 Two additional PTO pain point submissions in January came from Oakland. One suggested
reverting to a previous paid time off system to avoid losing goal points based upon attendance. (R. Exh.
12 at 277 and T737). The second recommended being able to come back to work on the same day to
avoid affecting absenteeism. (R. Exh. 12 at T279 and T739). Neither had a response.
JD−23−17
21
(R. Exh. 12 at T27 and T487, closed December 17, 2015).
One pain point, with an entry date of November 19, 2015, came with the
recommendation to allow employees to apply Appreciation Zone Points to their own phone bills
(R. Exh. 12 at T226, Tampa). The action, approximately one month later, shows the following:
I will forward this feedback to the HR Employee Engagement Team to discuss for 5
their 2016 updates. They are constantly taking feedback and working with the
vendor to improve the customer experience and appreciation zone options. They
were not able to confirm it would be something they are able to complete but will
review the options.
10
Tolman was the person assigned to the pain point. (R. Exh. 12 at T686, closed December 17,
2015).
One generous soul from Charleston, on December 25, 2015, suggested that
Appreciation Zone points could be shared points with co-workers (R. Exh. 12 at T283). The
action taken, dated January 4, 2016, stated: 15
I sent this to the HR Rewards and Recognition team to see if this is something
they could include with their future improvements. If I get additional details from
them after providing this idea I will update the pain point.
Tolman was assigned to this entry. (R. Exh. 12 at T743).20
One pain point arose during a December 2, 2015 T-Voice regional meeting involving
Meridian and Albuquerque sites. The request was about purchasing T-Mobile merchandise.
The meeting outcome determined to send out links to reps and letting them select what they
want to order; place one mass order on same day of each month; cover shipping; and the CSR
pays for the items. (GC Exh. 94 at T376-T377).2525
Lastly, a pain point from Oakland, entered about December 18, 2015, recommended
that bonuses should be paid on the last Friday of the month because the current system created
financial hardship. It was awaiting response. (R. Exh. 12 at T246 and T706).
5. Benefits and Additional Working Conditions
Pain points on benefits were diverse. Some addressed lack of WiFi for the employees, 30
the employee telephone program, additional suggestions for benefits and/or their flexibility, or
educational and training benefits.

25 Other pain points suggested: Access to the appreciation zone outside of work (R. Exh. 12 at T9
and T468, first dated November 19, 2015, Albuquerque); change the anniversary gift (called milestone)
back to permit a gift no longer available, or alternatively use Appreciation Zone points for employees over
10 years (R. Exh. 12 at T290 and T750, Bellingham); offer a T-Mobile kiosk in call centers for T-Mobile
gear and may use appreciation points (R. Exh. 12 at T349 and T809, Mission); and a number of
representatives, as late as March 2016, want to use appreciation zone points for T-Mobile gear (R. Exh.
12 at T398 and T858, Springfield).
JD−23−17
22
Free Wi-Fi for all reps in all call centers was proposed from Oakland without
acknowledgement or updates. (R. Exh. 12 at T244 and T704). However, on November 12,
2015, at Menaul, Respondent credited T-Voice with resolving an employee pain point about
inability to use wireless access during their lunches and breaks without slowing down or
overloading Respondent’s system. With this resolution, employees now would have no problem 5
working on personal email and social media with the new wi-fi access during non-working times
and without impact to the employees’ data plans. (GC Exh. 5).26
For the telephone program, submitted about August 4, 2015, no change was made as of
the close date of December 17, 2015, with the notation:
As mentioned by Brian Brueckman in his [sic] recent Webcast, we will not be10
making any major changes to the employee phone program at this time including
how we handle employee requests. We will continuously evaluate the
experience, and look for opportunities but no changes are planned.
(R. Exh. 12 at T533).15
A creative pain point, from Albuquerque, proposed a loan company for associates as a
benefit. Respondent’s response was:
Thank you for this idea. I shared the details with our team and at this time this is
something we are not going to pursue, because T-Mobile has a number of 20
financial benefits and employee perk / discount programs that we provide
employees. You can work with your local HR team for details on what is available
(R. Exh. 12 at T12 and T472).
Regarding benefits enrollment, a pain point was a need for more flexibility. The October 25
29, 2015 response, marked as question answered, stated:
7/15: Thank you for submitting your pain point. I am reviewing this item with
additional Customer Service Support team resources. Please give me a couple
of weeks to provide additional updates and possible resolution to your item.
30
After discussing details with the HR team there unfortunately is not flexibility in
changing benefits after enrollment unless it falls within the life changing events
guidelines. Benefits are reviewed and able to be changed yearly.
(R. Exh. 12 at 191, T651, Springfield).35
Another Springfield pain point recommended a cash award for unused benefits, such as
not using child care or tuition benefits. As of October 29, 2015, Respondent decided that no
changes would be made for this pain point. (R. Exh. 12 at T194 and T654).
A pain point, entered about November 21, 2015, recommended improving insurance by 40
including lasik eye surgery. The response, on December 16, 2015, stated:

26 Kozlowski denied any knowledge of the request and denied that it was a T-Voice initiative. (Tr.
774). The documentation, which acts as an admission against interest, indicates otherwise.
JD−23−17
23
I have shared this with our HR teams to see if there are benefit improvements they
can share with our Insurance vendors. They did reply that employees can sign up
for Flex Spending account that will help with cost of Lasik surgery. Direct Frontline
to work with their local HR teams for details on Flexible Spending Accounts.
5
(R. Exh. 12 at T130 and T590, Mission).27
Educational benefits and career improvement also were pain points. One pain point
from Oakland, awaiting response as of January 11, 2016, suggested that Respondent pay down
an employee’s student debt every month as a way to attract potential employees with the
requirement that an employee stay a year afterwards. (R. Exh. 12 at T276 and T736). Another, 10
from Salem, suggested increasing educational assistance above $5000 per year. This pain
point was addressed with the responses:
I have escalated this item to HR for feedback and how to help address this
concern with the Frontline teams. More details to come.15
Based on feedback there have been a number of changes and updates to the
educational program. The recommendation is to work with your local HR team to
have the interested parties receive full details and benefit review of how to
receive support for tuition reimbursement and improvements to the program.20
(R. Exh. 12 at T178 and T638).
Regarding career development, one pain point requested training for advanced
positions. One submitted to SharePoint, on about December 11, 2015, included a 25
request for training on advanced positions. The response, dated approximately a week
later, stated:
Matt Meyers, the Bellingham CC Sr. LDC on the Leadership Development team
was able to connect directly with [CSR name], review the current national leader 30
support programs and development content available at [intranet website], as
well as discuss the customized support and development available from the
national CC Leadership Development team. Matt will continue to connect with
[CSR name] to make sure development needs are met.
35
(R. Exh. 12 at T28 and T488).28
Various day care options were submitted as pain points. One suggested onsite day care
to decrease absenteeism. (R. Exh. 12 at T283, Charleston). Another suggested weekend
daycare options. Tolman was assigned to this pain point. (R. Exh. 12 at T283, GC Exh. 42 at
T1521, Meridian). Another suggested in-house day care for holidays. Tolman again was 40
assigned. (R. Exh. 12 at T283 and T743, Meridian). The last two pain points arose in
December 2015 and both had the same action: “This request has come up from a couple of

27 Pain points also included employees having problems calling in on their benefit accounts. (R. Exh.
12 at T155, Oakland and T191, Springfield). For the Springfield pain point, Respondent’s action was to
provide feedback to HR Directors and give feedback to the benefit vendors. (R. Exh. 12 at T651).
28 Also see, e.g., R. Exh. 12 at T145 and T605, T244 and T704.
JD−23−17
24
sites. I am working with HR to get further details on how T-Mobile is looking to support Work Life
balance with onsite daycare options. As I get more details I will update this form.”
6. Metrics
Respondent did not count metrics as employee pain points. Respondent contends that 5
resolution of customer pain points could not affect metrics because fixing a pain point would be
difficult to determine. Richards stated that he had not observed a change in a CSR’s ability to
meet metrics when a pain point is resolved. (Tr. 649). He denied that any change in metrics
since T-Voice’s inception would be unrelated to T-Voice. (Tr. 649-650).
The SharePoint log, by my count, contained over 30 pain points related to metrics before 10
the filing of the unfair labor practice charge. Some discussed updates to metrics; others
discussed the way the metric was calculated. A common thread frequently arising was the idea
that the CSR could be adversely affected by the metrics.
