CRUSHIN’ IT LLC, d/b/a CRUSHIN’ IT APPAREL

372 NLRB No. 100 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. Crushin’ It LLC, d/b/a Crushin’ It Apparel and Workers Justice Wisconsin and Painters District Council 7, Local 770. Cases 18–CA–302342, 18– CA–305183, 18–CA–305919, and 18–CA–308370 June 29, 2023 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS KAPLAN, WILCOX, AND PROUTY The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this case on the ground that Crushin’ It LLC d/b/a Crushin’ It Apparel (the Respondent) has failed to file a timely or appropriate answer to the consolidated complaint. Upon two charges filed by Worker Justice Wisconsin (WJW) on August 29, 2022, which were amended on October 24, 2022, and again on December 1, 2022, and October 24, 2022, and two charges filed by Painters District Council 7, Local 770 (the Union) on October 14, 2022, and December 6, 2022, which were amended on Febru- ary 8, 2023,1 the General Counsel issued an order consol- idating cases, consolidated complaint and notice of hear- ing on March 2, against the Respondent, alleging that it violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), (4), and (5) of the Act. The Respondent did not file an answer to the consolidated complaint within the 14-day time period set forth in Sec- tion 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. The Region, by email and regular mail dated March 17, advised the Respondent that no answer had been filed and granted the Respondent until March 24 to file its answer. That day, the Respondent, acting pro se, e- mailed the Region a general denial of “any and all allega- tions against Crushin It LLC.” The Region, in an e-mail sent later that day, informed the Respondent that its e- mail did not meet the requirements of an answer to the complaint and identified the ways in which the e-mail was deficient. The Respondent immediately replied to the e-mail by casting aspersions against the Board and did not address the complaint allegations or meet any of the Board’s requirements for an answer. By email dated March 22, the Region again told the Respondent that it must file an answer to the complaint by March 24. Nev- ertheless, the Respondent failed to file an answer. On March 27, the General Counsel filed with the Na- tional Labor Relations Board a Motion for Default Judgment. On March 28, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted with 1 All dates refer to 2023 unless noted otherwise. a response due date of April 11. The Respondent filed no response. The allegations in the motion are therefore undisputed. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations provides that a respondent “must specifically admit, de- ny, or explain each of the facts alleged in the complaint, unless the Respondent is without knowledge, in which case the Respondent must so state, such statement oper- ating as a denial.” It also provides that the allegations in a complaint shall be deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days from service of the complaint, unless good cause is shown. In addition, the consolidated com- plaint here affirmatively stated that unless an answer was received on or before March 16, the Board may find, pursuant to a motion for default judgment, that the alle- gations in the complaint are true. Further, as set forth above, the undisputed allegations in the General Coun- sel’s motion disclose that the Region reminded the Re- spondent of its failure to file an answer to the complaint, notwithstanding its deficient March 17 emails, and ad- vised the Respondent that unless an answer was received by March 24, the General Counsel would move for de- fault judgment. Nevertheless, the Respondent failed to file an answer. At the outset, we acknowledge the Respondent’s asser- tion that it is without legal representation in this proceed- ing. We recognize that, when determining whether to grant a motion for default judgment of the basis of a re- spondent’s failure to file a sufficient or timely answer, the Board has shown some leniency toward respondents who proceed without the benefit of counsel. See e.g., Clearwater Sprinkler System, 340 NLRB 435, 435 (2003). Pro se status alone, however, does not establish good cause for failing to file a sufficient answer. Ameri- can Postal Workers Union Local 299, 370 NLRB No. 37, slip. op. at 1 (2020); Patrician Assisted Living Facility, 339 NLRB 1153, 1153 (2003). And, generally, to get a determination on the merits, a pro se respondent must file a timely answer that can be reasonably construed as denying the substance of the complaint allegations or provide a “good cause” explanation for failing to do so. See Clearwater Sprinkler, 340 NLRB at 435; see also Carpentry Contractors, 314 NLRB 824, 825 (1994). Having duly considered this matter, we find default judgment is appropriate here. Under Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules, the Respondent’s March 17 emails do not constitute a proper answer to the complaint, even DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 considering the leniency afforded to pro se respondents.2 While the first email contains a general denial of all alle- gations against the Respondent, the second e-mail does not address the merits of the complaint at all. We find that general denial is legally insufficient to constitute a proper answer to the complaint under Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations because it fails to address any of the factual or legal allegations of the complaint. Carwash on Sunset, 355 NLRB 1259, 1259 (2010) (pro se principal’s letter denying “all this” not an acceptable answer under the Board’s Rules); Jet Electric Co., 334 NLRB 1059, 1059 (2001) (finding pro se re- spondent’s general denial of “all complaints directed at me . . . or my company” insufficient to constitute an an- swer); Clearwater Sprinkler, 340 NLRB at 436 (granting default judgment where pro se respondent’s purported answer did not address the substance of the complaint allegations). In sum, the Respondent failed to file any document, timely or untimely, that could reasonably be construed as an answer to the complaint. Accordingly, in the absence of good cause being shown for the failure to file an an- swer, we deem the allegations of the complaint to be admitted as true, and we grant the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment. On the entire record, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION At all material times, the Respondent, a limited liabil- ity company with an office and place of business in Mad- ison, Wisconsin (the Respondent’s facility), has been engaged in the business of apparel decoration and manu- facturing. During the 12-month period ending September 27, 2022, a representative period, the Respondent, in con- ducting its operations described above, purchased and received at its Madison, Wisconsin facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Wisconsin. We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. We find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 1. At all material times, the following individuals held the positions set forth opposite their respective names 2 If the emails were an appropriate answer, we would consider them timely, as the Respondent filed them within the time parameters set by the Region’s March 17 warning letter. See Primestar Construction Corp., 367 NLRB No. 25, slip op. at 2 (2018). and have been supervisors of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and/or agents of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: Jeremy Kruk - Owner and President Ashley Julson - Account Manager Mike Johnson - Production Manager 2(a) About August 26, 2022, the following employees concertedly complained to the Respondent regarding the wages, hours, and working conditions of the Respond- ent’s employees, by signing a letter delivered to the Re- spondent identifying and seeking redress for their work- related concerns: Leonel Aguilar; Doricela Beltrán; Lilia Garcia; Pedro Hernandez; Juana Montes; Evelia Sanchez; David Tecuatl; and Jorge Tlahuel. (b) About August 26, 2022, the Respondent terminated the employees identified in subparagraph (a). (c) The Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in subparagraph (b), because the above-named employees engaged in the conduct described above in subparagraph (a), and to discourage employees from en- gaging in these or other concerted activities. 3. On August 26, 2022, the Respondent, by its Owner and President Kruk: (a) By phone and text message, threatened employees that they were terminated and/or placed on unpaid leave because of their protected concerted activity; (b) By phone and text message, repeatedly conditioned employees’ future employment on their abandonment or disavowal of their protected concerted activity; (c) By phone, repeatedly equated employees’ protected concerted activity to extortion and lying; (d) By phone, refused to meet with employees as a group; (e) By phone, repeatedly threatened that employees’ protected concerted activity would be futile; and (f) Outside the Respondent’s facility and via text mes- sage, impliedly threatened not to pay employees’ wages because of their protected concerted activity. 4. About August 29, 2022, the Respondent by its Owner and President Kruk: (a) By text message, repeatedly informed employees that they were terminated and/or placed on unpaid leave because of their protected concerted activity; (b) By text message, repeatedly equated employees’ protected concerted activity to extortion and lies; (c) By text message, threatened employees that their protected concerted activity would not be tolerated by the Respondent; (d) By text message, threatened that employees’ pro- tected concerted activity would be futile; CRUSHIN’ IT LLC 3 (e) By text message, repeatedly conditioned employ- ees’ future employment on their abandonment or disa- vowal of their protected concerted activity; (f) By text message, threatened to call the police on employees, and remotely activated the security alarm at the Respondent’s facility after employees reported to work; (g) By text message, threatened employees with a law- suit because of their protected concerted activity; and (h) By phone, threatened to press criminal charges against employees because of their protected concerted activity. 5. From about August 30, 2022, to September 1, 2022, the employees named above in paragraph 2(a) protested outside of the Respondent’s facility regarding their wag- es, hours, and working conditions, including their dis- charges by the Respondent. 6. On September 1, 2022, the Respondent, by Owner and President Kruk, informed the discharged employees identified above in paragraph 2(a), that they may return to work the following day. 7(a) Since about September 2, 2022, upon the dis- charged employees’ return to work, the Respondent im- plemented the following changes to the employees’ terms and conditions of employment: changes to em- ployees’ work schedules; reduction in employees’ work hours; implementation and/or enforcement of work rules related to employee use of cell phones; and implementa- tion and/or enforcement of work rules related to employ- ee use of radios. (b) The Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in subparagraph (a) because employees engaged in the activity described above in paragraphs 2(a) and 5, and to discourage employees from engaging in these or other concerted activities. (c) The Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in subparagraph (a) because the employees identi- fied in paragraph 2(a) were named in the charge filed in Case 18–CA–302342. 