Verizon NY Inc

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Nov 16, 2010

29-CA-030039 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 16, 2010)

JD(NY)-46-10
Northport, NY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
VERIZON NEW YORK, INC.
AND CASE NO. 29-CA-30039
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO
Nancy Reibstein, Esq., for the General Counsel
E. Michael Rossman, Esq., (Jones Day), of
Columbus, Ohio and Steven Martin, Esq.,
of New York, New York, for the
Respondent
Amy S. Young, Esq., of New York, New York,
for the Union
DECISION
Statement of the Case
ELEANOR MACDONALD: Administrative Law Judge: This case was tried in
Brooklyn, New York, on May 18 and 27, 2010. The Complaint alleges that Respondent, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, refused to furnish the Union with information in
connection with a pending grievance. Respondent denies that it has engaged in any violations
of the Act.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the parties on August 6, 2010, I make the following1
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
Respondent, a corporation with facilities at 741 Zeckendorf Boulevard, Garden City, New
York and 720 Larkfield Road, East Northport, New York, is engaged in the telecommunications
industry. Annually, Respondent derives gross revenues in excess of $100,000 and purchases
and receives at its Garden City facility, goods and materials valued in excess of $5,000 directly
from suppliers located outside the State of New York. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act,
and that Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

1 The record is hereby corrected so that at page 39, line 10, the correct name is Tracy
Riess; at page 41, line 1, the date is in 2009.
JD(NY)-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Background
Respondent and the Union have been parties to successive collective-bargaining
agreements, the most recent of which is effective from August 4, 2008 to August 3, 2011. The
appropriate unit is defined as
Included: All employees of Verizon New York, Inc., and of the Telesector Resources
Group, Inc., in locations that are not within the states of Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, and whose occupational classifications are listed in the craft,
building and supplies, clerical and miscellaneous groups appearing in Article 31 and
which employees and occupational classifications are part of Company organizations
that were formerly part of the New York Telephone Company’s plant, network
operations, customer services, technical services, engineering and facilities
organizations; all employees in the Empire City Subway Company (limited).
The issue in the instant case arises out of an incident that took place on May 29, 2009 in
the Commack Garage located in Suffolk County, Long Island, New York.2 Michael Oddo, the
Union’s Chief Shop Steward in the garage, and Thomas Elias, the company Field Manager,
were discussing a grievance relating to the discipline of bargaining unit technicians.3 The
grievance discussion became heated and led to some physical contact between Oddo and
Elias. Thereafter, Respondent’s Security Department conducted an investigation and on August
4, 2009 it issued an investigative report, also called a security report. On August 5, 2009
Respondent issued a written warning to Oddo. The Union filed a grievance and requested the
security report and other information. Although some information was furnished to the Union,
there is a dispute about a portion of the security report that was not disclosed.
In addition to Field Manager Elias, Respondent’s managers involved in this matter are
the following:
Tracey Edwards, Vice President responsible for installation and maintenance of
FIOS and copper products
Wajeeha Aziz, Field Director of FIOS in Suffolk County, a third level manager
Tracy Riess, second level manager for FIOS in Suffolk County
Peter De Rosa, formerly a supervisor in Commack, now a manager in Hawthorne
Paul Duryea, FIOS manager in Suffolk County
Richard Coulton, Senior Consultant in Labor Relations for Verizon
In addition to Chief Shop Steward Oddo, the other Union officials involved in this matter
are the following:

2 The garage is occasionally said to be located in Northport and not in Commack.
3 Oddo has been Chief Steward for 10 years.
JD(NY)-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
Robert Morrow, President of CWA Local 1108,
Donald Dunn, Executive Vice President of Local 1108
David Lamberson, Union business agent for North Suffolk County
B. The Warning to Oddo and the Requests for Information
Union Vice President Donald Dunn testified that on August 5, 2009, he received a
telephone message from manager Waheeja Aziz informing him that Respondent had issued a
written warning to Michael Oddo. Dunn went to the Commack garage to attend the meeting
where the warning would be given to Oddo. Manager Tracy Riess read the warning to Oddo in
Dunn’s presence. Dunn asked Riess a few questions and informed her that the Union was filing
a grievance. Dunn gave Riess a written request for information. Riess took notes and said she
would give the information request to her boss. Dunn told Riess he wanted the information
before he sat the grievance.
