375 NLRB No. 23
X Factor S2 LLC
375 NLRB No. 23
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.
X Factor S2 LLC and International Alliance of Theat-
rical Stage Employees (IATSE) Local 728. Case
31–CA–323348
August 5, 2026
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS PROUTY
AND MAYER
On February 19, 2026, Administrative Law Judge An-
drew S. Gollin issued the attached decision. The General
Counsel filed an exception with supporting argument.
The Board has considered the decision and record in
light of the exception and argument and has decided to af-
firm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and to
adopt the judge’s recommended Order as modified.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recom-
mended Order of the administrative law judge and orders
that the Respondent, X Factor S2 LLC, Escondido, Cali-
fornia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following as paragraph 2(g).
Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
Escondido, California facility copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 31, 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, post-
ing on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other
1 There are no exceptions to the judge’s finding that the Respondent
unlawfully terminated employees Noah Kelly, Andrew Choe, Sean Hunt,
and Steven Miller.
2 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order in accordance
with our decision in Vibe Consulting, LLC, 374 NLRB No. 33, slip op.
at 2 (2026).
The General Counsel excepts to the judge’s failure to include in the
notice a provision reflecting the Respondent’s obligation to offer rein-
statement to the discriminatees. The judge’s recommended Order
properly includes a provision requiring the Respondent to offer reinstate-
ment to the discriminatees. We shall therefore substitute a new notice to
correct the inadvertent omission and to conform to the violations found
and the Board’s standard remedial language.
The judge’s recommended Order provides, in accordance with our de-
cision in Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022), vacated in part on other
grounds 102 F.4th 727 (5th Cir. 2024), that the Respondent compensate
employees Noah Kelly, Andrew Choe, Sean Hunt, and Steven Miller for
electronic means, if the Respondent customarily com-
municates 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. If the Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Re-
spondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former em-
ployees employed by the Respondent at any time since
July 11, 2023.
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 5, 2026
______________________________________
James R. Murphy, Chairman
______________________________________
David M. Prouty, Member
________________________________________
Scott A. Mayer, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
any other direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms incurred as a result of
their unlawful discharge, including reasonable search-for-work and in-
terim employment expenses, if any, regardless of whether these expenses
exceed interim earnings. As stated in Performance Plumbing, LLC, 374
NLRB No. 48, slip op. at 2 fn. 2 (2026), and Lodi Volunteer Ambulance
Rescue Squad, Inc., 374 NLRB No. 26, slip op. at 3 fn. 3 (2026), Chair-
man Murphy and Member Mayer find no need at this time to express an
opinion whether the novel remedies announced by the Board majority
in Thryv are permissible under the Act. They would be open to recon-
sideration of that precedent in a future proceeding, but in the absence of
a three-member majority to overrule it at this time, they agree to ap-
ply Thryv.
3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National
Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vi-
olated 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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against
any of you for engaging in actual or perceived protected
concerted and union activities.
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 employees Noah Kelly, Andrew Choe, Sean
Hunt, and Steven Miller full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make employees Noah Kelly, Andrew Choe,
Sean Hunt, and Steven Miller whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits resulting from their 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 the unlawful dis-
charges, including reasonable search-for-work and interim
employment expenses, plus interest.
WE WILL compensate employees Noah Kelly, Andrew
Choe, Sean Hunt, and Steven Miller for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay
awards, and WE WILL file with the Regional Director for Re-
gion 31, within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay
is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allo-
cating the backpay award(s) to the appropriate calendar
year(s) for each employee.
WE WILL file with the Regional Director for Region 31,
within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed
by agreement or Board order or such additional time as the
Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, a
copy of employees Noah Kelly, Andrew Choe, Sean Hunt,
and Steven Miller’s corresponding W-2 form(s) reflecting
the backpay award(s).
1 Abbreviations in this decision are as follows: “Tr. __” for transcript;
“ALJ Exh. _” for Administrative Law Judge Exhibits; and “GC Exh. __”
for the General Counsel Exhibits. Although I have included citations to
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, re-
move from our files any reference to the unlawful dis-
charges of employees Noah Kelly, Andrew Choe, Sean
Hunt, and Steven Miller, and WE WILL, within 3 days there-
after, notify them in writing that this has been done and
that the discharges will not be used against them in any
way.
X FACTOR S2 LLC
The
Board’s
decision
can
be
found
at
www.nlrb.gov/case/ 31-CA-323348 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.
Michelle Scannell, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Amanda Lively, Esq., for the Charging Party.
Daniel Castro, Pro Se, for the Respondent.
DECISION
INTRODUCTION1
ANDREW S. GOLLIN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE. This hear-
ing was held on January 14, 2026, in Los Angeles, California,
over allegations that X Factor S2 LLC (the Respondent) violated
the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) when it discharged
employees Noah Kelly, Andrew Choe, Sean Hunt, and Steven
Miller. The four made up the grip and electrical crew working
on a television film project. Prior to the start of filming, Kelly
spoke with IATSE Local 728 (the Union) about a plan to organ-
ize the project. He also spoke to Choe and Hunt, and Hunt later
spoke to Miller. On the first day of filming, the Respondent’s
executive producer, Daniel Castro, learned about the plan. After
the second day of filming, he gave the four the following day off
and then replaced them with a new crew.