On about October 21, 2015, Vice President of Financial Care Sid Bothra conducted a
focus group with T-Voice representatives specifically about metrics. Nikki Howard, a senior 15
manager of operations support in Tampa, submitted minutes of the meeting. Howard divided
the expressed concerns by department, then by metric, and added other suggestions/feedback.
The representatives expressed a number of changing the weights of the metrics and kickers
and how to remedy the problems, concerns about disputing myVOC scores and a need for more
training. (GC Exh. 90 at T1257-1259). Tolman testified she was not on the call and denied 20
doing anything about it once she received a copy of the minutes. (Tr. 921-922).
A number of these pain points requested “real time” updates or at least faster updates
on what the CSRs’ scores were and what the new metrics were for each month. A response to
a Springfield request for “real time” progress had an initial response, then a subsequent answer
about October 29, 2015:25
7/15: Thank you for submitting your pain point. I am reviewing this item with
additional Customer Service Support team resources. Please give me a
couple of weeks to provide additional updates and possible resolution to your
item.
30
Teams provide updates to the Business Support teams for incentive details
on a regular basis. The local BS support team will be able to provide details
(R. Exh. 12 at T191 and T651). Another pain point, raised from Salem, wanted a specific metric
updated each day rather than every 14 days. The response, on November 5, 2015, stated SSI 35
was working on a transactional report to give more visibility and probably arrive in 2016; it also
explained why the system currently worked in the way it does. (R. Exh. 12 at T256 and T716).
A Tampa pain point, entered and answered on November 19, 2015, also complained
that T-Metrics updated too sporadically. The answer stated:
Hi [name]-40
The metrics team and SSSI [are] working diligently to improve the stability and
accuracy of all of our responding tools, including T-Metrics.
JD−23−17
25
We have made significant progress in recent months, and you should expect to
see continued improvements into 2016.
Thank you for taking the time to provide the feedback.
5
(R. Exh. 12 at T686).29
Two suggestions came in December 2015 from two different locations about the
negative effects on scores to dropped calls.
Hi Birmingham, thanks for the feedback. Great news! You do have the ability to 10
call your customers back in the event the call drops! We hope you don’t have a
lot of these scenarios but we understand that calls sometimes drop and don’t
want you to be negatively affected by customers calling back so we have made it
available for you to call your customers back! Please take a look at the below link
and especially the Valid and Invalid Callbacks Reason section. That will give you 15
all the reasons why we would want to call our customers back. Thanks again for
the feedback!
Hi Chattanooga, Thank you very much for the feedback. At this time we would
not be changing the parameters regarding iOCR as the Metric Team meets 20
weekly to discuss these scenarios and sets the goals accordingly to these
situations. Don't forget, there is also a policy you can follow for dropped calls that
allows you to call the customer back thus not taking a hit on your iOCR: [intranet
site link provided] Thank you again for the feedback and keep it coming!
25
(R. Exh. 12 at T510 and T521).30 On January 13, 2016, a similar pain point arose in
Oakland. Senior Metrics Analyst Irvin gave Respondent’s response:
Hi [name],
Thank you very much for the feedback. We take these things into account when 30
we set the goals. Some of these reasons is why we don't set the goal to 0%.
Make sure to follow the policy for dropped calls and attempt to contact the
customer back if possible. Its important to remember that not all dropped calls =
an iOCR hit . . . . At this time we wont be making any changes but again, please
keep the feedback coming. This is a great way for us to gain insight on how 35
things are working for you and if we can make any changes to make them better!
(R. Exh. 12 at T280 and T740).
Another pain point submission from Springfield stated that end of month metrics were40
inaccurate. The initial response was on July 15, 2015, with a later response of apparently
October 19, 2015 and closed on December 17, 2015.

29Also see R. Exh. 12 at T237 and T697, Wichita pain point in December 2015 for metrics and sales
number should be visible on the same day or next day, if possible, with a lengthy response concluded
that the 2016 implementation should improve upon accuracy and timeliness of the reporting tools.
30 Also see R. Exh. 12 at T172 and T632, a similar pain point submitted from Salem, and the
response in December 2015 was no change in metrics. Once again the submitter was encouraged to
keep sending feedback.
JD−23−17
26
7/15: Thank you for submitting your pain point. I am reviewing this item with
additional Customer Service Support team resources. Please give me a couple
of weeks to provide additional updates and possible resolution to your item.
I reviewed this feedback with the metrics team and unfortunately there is not a 5
way to speed up the process, but the reps that feel there is a discrepancy they
will need to work with their local leadership team for disputes. The metrics team
does scrub items to ensure full fairness across all teams and are always willing to
follow up on any escalations from the site leaders for reps performance.
10
(R Exh. 12 at T190 and T650; also T61 from Chattanooga).
An August 11, 2015 entry from Bellingham complained about the myVOC policy and
dispute policy and how it could be “devastating” to CSR’s scoring. The response, initialed with
“K.T.”, had a recorded response on August 13, but marked as “question answered” and closed
December 17, 2015:15
813 (K.T.) Thank you for the feedback. This is a hot topic of discussion and we
will be talking through the recent updates and changes on our National T-Voice
meeting Wednesday 8/19. I will work with Victoria Morgan between now and
then for updates to the doc numbers. We will have a lot more details come
Wednesday when we meet with NCSQ.20
(R. Exh. 12 at T42 and T502, Bellingham).
A Meridian pain point, first entered on November 18, 2015, suggested that more scores
were needed to ensure accuracy of VOC. The lengthy response discussed the factors making
up the VOC score. (R. Exh. 12 at T112 and T572). For a similar pain point, also from Meridian 25
about November 18, the T-Voice response was:
Hi [name]! There's not a lot of detail in here but I assume you are suggesting that
we ask customers more questions than just [those] we ask them today. Good
news for you - we are going to test a new survey (we'll do it behind the scenes at
first without impacting any front line reps or coaches) and it will have additional30
questions regarding T-Mobile [ . . . ] [I]t should provide us much more insights
without making the survey too long. Stay tuned for more information coming in
January when we begin testing!
(R. Exh. 12 at T111 and T571). Also see: R. Exh. 12 at T118 and T578 for pain point suggesting35
how to measure.
Another Meridian pain point, entered November 18, 2015, discussed iOCR disputes and
suggested a dispute process. Respondent, on December 1, 2015, answered that it would not
do so and told the CSR to further track “one off” calls, send them to leadership and request that
they be sent to the metrics team. (R Exh. 12 at T114, T574). 40
A Mission pain point suggested CSRs have time to catch up on emails so that they did
not have to stay after the shift. The response in October 2015 stated:
JD−23−17
27
I have forward this idea to the RP team for review and see if this is something we
could implement for future improvements. I will update details after I get their
response items.
CSRs had concerns about backskilling, apparently assisting other areas, and the effect it 5
might have on metrics. One response, initially dated July 21 and continuing to July 24, 2015, in
response to Salem, stated:
7/21 (KT): Hi [name]! Thanks for the feedback and T-Voice item. I am pulling in
our Metrics team to help me better understand how back skilling impacts metrics
(positive and negative). I have them looped in but will not have a full answer for 10
your pain point until further review with the additional support team. Please give
me a couple of weeks to follow up with more details.
7/24 (KT): Followed up with the metrics team and was able to get some more
details for back skilling impacts. There are some negative impacts, but they are
very small to the performance or monthly bonus expectations. If the back skill is 15
more than a percent of their calls the metrics team reviews that each month and
does what is right for the Frontline employee. If we see a large influx in calls that
impact their metrics they have set up mitigation process to ensure the frontline
employees bonus, Inner circle points and realignment items are not impacted
and set the mitigation plan in place.20
(R. Exh. 12 at T165 and T615, closed 12/17/15). A similar concern was raised about
September 29, 2015, with an answer on November 12, 2015:
I am working on getting some positioning and feedback for how the metrics
teams is addressing the back skill items and impacts to metrics. More to come.25
(R. Exh. 12 at T176 and T636, marked last as awaiting response 12/17/15).
Another metrics pain point, submitted November 25, 2015 from Richmond, suggested
that each center should determine its own metrics (GC Exh. 12 at T161). The December 2,
response stated: 30
12/2/15 Thank you for your comment. We've received similar feedback from
others, and based on that feedback we are working with the leadership team in
each site to determine the best way to provide a "discretionary" metric that can
be awarded by individual sites. You should see a change coming tentatively
beginning January 1st. Over the past several months, we have spent a lot of time 35
researching other metrics we could use for Solution Center. To drive Brian's
goals of Resolution and Customer Experience, iOCR and Quality are the best
metrics that Solution Center can impact, that can also drive the enterprise goals.