The Notice of Warning issued to Oddo read as follows
This letter serves as written warning. On May 29, 2009 you exceeded the boundaries of
appropriate steward behavior. You disregarded several requests by Mr. Elias to let him
leave his cubicle/office space and blocked his means of exit. While we are mindful of
your rights as a shop steward, we cannot condone your behavior on the aforementioned
date. Please be advised should you have another instance of this type of behavior you
will be subject to further disciplinary action.
The Union’s request for information stated that certain documents were sought with
respect to a grievance for “unjust warning.” The information listed on the request was
Foremen Statements (Tom Elias, Jim Casciotta)4
EAP Notes, Recommendation
Mike Oddo’s previous history of aggression and any other warnings and disciplines and
corrective training
Mike Oddo’s Teds report and evaluations and appraisals5
Security report and all statements taken about the incident
Union President Robert Morrow was on vacation on August 5 when he learned from
Dunn that Oddo had received a written warning. As president of the Local, Morrow generally
deals with Respondent’s Vice President Tracey Edwards. Morrow telephoned Edwards on
August 6 to ask why he had not been told about the warning. Morrow told Edwards that the
Union wanted all the information pertinent to the case, including the investigative reports, any
managerial reports and the interviews. Edwards assured him that the information would be in
his office when he returned from vacation. Morrow testified that the Union has always asked for
these documents in the past and they have always been provided. Edwards did not testify
about the August 6 conversation with Morrow. Indeed, she testified, “I don’t recall the first date
that I spoke with Bob Morrow.”
On August 7, 2009 Aziz telephoned Dunn to discuss the agenda for a series of second

4 Casciotta is not further identified herein.
5 The Ted’s report was not mentioned at the instant hearing.
JD(NY)-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
step grievances. Dunn told Aziz that he was still waiting for the information he sought with
respect to Oddo’s warning. Dunn asked Aziz whether she had received the written request from
Riess and Aziz said “yes” and that she would look into it and would get Dunn what he needed.
Aziz told Dunn that if anything was missing he should contact her. On August 14, Dunn spoke
to Aziz and told her that he had not yet received anything in response to his information request.
Aziz said, “They are reviewing it”. Aziz informed Dunn that she did not know if he would get
everything he asked for, but she not specify what information might be withheld from the Union.
Dunn said he did not understand why he would not be given everything he had requested; he
remarked that the Union had received this information in previous cases. Dunn said the Union
needed the information to determine whether it had an argument about the warning and whether
it should pursue the grievance. Aziz said she would check and get back to Dunn.
When Morrow returned from vacation on August 17 he learned that the information
requested from Respondent had not been provided. He telephoned Edwards but she was
away. Morrow called Aziz and told her that Edwards had promised he would have the
information upon his return. Aziz replied that she was not aware of Morrow’s conversation with
Edwards but that she would give the information to the Union at the second step of the
grievance. Morrow repeated that Edwards had assured him the information would be there
when he returned from vacation. Aziz advised Morrow to call Edwards upon her return. During
this conversation Morrow described the information the Union was seeking as the security
interviews and all the interviews the foreman may have done in the garage. Morrow said he
needed the information and could not go forward without it.
Aziz did not testify herein.
On August 21, 2009 Dunn wrote an e mail to Aziz, enclosing a copy of the Union’s
request for information. The e mail stated
This is a copy of the Request for Information that was given to Tracy Riess on
Wednesday August 5th 2009 immediately after Mike Oddo was given a written warning.
As of today we still don’t have the information…. [Matter relating to other issues omitted
here.] I don’t know what the problem is with getting us this information. We ask for this
information and get it all the time when a grievance is filed for discipline (warning,
suspension, etc.) Please get back to me when you get a chance.