On August 4, 2023, the Union filed the unfair labor practice
charge in this case. (GC Exh. 1(a).) On July 24, 2025, the Re-
gional Director for Region 31 of the National Labor Relations
Board (the Board) issued the complaint. (GC Exh. 1(d)-(e).) The
complaint alleges the Respondent discharged Kelly, Choe, Hunt,
and Miller because they engaged in, or were believed to have
engaged in, protected concerted and union activities, in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. On August 21, 2025, the
the record to highlight particular testimony or exhibits, my findings and
conclusions are based on the entire record.
X FACTOR S2 LLC
3
Respondent, through Castro, filed its answer denying the alleged
violations and raising affirmative defenses, including that it “did
not discharge any employees at any relevant time, for any pur-
pose.” (GC Exh. 1(f).) The Respondent, however, failed to ap-
pear at the hearing,2 and thus failed to present any evidence in
support of its answer.3
For the reasons stated below, I find the General Counsel has
established the Respondent committed the alleged violations. I,
therefore, recommend issuing an appropriate remedial order.
FINDINGS OF FACT4
A. Jurisdiction
The Respondent is a limited liability company with an office
and place of business in Escondido, California, where it engaged
in the business of producing television shows. In conducting its
operations during the calendar year ending December 31, 2023,
2 The Regional Director originally scheduled this hearing to be con-
ducted by videoconference. Sec. 102.35(a)(6) of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations gives the Administrative Law Judge the discretion to con-
duct and regulate the course of an unfair labor practice hearing. Further,
Sec. 102.35(c) provides the judge with discretion to permit remote
(video) testimony by contemporaneous transmission “[u]pon a showing
of good cause based on compelling circumstances, and under appropriate
safeguards.” William Beaumont Hospital, 370 NLRB No. 9 (2020). Sec-
tion 102.35(c) mirrors Rule 43(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-
dure, which considers remote testimony to be a limited exception to the
rule favoring in-person testimony. Courts have been admonished to pro-
ceed with caution to ensure that the exception does not swallow the rule:
“The importance of presenting live testimony in court cannot be forgot-
ten. The very ceremony of trial and the presence of the factfinder may
exert a powerful force for truth telling. The opportunity to judge the de-
meanor of a witness face-to-face is accorded great value in our tradition.
Transmission cannot be justified merely by showing that it inconvenient
for the witness to attend the trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 43 Advisory Commit-
tee’s Note (1996). While good cause and compelling circumstances may
be established if all parties agree upon video testimony, the court is not
bound by that agreement and can insist on live testimony. Id. “Rejection
of the parties’ agreement will be influenced, among other factors, by the
apparent importance of the testimony in the full context of the trial.” Id.
During my pre-hearing conference call with the parties, I inquired into
why the hearing had been scheduled to be conducted by videoconference.
The only reason given, aside from convenience, was that the General
Counsel intended to call a third-party witness who had moved out of Cal-
ifornia and would either be working on a project in Ohio or Illinois, or
traveling back to stay with family in Tennessee, during the week of the
hearing. I advised that if the General Counsel believed there was good
cause based on compelling circumstances for that witness to testify re-
motely, the appropriate course would be to file a motion requesting that
under Sec. 102.35(c) of the Board’s Rules. But absent good cause for
conducting the entire hearing by videoconference, the Board’s Rules re-
quired that it be conducted in person. Thereafter, the Regional Director
issued an order setting an in-person hearing at the Regional office in Los
Angeles. (GC Exh. 1(i)). The General Counsel later filed an unopposed
motion under Sec. 102.35(c) to have the third-party witness testify re-
motely, which I granted because there was no objection. (GC Exhs. 1(k)-
(m)).
About a week after the conference call, Castro sent an email claiming
that, due to “financial hardship,” he lacked the funds necessary to travel
from his home near San Diego to Los Angeles (approximately 95 miles)
to attend the hearing in person, and he requested permission to participate
remotely by videoconference. (ALJ Exh. 1). The General Counsel op-
posed the request. (ALJ Exh. 1). Two weeks later, Castro reiterated his
Respondent performed services valued in excess of $50,000 to
Wiedemann and Berg, an enterprise located outside the State of
California. Wiedemann and Berg has been a film production
company with a headquarters in Munich, Germany. The Re-
spondent admits, and I find, that it has been an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act. The Respondent also admits, and I find, that the Union
has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act. Based on the foregoing, I find this dispute affects
commerce, and that the Board has jurisdiction pursuant to Sec-
tion 10(a) of the Act.
B. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
1. Background
In 2023,5 the Respondent produced the second season of the
television series “X Factor (Beyond Belief)” starring Jonathan
request and included the Respondent’s bank statements from June to De-
cember 2023, which showed a steady decline in funds from a single
checking account that was later closed. He stated the materials showed
the Respondent has had no funds, assets, or operating activity since early
2024, and that production funds were fully expended.