If you or your peers have any other recommendations, please feel free to
share. Have a nice day! :-)40
This pain point was marked as “awaiting response” as of December 17, 2015. (GC Exh. 12 at
T621).
In December 2015 and January 2016, a number of pain points regarding metrics were
submitted. For a certain metric that counted against agents, Respondent provided this 45
response on December 18, 2015:
JD−23−17
28
Hi [name],
This is a valid complaint and one that we hear often. In Q1, the previous [metric]
is going to be revisited with this in mind. We won't have a resolution here for at
least a month but we will definitely consider this when redesigning the process
and see how we can implement something such as this. We will also be taking a 5
look if a specific adjustment code should be created for [metric].
Thank you for the feedback.
(R. Exh. 12 at T248 and T708, Oakland).
Another metric pain point from Salem, with a response on December 3, 2015, discussed 10
how a certain type of credit impacted the statistics:
Great suggestion! This is definitely a painpoint for our frontline reps. [. . . ] This
pain point hits the nail on the head of impact. In Q1 2016, we will be evaluating a
feedback form that can be used in situations like this. Thanks again for the
feedback.15
(R. Exh .12 at T248 and T708).
Regarding certain myVOC disputes, a Mission pain point, entered on December 16,
2015, stated such a dispute affected employee metrics, which led to a failure in maximizing
bonus potential. Assigned again to Senior Metrics Analyst Irvin, Respondent’s response was: 20
Hi [name], very sorry for the misunderstanding. A MyVOC dispute that is
approved by your leadership absolutely counts in ACERR ranking along with all
the other things the metric counts towards. I.E., Winner Circle, bonus,
realignment rank. The Metrics Team will be in contact with your leadership team
to see what wires might have been crossed. Again, sorry for the25
misunderstand[ing, sic] but thank you for bringing this to our attention!
The item was closed on December 28, 2015 with the note of “no change.” (R. Exh. 12 at T257
and T717).
On about December 23, 2015, a pain point recommended that employee metrics, which 30
was labeled as call center management, be used to have a bonus kicker for taking certain
overflow calls with increased difficulty. The pain point was marked as “awaiting response.” (R.
Exh. 12 at T255 and T715, Salem).
Another Springfield metrics pain point highlighted the method of calculating myVOC and
recommended a way to change the calculation. The entry was from Janaury 4, 2016 and 35
answered the same day, apparently by Irvin:
Hi [name], thanks for the feedback. We have received this request in the past as
well. The Metrics Team currently meets weekly to discuss feedback that is
received and your voice is heard loud and clear. We also work with the quality
team on these suggestions as they are ultimately the owners of MyVOC. At this 40
time however, the team has discussed the current program and we will not be
making any changes to the way it is currently being ran. We do appreciate the
feedback and encourage you to continue to send it in as this is a great way for us
to identify pain points for us to make changes! Thanks!
JD−23−17
29
(R. Exh. 12 at T258 and T718). Irvin also was assigned a January 14, 2016 pain point from
Albuquerque, which he answered the same day; his response requested an example and stated
he would be happy to research the matter. (R. Exh. 12 at T284 and T744. Also see: R. Exh.
T310 and T770, Richmond, entered 12/4/2015 with answer same day and closed 1/29/16).5
Irvin provided a lengthy response to an iOCR pain point based upon a Charleston
submission and suggestion, dated January 18, 2016. The response, dated February 27, 2016,
included a long summary of calculations of why the suggestion would not work; Irvin’s
discussion addressed service levels and a need to hire more employees to accommodate the
suggestion, but encouraged the submitter to continue to provide feedback. (R. Exh. 12 at T331 10
and T791).
Similarly, Irvin addressed a Wichita iOCR pain point that recommended not counting
calls if a customer calls back within 30 seconds. Entered on February 16, 2016, Irvin answered
the same day: 15
Hi [name]!
Thank you very much for the feedback. We in the Metrics Team are always
looking for ways to balance the business and make your jobs easier. At this time
however, we wont be making any changes to iOCR. Part of the reasons we don't 20
set the goal much lower is due to the reasons you state. We incorporate a lot of
things into the goal and this is one of them. I encourage you to keep the
feedback coming though as we don't hear pain points without people like you.
Thanks!
25
(R. Exh. 12 at T330 and T790).
A pain point from Salem, entered February 15, 2016, included several suggestions,
including counting statistics for the long term. The response, dated February 18, 2016, thanked
the submitter for the feedback, but Respondent did not want to cause confusion and ultimately 30
dissatisfaction with how the metrics worked, but would pass along the feedback to the metrics
committee. The item was marked “under review.” (R. Exh. 12 at T338 and T798, Salem).
At least two additional metrics pain points were submitted the week of February 21,
2016. Both were marked “awaiting response.” Irvin responded to one that each rep metric was
under examination, which would determine the best course of action to take care of the frontline 35
team; the impact would have to be assessed first and the submitter “should hear something in a
week or so.” (R. Exh. 12 at T343 and T803, T348 and T808).
F. Post-ULP Charge, Respondent Emphasizes Customer Pain Points
The charge in this matter was filed on February 24, 2016, the day of a scheduled
national T-Voice meeting. On February 23, manager of the T-Voice program Kimberly Tolman 40
sent to T-Voice teams, including Wichita’s Jason Richards and national T-Voice representatives,
an agenda for a national T-Voice meeting agenda for scheduled for February 24, 2016. The
agenda included a metrics focus group, which stated “feedback and pain points of rep metrics
and scorecard” and then a presentation from the marketing focus group, dealing with customer
pain points. Approximately 8 hours after the original email, Tolman sent a revised agenda that 45
eliminated discussion of metrics. Tolman’s email states, “There was a recent change to the
JD−23−17
30
agenda and we will not be hosting a focus group discussing metrics. The Metrics team
understands the important of gaining rep feedback and I will continue to work with them for
future items.” She then limited the upcoming discussion to share pain points on marketing
strategy items previously provided. (GC Exh. 92 at T4589, T4590; R. Exh. 8). Tolman identified
the metrics were removed because “this was about the time that a ---charge had come into 5
place and we wanted to ensure that we removed any items that could be impacted . . . .” (Tr.
950-951). Richards testified that the metrics focus group portion did not occur and, when asked
why, simply said it was stricken. (Tr. 688-689).
The Flush Facts, March 2016 edition, reflect only customer issues, such as checking
status of minutes available by computer, the headset exchange policy, and a packaging issue 10
for refurbished headsets. (GC Exh. 29).
In March 2016, Tolman conducted a national team meeting and issues meeting notes to
the T-Voice representatives, T-Voice program managers and contractors. The minutes reflect a
review of T-Voice’s goals. Tolman said that it was normal to do so, but after the unfair labor
practice charge was filed in February, the “leadership team” wanted to reinforce the focus on 15
customer pain points. (Tr. 909-914; GC Exh. 90 at T966-T967).
SharePoint reflects that a few employee pain points were entered in late February and
March 2016. Some dealt with metrics and others dealt with promoting events with certain
rewards.
In April 2016, a senior representative in Wichita emailed her T-Voice representative 20
about career development. The T-Voice representative forwarded it to the T-Voice West Region
and responded to the senior representative that he agreed, was working on the project and
looking at ways to improve the process; he also told her to provide any other feedback to make
the process better. Tolman saw the email and pulled it out of T-Voice. She instead directed to
Bellingham Assistant Director Jason Lee an email, instructing him to address this issue at the 25
site leadership level and to remind the T-Voice representative to direct employee relations items
to site leadership. Tolman concluded, “Thanks for all your help as this is a highly sensitive
item.” (Tr. 946-947; GC Exh. 92 at T4519-T4520).
By T-Voice’s one-year anniversary, a July 29, 2016 email from Vice President Callie
Field to all customer service employees indicated that T-Voice addressed only customer pain 30
points; employee pain points were not mentioned.31 (GC Exh. 89). An August 16, 2016 email to
Menaul Call Center and Menaul ECR, requesting applications for T-Voice representatives, now
identified T-Voice’s purpose as identifying, discussing and communicating solutions for
customers. (GC Exh. 6). On August 1, 2016, Tolman announced that the T-Voice
representatives voted on the “top pain points.” However, none of the pain points related to 35
working conditions, benefits, or pay.