Morrow and Edwards spoke on August 25. According to Morrow, Edwards told him she
had not realized that one security report dealt both with a craft employee (Oddo) and a
management employee (Elias). Morrow repeated that he needed all the information to make
the case. Edwards said she had spoken to the legal department and they would tell her what to
give the Union. Morrow said he needed everything and Edwards said he would get what he
was entitled to. Morrow testified that during this conversation Edwards did not mention any
concern related to confidentiality. She did not say she would give the Union only those portions
of the report that she relied on to discipline Oddo. Morrow stated that he did not tell Edwards
that he would accept only those parts of the security report that the company relied on in issuing
the discipline.
Edwards testified that she did not recall the first date she spoke with Morrow and, after
consulting a document that was placed before her, she stated that it was August 25. She added
that this was her first conversation with Morrow about the Oddo matter. Edwards acknowledged
that she told Morrow of her concern that the Security report was a combined report for Oddo
and Elias. Edwards also testified that she informed Morrow that she was concerned for the
additional reason that giving the Union all the information it asked for would identify employees
JD(NY)-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
who spoke to Security and might lead Oddo to retaliate against these employees. According to
Edwards, Morrow said he understood her concerns, he wanted to protect Oddo and he wanted
the information that she had used to discipline Oddo. Edwards told Morrow that she would
redact confidential information and would not provide the statement Elias gave to Security
because it was irrelevant in her discipline of Oddo.
Edwards testified that Oddo had past incidents of confrontations with other employees
and she was concerned about “workplace violence” because she had heard Oddo described by
managers as a “hot head” who retaliated against people. Edwards is aware of only one
disciplinary action against Oddo. In this connection, manager Peter DeRosa testified that in
August 2007 when he was a supervisor in Commack he had a confrontation with Oddo. Oddo
had completed his assignments for the morning and did not want any further jobs that day
because he had to handle a grievance. When DeRosa gave Oddo additional assignments
Oddo screamed and cursed at him. DeRosa suspended Oddo for the afternoon. DeRosa is
aware that Respondent has a “zero tolerance” policy for workplace violence yet DeRosa did not
call Security about the incident. DeRosa testified that he never spoke to Edwards about this
confrontation although he reported it to his direct supervisor at the time. The first time anyone
from management asked DeRosa about this incident was a few weeks before the instant
hearing. Additionally manager Paul Duryea testified that when he was a unit member in 2002
and Oddo was his shop steward, he and Oddo had confrontations about the Union’s policy
concerning completion of work assignments. Oddo cursed and yelled at him on more than one
occasion. Duryea did not ask his manager to take any action against Oddo and he did not
report to Security. However, he told his friend DeRosa about his relationship with Oddo.
Duryea stated that it is common to hear the word “fuck” in the garage and that such language
was not shocking. He added, “You’re cursing all the time.” The first time any of Respondent’s
representatives asked Duryea about his relationship with Oddo was two weeks before the
instant hearing.
Edwards testified that she had approved the warning issued to Oddo on the basis of the
August 4, 2009 security report and after a discussion with Aziz. According to Edwards she
relied only on the portion of the security report where Oddo described his actions during the
incident involving Elias. Edwards maintained that she did not rely on any other portions of the
report or interviews included in the report.
On August 28, 2009 the Union received a response to its information request. A cover
letter to Morrow from Edwards stated that she was enclosing a copy of the security report she
had received. She further wrote
As we discussed during our telephone conversation on August 25, 2009, I am including
only those portions of the report that I considered in making my decision to have Mr.
Oddo receive a warning for his actions, which is what you acknowledged you were
interested in seeing. Information unrelated to my decision regarding Mr. Oddo has been
redacted.
The enclosed report, entitled Investigative Report, contained the following Conclusion
On May 29, 2009, Local Manager Thomas H. Elias admitted he raised his hands onto
the chest of Field Technician Michael Oddo in order to move him out of the way while
trying to exit his office following a disciplinary discussion, but denied pushing him
backward into another technician. Witnesses outside the office stated that they saw the
door open and Mr. Elias raise two hands on Mr. Oddo’s chest, pushing him out.
Witnesses inside the office corroborated Mr. Elias’ statement that Mr. Oddo repeatedly
JD(NY)-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
blocked him with his body and they bumped bellies as Mr. Elias attempted to pass Mr.