8. On about September 2, 2022, upon employees’ re- turn to work, the Respondent, by Owner and President Kruk, at the Respondent’s facility on the work floor: (a) Threatened employees that the Respondent was implementing adverse changes to their working condi- tions in retaliation for employees’ protected concerted activity and/or Board-related activity, including changes to: employees’ scheduled hours; employee use of cell phones; and employee use of radios; (b) Threatened employees with stricter scrutiny in re- taliation for their protected concerted activity and/or Board-related activity; and (c) Threatened employees that the Respondent was taking away employee privileges in retaliation for their protected concerted activity and/or Board-related activi- ty. 9. On September 2, 2022, the Respondent, by Produc- tion Manager Johnson, at the Respondent’s facility on the work floor, directed an employee not to record the meeting in which Owner and President Kruk announced changes to employee working conditions, as described above in paragraphs 7 and 8(a). 10. About September 6, 2022, the Respondent, by Owner and President Kruk, by text message, threatened employees that their hours were reduced due to their pro- tected concerted activity. 11. On September 8, 2022, the Union filed a petition for representation of the Respondent’s employees in Case 18–RC–302916. 12. About September 20, 2022, the Respondent, by Owner and President Kruk, at the Respondent’s facility, threatened employees that they were being terminated because of their protected concerted activity, their sup- port of the Union and/or their Board-related activities. 13(a) About September 20, 2022, the Respondent again terminated the following employees: Leonel Agui- lar; Doricela Beltrán; Lilia Garcia; Juana Montes; Evelia Sanchez; and David Tecuatl.3 (b) The Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in subparagraph (a) because the above-named em- ployees engaged in the activity described above in para- graphs 2(a) and 5, and to discourage employees from engaging in these or other concerted activities. (c) The Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in subparagraph (a) because the above-named em- ployees supported the Union, and to discourage employ- ees from engaging in these activities. (d) The Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in subparagraph (a) because the above-named em- ployees were named in Case 18–CA–302342. 14. About October 1, 2022, the Respondent, through Account Manager Julson, as employees’ interim employ- er, engaged in surveillance of employees. 15(a) About October 17, 2022, the Respondent unlaw- fully conditioned the terminated employees’ receipt of their paycheck on signing a document prepared by the Respondent. (b) The Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in subparagraph (a) because the terminated em- ployees of the Respondent engaged in protected concert- 3 Employee Jorge Tlahuel reported to work for the Respondent on September 2, 2022, but did not report after that date. Upon information and belief, Pedro Hernandez remained employed by the Respondent after September 20, 2022. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 ed activities as described in paragraphs 2(a) and 5 and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities. (c) The Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in subparagraph (a) because the employees of the Respondent sought to be represented by the Union and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities. (d) The Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in subparagraph (a) because the employees were named in Case 18–CA–302342. 16(a) The following employees of the Respondent (the Unit) constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: Included: All full-time and regular part-time screen printing, sewing and embroidery employees employed at the Respondent’s facility in Madison, Wisconsin. Excluded: All office clerical employees and guards, professional and managerial employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) On November 8, 2022, the Board certified the Un- ion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit. (c) At all material times since November 8, 2022, based on Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit. 17(a) On November 23, 2022, the Union, by letter and e-mail, requested that the Respondent recognize it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit and bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit. (b) Since about November 23, 2022, the Respondent has failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa- tive of the Unit. 18(a) Since about November 23, 2022, the Union has requested in writing that the Respondent furnish the Un- ion with information identified below: 1. Identify all employees who have worked for the Em- ployer since September 1, 2022. For each employee, specify the number of hours worked, rate(s) of pay, and their current employment status with the Employer. 2. Identify all of the Employer's equipment that has been sold since September 1, 2022 or that is under con- tract to be sold. For each piece of equipment or, in the event multiple pieces of equipment were sold together, identify the item(s) sold, the date of the sale, and the purchaser. 3. Identify all of the Employer's equipment that is for sale. 4. Identify the equipment that the Employer will retain. For the equipment retained, state whether the Employer intends to operate that equipment again and, if so, when and where. 