On June 17, 2016, Menaul’s resource planning manager emailed the Menaul coaches,
senior representatives and CSRs regarding “T-Voice Follow Up” for scheduling paid time off.
(GC Exh. 10). Kozlowski testified the email was “just a communication thing” but also admitted
it was a follow up to an anonymous T-Voice submission. According to Kozlowski, the 40
anonymous submission was not entered into the SharePoint T-Voice log. (Tr. 765-767).

31 The email also discussed that the Retail group would soon start its T-Voice program. Neither the
charge nor the complaint raises allegations that Respondent’s use of T-Voice within the Retail group
employees violated the Act and I do not address any issues there.
JD−23−17
31
When recruiting T-Voice representatives in August 2016, Kozlowski’s email now stated
that T-Voice was dealing with customer issues and no longer included the phrase “internal and
external customers.” (GC Exh. 6).
5
III. ANALYSIS OF ALLEGED DOMINATION, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 8(a)(2)
(COMPLAINT ¶7)
To determine whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) through T-Voice, I first
examine credibililty, then whether T-Voice was a labor organization under Section 2(5). If I find
that T-Voice operated as a labor organization, I then examine whether Respondent dominated 10
T-Voice. Electromation, Inc., 309 NLRB 990, 994 (1992), enfd. 35 F.3d 1148 (7th Cir. 1994);
EFCO Corp. v. NLRB, 215 F.3d 1318 (4th Cir. 2000), enfg. 317 NLRB 372 (1998).
Respondent’s intent in formation of T-Voice is irrelevant to the analysis of a possible section
8(a)(2) violation: The statute applies whether intent is “benevolent or malevolent.” Alta Bates
Hospital, 266 NLRB 485, 491 (1976).15
A. Credibility and Evidentiary Issues
Before reviewing the actual allegations, I must address Respondent’s contention that
General Counsel’s evidence, particularly the testimonies of its employee witnesses, is flawed
because most of it is either hearsay or lacked proper foundation. It also contends General
Counsel failed to subpoena any witnesses who were actually involved in T-Voice and relied 20
upon employee witnesses.
Regarding the hearsay claim, Respondent maintained running objections to most of
General Counsel’s employee witnesses who testified what they were told about T-Voice from
either managers or T-Voice representatives. Respondent emphasizes that these statements
made to the employees were made out of court and were for the truth of the matter asserted. 25
The CSRs’ testimony concerns what they were told was the purpose of T-Voice and
submission of pain points. Some testimony also discussed T-Voice representatives describing
their duties to CSRs. This testimony does not meet the definition of hearsay. Further, even
presuming those statements were hearsay, hearsay may be accepted “if rationally probative in
force and if corroborated by something more than the slightest amount of other evidence.” 30
Dauman Pallet, Inc., 314 NLRB 185, 186 (1994), quoting RJR Communications, 248 NLRB 920,
921 (1980) and citing Livermore Joe’s Inc., 285 NLRB 169 fn. 3 (1987). Also see RC Aluminum
Industries, Inc., 343 NLRB 939, 939-940 (2004). The CSRs’ testimonies are supported by more
than a scintilla of evidence: They are corroborated by a number of emails discussing T-Voice,
T-Voice results, the T-Voice representatives’ roles and Respondent’s SharePoint log showing 35
what pain points were submitted.32 Respondent’s coaches and managers were notified on T-
Voice representatives’ emails and Respondent presented no contradictory evidence.
Regarding Respondent’s contention that General Counsel failed to establish credible
evidence because it did not subpoena witnesses, Respondent relies partially upon the Case

32I consider Respondent’s emails about T-Voice and SharePoint responses to entries as
Respondent’s admissions against interest, which are not hearsay pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., 355 NLRB 1121 fn. 2 (2010). In addition, the documents are the best
evidence about the document content, not the testimony provided about the content. The Contract
Knitter, Inc., 220 NLRB 558 (1975).
JD−23−17
32
Handling Manual, which is not a document upon which I can rely. Further, General Counsel
cross-examined all witnesses presented by Respondent.
I discredit the testimonies of Respondent’s witnesses that T-Voice was only supposed to
collect customer pain points. The evidence, as detailed above, shows Respondent not only
accepted pain points affecting the CSRs’ terms and conditions of employment before the unfair 5
labor practice charge, but also requested employee pain points until the charge was filed.
Respondent communicated with CSRs regarding employee pain points and gave T-Voice credit
for changes made. Respondent’s documentation also undermines its claims that metrics are
customer pain points and have no relationship to CSR awards for performance. Instead the
documentation reflects that it was well aware that metrics were related to employee 10
performance and some of the pain points were assigned to Tolman herself instead of directly
advising the submitter to contact local management without entry into SharePoint. Some were
discussed with EE&RT or forwarded to other areas. Irvin’s responses in SharePoint also reflect
that it answered employee issues on metrics, even to the point of explaining why the pain point
and suggestion could not be changed and, in a few cases, that it would be reviewed and 15
considered.
B. Is T-Voice a Labor Organization Pursuant to Section 2(5) of the Act?
“Labor organization” is defined in Section 2(5) of the Act as:
. . . [A]ny organization of any kind, or any agency or employee
representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which 20
exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
conditions of work.
The definition of labor organization is broadly construed and is a question of fact.
NLRB v. Peninsula General Hospital Med. Center, 36 F.3d 1262, 1269 (4th Cir. 1994); 25
Electromation, supra. The organization is not required to have a formal structure,
elected officers, constitution or bylaws, nor is it required to meet regularly. Id. at 994.
Even without this formal framework or regular meetings, the group may meet the
definition of Section 2(5). Id.
In examining whether the definition of labor organization applies to a group, the 30
Board applies a four-part test: (1) employee participation; (2) purpose to “deal with”
employers; (3) the dealing concerns conditions of employment or other statutory
subjects; and (4) for employee representation committees, evidence that the committee
has some representation of employees. Electromation, 309 at 996.
(1) Employee participation in T-Voice35
CSRs were selected to participate in T-Voice as representatives. Their terms of service
are limited, but not so limited as to say individuals were participating as opposed to a selection
of representatives. Short terms tend to favor obtaining significant input from a multitude of
employees with face to face contacts. NLRB v. Streamway Div., 274 F.2d 691, 294-295 (6th Cir.
1982) (3-month rotation indicated less likelt to be employee representation and therefore acting 40
as individuals); Sears, Roebuck & Co., 274 NLRB 230, 243-244 (1985) (one employee from
each department met with management only for two meetings before rotating out). At first,
JD−23−17
33
CSRs were selected for six months, and now for 9 months. This information demonstrates that
employee participation was more likely on a representative basis, not on an individual basis.

(2) Whether T-Voice existed, at least in part, of “dealing with” the employer
Any group may be an employee representation committee or plan if it includes employee 5
participation and deals with conditions of work or other statutory subjects. Electromation, 309
NLRB at 994. The term” dealing with” is broader than “collective bargaining” and “applies in
situations that do not contemplate the negotiation of a collective-bargaining agreement.”
Electromation, 309 NLRB at 995. An anti-union motive is not necessary to make the finding that
an employer violates Section 8(a)(2). Electromation, 309 NLRB at 996. However, the purpose 10
of the group or its actual dealings, not motive, drives the discussion on “dealing with” employees
for conditions of employment. Id. at 996; NLRB v. Peninsula, 36 F.3d at 1270. For further
elucidation of “the interplay between Section 8(a)(2) and Section 2(5),” the Electromation Board
relied upon NLRB v. Cabot Carbon Co., 360 U.S. 203 (1959).
The question then is whether T-Voice dealt with Respondent as a “bilateral mechanism 15
in which that group of employees effectively made proposals to management, and management
responded to these proposals by acceptance or rejection by word or deed.” Polaroid Corp., 329
NLRB 424, 425 (1999), citing E.I. du Pont & Co., 311 NLRB 893, 894 (1993). To establish
dealing, the evidence must show a pattern or practice, or a purpose to have a pattern or
practice; if the group only makes “ad hoc proposals,” even with management acceptance or 20
rejection, dealing is not present. E.I du Pont, 311 NLRB at 894. Compromise is not a
necessary element. Id.
The pattern and practice with T-Voice shows that employees effectively made proposals.