Oddo to exit the doorway, even after Mr. Elias gave numerous verbal directives for him
to get out of his way so he could exit.
Field Technician Michael Oddo admitted body blocking Mr. Elias’s attempt to exit the
office, claiming he did so because he was in the middle of a discussion with him, despite
hearing Mr. Elias instruct him to get out of his way. Mr. Oddo also admitted he
continually tried to speak with Mr. Elias during the disciplinary discussion and as Mr.
Elias tried to leave the office, and that he may have stated that Mr. Elias had to speak to
him now, because he is a Chief Steward.
The Investigative Findings attached to the report consists of five pages almost half of
which are blacked out. A major portion of the “synopsis of events” is blacked out. The entire
portion of a statement made by Elias is blacked out. Also attached to the report is a
Memorandum of Interview. The interview with Oddo is given in its entirety. An interview
conducted with another person is entirely blacked out, and the name of the person interviewed
is not given.
In a section entitled “Background” the security report states that Oddo was the subject of
two previous workplace violence investigations. No disciplinary actions were taken in those
instances. The report also states that on August 16, 2007 Oddo was suspended by his
manager Peter DeRosa for insubordination and for verbally abusing management and
disrupting the workplace. Oddo was given one day off without pay as a result of the incident.
After Morrow received the report on August 28 he telephoned Edwards. Morrow told
Edwards that a lot of material was blacked out in the report and he said the Union needed more
information. Morrow asked to see what Elias had told Security during his interview; he said the
information was necessary for a decision about the grievance. Edwards replied that Morrow
had been given all the Union was entitled to get; he had the material on which she had based
her decision. Edwards did not testify about this conversation.
Morrow spoke to Edwards again on August 31. Edwards testified that on August 31
Morrow told her that after speaking to his Chief Steward he wanted additional information.
Morrow gave Edwards the names of field technicians present at the May 29 incident who had
been interviewed by Security in the presence of the Union’s Chief Steward. Morrow said he
wanted to be sure the Security report accurately reported their interviews.
Later that day Morrow received a one page summary of interviews conducted by
Security with six named field technicians who had been present during the May 29 incident. I
note that the summaries provided on August 31 contained significant facts relating to Oddo that
had not been included in the Conclusion and Investigative Findings given to the Union on
August 28. To cite only two examples; three technicians described how Elias pushed Oddo out
of his office causing Oddo to fall backwards onto a fourth technician who then fell, hurting his
head and neck.6 Three technicians stated that after Elias pushed Oddo out of his office Elias
continued the confrontation by taunting Oddo and inviting Oddo to hit him, but Oddo avoided
further contact with Elias.7
Morrow had asked Edwards for documents showing the full interviews, not just the

6 These were Richard Boyle, Johnnie Metzger and Shawn O’Gara.
7 These were Jeff Thieke, Richard Boyle and Shawn O’Gara.
JD(NY)-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
summaries. Moreover, Morrow had asked for the interview with Elias. This material had not
been provided.
Edwards testified that she provided the Union with everything she believed was relevant
to the discipline of Oddo; she herself decided what was relevant. Edwards knew that the Union
had requested the Security Report “in order to defend Oddo.” She did not think the interview
with Elias was relevant to the Union’s defense of Oddo in the grievance procedure. Originally
she had also redacted the names and summary interviews of all the employees who were
present at the incident. However, Edwards acknowledged that since these employees had all
been there with Oddo on May 29 their identities would have been known to him and to the
Union. Edwards did not offer the Union an entire unredacted report conditioned on keeping
certain material confidential from Oddo.
Edwards testified that after August 31, 2009 she did not speak to Morrow or any other
Union agent about the information request. Neither Coulton, nor Aziz nor Riess ever told her
that the Union wanted more information.
Morrow testified that after speaking to Edwards he realized that he would not be able to
resolve the issue with her as he had hoped. As a result he turned the matter over to Dunn for
resolution in the grievance procedure. Dunn would have to get the information from
Respondent’s labor relations department. Morrow stated that before the Oddo matter arose, he
had been given about 30 security reports by Respondent and that none had been redacted.