I advised the parties that absent compelling circumstances (i.e., be-
yond cost and convenience), they would need to appear at the hearing in
person. I further advised that because the General Counsel had subpoe-
naed Castro (as Respondent’s custodian of records) to appear and pro-
duce documents at the start of the hearing, the General Counsel was re-
sponsible for reimbursing his mileage and covered travel expenses in ac-
cordance with 28 CFR Sec. 1821. (ALJ Exh. 2). A week later, Castro
stated that due to his “current financial circumstances, traveling from San
Diego to Los Angeles for a 9 a.m. appearance without overnight lodging
the evening before, and fronting those costs with reimbursement later, is
not feasible.” (ALJ Exh. 2). Later that day, I informed Castro that if the
start time presented an issue, we could discuss starting at 11 a.m., to ob-
viate the need for him to incur additional lodging expenses. On the day
before the hearing was scheduled to begin, Castro responded that due to
his financial circumstances and the lack of advance funding for travel, he
would not be able to attend the hearing in person, regardless of when it
started. (ALJ Exh. 2). Castro did not provide any information to support
that he lacked the funds necessary to travel and appear at the hearing in
person.
Based on the foregoing, I reaffirm my earlier rulings that there was no
good cause for conducting this entire hearing via videoconference, or for
allowing Castro to participate in that manner as the Respondent’s repre-
sentative and sole witness.
3 The Respondent also failed to produce any documents in response
to the General Counsel’s subpoenas duces tecum. (Tr. 9-10) (GC Exhs.
29-32).
4 My findings of fact are based upon consideration of the entire rec-
ord. Any testimony in conflict with my findings has been discredited. In
assessing witness credibility, I relied upon several factors including de-
meanor, the context of the testimony, the quality of the recollections, tes-
timonial consistency, the presence or absence of corroboration, the
weight of the respective evidence, established or admitted facts, inherent
probabilities, and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the rec-
ord as a whole. See Double D Construction Group, 339 NLRB 303, 305
(2003); Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB 622, 623 (2001), citing Shen Auto-
motive Dealership Group, 321 NLRB 586, 589 (1996), enfd. sub nom.
56 Fed.Appx. 516 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Credibility findings need not be all-
or-nothing propositions, and it is common for a fact finder to credit some,
but not all, of a witness’s testimony. Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB at 622.
Specific credibility determinations are set forth below.
5 All dates refer 2023, unless otherwise stated.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4
Frakes. (GC Exh. 6.) Daniel Castro was the executive producer
for the project.6 In late March, Castro hired Edward Salerno to
be the director of photography. He informed Salerno that the
project would last about 13 weeks (4 weeks of preparation and 9
weeks of filming), and it would be nonunion. (GC Exh. 17.).
As the director of photography, Salerno was involved in rec-
ommending employees for hire into his departments, which in-
cluded cameras, grips, and gaffers. (Tr. 95–96.). Grips are re-
sponsible for the setup, adjustment, and maintenance of produc-
tion equipment on set, including dollies, tracks, and cranes; and
the gaffers manage the electrical aspects, such as lighting fix-
tures and power supply and distribution. (Tr. 14; 18–19.
In June 2023, Salerno recommended Noah Kelly to be the
chief lighting technician/gaffer and Sean Hunt to be the key grip.
Each had about 10 years of experience and were members of
IATSE. Salerno informed them that filming would begin after
the July 4th weekend, and it would last 8 or 9 weeks (until mid-
September). (GC Exhs. 3, 4, and 20.). When he told them what
their weekly pay rate would be, he apologized because it was less
than what they would earn on a union project.
The Respondent followed Salerno’s recommendation and
hired Kelly and Hunt for the project. (GC Exhs. 6 and 23.) It
also hired Andrew Choe as the assistant lighting technician/best
boy gaffer and Steven Miller as the best boy grip. (Tr. 23–26;
96.) The four made up the project’s grip and electrical crew.7
2. Plan to “Flip” the Project
Filming was set to begin on July 10.8 On July 5, Kelly
emailed Union business agent Greg Reeves about the project and
that it should be organized. Kelly and Reeves exchanged emails
with information about the project. (GC Exh. 7.) On about July
6, Kelly separately texted Choe and Hunt about trying to “flip”
the project and make it unionized. Choe and Hunt each ex-
pressed interest in doing so. (GC Exhs. 12 and 24.) Like Kelly,
Choe was a member of the Union. Hunt was a member of IATSE
Local 80. After communicating with Kelly, Hunt contacted Lo-
cal 80 to report that they were going to try to organize the project.
(Tr. 128–129.) Part of the reason for flipping the project was
6 Castro is an admitted supervisor and agent of the Respondent within
the meaning of Sec. 2(11) and (13) of the Act. (GC Exhs 30-33).
7 The Respondent required each sign a Crew Deal Memo (the Memo),
a Rider, and a Short-Form Non-Disclosure Agreement. (GC Exhs. 6, 12
and 23.) The Memo refers to the signatory crew member as an “Em-
ployee” and refers to the Respondent as the “Company” or the “Em-
ployer.” The Memo contains 23 provisions. The provision entitled
“General Employment Conditions” states, in relevant part, that, “Em-
ployee’s services shall be exclusive for Company at all relevant times
hereunder. . . This is an ‘at will’ agreement and no other work is guar-
anteed, meaning that Employee may be terminated with or without cause
or notice, subject to Employer’s obligation to pay through the end of the
day on which Employee is terminated. . . ” The provision entitled “Equip-
ment” states, in relevant part, that “[w]hen necessary, Employee shall
supply all the necessary kit, box, tools, equipment and supplies com-
monly used in the industry to perform such services . . . Company is not
liable for loss or damage of such tools, equipment and supplies Employee
provides.” The provision entitled “Purchases/Rentals” states, in relevant
part, that, “All items purchased or rented for the Picture, whether directly
or indirectly, by the Company or Employee, shall remain the Company's
property, and must be immediately delivered to Company upon comple-
tion of Employee’s services or upon request by Company, whichever is
that they would receive union health and welfare benefits for
their hours worked. (Tr. 127).