Respondent, in its SharePoint spreadsheet, referred to pain point submissions as suggestions
or feedback. Despite these labels, employees made numerous proposals for changes in their 25
scheduling, benefits and metrics. Dillon Stores, 319 NLRB 1245, 1251 (1995).
If the purpose of the tasks assigned to the employees is purely a managerial function,
then no dealing exists. Crown Cork & Seal, Co., Inc., 334 NLRB , (2001), discussing
Electromation, 309 NLRB at 995 and General Foods Corp., 231 NLRB 1232, 1232-1233 (1977).
On the other hand, when a group of employees discuss suggestions that were submitted by 30
other employees with management, Respondent appears to have designated the “worker
members” as representatives of their coworkers. NLRB v. Webcor Packaging, Inc., 118 F.3d
1115, 1120-1121 (6th Cir. 1998), enfg. in rel. part 319 NLRB 1204 (1995). The T-Voice
representative duties were not merely managerial. Because the suggesting employees are
absent and the “worker members” are acting in their stead during local and national meetings35
and collection of pain points, T-Voice used the “worker members” as representatives of the
coworkers, particularly in management meetings, focus groups and other such contacts. Id.
EFCO Corp., 327 NLRB 372 (1998), enfd. 215 F.3d 1318 (4th Cir. 2000) must be
considered for “dealing with.” The Board found three of four employer-established employee
committees unlawful. The fourth committee, the employee suggestions screening committee, 40
did not deal with the employer. This committee only reviewed suggestions in a “clerical or
ministerial” method to screen suggestions from the employees’ suggestion box. 327 NLRB at
376. T-Voice did not just screen pain points. The T-Voice representatives participated in focus
groups about the issues, which is beyond screening of suggestions, and implies a bilateral
mechanism, beyond brain storming, to address pain points. Id. 45
JD−23−17
34
I also find instructive Reno Hilton Resorts, 319 NLRB 1154, 1156-1157 (1995). The
employees raised issues such as compensation and other employment matters, including
safety, equipment needed, employee rotation, training of new employees, staffing air flow in
working areas, job descriptions, and paid sick days. Although the majority of concerns did not
deal with wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment, the Board applied the 5
definition of Section 2(5) to find that the employee organization in part dealt with the employer
concerning those subjects. Id. at 1156-1157. Similarly here, although most of the issues did
not deal with employee pain points, the employee pain points raised the loyalty program, paid
time off and rewards through metrics. Respondent gave T-Voice credit for raising paid time off
and the loyalty program and that T-Voice got results. 10
Before filing of the unfair labor practice charge, a number of the responses to the pain
points also show some consideration by management. For benefits, some were forwarded to
the benefits provider. For metrics, Senior Analyst Irvin reviewed methods and gave responses.
Tolman too forwarded to EE&RP.
Respondent characterized T-Voice as no more than a permissive suggestion box. (R. 15
Br. at 4). Indeed, T-Voice sometimes used a suggestion box and the email equivalent of a
suggestion box. A suggestion box normally would be a safe haven as it is unilateral and the
proposals are made individually, not in group fashion. Polaroid Corp., 329 NLRB at 425.
However, collection of pain points was not limited to the suggestion boxes. T-Voice
representatives solicited pain points through face to face contacts, such as table days and 20
knowledge days. T-Voice representatives primarily collected the suggestions and presented
them to management. According to Respondent’s witnesses, the SharePoint entries were not
to be duplicated. As seen above, several of the pain points identify concerns either from a
number of representatives or a number of call centers. Compared to the suggestion box, T-
Voice also made responses directly and indirectly to those who submitted pain points. In 25
several cases, Respondent moved the submitted employee pain point to a different department
or to other managers to address the issue, with the promise to have further updates. The
communication therefore was not a unilateral submission of pain points.
Respondent also cites Crown Cork & Seal, supra, to deny T-Voice dealt with
Respondent. However, the Board found the tasks delegated to the employee committees were 30
purely managerial and therefore could not be a labor organization pursuant to Section 2(5). 334
NLRB at 701-702. As pointed out in Keeler Brass Automotive Group, 317 NLRB 1110, 1114
(1995), the committees in Crown Cork & Seal made changes without the employer’s approval.
With T-Voice, some of the tasks, such as training, could be considered managerial;
nonetheless, the collection of employee pain points and attendance at focus groups and 35
Respondent’s pattern of responses support a finding that Respondent used T-Voice to “deal
with.”
(3) These dealings concerned “grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment or conditions of work.”
As described above, T-Voice dealt with a number of employee pain points and 40
Respondent credited T-Voice with a number of changes, particularly in its loyalty program, paid
time off, WiFi access, and charging stations in Springfield. In many pain points when changes
were not made, Respondent logged in answers in its SharePoint program, with some directly
addressed to employees or a call center, why it could not comply, or that the issue was under
consideration. Thompson Ramo Woolridge, Inc., 132 NLRB 993, 994-995 (1962), enfd. as 45
modified, 305 F.2d 807 (7th Cir. 1962).
JD−23−17
35
Despite Respondent’s insistence that T-Voice was not supposed to deal with these
issues, the process and answers given within the SharePoint log undermine testimony from
Respondent’s witnesses. This conclusion is further supported by anecdotal evidence from
CSRs and emails from management, including Vice President Brueckman. Even if metrics were
excluded, the topics dealt directly with diverse employee issues, such as paid time off, 5
grandparental leave, wifi access for employees, vision benefits, among others. Dillon Stores,
319 NLRB at 1247-1248 (e.g., requests about smoking lounge and vacation are proposals on
wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment).
Respondent skims over this topic in its analysis, with little discussion of the topics,
volume of interactions and handling of the issues. I distinguish the issues from the one issue 10
resolved in General Foods, 231 NLRB at 1235: There the only issue possibly dealt with holiday
work schedules, which the administrative law judge termed as “de minimis and isolated.” Here,
the number of issues included not only holiday schedules, but paid time off, other forms of
leave, loyalty awards, how to obtain and use Appreciation Zone awards, and the metrics
described above. Because the pain points were not supposed to be repeated in the SharePoint 15
spread sheet, some of the pain points note that a number of representatives asked for the same
thing.
Based upon this information, T-Voice dealt specifically with issues impacting only
employees, not customers.
(4) Evidence of some representation of employees20
Representation of employees is evidenced by T-Voice obtained T-Voice representatives
from different shifts, various call functions and different call centers. Anecdotal evidence
demonstrates that the T-Voice representatives verbally encouraged fellow CSRs to submit pain
points either indirectly through suggestion boxes or email or directly to them. But see EFCO,
327 NLRB at 375 fn. 8 (citing Electromation, 309 NLRB at 994 fn. 20, finding that the 25
committees acted in a representational capacity and therefore unnecessary to determine
whether employee group acted as a representative of other employees).
(5) Conclusion Regarding 2(5) Status
The factors support a finding that T-Voice was a labor organization within the meaning of 30
Section 2(5) of the Act. The next step is to determine whether T-Voice was dominated as
alleged.
C. Was T-Voice Dominated, as Defined in Section 8(a)(2) of the Act?
Section 8(a)(2) of the Act states that an employer commits an unfair labor practice when 35
it acts to:
To dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor
organization or contribute financial or other supporter to it: Provided, That
subject to rules and regulations made and published by the board pursuant to
section 6, an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to 40
confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay . . . .
Electromation, 309 NLRB at 995-996, instructs that actual domination exists “by virtue of
the employer’s specific acts of creating the organization itself and determining its structure and
JD−23−17
36
function.” If the organization is formed by employees and its structure is determined by
employees, then the organization is not dominated. Id. 33
This analysis here examines three elements for an employee representation group:
Management creates the labor organization; management determines the structure and function 5
of the labor organization; and management controls the continued existence of management.
Webcor Packaging, Inc., 319 NLRB at 1204.
Uncontroverted evidence shows Respondent created T-Voice. Yukon Mfg. Co., 310
NLRB 314, 335-336 (1993). It completely supported T-Voice financially. Tolman drew up the 10
by-laws. Respondent determined T-Voice’s purpose: Until the unfair labor practice charge was
filed, T-Voice was not limited to collecting and resolving customer pain points in a “closed
feedback loop,” but also dealt with employee pain points. Tolman’s documentation even stated
that the program was to drive recognition.