Edwards stated that this was the first time she had heard of a Security Report being redacted
before it was turned over to the Union.
Morrow instructed Dunn ask Labor Consultant Richard Coulton why the company would
not provide all the information requested. On September 1, 2009 Dunn told Coulton the Union
wanted the whole Security Report in order to proceed with the grievance. Coulton said he
would look into the matter and see what he could do. Coulton did not explain why parts of the
report had been withheld. He did not say that Respondent was concerned about potential
harassment of witnesses by Oddo and he did not cite any confidentiality concerns.
In early September 2009 Dunn attended a step 2 grievance for Oddo. Dunn was
accompanied by business agent Lamberson and Oddo. Riess represented the company along
with Mike Russell, a second level manager. The company denied the grievance. Dunn asked
Riess why the security report was blacked out and he told her that he needed the full security
report and memorandum of interviews to determine whether to proceed to the third step. Riess
did not know why the security report was blacked out. She wrote down Dunn’s request for
information and promised to relay it to Aziz. Riess did not raise any issue with respect to
confidentiality of the Security Report nor did she allude to possible harassment of witnesses by
Oddo. Lamberson corroborated Dunn’s account of this meeting including Riess’ statement that
she would ask her boss about the report.
Riess did not testify herein.
At the monthly third step grievance meeting in September attended by Dunn and
Coulton, Dunn again asked Coulton if the Union would be getting the full Security Report. Dunn
said he would not put the Oddo grievance on the agenda until he saw what was in the report.
Coulton said he would look into the matter and see what he could do. Dunn repeated his
request in several further telephone conversations with Coulton.
At the monthly third step grievance meeting in December Dunn again asked Coulton for
JD(NY)-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
the Security Report. Coulton said he did not know if it would be given to the Union. Dunn said
he would put Oddo’s grievance on an upcoming agenda so that the company would have to
discuss the issue of the Security Report in a formal manner. Lamberson also attended this
meeting and he testified that Dunn asked about the Report.
On January 19, 2010, Lamberson telephoned Coulton to ask about the Security Report.
Coulton told him the Union would not get any further information; he said the Union had all it
was going to get. Coulton did not explain why some material had been blacked out. Coulton
did not mention that the report contained confidential information. Lamberson testified that the
Union normally obtains unredacted Security Reports from the company.
Coulton denied that Dunn had asked him for the Security Report before January 19,
2010. On that day, according to Coulton, both Dunn and Lamberson asked him for the Report.
C. Discussion and Conclusions
I find that Morrow had a better recall of the relevant events than did Edwards. Morrow
testified without hesitation and in convincing detail about his conversations with Edwards on
August 6 and 25, 2009. Edwards did not recall the August 6 phone call even though she
personally had approved the warning issued to Oddo just the day before. Based on her perusal
of a document, Edwards testified that she first spoke to Morrow on the 25th, although a moment
before she had stated that she could not recall when she and Morrow first discussed the Oddo
matter. Further, Edwards did not recall that Morrow complained to her about the redacted
security report immediately after he received it on August 28. However, she recalled that on
August 31 Morrow asked for the interviews of named witnesses to the incident involving Elias
and Oddo and the Union was provided with the information later that day. Based on my close
observation of Edwards as she testified and on my review of the record, I believe that Edwards
based her testimony on the written documents before her and that she had little independent
recall of the actual conversations about which she was asked. Edwards’ testimony about the
phone calls with Morrow were based entirely on the contents of her letters to him and did not
give the impression that they derived from an present memory of what was said. I shall credit
Morrow’s testimony in making my findings herein.
I credit Dunn that on September 1, 2009 and on several other occasions he asked
Coulton for the entire security report. Dunn testified convincingly and in great detail about these
requests and I find his description of the conversations to be reliable. I do not credit Coulton’s
denials.
Beginning on August 5, 2009 when Respondent issued a written warning to Oddo, the
Union diligently pursued its request for information. Among the items requested by the Union
were statements made by Foremen Elias and Casciotta and the “Security report and all
statements taken about the incident.” I find that on August 6 Morrow asked Edwards for all the
information including investigative reports and the interviews. On August 14, Aziz told Dunn
that the request was being reviewed and that the Union might not get all the information it had
requested. Morrow asked Aziz for the information on August 17, informing her that he had
already spoken to Edwards about the request. As noted above, Aziz was not called to testify by
Respondent.