On the morning of July 10, Reeves emailed Kelly to let him
know the Union had been authorized to move forward with try-
ing to organize the project. Reeves provided Kelly with a link to
a digital authorization card to complete and sign and to share
with the others who were interested in organizing the project.
(Tr. 58–60) (GC Exh. 7). Kelly signed a card and sent the link
to five to ten others on the project. (Tr. 35.) Hunt and Miller also
signed cards. (Tr. 132.) The record does not reflect whether
Choe signed a card. (Tr. 60–62.)
3. Respondent Learns of Efforts to Flip
On July 10, at 11:04 p.m., Castro sent Salerno an email with
the heading “Union Stuff, XF2.” (GC Exh. 1.) In the email, Cas-
tro wrote: “Just a heads up that Noah is talking about flipping the
show. Not sure what that is about. Let me know if you think
anything to worry about.” Salerno did not respond to Castro.
(Tr. 111–112.)
4. Events of July 11
The following day, while on set, Salerno approached Kelly
during the lunch break. He told Kelly that management was
“snooping around” about him trying to organize the project, and
he told Kelly about Castro’s email. (Tr. 100.) Hunt was nearby
when Salerno spoke to Kelly.9
After filming ended for the day, Castro called Salerno into a
meeting with another producer. (Tr. 100–102.) Castro asked Sa-
lerno how he felt about replacing some of his crew. Salerno
stated he did not want to replace any of his crew, and he asked
Castro why. Castro then showed Salerno a link to a digital au-
thorization card. Castro told Salerno he “could not have a [Un-
ion] rep coming down and having a vote happen.” (Tr. 101.)
Later that evening, beginning at around 8 p.m., Castro sent
Salerno a series of texts. (GC Exh. 19.) He began by informing
Salerno that he was bringing in a different grip and best boy grip
to work the following day. He stated he was not sure whether he
earlier.” The Memo also contains the Employee’s (hourly) rate of pay.
The provision entitled “Overtime” states, in relevant part, that the Em-
ployee will receive 1.5x their regular hourly rate for time worked in ex-
cess of eight hours a day, and that performing such work required the
Company’s prior approval. The provision entitled “Right to Withhold”
states, in relevant part, that: “Company shall have the right to deduct and
withhold from any sums payable to Employee hereinunder (i) any
amounts required to be deducted and withheld by Company pursuant to
any present or future law, ordinance or regulation of the United States or
any state thereof, or of any other country, having jurisdiction …; and (ii)
any expenses paid by Company on Employee’s behalf.”
8 Each night before filming, the Respondent provided a call sheet. It
identified each person scheduled to work, their title and department, and
when and where they were expected to report for work. (GC Exhs. 8–
10.)
9 Kelly and Hunt testified that during this exchange Salerno men-
tioned management suspected them both of trying to flip the project. (Tr.
42–43, 131–132, 136–137, 144–145.) Salerno, in his testimony, only
mentioned Kelly. (Tr. 112–113.) I credit Salerno. In general, he had a
clearer and more detailed recollection, and his testimony was consistent
with the other evidence, namely Castro’s email to Salerno which only
mentioned Kelly.
X FACTOR S2 LLC
5
would call Hunt and Choe back at another time.10 Later he texted
Salerno that he was going to give the entire grip and electrical
crew the following day off.11 He asked Salerno if he wanted to
be the one to tell them. When Salerno did not respond, Castro
texted that he would notify them before it got too late. He also
texted Salerno, “I hope this doesn’t offend you or make you not
wanna go to set.” (GC Exh. 19.)
Salerno later called Castro to ask that he not fire his guys. (Tr.
103–105.) Castro responded that he was not firing anyone; he
was giving them the day off “for production’s breathing room.”
Salerno testified Castro did not explain what he meant, and that
he (Salerno) assumed it was just an excuse. (Tr. 103.)
Later that evening, Castro texted and emailed Choe, Kelly,
Hunt, and Miller that they each had the following day off from
work. He did not provide a reason. (GC Exhs. 11, 14–15, and
24–27.). Choe replied to Castro asking whether there was a rea-
son he was being called off. Castro responded that it was not a
permanent decision and that he would have meetings tomorrow
with his heads of department. (GC Exh. 15) (Tr. 81–82). Castro
never contacted Choe again after this. (Tr. 89).
5. Events of July 12
Kelly first saw Castro’s text and email the following morning.
He called Castro and asked what was going on. Castro told him
that because there was an upcoming strike involving the Screen
Actors Guild (SAG) Union, the producers were having issues re-
serving actors for the day. He stated they were trying to figure
things out, and that, in the interim, they were scaling down to a
skeleton crew. He added that there was a chance they would not
be working the rest of the week if things were not resolved. (Tr.
45.)