15
Respondent dictated the T-Voice’s structure and direction by establishing its goals and
meeting agendas, requiring face to face meetings with management, and determining how to
enter pain points. Management attended the committee meetings. These facts demonstrate
that Respondent determined the structure and function of T-Voice. EFCO, 327 NLRB at 377.
T-Voice’s administration and continued existence depended upon Respondent. 20
Respondent stipulated that it provided all financial support for T-Voice. It maintained all
databanks and controlled the scheduling of T-Voice representatives’ activities through resource
planning.34 Respondent, with some assistance from T-Voice representatives, solicited CSRs for
new T-Voice representatives at Respondent’s appointed times. Respondent determined how
many T-Voice representatives would serve at a time, the length of service, and which areas 25
would be represented. T-Voice representatives were selected by management according to
Respondent’s criteria. Electromation, 35 F.3d at 1154; NLRB v. Webcor Packaging, Inc., 118
F.3d 1115 (6th Cir. 1997), cert. denied 118 S.Ct. 1035 (1998), enfg. 319 NLRB 1203 (1995).
Respondent never claimed that T-Voice could be disbanded at the employees’ choice and no
evidence was presented to show T-Voice had a limited life span. Thus, T-Voice’s initial and 30
continued existence depended upon Respondent.
The question here is whether T-Voice “is the creation of management, whose structure
and function are essentially determined by management . . . and whose continued existence
depends on the fiat of management.” Electromation, Inc., 309 NLRB at 995. Each of these 35
factors has been demonstrated. In Reno Hilton, 319 NLRB at 1157, domination existed when
the employer developed the quality committee, created the agendas, determined the number,
size and structure of the committees and paid the employees for their time. Management
included itself in the committee meetings and maintained “ultimate decision making power.” Id.
Similarly, employees volunteered for their positions. Id. However, Respondent took the 40
domination one step further than in Reno Hilton by having managers make the ultimate
selection of the T-Voice representatives. Compare Reno Hilton, 319 NLRB at 1157.

33 Employee satisfaction or dissatisfaction with T-Voice is not relevant to the inquiry. NLRB v.
Newport News Shipbuiding & Dry Dock Co., 308 U.S. 241, 247-248 (1939). I therefore make no findings
and rely upon objective facts.
34 According to Keeler Brass Automotive Group, 317 NLRB at 1115-1116, paying for T-Voice
representatives’ time and providing meeting space and equipment are not per se violations of Section
8(a)(2); however, when “in furtherance of Respondent’s domination of the Committee,” the totality of
circumstances dictates that Respondent was not acting at “arm’s length” with T-Voice. Id.
JD−23−17
37
Respondent’s actions with T-Voice are similar to Ryder Distribution Resources, Inc., 311 NLRB
814 (1993): Domination existed when an employer created wage and benefit committee, sought
employee volunteers, assigned management representative to committee, conducted
formalized training sessions to teach employees about employer’s problem-solving methods
and financially supported the committee. Respondent also appointed specific managers to 5
coordinate the entire program. Electromation, 35 F.3d at 1162-1163.
Respondent’s brief does not contend that it cured its unlawful conduct after the unfair
labor practice charge was filed, but I consider Respondent’s conduct pre- and post-charge. An
employer may relieve itself of unlawful conduct through an effective repudiation. Passavant
Memorial Area Hospital, 127 NLRB 138 (1978). The repudiation must be timely, unambiguous, 10
specific to the nature of the conduct, and free from other proscribed illegal conduct. Id., citing
Douglas Div., The Scott & Fetzer Co., 228 NLRB 1016, 1024 (1977). Although Respondent
tapered off on accepting employee pain points by the end of March 2016, or at least did not
enter them into the SharePoint spreadsheet, its actions do not pass the Passavant criteria as it
instead said that it re-emphasized that T-Voice was to collect only customer pain points. 15
Because the unlawful conduct took place over several months, Respondent’s shift to accepting
only customer pain points, without employee pain points, was not timely. Respondent did
nothing regarding its previous acceptance and treatment of employee pain points.
I therefore find that, since August 23, 2015, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) by
dominating T-Voice.20
IV. Allegations That Respondent Violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) By Promising and
Granting Benefits During Ongoing Union Campaign (Complaint ¶¶6(a) and 8)
General Counsel alleges that Respondent promised increased benefits and improved
terms and conditions for employment if employees submitted pain points through T-Voice, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1). (Complaint ¶6(a)). General Counsel also alleges that respondent 25
granted benefits through solicitation of grievances in violation of Section 8(a)(3). Both
allegations maintain that these actions occurred during Charging Party CWA’s ongoing union
campaign.
An anti-union motive is not necessary to make the finding that an employer violates 30
Section 8(a)(2). Electromation, 309 NLRB at 996. Also see NLRB v. Webcor, 118 F.3d at
1123. However, proof of an employer’s discriminatory motivation may be based on evidence of
the employer’s contemporaneous commission of other unfair labor practices. See, e.g.,
Amptech, Inc., 342 NLRB 1131, 1135 (2004), enfd. 165 Fed.Appx. 435 (6th Cir. 2006); David
Saxe Productions, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 100 (2016).35
Respondent’s witnesses testified that they accepted employee complaints through an
open door policy. However, with T-Voice, the methodology changed with implied promises to
remedy them. Center Service System Div., 345 NLRB 729, 730 (2005), enfd. in rel. part, 482
F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2007) (employer cannot rely on past practice if it significantly alters how it 40
solicits during a union campaign); Amptech, 342 NLRB at 1136. I therefore find that
Respondent’s promises to look into these issues and respond through T-Voice was indeed
solicitation of grievance and implied promises to remedy employee grievances during an
ongoing union campaign.
45
The Section 8(a)(3) allegation, however, requires a finding that Respondent, through T-
Voice, granted these benefits due to the ongoing unionization efforts. Because of the duration
JD−23−17
38
of the union campaign, which was over 6 years at the time of the hearing, I am unable to find
specific evidence of animus related to Respondent’s grant of benefits through T-Voice. The
prior unfair labor practices findings are not specific evidence that Respondent granted these
particular benefits to stave off unionization. Most cases cited by General Counsel and Charging
Party show that the grant of wage increases or other benefits occurred shortly after a union 5
campaign began or after the petition was filed. See, e.g., Capitol EMI Music, 311 NLRB 997,
1010-1011 (1993), enfd. 23 F.3d 399 (4th Cir. 1994).
Examining the grant of benefits under Section 8(a)(1), instead of Section 8(a)(3),
requires an analysis under NLRB v. Exchange Parts, 374 U.S. 405 (1964). Exchange Parts is 10
applicable even when a petition has not yet been filed. Manor Care Health Services-Easton,
356 NLRB 202, 222 (2010), enfd. 661 F.3d 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Normally analysis under
Section 8(a)(1) for grant of benefits would be through an objective standard, but Exchange Parts
examines for motive. Id., citing Network Dynamics Cabling, 351 NLRB 1423, 1424 (2007), and
cases cited therein. Here, a number of years passed, and like the Section 8(a)(3), I cannot say 15
the record shows that Respondent and T-Voice’s motives were spurred by animus. I therefore
shall recommend dismissal of this allegation.
V. Alleged Confidentiality Rule Prohibiting Employees from Discussing T-Voice, in
Violation of Section 8(a)(1)20
General Counsel contends that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) with six documents
labeled either confidential or for Respondent’s internal use only. As previously noted, all CSRs
sign a confidentiality agreement for trade secrets. I will first examine the applicable law, then
present the documents. Documents specifically arose in Albuquerque and on a national level.
Lastly, I examine the parties’ positions and provide analysis. 25
A. Applicable Law for Confidentiality
Section 7 provides employees with the right to self-organization and collectively
bargaining, as well as the right to act together for their mutual aid or protection. These rights
have long been interpreted to “necessarily encompass[ ] the right effectively to communicate 30
with one another regarding self-organization at the jobsite.” Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437
U.S. 483, 491 (1978). These rights includes employee communications regarding their terms
and conditions of employment. Central Hardware Co. v. NLRB, 407 U.S. 539, 542-543 (1972);
Parexel International, LLC, 356 NLRB 516, 518 (2011), citing Aroostook County Regional
Ophthalmology Center, 317 NLRB 218, 220 (1995), enfd. in part 81 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1996)35
(discussions regarding wages, the core of Section 7 rights, are the grist on which concerted
activity feeds).
An employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act if it maintains workplace rules that would
reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. See Lafayette Park
Hotel, 326 NLRB 824, 825 (1998), enfd. 203 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1999). The analytical framework 40
for assessing whether maintenance of rules violates the Act is set forth in Lutheran Heritage
Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004). Under Lutheran Heritage, a work rule is unlawful if “the
rule explicitly restricts activities protected by Section 7.” Id. at 646 (emphasis in original). If the
work rule does not explicitly restrict protected activities, it nonetheless will violate Section 8(a)(1)
if “(1) employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the 45
JD−23−17
39
rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict
the exercise of Section 7 rights.” Id. at 647.
Rules cannot be construed in isolation and must be given a reasonable reading. The
Roomstores of Phoenix, LLC, 357 NLRB 1690 fn. 3 (2011); Lutheran Heritage, 343 NLRB at
646. Any ambiguity in the rule must be construed against the drafter as employees should not 5
have to decide what information is not lawfully subject to prohibition. Hyundai America Shipping
Agency, 357 NLRB 860, 861-862 (2011); Lafayette Park, 343 NLRB at 825. Facial challenges
to the rules do not depend upon evidence of enforcement. Schwan’s Home Service, 364 NLRB
No. 20, slip op. at 2, fn. 4 (2016). All rules are examined to determine whether an employee
could reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activities. Lily Transportation 10
Corp., 362 NLRB No. 54 (2015).
An employer may legitimately require confidentiality rules in appropriate circumstances.
However, the employer must attempt to minimize the impact of such a rule upon protected
activity. Boeing Co., 362 NLRB No. 195, slip op. at 1 (2015). When the rule fails to present
“accompanying language that would tend to restrict its application,” employees reasonably could 15
assume that protected concerted activities, such as discussing wages, hours and terms and
conditions of employment, are included in the prohibition. Lily Transportation Corp., 362 NLRB
No. 54, slip op. at 1 and fn. 3.
B. Alleged Violations from Menaul
20
Each of the following four documents was labeled with the reminder: “Content is for T-
Mobile Internal Use Only.” Menaul Manager Niki Kozlowski was the author of each document.
General Counsel cites a July 11, 2015 example that included the phrase “Content is for
T-Mobile Internal Use Only”. General Counsel summarized the email as follows:25
In a July 11, 2015 email from Kozlowski to all employees at the
Albuquerque Menaul Call Center, she praises the work of T-Voice by noting
thenumber of pain points submitted along with a request for employees to submit
anyideas they have to improve customer service options, policy updates, nice to 30
haves, etc. Within her email, Kozlowski included pictures of T-Voice
Representatives along with the line, “Content is for T-Mobile Internal Use Only”.
The second instance raised by General Counsel was a December 9, 2015, email from
Kozlowski, in which she solicited employees for new T-Voice representatives. After thanking 35
everyone for making 2015 a year in which T-Voice members effectuated changes, she stated T-
Voice was the method of identifying, discussing, and communicating solutions to roadblocks for
internal and external customers, and for providing frontline feedback to senior management.
(GC. Exh. 20).
40
In the third instance, Kozlowski’s email discussed a scavenger hunt at Menual. The hunt
concerned Respondent’s new intranet site and, in turn, promised employees an opportunity to
win prizes like smartphone and accessories. (GC Exh. 94 at T1660).
JD−23−17
40
Lastly, on August 6, 2016, Kozlowski emailed the Menaul employees to recruit for new
T-Voice representatives. After thanking the current T-Voice representatives, she briefly
included the purpose of T-Voice and the necessary method for applying for a position. (GC
Exh. 6).
5
C. Alleged documents at the corporate level
1. T-Voice Charter
The T-Voice Charter was marked “T-Mobile Confidential.” (GC Exh. 40; GC Exh. 94 at 10
T1053). Employees received copies of the charter. (Tr. 421). The charter includes no specific
data of trade secrets, marketing plans, or specifics on metrics. Instead, it identifies the goal of
T-Voice to create a closed loop communication system, briefly identifies selection criteria for T-
Voice representatives, discusses meeting schedules for clearing up points,” and identifies in
generalities the key tasks. (GC Exh. 40).15
2. Summary of Charleston summit posted to OneVoice
Respondent posted to its intranet site a one-page summary about the Charleston
summit. All employees have access to the intranet. Authored by Senior Communications 20
Manager for Frontline Communications Vanessa Gallant, the summary discusses that 65 T-
Voice representatives attended the summit and an overview of what happened. (GC Exh. 94 at
TMSP1538). The bottom line states “Content is for Internal TMUS Use Only.”
D. Parties’ Positions and Analysis25
None of the emails were issued in response to union activity. Nothing in the record
reflects enforcement of the confidentiality requirement. Therefore the standard is based upon
whether a reasonable employee would read the confidentiality requirement as preventing the
employee from sharing the information with persons outside the organization.30
1. Parties’ Positions
General Counsel argues that the confidentiality requirements in the above emails and
documents restrict employee communication about their wages, hours, and terms and 35
conditions of employment, pursuant to Lutheran Heritage, supra, and Triple Play Sports Bar &
Grille, 361 NLRB No. 31, slip op. at 1 (2014). Respondent contends that the lack of testimony
about the phrase warrants a finding that General Counsel did not carry its burden of proof.
Respondent also contends that most of the documents concerning T-Voice, except 40
those mentioned by General Counsel, were not subject to such restriction and employees
therefore would understand that:
. . . the six-word phrase can only be interpreted, at most, as a restriction on the
“content of the particular email, if and only if, the email contains information not 45
readily available elsewhere concerning T-Voice (i.e., commercially sensitive or
non-public information concerning customers. This reading would not violate the
law.”
JD−23−17
41
(R. Br. at 117). Respondent points to two cases to demonstrate that a general warning is
sufficient for these documents: Super K-Mart, 330 NLRB 263, 263-264 (1999); and Lafayette
Park Hotel, 326 NLRB at 824 and 826.
2. Analysis5
No evidence was presented that the warnings of confidentiality were enforced and I am
permitted to determine whether the documents are facially lawful. See generally Schwan’s
Home Services, supra.
10
The first Menaul email occurred in July 2015. The 6-month statute of limitations is based
upon a charge filed on February 23, 2016. The statute of limitations period begins then on
August 23, 2015. Because this email occurred before the statute of limitations, I dismiss any
portion of the allegation relating to this email.
15
The remainder of the emails occurred within the statute of limitations. None contain any
trade secrets, marketing plans, or other information that might be considered confidential.
Nothing discusses private customer information. A reasonable employee would not necessarily
read the emails with its confidentiality restriction and follow Respondent’s logic to search for
other documents that allow outside discussion. Respondent’s reasoning ignores that, in 20
requiring employees to search for similar information, it supports a finding that the confidentiality
requirements are ambiguous. Further, Respondent’s logic, that the information is available
elsewhere and employees would know whether the information was confidential from other
documents, begs the question: Why these emails? Respondent has not explained satisfactorily
why these emails, compared to other documents, are confidential, but the information implicitly 25
may not be so restricted. One email promises potential rewards for participation in the
scavenger hunt and therefore deals with a benefit Respondent gave to employees. These
emails deal with working conditions, including the existence of T-Voice. I therefore find that
Respondent unlawfully restricted communication about the three Menaul emails by labeling
them as confidential and for internal use only.30
I rely upon more recent cases, such as Boeing, supra, and Lily Transportation, supra,
than Super K-Mart and Lafayette. The facts in Lafayette Park Hotel are distinguishable as well.
The Board in Lafayette Park Hotel examined a rule that prohibited divulging private information
to employees, other individuals, or entities without authorization to receive such information. 35
The Board concluded that employees reasonably would understand that the confidential
information was legitimate business information, not information related to Section 7 rights.
VI. Section 8(a)(1) Allegation that Manager Interrogated Employees about Home Visits
from Charging Party (Complaint ¶6(b))40
A. January 8, 2016: Events in a Wichita Call Center Group Meeting (Complaint ¶6(b)
Three teams met with Wichita Director Jeffrey Elliott. The teams were supervised by
Coahes Wambach, Uhde and Maron, with about 35 to 40 people in attendance.