5. Describe the Employer's business plan going for- ward, including but not limited to: a. Equipment that will be operated b. Products to be produced and/or services to be offered/performed c. Anticipated number of employees at time of restarted operations d. When the Employer intends to restart opera- tions 6. Describe the Employer's intended process for filling any new and/or available positions with the Employer's operations going forward, including the jobs/job de- scriptions to be filled, number of positions, and antici- pated hiring process. 7. Income statements for the last 3 years, including as- sets and liabilities. 8. Provide proof that all unpaid wage claims have been satisfied. 9. Provide all OSHA citations. 10. Provide results of safety testing related to excessive heat in the facility that company has stated it conduct- ed. 11. Provide a copy of written OSHA compliant work- place safety policy for the company. (b) The information requested by the Union, as de- scribed above in subparagraph (a) is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit. (c) Since about November 23, 2022, the Respondent has failed and refused to furnish the Union with the in- formation requested by it as described above in subpara- graph (a). 19(a) To date, the Respondent has not offered any as- surances to employees that it would respect their rights to engage in protected concerted activity nor rescinded any of its previous threats related to employee protected con- certed activity. (b) Based on the Respondent’s conduct identified in paragraphs 2-4, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-18, the Respond- ent’s September 1, 2022 invitation to the discharged em- ployees to return to work, as referenced in paragraph 6, did not constitute a valid offer of reinstatement. CRUSHIN’ IT LLC 5 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW By the conduct described above in paragraphs 2-4, 7- 10, and 12-15, the Respondent has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 13 and 15, the Respondent has been discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 7, 13, and 15, the Respondent has been discriminating against employees for filing charges or giving testimony under the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (4) of the Act. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 17 and 18, the Respondent has been failing and refusing to bar- gain collectively and in good faith with the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The unfair labor practices of the Respondent described above affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, we shall order the Respondent to offer Leonel Aguilar, Doricela Beltrán, Lilia Garcia, Pedro Hernandez, Juana Montes, Evelia Sanchez, David Tecuatl, and Jorge Tlahuel full reinstatement to their former jobs, if they have not al- ready, or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.4 We shall also order that the Respondent make Aguilar, Beltrán, Garcia, Hernandez, Montes, Sanchez, Tecuatl, and Tlahuel whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the unlawful discharge(s). Backpay shall be computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 4 Undisputedly, Tlahuel is entitled to a remedy for the unlawful Au- gust 26, 2022 discharge even though he did not report to work after September 2. See Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc., 340 NLRB 1129, 1131-1133 (2003). Because the Respondent’s September 1, 2022 invi- tation to return to work did not constitute a valid offer of reinstatement, he is also entitled to reinstatement; the appropriate backpay period is best determined at the compliance stage. Id. at 1132 (citing Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177, 198-200 (1941)). NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). In accordance with our decision in King Soopers, Inc., 364 NLRB 1153 (2016), enfd. in relevant part 859 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2017), we shall also order the Respondent to compensate Aguilar, Beltrán, Garcia, Hernandez, Montes, Sanchez, Tecuatl, and Tlahuel for their search- for-work and interim employment expenses regardless of whether those expenses exceed interim earnings. Search- for-work and interim employment expenses shall be cal- culated separately from taxable net backpay, with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, supra, com- pounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, supra. In addition, in accordance with our deci- sion in Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022), the Re- spondent shall also compensate Aguilar, Beltrán, Garcia, Hernandez, Montes, Sanchez, Tecuatl, and Tlahuel for any other direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms incurred as a result of their unlawful discharge, if any, regardless of whether these expenses exceed interim earnings.5 Compensation for these harms shall be calculated sepa- rately from taxable net backpay, with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, supra, compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, supra. Having found that the Respondent unlawfully changed employees’ terms conditions of employment, we shall order the Respondent to rescind the changes and make affected employees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, and for any other direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms, suffered as a result of the unlawful changes as prescribed in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), plus interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, su- pra, compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, supra. Further, we shall order the Respondent to compensate Aguilar, Beltrán, Garcia, Hernandez, Montes, Sanchez, Tecuatl, Tlahuel, and other employees affected by the unlawful changes to terms and conditions of employment for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum award and to file a report with the Regional Director for Region 18 allocating the award(s) to the appropriate calendar year(s). AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB 1324 (2016). In addition to the backpay allocation report, we shall order the Respondent to file with the Regional Director for Region 18 a copy of each 5 Unlike his colleagues, Member Kaplan would require the Re- spondent to compensate the discriminatees for other pecuniary harms only insofar as the losses were directly caused by the unlawful dis- charge, or indirectly caused by the unlawful discharge where the causal link between the loss and the unfair labor practice is sufficiently clear, consistent with his partial dissent in Thryv, Inc., supra. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6 discriminatee’s corresponding W-2 form(s) reflecting the backpay award. Cascades Containerboard Packaging— Niagara, 370 NLRB No. 76 (2021), as modified in 371 NLRB No. 25 (2021). The interest on backpay runs to the date of payment and should be computed at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, supra, compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, supra. The Respondent shall also be required to remove from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge of Agui- lar, Beltrán, Garcia, Hernandez, Montes, Sanchez, Tec- uatl, and Tlahuel and to notify each of them in writing that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used against any of them in any way. Further, we shall order the Respondent to timely fur- nish the information that the Union requested on No- vember 23, 2022. We shall also order the Respondent to bargain on request with the Union and, if an understand- ing is reached, to embody the understanding in a signed agreement. To ensure that the employees are accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided by law, we shall construe the initial pe- riod of the certification as beginning on the date the Re- spondent begins to bargain in good faith with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); accord Burnett Construction Co., 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965); Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964). Additionally, the General Counsel requests that we or- der the Respondent, within 15 days of a Board Order, to bargain with the Union for a minimum of 15 hours per week until an agreement or lawful impasse is reached or until the parties agree to a respite in bargaining, and to submit written bargaining progress reports to the Region and the Union every 15 days. As discussed above, the Respondent has unlawfully failed and refused to recog- nize or bargain with the Union while engaging in serious and pervasive unfair labor practices designed to invali- date its employees’ choice of collective-bargaining rep- resentative. Given these circumstances, we find that a bargaining schedule requiring the Respondent to meet and bargain with the Union on a regular and timely basis is appropriate and would best effectuate the purposes of the Act. See Serenethos Care Center LLC d/b/a St. Christopher Convalescent Hospital, 371 NLRB No. 54, slip op. at 2–3 (2022) (ordering employer to comply with a bargaining schedule to remedy its unlawful conduct); All Seasons Climate Control, Inc., 357 NLRB 718, 718 fn. 2 (2011) (same), enfd. mem. 540 Fed.Appx. 484 (6th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, we shall order the Respondent, within 15 days of the Board’s Order, to bargain for a minimum of 15 hours per week until the parties reach agreement, lawful impasse, or an agreed upon respite from bargaining. We shall also require the Respondent to submit written bargaining progress reports to the com- pliance officer for Region 18 and to serve copies of those reports on the Union.6 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Crushin’ It LLC, d/b/a Crushin’ It Apparel, Madison, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall, 6 The General Counsel requests several additional remedies, includ- ing a notice reading in English with a Spanish translation; a notice mailing to all employees employed since August 26, 2022; posting the notice for one year; providing a copy of the notice to all new employ- ees, supervisors, and managers, upon hire, for one year; permitting a Board Agent to enter the Respondent’s facility for a period of one year, at reasonable times and in a manner not to unduly interfere with the Respondent’s operations, for the purpose of verifying compliance with the notice posting; Board Agent-conducted training about an employ- er’s obligations under the Act for the Respondent’s managers and su- pervisors identified above and, for interested employees, Board Agent- conducted training on employee rights under the Act that is on paid time and outside the presence of the Respondent’s supervisors or man- agers; posting the Board’s Explanation of Employee Rights poster alongside the notice for a period of one year; that the Respondent draft and send letters to each of the discriminatees apologizing for their discharges and any hardship or distress it caused and to provide a copy of each letter to the Regional Director within seven days of distribution; and, for any discriminatee declining an offer of reinstatement, front pay, the amount of which should be calculated as a subsequent compli- ance proceeding. We grant the General Counsel’s request that the notice be posted in English and Spanish. See Teamsters Local 455 (Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation), 364 NLRB 1788, 1790 fn. 3 (2016). However, because it has not been demonstrated that the remaining remedies are necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act, we deny those requests. See H.W. Weidco/Ren LLC d/b/a South Jersey Extended Care, 371 NLRB No. 115, slip op. at 3 (2022); Fallbrook Hospital, 360 NLRB 644, 644, fn. 3 (2014), enfd. 785 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Bruce Packing Co., 357 NLRB 1084, 1084 fn. 4 (2011), enfd. in part 795 F.3d 18 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Given the severe and extensive unfair labor practices the Respondent has been found to have committed, including the discharge of eight employees, Member Prouty would grant the General Counsel’s request for a broad cease-and-desist order, as the Respondent “has engaged in such egregious or widespread misconduct as to demonstrate a general disregard for the employees’ fundamental statutory rights.” Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357, 1357 (1979). In addition, Member Prouty would order the notice reading remedy requested by the General Coun- sel. He would order that the notice be read to the workforce in English and Spanish and further, he would require the Board agent to distribute the notice to employees at the meeting before the reading. See Noah’s Ark Processors, 372 NLRB No. 30, slip op. at 7 fn. 27 (2023). Such distribution will facilitate employee comprehension as employees will be able to follow along as the notice is read aloud. Lastly, it offers employees a chance to retain the documents for future reference and to review them in private free from their employer's possible observation should they choose to do so. A copy of the notice distributed by the Board agent to all attendees is a neutral method of providing them with the information they need to understand their rights and the offending party's obligations. CRUSHIN’ IT LLC 7 1. Cease and desist from (a) Threatening employees that they were terminated and/or placed on unpaid leave because of their protected concerted activity, their support of the Union, and/or their Board-related activities. (b) Conditioning employees’ future employment on their abandonment or disavowal of their protected con- certed activity. (c) Equating employees’ protected concerted activity to extortion and lying. (d) Refusing to meet with employees as a group. (e) Threatening that employees’ protected concerted activity would be futile. (f) Impliedly threatening not to pay employees’ wages because of their protected concerted activity. (g) Threatening employees that their protected con- certed activity would not be tolerated by the Respondent. (h) Threatening to call the police on employees, and remotely activating the security alarm at the Respond- ent’s facility after employees reported to work. (i) Threatening employees with a lawsuit or criminal charges because of their protected concerted activity. (j) Threatening employees that the Respondent was implementing adverse changes to their working condi- tions in retaliation for employees’ protected concerted activity and/or Board-related activity, including changes to employees’ scheduled hours, employee use of cell phones, and employee use of radios. (k) Threatening employees with stricter scrutiny in re- taliation for their protected concerted activity and/or Board-related activity. (l) Threatening employees that the Respondent was taking away employee privileges in retaliation for their protected concerted activity and/or Board-related activi- ty. (m) Directing an employee not to record the meeting in which Owner and President Kruk announced changes to employee working conditions. (n) Threatening employees that their hours were re- duced due to their protected concerted activity. (o) Engaging in surveillance of employees. (p) Conditioning employees’ receipt of their paychecks on signing a document prepared by the Respondent be- cause employees engaged in protected concerted activi- ties, sought to be represented by the Union, or were named in an unfair labor practice charge. (q) Discouraging membership in a labor organization by discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its employees. (r) Discriminating against or discharging employees for filing charges, giving testimony, or otherwise engag- ing in protected concerted activity. (s) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively and in good faith with Painters District Council 7, Local 770 (the Union) as the collective-bargaining representative of the Respondent’s unit employees. (t) Refusing to furnish the Union with requested in- formation that is necessary for and relevant to the per- formance of its functions as the collective-bargaining representative of the Respondent’s unit employees. (u) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, 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) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Leonel Aguilar, Doricela Beltrán, Lilia Garcia, Pedro Hernandez, Juana Montes, Evelia Sanchez, David Tec- uatl, and Jorge Tlahuel (the discriminatees) full rein- statement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prej- udice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed. (b) Make the discriminatees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, and for any other direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms suffered as a result of their unlawful discharge, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision. (c) Rescind the unlawful changes to employees’ terms and conditions of employment implemented on or about September 2, 2022. (d) Make employees affected by the unlawful changes whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, and for any other direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms, suffered as a result of the unlawful changes, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision. (c) Compensate