I find that on August 25 Edwards told Morrow that she had not realized that Security had
issued one report dealing with both Oddo and Elias; Edwards said she was consulting the legal
department. I credit Morrow that Edwards did not mention any concern about witness
confidentiality. I credit Morrow that he never agreed to accept only the part of the security report
JD(NY)-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
that Edwards relied on to discipline Oddo. It strains credulity that the president of a Union,
vigorously pursuing an information request so that the Union could pursue a grievance on behalf
of a Chief Steward, would agree to let management decide what was relevant to the Union’s
case. I do not credit Edwards that Morrow agreed to let her redact any information from the
security report. I do not credit Edwards that Morrow agreed to forego receipt of Elias’ statement
to Security. The Union had been seeking Elias’ statement since the day that Oddo received the
disciplinary warning. I find that the concern Edwards expressed to Morrow was based on her
desire to prevent the Union from seeing those parts of the security report that dealt with and
evaluated Elias’ conduct. Edwards had apparently forgotten or had not realized that this
material would be in the same report as the report dealing with and evaluating Oddo’s conduct.
The heavily redacted report given to the Union on August 28 did not contain large
portions of the synopsis of events, it did not contain Elias’ statement and it did not contain
interviews with anyone other than Oddo.
After Morrow made it clear to Edwards that the Union was aware of the identities and the
content of the statements given by six technicians who had been interviewed by Security,
Respondent gave the Union a summary of the interviews with the technicians, but did not turn
over the actual interviews as requested by the Union. Significantly, this newly turned over
material might have been exculpatory with respect to Oddo in a grievance brought to arbitration
by the Union. For example, the summary shows that Elias pushed Oddo backwards out of his
office and onto a technician who fell and injured his head and neck. After Oddo fell Elias
continued the incident by taunting Oddo and inviting Oddo to hit him. Thus, the Union had
every reason to believe that Respondent might be withholding even more information that would
be helpful in pursuing a grievance.
I credit Dunn that on September 1, 2009 he asked Coulton for the entire security report.
I credit Dunn that Coulton did not raise any issues with respect to the confidentiality of
witnesses. I credit Dunn that he pursued his request with Coulton on several other occasions in
the fall and winter of 2009. I credit Dunn that he asked Riess for the security report in early
September.
The record shows that before the instant case the Union has never been denied a
security report of an incident and such reports in the past have not been redacted.
The applicable law in this area is well-established and requires no extended discussion
or citation. An employer has an obligation to provide information to a bargaining representative
necessary for the performance of its duties, including information necessary to evaluate a
grievance. There must be a probability that the information sought is relevant and would be of
use to the Union. A broad discovery-type standard is used in determining relevancy. NLRB v.
Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, (1967). The burden is on the employer to show that the
information sought by the Union is not relevant. SBC California, 344 NLRB 243, 245 (2005).
Respondent disciplined Oddo for an incident with Elias. The interview statements of
Elias and any other witnesses are clearly relevant to the Union’s decision whether to pursue a
grievance on behalf of Oddo. The interview statements would help in evaluating Oddo’s actions
in the light of Elias’ actions during the incident and would assist in evaluating the discipline
imposed upon Oddo. The statements would assist the Union in evaluating Oddo’s credibility
and in weighing the likely success of a grievance.
Respondent’s position that only Oddo’s description of the encounter with Elias, but not
Elias’ part in the incident, was considered in disciplining Oddo and is relevant to a grievance
JD(NY)-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
brought on behalf of Oddo is risible and unworthy of further discussion. Oddo was disciplined
for an incident involving physical contact with Elias; Elias’ statement about his part in the
confrontation is entirely relevant to the Union in deciding whether a grievance should be
pursued on Oddo’s behalf and would be helpful to the Union in defending Oddo.
I find that Respondent has not shown that the material sought by the Union is not
relevant. Further, Respondent has not shown any justification for refusing to turn over the
material requested by the Union.