CSR Angela Melvin testified that Elliott began the meeting with statistics on the number
of pain points submitted and the number resolved. He gave statistics on the decline of unions45
and said he had an open door policy. Uhde talked about the iPhone launch and effect on call
backs/iOCR. Melvin further testified that, at the beginning of the meeting, Elliott asked how
JD−23−17
42
many people had a home visit from a union representative. Five to six people raised their
hands. Maron talked about that things an employer could and could not say, and further said
that signing a union card was like signing a blank check. Melvin raised her hand and said there
was no union at T-Mobile at the time. One of the CSRs, Vincent Krehbiel, started screaming at
her in the meeting about how the hell she got his address. Melvin said she did not have his 5
address. He said the hell she didn’t. She said she did not, but the union might. Krehbiel asked
Jeff Elliott if he could hit the union representatives with his car. Elliott said, in a condescending
manner, that he did not want anyone to get hurt. (Tr. 366).
CSR Vincent Krehbiel, who attended the meeting as part of Uhde’s team, testified that
he was the one who brought up how the Union obtained his address. He addressed his 10
concern to Elliott, but admitted asking how many of his fellow employees had been contacted by
the Union at their homes. (Tr. 520). Elliott said the company did not provide that information to
employees. (Tr. 525). Krehbiel directed his questions several times to one female employee,
whose name he did not know, about the Union obtaining personal information. He said the
fellow employee gave him no response. He was angry then, and he was angry when he 15
testified as well because he did not want his wife disturbed. Krehbiel recalled little else in the
meeting.
B. Analysis
I credit that Krehbiel raised the issue of whether the Union had the employee addresses.
Elliott testified but had little independent recall of the overall meeting events. I do not rely upon 20
his testimony except for identifying Krehbiel as the person who questioned his fellow employees
about the home visits. Melvin had difficulty recalling events and was hesitant. I therefore
cannot find that Elliott interrogated employees about the home visits and recommend dismissal
of this allegation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW25
1. Respondent T-Mobile USA, Inc. is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. Charging Party Communication Workers of America AFL-CIO is a labor organization 30
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Since at least June 1, 2015, T-Voice has been a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
35
4. Since August 23, 2015, Respondent T-Mobile, through T-Voice, violated Section 8(a)(1)
by implied promising to remedy grievances during an ongoing union campaign.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by limiting to internal discussion only certain emails
and documents. 40
6. Since August 23, 2015, Respondent T-Mobile violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act by
maintaining, dominating and assisting T-Voice.
7. The unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent affect commerce within the45
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
JD−23−17
43
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent T-Mobile USA, Inc. has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. 5
Whenever an employer unlawfully establishes and maintains a dominated labor
organization, that organization must be disestablished. Webcor, 319 NLRB at 1206 and cases
cited therein. The rationale for doing so dates back to the earlier days of enforcing the Act: The
dominated labor organization cannot function as a bargaining representative of employees and
employees must have a choice to begin anew for organizing purposes. Id. (citing NLRB v. 10
Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 U.S. 261, 270 (1938) and NLRB v. Newport News
Shipbuilding Co., 308 U.S. 241, 250 (1939)). Also see: Keeler Brass Automotive Group, 317
NLRB at 1116; Ona Corp., 278 NLRB 400 (1987) (disestablishment essential when §8(a)(2)
violation found).
Regarding the unlawful confidentiality provisions that act as unlawful rules, Respondent 15
must immediately rescind the offending rule so that employees may engage in protected activity
without fear of being subjected to the unlawful rule. Guardsmark, LCC, 344 NLRB 809, 812
(2005), enfd. in rel. part 475 F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Pursuant to Guardsmark, Respondent
may comply with the Order by rescinding the unlawful rules and republishing the documents
without them. Any revised documents should be distributed to all employees. 20
The Respondent shall post an appropriate informational notice, as described in the
attached appendix. This notice shall be posted in the Employer's facility or wherever the notices
to employees are regularly posted for 60 days without anything covering it up or defacing its
contents. 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 25
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. 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 August 23, 2015. When the notice is 30
issued to the Employer, it shall sign it or otherwise notify Region 14 of the Board what action it
will take with respect to this decision.
General Counsel requests the enhanced remedy of notice readings. For serious and
persistent multiple unfair labor practices, a notice reading is a “minimal acknowledgement of the
obligation . . . imposed by law and provides employees with some assurance that their rights 35
under the Act will be respected in the future.” Affinity Medical Center, 362 NLRB No. 78, slip op.
at 1 (2015). According to General Counsel, notice readings are particularly important to ensure
that all employees, not just those reading bulletin boards, are aware of the information
contained in the Board’s notice. UNF West, Inc. v. NLRB, 844 F.3d 451, 463 (5th Cir. 2016),
enfg. 363 NLRB No. 96 (2016). The reading is an “effective but moderate way to let in a 40
warming wind of information, and more important, reassurance.” J.P. Stevens & Co v. NLRB,
417 F.2d 533, 539-540 (5th Cir. 1969).
General Counsel relies upon past cases involving Respondent’s actions. Respondent,
at its Albuquerque Menaul Call Center, promulgated an unlawful rule against speaking about
JD−23−17
44
unionization. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 15 (2017). Another case, found Respondent
maintained numerous unlawful rules at its facilities across the United States and Puerto Rico.
T-Mobile USA, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 171 (2016). Respondent appealed four of the rules to the
Fifth Circuit; the Board has applied for enforcement. Also pending is an administrative law
judge’s ruling regarding the Wichita facility, but it is not precedential until the Board rules upon 5
Respondent’s exceptions. I do not rely upon these earlier decisions as they are of a different
nature than the Section 8(a)(2) violations found here.
Although I find the Section 8(a)(2) violation pervasive throughout the call centers, the
prior unfair labor practices primarily involve rules, interrogation, and threats of discipline. I
cannot find the prior labor practices, even coupled with the Section 8(a)(2) violation, constitutes 10
such a combination of serious violations. I therefore decline to recommend reading of notices.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended35
ORDER
15
Respondent T-Mobile USA, Inc., its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from
a. Dominating, interfering with the formation or administration, or assisting or 20
otherwise supporting T-Voice or any other labor organization at any of its call
center facilities;
b. Soliciting grievances and impliedly promising to remedy them during an ongoing
union campaign;25
c. Maintaining confidentiality rules on emails and summaries about T-Voice,
including recruiting for T-Voice representatives, scavenger hunts, the T-Voice
Charter, and the summary of the Charleston summit.
30
d. 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
35
a. Immediately disestablish and cease giving assistance, including administration
and financial assistance, or any other support to T-Voice or any other labor
organization;
b. Rescind or revise the emails and documents, which recruit for T-Voice positions, 40
direct employees to engage in a scavenger hunt, the T-Voice charter, and the

35If 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 due under the
terms of this Order.
JD−23−17
45
summary of the Charleston summit, that limit disclosure of the information to
internal use only or are marked confidential.
c. Furnish all employees with revised copies of the documents above that advise
that the unlawful rules have been rescinded, or provide language of lawful rules. 5
d. Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its call center facilities copies
of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”36 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being signed by
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent and 10
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 an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if
the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. 15
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If Respondent has gone
out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, 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 20
since August 23, 2015.
3. Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 14
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 all allegations contained in the complaint found not to 25
constitute unfair labor practices are dismissed.
Dated: Washington, D.C. April 3, 2017
30
__________________________________
Sharon Levinson Steckler
Administrative Law Judge35

36If 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."
,4hwm sd,#-Ai74.,zL
JD−23−17
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
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 dominate, assist or otherwise support T-Voice or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT solicit grievances or impliedly promise to remedy them during an
ongoing union campaign.
WE WILL NOT maintain rules that prohibit your discussions about T-Voice, such as
recruiting for T-Voice representatives, directing you to participate in scavenger hunts, discussing
the Charleston summit or T-Voice Charter with anyone not employed by the company.
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 immediately disestablish and cease giving any assistance or support to T-
Voice or any other labor organization.
WE WILL rescind or revise the rules that prohibit your discussions about T-Voice, such
as recruiting for T-Voice representatives, directing you to participate in scavenger hunts,
discussing the Charleston summit or T-Voice Charter with anyone not employed by the
company.
WE WILL provide you with revised or rescinded copies of the documents that previously
prohibited discussions about T-Voice, such as recruiting for T-Voice representatives, directing
you to participate in scavenger hunters, and discussing the Charleston summit or the T-Voice
Charter with anyone not employed by the company.
T-MOBILE USA, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
JD−23−17
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. The Administrative Law Judge’s
decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/ 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. You also may obtain information from the
Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
1222 Spruce Street, Room 8.302, St. Louis, MO 63103-2829
(314) 539-7770, Hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/14-CA-170229 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,
(314) 449-7493.