San Francisco Branch Office Purple Communications, Inc., 21-CA-149635

• Court: National Labor Relations Board
• Writing for the Court: MARA-LOUISE ANZALONE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
• Parties: SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE PURPLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and its Successor and Joint Employer CSDVRS, LLC d/b/a ZVRS and PACIFIC MEDIA WORKERS GUILD, LOCAL 39521, THE NEWSPAPER GUILD, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
• Docket Number: 21-CA-187642,28-CA-179794,27-CA-185377,28-CA-186509,27-CA-186448,27-CA-197062,32-CA-185337,21-CA-149635,28-CA-197009,28-CA-192041,21-CA-185343,21-CA-182016,27-CA-192084
• Decision Date: 03 August 2018

SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE PURPLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and its Successor and Joint Employer CSDVRS, LLC d/b/a ZVRS and PACIFIC MEDIA WORKERS GUILD, LOCAL 39521, THE NEWSPAPER GUILD, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO

Nos. 21-CA-149635, 28-CA-179794, 21-CA-182016, 32-CA-185337, 21-CA-185343, 27-CA-185377, 27-CA-186448, 28-CA-186509, 21-CA-187642, 28-CA-192041, 27-CA-192084, 28-CA-197009, 27-CA-197062

United States of America, National Labor Relations Board

August 3, 2018

Fernando Anzaldua and Kyler Scheid, Esqs., for the General Counsel.

Lawrence Levien, Esther G. Lander, Andrew Turnbull and James Crowley, Esqs. (Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP), for the Respondent.

Martin Yost, for the Charging Party.

DECISION

MARA-LOUISE ANZALONE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................................... 1

FINDINGS OF FACT ................................................................................................................. 1

I. Jurisdiction ............................................................................................................................. 1

II. Factual Background ................................................................................................................ 2

A. Respondent’s operations ............................................................................................... 2

B. The Union’s certification and the parties’ collective-bargaining negotiations ................ 3

C. The initial collective-bargaining agreement and “unit work” ......................................... 4

D. Additional collective-bargaining agreement provisions relevant to this proceeding ....... 5

1. “Union staff representatives” versus “Union stewards” .............................................. 5

2. Management-rights clause ......................................................................................... 5

3. Union entitlement to written discipline documents .................................................... 6

E. Respondent’s Electronic Communications Policy and The Board’s 2015 Purple Communications email decision..................................... 6

III. Analysis of Individual Allegations ................................................................................... 7

A. The parties’ April 1, 2015 email “messenging” following execution of the CBA .......... 7

1. CEO’s email about union dues and other “risks and hazards of unionization” ............ 8

2. Management invokes its Electronic Communications Policy ................................... 10

3. The Union’s April 1 announcement and Human Resources’ response ...................... 12

B. Treatment of community pay differentials following contract execution ..................... 12

C. Deduction of union dues for community interpreting work ......................................... 15

D. Enforcement of disciplinary standards for customer complaints .................................. 17

E. Scheduling practices for full-time VIs ......................................................................... 19

F. Threat and investigation of employees involved in teaming reports ............................. 23

G. Allegations regarding May 3, 2016 ............................................................................. 25

1. Events in Denver ..................................................................................................... 28

2. Events in Tempe ..................................................................................................... 32

3. Events in San Diego ................................................................................................ 34

4. Haraz May 4, 2016 emailed rules ............................................................................ 37

H. Additional restrictions on call center union activity during the Summer of 2016 ......... 40

1. Denver .................................................................................................................... 40

2. San Diego ............................................................................................................... 41

I. Rules regarding Tempe employee break room ............................................................. 42

1. Fragassi November 14 rule ...................................................................................... 43

2. Fragassi March 9, 2017 rule .................................................................................... 44

3. March 23, 2017 rule ................................................................................................ 45

J. Miscellaneous independent 8(a)(1) allegations ............................................................ 46

1. Jonagan January 7, 2016 disparagement .................................................................. 46

2. Stambaugh May 2016 disparagement ...................................................................... 47

3. Thresher May through November, 2016 conduct ..................................................... 48

K. Respondent’s handbook rules ...................................................................................... 53

1. "Confidential" disciplinary action reports ................................................................ 54

2. Confidentiality of personnel files ............................................................................. 55

L. Weingarten and related violations ............................................................................... 57

1. Veith conduct .......................................................................................................... 58

2. Haraz conduct ......................................................................................................... 67

M. Information request allegations ................................................................................... 74

1. The applicable standard ........................................................................................... 74

2. Request for dual rate information ............................................................................ 76

3. Request for documentation of caller complaint investigator training ........................ 77

4. Request for information regarding San Diego facility closure .................................. 78

5. Request for Brooks’ discipline information ............................................................. 80

6. Request for Sterling’s discipline information ........................................................... 85

7. Request for Wilson’s discipline information ............................................................ 86

8. Request for Maschue’s discipline information ......................................................... 87

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ....................................................................................................... 88

REMEDY ................................................................................................................................. 92

ORDER .................................................................................................................................... 94

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Mara-Louise Anzalone, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this case over the course of 16 days between July 13 and October 3, 2017, in Phoenix, Arizona, Denver, Colorado, and San Diego, California. This case was tried following the issuance of an Order further consolidating cases, third consolidated complaint, and notice of hearing (the complaint) by the Regional Director for Region 28 of the National Labor Relations Board on June 19, 2017. The complaint was based on a number of original and amended unfair labor practice charges, as captioned above, filed by Charging Party Pacific Media Workers Guild, Local 39521, The Newspaper Guild, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (Charging Party or the Union). The General Counsel alleges that Purple Communications, Inc. (Purple) and its successor and joint employer, CSDVRS, LLC (CSDVRS) violated Sections 8(a)(5), (3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et. seq. (the Act). Purple and CSDVRS (collectively referred to herein as Respondent) admit to constituting a joint employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices alleged against it.

At trial, all parties were afforded the right to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, to present any relevant documentary evidence, to argue their respective legal positions orally, and to file post-hearing briefs.^[1] Post-hearing briefs were filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, and each of these briefs has been carefully considered. Accordingly, based upon the entire record herein, including the post-hearing briefs and my observation of the credibility of the witnesses, I make the following

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. JURISDICTION

The complaint alleges that Purple, a corporation with a principal place of business in Rocklin, California, is engaged in the business of providing interpreting services for the deaf and hard of hearing. The complaint alleges and Purple admits that it annually performs services in excess of $50,000 in States other than California. CSDVRS, a corporation with a principal place of business in Clearwater, Florida, purchased Purple’s business in February 2017, and continued to operate it in basically unchanged form thereafter. Accordingly, I find that Purple and CSDVRS are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. I...