That morning, Choe received a text from an employee in the
prop department (Jesse Martinez) asking why Choe and his crew
were not working. (GC Exh. 16.) Choe later spoke with Mar-
tinez and learned the Respondent had replacement employees
performing the grip and electrical crew’s work on the project,
and that they were using the crew’s gear and equipment. (Tr. 83–
84.)12 Choe reported this to Kelly and Hunt, and Hunt commu-
nicated with Miller. (Tr. 135–137) (GC Exh. 27).
Kelly called and spoke to Castro. He asked Castro if the Re-
spondent had hired another crew to replace them, and Castro
stated they had. Kelly told Castro he was going to come to the
set to retrieve his personal gear and equipment. About an hour
later, after Kelly arrived on set, he approached Castro. Castro
apologized that this was happening the way it was. He added
that other crew members suspected the Respondent had done this
because the Union “had reached out,” but Castro stated that was
not the case. He said that producers just felt there were some
10 Salerno testified he was not certain why Castro wrote Hunt and
Choe, rather than Hunt and Miller, who were the grip and best boy grip.
Salerno confirmed the crew worked closely with one another, and the
Respondent tended to lump them together. (Tr. 103.)
11 In this text, Castro also asked Salerno whether he had heard that
“Pete [Abrahams, the locations manager] was verbally abused by that
[grip and electrical] dept.” (GC Exh. 19.) Salerno did not respond to the
text. He testified he had not heard anything about anyone being verbally
abused on the project. He added that if any kind of abuse would have
crew members who did not want to be a part of the production
anymore, and they decided “to kind of cut loose the fat, if you
will.” (Tr. 51.) That was the end of the conversation. Kelly gath-
ered his personal items and left the set.13
Hunt and Miller also went to the set to retrieve their gear and
equipment because they believed they had been discharged. (Tr.
139–140.) While he was on set, Hunt spoke to Castro. Castro
told Hunt he was sorry that the grip and electrical crew did not
“vibe well” with the rest of the individuals working on the set.
Castro also stated that he wished all his shows could be union.
(Tr. 141.). Hunt did not say anything in response. He and Miller
gathered their belongings and then left the set.
Although the record does not contain the details, there were
issues with the work the replacements performed on July 12 be-
cause later that evening, at 7:49 p.m., Castro texted Salerno to
apologize for what happened. (GC Exh. 19.) Castro also in-
formed Salerno that he had found another gaffer (Nathaniel Ele-
gino) to work the following day. He provided Salerno with the
gaffer’s biography. Salerno texted Castro back, asking if there
was any way he could have his original crew come back, adding
that “I feel like this is just such a sideways insane thing.” Castro
responded, “Can you give me the weekend to think about it? I
promise this guy [Elegino] and his [best boy] are really good to-
morrow and Friday.” (GC Exh. 19.).
The Respondent never brought Choe, Kelly, Hunt, or Miller
back to work. (Tr. 106–107.) According to Salerno, filming con-
tinued as planned, and it was completed in mid-September. He
testified Respondent had a “relatively revolving door of different
individuals” performing the work of the grip and electrical crew
during the remainder of the project. (Tr. 107.)
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The General Counsel alleges the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act when it discharged Choe, Kelly, Hunt,
and Miller because they engaged in, or were believed to have
engaged in, protected concerted and union activities.
Section 8(a)(1) makes it an unfair labor practice for an em-
ployer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the ex-
ercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 affords
employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted ac-
tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection.” Section 8(a)(3) makes it an unfair labor prac-
tice for an employer to discriminate “in regard to hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment to en-
courage or discourage membership in any labor organization.”
When assessing the lawfulness of an adverse action that turns
happened, it would have been brought up on set, and it was not. (Tr. 103;
114.)
12 Salerno, in his testimony, confirmed the Respondent hired replace-
ments to perform the crew’s work on July 12. He characterized them as
“inexperienced students.” (Tr. 104; 114.) And, as discussed below, there
were issues with the performance of the replacements.
13 On July 14, Kelly texted Castro asking about his paychecks. (GC
Exh. 11.) Castro responded that payroll had one check ready and the
other would be available on Monday, and they would work to get the
check to him.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6
on employer motivation, the Board applies the framework set
forth in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899
(1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved by
NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 395
(1983). Under this framework, the General Counsel has the bur-
den of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the
employee's protected concerted and/or union activity was a mo-
tivating factor in the employer’s decision to take the adverse ac-
tion, i.e., that a causal relationship existed between that activity
and the adverse action. This inquiry includes establishing that the
employee engaged in protected concerted and/or union activity,
that the employer knew of or suspected the activity,14 and that
the employer had animus against such activity. Id. See also In-
tertape Polymer Corp., 372 NLRB No. 133 (2023), enfd. 2024
WL 2764160 (6th Cir. 2024). A discriminatory motive may be
established by direct or circumstantial evidence, which may in-
clude, among other factors: the timing of the action in relation to
the protected activity; contemporaneous unfair labor practices;
shifting, false, or exaggerated reasons offered for the adverse ac-
tion; failure to conduct a meaningful investigation; departures
from past practices; and/or disparate treatment of the employee.
Intertape Polymer Corp., supra slip op. at 6.
If the General Counsel establishes these factors, the burden
shifts to the employer to show it would have taken the same ad-
verse action in the absence of the statutorily protected activity.