the discriminatees and employees af- fected by the unlawful changes for the adverse tax con- sequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum award, and file with the Regional Director for Region 18, within 21 days of the date the award amount is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the back- pay award to the appropriate calendar year(s). (d) File with the Regional Director for Region 18, within 21 days of the date the amount of the award is fixed by agreement or Board order or such additional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, a copy of each corresponding W-2 form(s) re- flecting the award. (e) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, re- move from its files any reference to the unlawful dis- charge of the discriminatees, and within 3 days thereaf- ter, notify each discriminatee in writing that this has been DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 8 done and that the discharge will not be used against any of them in any way. (f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig- nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so- cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec- ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec- tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of the monetary award due under the terms of this Order. (g) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the in- formation requested by the Union, as described above, since about November 23, 2022. (h) Within 15 days of the Union’s request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of employees in the following appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the under- standing in a signed agreement: Included: All full-time and regular part-time screen printing, sewing and embroidery employees employed at the Respondent’s facility in Madison, Wisconsin. Excluded: All office clerical employees and guards, professional and managerial employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. Upon the Union’s request, such bargaining sessions shall be held for a minimum of 15 hours per week until an agreement or lawful impasse is reached or until the parties agree to a respite in bargaining. The Respondent shall submit written bargaining progress reports every 15 days to the compliance officer for Region 18 and serve copies of those reports on the Union. (i) Post at the Respondent’s facility copies of the at- tached notice marked “Appendix” in English and Span- ish.7 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re- 7 If the facility involved in these proceedings is open and staffed by a substantial complement of employees, the notice must be posted within 14 days after service by the Region. If the facility involved in these proceedings is closed or not staffed by a substantial complement of employees due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pan- demic, the notice must be posted within 14 days after the facility reo- pens and a substantial complement of employees have returned to work. If, while closed or not staffed by a substantial complement of employees due to the pandemic, the Respondent is communicating with its employees by electronic means, the notice must also be posted by such electronic means within 14 days after service by the Region. If the notice to be physically posted was posted electronically more than 60 days before physical posting of the notice, the notice shall state at the bottom that “This notice is the same notice previously [sent or posted] electronically on [date].” If this Order is enforced by a judg- ment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice read- ing “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read gional Director for Region 18, in English and Spanish, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main- tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily 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 custom- arily 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 cov- ered by any other material. If 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 em- ployees and former employees employed by the Re- spondent at any time since August 26, 2022. (j) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 18 a sworn certifi- cation 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. June 29, 2023 _____________________________________ Marvin E. Kaplan, Member ________________________________________ Gwynne A. Wilcox, Member ________________________________________ David M. Prouty, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TOEMPLOYEES 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. “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.” CRUSHIN’ IT LLC 9 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 bene- fit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities. WE WILL NOT threaten that employees were terminated and/or placed on unpaid leave because of protected con- certed activity, their support of the Union and/or their National Labor Relations Board-related (“Board- related”) activities. WE WILL NOT condition your future employment on their abandonment or disavowal of your protected con- certed activity. WE WILL NOT equate your protected concerted activity to extortion and lying. WE WILL NOT refuse to meet with our employees as a group. WE WILL NOT threaten that your protected concerted activity would be futile. WE WILL NOT impliedly threaten not to pay your wages because of your protected concerted activity. WE WILL NOT threaten that your protected concerted activity will not be tolerated by us. WE WILL NOT threaten to call the police on you and remotely activate the security alarm at our facility after you report to