The testimony of DeRosa and Duryea about Oddo’s past conduct as justification for
withholding the security report and the statements is not convincing. Edwards did mention
these incidents when she spoke to Morrow on August 25 and she did not mention Oddo’s
purported temper or past actions when she told Morrow she was concerned about giving the
Union all the information it sought.8 On August 25 Edwards expressed only her surprise that the
report would contain information dealing with and evaluating Elias’ conduct. Edwards had never
before seen a report that dealt with both a unit member and a manager under the same cover.
Edwards was consulting the legal department about her quandary. I find that the dredging up of
incidents in Oddo’s past is a belated attempt to justify Respondent’s refusal to give the Union
material relating to a manager, material that would assist the Union in deciding whether to
pursue the grievance and may well have been helpful to or even exculpatory of Oddo in the
grievance procedure.
Manifestly, Oddo and the Union were aware that Elias and another foreman had made a
statement to Security. Keeping their identities secret is not an issue. Further, Respondent has
not shown that Oddo is incapable of resisting a temptation to retaliate against Elias due to
something that might be contained in Elias’ statement to security. Respondent’s security report
shows that on August 5, 2009 Elias taunted Oddo and tried to incite a physical confrontation,
but Oddo refused to be provoked. Neither DeRosa’s nor Duryea’s testimony suggests that
Oddo has a proclivity to physical confrontation. The record shows that everyone curses all the
time in the garage and Oddo curses too. Oddo’s outbursts against DeRosa and Duryea were in
the context of heated discussions related to Oddo’s duties as Chief Shop Steward and did not
endanger anyone. Respondent has a zero tolerance for workplace violence and it obviously did
not view Oddo’s outburst to DeRosa as dangerous or it would have sought greater discipline
than a one-day suspension. Thus, the incidents related by DeRosa and Duryea fail to justify
any purported fear that Oddo would retaliate against any witnesses quoted in the security
report.
If Respondent had actually entertained a fear that Oddo would retaliate against Elias
after seeing his statement, Respondent could have offered to give the Union the entire security
report on condition that it not be shown to Oddo. Such an offer of accommodation was never
made. Thus, I conclude that Respondent does not merely have a desire to keep Oddo from
seeing the entire report; rather, Respondent wants to prevent the Union from seeing Elias’
statement and any other relevant matter in the unredacted report.
Conclusions of Law
1. Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is the exclusive representative of
Respondent’s employees in the following unit for the purposes of collective bargaining

8 Both DeRosa and Duryea were first interviewed about Oddo just weeks before the instant
hearing.
JD(NY)-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
Included: All employees of Verizon New York, Inc., and of the Telesector Resources
Group, Inc., in locations that are not within the states of Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, and whose occupational classifications are listed in the craft,
building and supplies, clerical and miscellaneous groups appearing in Article 31 and
which employees and occupational classifications are part of Company organizations
that were formerly part of the New York Telephone Company’s plant, network
operations, customer services, technical services, engineering and facilities
organizations; all employees in the Empire City Subway Company (limited).
2. By failing and refusing to furnish the Union with the information requested on August
5, 2009, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended9
ORDER
The Respondent, Verizon New York, Inc., 741 Zeckendorf Boulevard, Garden City, New
York and 720 Larkfield Road, East Northport, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to furnish the Union with the information requested on August 5,
2009.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Provide the Union with the information it requested on August 5, 2009 in connection
with the discipline of Michael Oddo.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Commack Garage in Northport
(Commack), New York, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”10 Copies of the

9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
10 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in
the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
Continued
JD(NY)-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
August 5, 2009.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. , November 16, 2010.
____________________
Eleanor MacDonald
Administrative Law Judge
_________________________
National Labor Relations Board.”
JD(NY)-46-10
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO
information requested that is relevant to a grievance.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL furnish to the Union the information it requested on August 5, 2009 in connection with
a grievance relating to the discipline of Michael Oddo.
Verizon New York, Inc.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
Two MetroTech Center (North), Jay Street and Myrtle Avenue, 5th Floor
Brooklyn, New York 11201-4201
Hours: 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
718-330-7713.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 718-330-2862.