Wright Line, 251 NLRB at 1089. The employer cannot carry this
burden merely by showing that it also had a legitimate reason for
the action, but must persuade, by a preponderance of the evi-
dence, that the adverse action would have taken place absent the
actual or suspected activity. The General Counsel may offer
proof that the employer's reasons for the adverse action were
false or pretextual. When the employer's stated reasons for the
action are found to be pretextual—that is, either false or not in
fact relied upon—discriminatory motive may be inferred, but
such an inference is not compelled. Electrolux Home Products,
368 NLRB No. 34, slip op. at 3 (2019).
In applying the Wright Line framework, I conclude the Gen-
eral Counsel has met her burden of establishing that the grip and
electrical crew’s statutorily protected activity was a motivating
factor in the Respondent’s decision to remove and replace them.
The evidence establishes that each was involved in the plan to
try to organize the project. Kelly originated the plan by discuss-
ing it with the Union, Choe, and Hunt. Hunt later spoke with
Miller. All four crew members supported the plan. Kelly, Hunt,
and Miller later signed authorization cards, and Kelly distributed
cards for others to sign.
The evidence also establishes the Respondent, through Castro,
knew about or suspected the crew’s plan to unionize the job and
exhibited animus toward that plan. Direct evidence of
knowledge is in Castro’s July 10 “heads up” email to Salerno.
14 The Board has held an employer violates the Act when it takes an
adverse action against an employee suspected or believed to have en-
gaged in statutorily protected activity, regardless of whether the em-
ployee actually did so. See Hyundai Motor Mfg. Alabama, LLC, 366
NLRB No. 166, slip op. at 2 (2018); U.S. Service Industries, Inc., 314
NLRB 30, 30-31 (1994) (quoting Monarch Water Systems, Inc., 271
NLRB 558, 558 fn. 3 (1984)), enfd. 80 F.3d 558 (D.C. Cir. 1996));
He stated Kelly was trying to flip the project, and he asked Sa-
lerno whether it was anything he needed to worry about. Direct
evidence of animus is in Castro’s comments to Salerno during
their July 11 conversation. Castro first brought up replacing the
crew members. When Salerno asked why, Castro stated he
“could not have a [Union] rep coming down and having a vote
happen.” These statements, along with the timing of the Re-
spondent’s decision to remove and replace the entire crew, es-
tablish a causal connection and an intent to effectively nip the
organizing effort in the bud. The record suggests the Respondent
was so eager to quickly replace the entire crew that it was willing
to hire replacements who lacked the skill or experience necessary
to perform the work correctly.
Although Castro’s “heads up” email only mentioned Kelly’s
involvement, his subsequent action of removing the entire crew
suggests he believed or suspected that Choe, Hunt, and Miller
also were involved. The Board has held that it is not necessary
for the General Counsel to prove the employer had specific
knowledge of an employee’s protected activity, where other cir-
cumstances support an inference that the employer had suspi-
cions or probable information about those involved. See Mar-
tech MDI, 331 NLRB 487, 488 (2000), enfd. 6 Fed. Appx. 14
(D.C. Cir. 2001). The circumstances include proof of knowledge
of general union activity, the employer's demonstrated animus,
the timing of the discharge, and the pretextual reasons for the
discharge asserted by the employer. Id. See also General Iron
Corp., 218 NLRB 770, 778 (1975), affd. mem. 538 F.2d 312 (2nd
Cir. 1976); Hunter Douglas, Inc., 277 NLRB 1179 (1985), enfd.
804 F.2d 808 (3d Cir. 1986). In addition, the discharge of an em-
ployee who is not known to have engaged in union activity, but
who has a close relationship with a known union supporter, in-
cluding working together, may give rise to an inference of dis-
crimination. See e.g., Permanent Label Corp., 248 NLRB 118,
136 (1980), enfd. 657 F.2d 512 (3rd Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455
U.S. 940 (1982). See also Amptech, Inc, 342 NLRB 1131, 1133
(2004); Invista, 346 NLRB 1269, 1273 (2006); and L.C. Cassidy
& Son, 272 NLRB 123, 129 (1984).
All the circumstances necessary to infer knowledge or belief
are present. As outlined, Castro had general knowledge of and
expressed animus toward Kelly’s plan to try to flip the project.
Additionally, he told Salerno he was looking at replacing mem-
bers (plural) of the crew to avoid “having a vote happen.” The
discharges effectively happened later that night when Castro
gave the crew the following day off and then brought in replace-
ments. When the employees asked Castro why he took these ac-
tions, he gave shifting, pretextual explanations. He initially told
Salerno it was to allow production to have some “breathing
room.” He told Kelly it was due to the pending SAG strike and
the need to get down to a skeleton crew. He told Hunt it was
because they did not “vibe well” with the others on the set.15 He
Hamilton Avnet Electronics, 240 NLRB 781, 791 (1979); Metropolitan
Orthopedic Assn., 237 NLRB 427, 427 fn. 3 (1978).
15 I also find Castro’s other comment to Hunt during this exchange to
be evidence of animus and a causal connection. Castro told Hunt that he
wished all his jobs could be union. This reasonably would inferred to
mean that, from Castro's perspective, the project could not be unionized,
and that indicates the crew’s efforts to organize were why they did not
X FACTOR S2 LLC
7
later told Kelly it was because the Respondent needed to trim the
fat. There was no evidence substantiating these claims, and most
were proven to be false. There was no evidence of any issue
between the members of the grip and electrical crew and any
other employees on the project, and the record does not reflect
the Respondent reduced the number of employees on the project.