work. WE WILL NOT threaten you with a lawsuit or criminal charges because of your protected concerted activity. WE WILL NOT threaten you that we are implementing adverse changes to your working conditions in retaliation for protected concerted activity and/or Board-related activity, including changes to scheduled hours; use of cell phones; and use of radios. WE WILL NOT threaten you with stricter scrutiny in re- taliation for your protected concerted activity and/or Board-related activity. WE WILL NOT threaten you that we are taking away your privileges in retaliation for your protected concerted activity and/or Board-related activity. WE WILL NOT direct you not to record meetings in which Owner and President Kruk announces changes to employee working conditions. WE WILL NOT threaten you that your hours were re- duced due to their protected concerted activity. WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of our employees. WE WILL NOT condition your receipt of your paychecks on signing a document prepared by us because you en- gaged in protected concerted activities, sought to be rep- resented by the Union, or were named in an unfair labor practice charge. WE WILL NOT discriminate in regard to the hire or ten- ure or terms or conditions of your employment to dis- courage membership in a labor organization. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any of you because you engage in protected con- certed activities or to discourage other employees from engaging in these activities. WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively and in good faith with Painters District Council 7, Local 770 (the Union) as your exclusive collective-bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively and in good faith with the Union by failing to furnish requested information that is necessary for and relevant to the performance of its duties. 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, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Leonel Aguilar, Doricela Beltrán, Lilia Gar- cia, Juana Montes, Evelia Sanchez, David Tecuatl, Jorge Tlahuel, and Pedro Hernandez full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substan- tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their sen- iority or any other rights or privileges previously en- joyed. WE WILL make Leonel Aguilar, Doricela Beltrán, Lilia Garcia, Pedro Hernandez, Juana Montes, Evelia Sanchez, David Tecuatl, and Jorge Tlahuel whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from their unlawful discharges, less any net interim earnings, plus interest and WE WILL also make them whole for any other direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms suffered as a result of their unlawful discharges, including reasonable search- for-work and interim employment expenses, plus inter- est. WE WILL rescind the unlawful changes to your terms and conditions of employment implemented on or about September 2, 2022. WE WILL make employees affected by the unlawful changes whole for any loss of earnings and other bene- fits, and for any other direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms, suffered as a result of the unlawful changes, plus interest. WE WILL compensate Leonel Aguilar, Doricela Beltrán, Lilia Garcia, Pedro Hernandez, Juana Montes, Evelia Sanchez, David Tecuatl, Jorge Tlahuel and em- ployees affected by the unlawful changes to terms and conditions of employment for the adverse tax conse- quences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum award, and WE DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 10 WILL file with the Regional Director for Region 18, with- in 21 days of the date the award amount is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar year(s). WE WILL file with the Regional Director for Re- gion 18, within 21 days of the date the award amount is fixed by agreement or Board order or such additional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, a copy of Leonel Aguilar, Doricela Beltrán, Lilia Garcia, Pedro Hernandez, Juana Montes, Evelia Sanchez, David Tecuatl, and Jorge Tlahuel’s corresponding W-2 form(s) reflecting the award. WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any reference to our unlaw- ful discharge of Leonel Aguilar, Doricela Beltrán, Lilia Garcia, Pedro Hernandez, Juana Montes, Evelia Sanchez, David Tecuatl, and Jorge Tlahuel and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify them in writing that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used against them in any way. WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the information requested by the Union on about November 23, 2022. WE WILL, within 15 days of the Union’s request, bar- gain with the Union as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of employees in the following appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of em- ployment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement: Included: All full-time and regular part-time screen printing, sewing and embroidery employees employed at the Respondent’s facility in Madison, Wisconsin. Excluded: All office clerical employees and guards, professional and managerial employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. Upon the Union’s request, such bargaining sessions shall be held for a minimum of 15 hours per week until an agreement or lawful impasse is reached or until we agree with the Union to a respite in bargaining. WE WILL submit written bargaining progress reports every 15 days to the compliance officer for Region 18 and serve copies of those reports on the Union. CRUSHIN’ IT LLC, d/b/a CRUSHIN’ IT APPAREL The Board’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/18-CA-302342 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.