Finally, according to Salerno, Kelly worked closely with the
other three on the crew, and management tended to lump the four
of them together as one.
For these reasons, I conclude the General Counsel has estab-
lished the Respondent knew or suspected all four of engaging in
union activities, and the Respondent’s demonstrated animus to-
ward those activities is what motivated its decision to remove
and replace them and not bring them back to work. As such, the
General Counsel has satisfied the initial Wright Line burden.16
The burden then shifts to the Respondent to establish it would
have taken the same action in the absence of the statutorily pro-
tected activity. As stated, the Respondent failed to appear and
present evidence in its defense,17 and, for the reasons stated
above, the explanations Castro gave for the crew’s removal at
the time were all pretextual. As a result, I recommend finding
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act when
it discharged Kelly, Choe, Hunt, and Miller.
“vibe well” with the others, and why they were eventually removed and
replaced.
16 Even if the General Counsel had failed to establish the Respondent
knew or suspected Choe, Hunt, and Miller of engaging in union activi-
ties, and that it viewed them as neutrals, I would still conclude that each
was discriminatorily discharged. The Board has held an employer vio-
lates Sec. 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act when it takes an adverse action
against a seemingly neutral employee when the circumstances indicate it
was done to facilitate or cover-up discriminatory conduct against a
known or suspected union supporter. See Embassy Vacation Resorts,
340 NLRB 846, 848 fn. 13 (2003); Bay Corrugated Container, 310
NLRB 450, 451 (1993), enfd. 12 F. 3d 213 (6th Cir. 1993). In these sit-
uations, the General Counsel need not prove the employer's knowledge
of the union activity by the neutral employees because they are deemed
to have been treated adversely as part of the employer's plan to discrim-
inate against the known union supporter(s). Here, I would conclude
based on the circumstances surrounding the removal and replacement of
Choe, Hunt, and Miller—which were allegedly for the same pretextual
reasons as Kelly—that the Respondent did so to facilitate or cover-up its
discriminatory conduct against Kelly.
17 About a month prior to the hearing, Castro suggested in an email to
the General Counsel that he intended to raise two defenses to the com-
plaint allegations. The first was the four were “independent contractors
rather than employees.” The second was that they “voluntarily ceased
performing services by walking off the production.” (GC Exh. 29, pg.
3.)
Whether an individual is an independent contractor is evaluated “in
light of the pertinent common-law agency principles.” The Atlanta
Opera, Inc. 372 NLRB No. 95, slip op. at 3 (2023). The principles in-
clude the following, with no one factor weighing more than others: (1)
extent of control which, by the agreement, the employer may exercise
over the details of the work; (2) whether or not the worker is engaged in
a distinct occupation or business; (3) the kind of occupation, with refer-
ence to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direc-
tion of the employer or by a specialist without supervision; (4) skill re-
quired in the occupation, (5) whether the employer or the worker supplies
instrumentalities, tools, and place of work for the person doing the work;
(6) the length of time for which the person is employed; (7) method of
CONCLUSION OF LAW
1. The Respondent, X Factor S2 LLC, is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Union, IATSE Local 728, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
when it discharged Noah Kelly, Andrew Choe, Sean Hunt, and
Steven Miller because they engaged in actual or perceived pro-
tected concerted and union activities.
4. The unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent
affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. The Respondent, having unlawfully dis-
charged Noah Kelly, Andrew Choe, Sean Hunt, and Steven Mil-
ler, must offer them reinstatement to their former jobs or if those
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges they
payment, whether by the time or by the job; (8) whether or not work is
part of the regular business of the employer; (9) whether or not the parties
believe they are creating an employer-employee relationship; and (10)
whether the employer is or is not in business. Notably, the Board em-
phasized that it would consider whether a worker is in fact “rendering
services as part of an independent business.” Id. at 12. It will look at the
facts on the ground—rather than any theoretical opportunity the worker
may have to operate independently—and consider whether the employer
has effectively limited the worker’s ability to run an independent busi-
ness. Id. The party asserting independent contractor status has the bur-
den of proof. BKN, Inc., 333 NLRB 143, 144 (2001).
The Respondent failed to appear and present any evidence or argu-
ment on this issue, and the evidence that was presented does not establish
they were independent contractors. As discussed, the Memo they signed
at the beginning of the project referred to them as employees, and it stated
their services were exclusive to the Respondent for the period of the pro-
ject. It described their relationship as “at will,” which means they may
be terminated by the Respondent with or without cause or notice. The
Memo also set forth their hourly rate of pay, stated they were eligible for
overtime, and stated their pay was subject to withholding in accordance
with applicable laws. In addition to the Memo, there were the daily call
sheets which set forth when and where the crew members are required to
be on set and ready to begin work. As noted, the Respondent had the
unilateral right to change assignments, as reflected by Castro’s decision
to call them off from work and replace them with a new crew. Finally,
based on Castro’s correspondence with Kelly regarding paychecks, the
Respondent compensated the crew members not based on the project but
on the number of hours they worked.
The record also does not support the four voluntarily ceased perform-
ing services. As noted, on July 11, they each received their call sheet
telling them to report for work the following day at 8 a.m. They were
later notified by Castro that they had been given the day off. When Kelly
and Hunt separately spoke with Castro on July 12, he confirmed the en-
tire crew had been replaced. They were never called back to work, de-
spite Salerno asking to have them back after he began having issues with
the work of their replacements. Castro instead brought in a “relatively
revolving door of different individuals” to perform the crew’s work.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8
would have enjoyed absent the discrimination against them. The
Respondent shall also make each of the four whole for any loss
of earnings and other benefits. 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 NLRB
1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River
Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). Consistent with Thryv,
Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22, slip op. at 14 (2022), Respondent shall
also compensate each of the four for any other direct or foresee-
able pecuniary harms incurred as a result of the unlawful dis-
charges, including reasonable search-for-work and interim em-
ployment expenses, if any, regardless of whether these expenses
exceed interim earnings. Compensation for those harms shall be
calculated separately from taxable net backpay, with interest at
the rate prescribed in New Horizons, supra, compounded daily as
prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, supra.
In addition, the Respondent shall compensate Kelly, Choe,
Hunt, and Miller for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of re-
ceiving a lump-sum backpay award, and file with the Regional
Director for Region 31, within 21 days of the date the amount of
backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report
allocating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar years,
in accordance with AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB
1324 (2016). In accordance with Cascades Containerboard
Packaging–Niagara, 370 NLRB No. 76 (2021), as modified in
371 NLRB No. 25 (2021), the Respondent shall also be required
to file with the Regional Director for Region 31 a copy of each
backpay recipient’s corresponding W–2 form reflecting the
backpay award.
The Respondent shall also be required to remove from its files
any references to the unlawful discharges of Kelly, Choe, Hunt,
and Miller and to notify them in writing that this has been done
and that the discharges will not be used against them in any way.
The Respondent shall post an appropriate informational no-
tice, as described in the attached Appendix. This notice, on a
form provided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after be-
ing 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 post-
ing of paper notices, the Respondent shall distribute the notice
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an in-
ternet site, and/or other electronic means, if Respondent custom-
arily communicates with its employees by such means. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notice
is not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed its facility, the
Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy
of the notice to all current employees and former employees em-
ployed by the Respondent at the facility at any time since July
11, 2023.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
18 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Or-
der shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes
due under the terms of this Order.
entire record, I issue the following recommended18
ORDER
The Respondent, in Escondido, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employ-
ees for their actual or perceived protected concerted and/or union
activities.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or co-
ercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer full rein-
statement to Noah Kelly, Andrew Choe, Sean Hunt and Steven
Miller to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their sen-
iority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Kelly, Choe, Hunt, and Miller whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits, and for any other direct or foreseea-
ble pecuniary harms suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them, in the manner set forth in the Remedy section
herein.
(c) Compensate Kelly, Choe, Hunt, and Miller for the adverse
tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay
awards, and file with the Regional Director for Region 31, within
21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by
agreement or Board order, a report allocating the backpay awards
to the appropriate calendar years for Kelly, Choe, Hunt, and Mil-
ler.
(d) File with the Regional Director for Region 31, within 21
days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed by agreement or
Board order or such additional time as the Regional Director ma-
yallow for good cause shown, a copy of corresponding W-2
forms for Kelly, Choe, Hunt, and Miller reflecting the backpay
awards.
(e) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from
its files any reference to the unlawful discharges of Kelly, Choe,
Hunt, and Miller, and within 3 days thereafter, notify each in
writing that this has been done and that the discharge will not be
used against them in any way.
(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board or
its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records,
including an electronic copy of such records if stored in elec-
tronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due un-
der the terms of this Order.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Es-
condido, California facility copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix.”19 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
19 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 pro-
ceedings is closed or not staffed by a substantial complement of employ-
ees due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19) pandemic, the
X FACTOR S2 LLC
9
Regional Director for Region 31, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent and maintained 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, post-
ing on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its em-
ployees 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. 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 employees and former employ-
ees employed by the Respondent at any time since July 11, 2023.
(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director for Region 31 a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to
the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 19, 2026
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 be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any
of you for engaging in actual or perceived protected concerted
and union activities
WE WILL make Noah Kelly, Andrew Choe, Sean Hunt, and
Steven Miller whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
resulting from their 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 the
unlawful discharges, including reasonable search-for-work and
interim employment expenses, plus interest.
WE WILL compensate Kelly, Choe, Hunt, and Miller for the
adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum back-
pay award(s), and WE WILL file with the Regional Director for
Region 31 within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is
fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the
backpay award(s) to the appropriate calendar year(s).
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order,
remove from our files any reference to the unlawful discharges
of Kelly, Choe, Hunt, and Miller, and WE WILL, within 3 days
thereafter, notify them each in writing that this has been done
and that the discharge(s) will not be used against them in any
way.
X FACTOR S2 LLC
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/ 31-CA-323348 or by using the QR code be-
low. 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.
notice must be posted within 14 days after the facility reopens and a sub-
stantial complement of employees has returned to work. If, while closed
or not staffed by a substantial complement of employees due to the pan-
demic, 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 judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National
Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”