1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Sara S. Demirok (AZ# 031970)

Elise F. Oviedo (AZ # 030248, NM # 145718) 

Judith E. Davila (AZ #031200) 

National Labor Relations Board, Region 28 

2600 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004 

Tel: (602) 640-2123 

Fax: (602) 640-2178 

Email: sara.demirok@nlrb.gov 

 elise.oviedo@nlrb.gov

judith.davila@nlrb.gov 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

CORNELE A. OVERSTREET, 

Regional Director of the Twenty-Eighth

Region of the National Labor Relations 

Board, for and on behalf of the 

National Labor Relations Board, 

 Petitioner,

v. 

SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY, 

 Respondent.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.

PETITION FOR TEMPORARY 

INJUNCTION UNDER SECTION 10(j) 

OF THE NATIONAL LABOR 

RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED 

[29 U.S.C. § 160(j)]

(Oral argument requested)

 Cornele A. Overstreet, Regional Director of Region 28 (Regional 

Director) of the National Labor Relations Board (Board), petitions this Court, for and on 

behalf of the Board, pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, as 

amended [61 Stat. 149; 73 Stat. 544; 29 U.S.C. § 160(j)] (Act), for appropriate 

injunctive relief pending the final disposition of the matters involved herein pending a 

decision by the Board, on a complaint issued by the General Counsel of the Board 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 21
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

(General Counsel), alleging, inter alia, that Shamrock Foods Company (Respondent) 

has engaged in, and is engaging in, acts and conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and 

(3) of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (3)]. In support of this petition, Petitioner 

respectfully shows the following: 

 1. Petitioner is the Regional Director of Region 28 of the Board, an agency 

of the United States, and files this petition for and on behalf of the Board. 

 2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 10(j) of the Act [29 U.S.C. 

§ 160(j)], which provides, inter alia, that the Board shall have the power, upon issuance 

of a complaint charging that any person has engaged in unfair labor practices, to petition 

this Court for appropriate temporary injunctive relief or a restraining order pending final 

disposition of the matter by the Board. 

 3. (a) On April 15, 2015, Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers’ and 

Grain Millers International Union, Local Union No. 232, AFL-CIO-CLC (Union), filed 

a charge with the Board, in Case 28-CA-150157, alleging, inter alia, that Respondent 

has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 

8(a)(1) of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)]. PX 1.1

 

 (b) On May 22, 2015, the Union filed a first amended charge with the 

Board, in Case 28-CA-150157, alleging, inter alia, that Respondent has engaged in, and 

is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of 

the Act [29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3)]. PX 3. 

 

1

 Petitioner has filed evidence in support of this Petition, contained within an Appendix 

of Exhibits, which includes the affidavits and supplemental exhibits. References to the 

Appendix of Exhibits will be designated as “PX” followed by the appropriate exhibit 

number, and, as appropriate, the page and line number(s) of the respective exhibit. 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 2 of 21
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 (c) On June 26, 2015, the Union filed a second amended charge with 

the Board, in Case 28-CA-150157, alleging, inter alia, that Respondent has engaged in, 

and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) 

of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (3)]. PX 5. 

 4. (a) The aforesaid charges were referred to Petitioner as Regional 

Director for Region 28 of the Board. 

 (b) Upon receipt of the charges described above in paragraph 3, and 

after the investigation of the charges in which Respondent was given the opportunity to 

present evidence and legal argument, the General Counsel, on behalf of the Board, 

pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 160(b)], issued a Complaint and 

Notice of Hearing on July 21, 2015 (Complaint), alleging that Respondent engaged in, 

and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) 

of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (3)]. PX 7. 

 (c) On August 4, 2015, Respondent filed its Answer to the Complaint 

(Answer to Complaint), denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. PX 8. 

 (d) The General Counsel, on behalf of the Board, pursuant to Section 

10(b) of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 160(b)], issued an Amendment to the Complaint on 

August 14, 2015 (Amendment) on August 13, 2015. PX 9. 

 (e) On August 26, 2015, Respondent filed its Answer to the 

Amendment (Answer to Amendment), denying the commission of any unfair labor 

practices. PX 10. 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 3 of 21
4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 (f) A hearing before an administrative law judge of the Board has been 

noticed and is scheduled to commence on September 8, 2015, in Phoenix, Arizona. 

 5. There is reasonable cause to believe that the allegations set forth in the 

Complaint are true and Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor 

practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 

158(a)(1) and (3)], which are affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) 

and (7) of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 152 (6) and (7)], for which a remedy will be ordered by 

the Board, but that the Board’s order for such remedy will be frustrated without the 

temporary injunctive relief sought herein. Petitioner asserts that there is a substantial 

likelihood of success in prevailing in the underlying administrative proceedings in Case 

28-CA-150157, and establishing that Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, 

unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 

158(a)(1) and (3)] by, inter alia, threatening employees with adverse employment 

actions because of their support for the Union; interrogating employees about their 

protected activities; spying on its employees as they engage in protected activities and 

making employees believe that their protected activities are constantly under 

surveillance; soliciting grievances from employees and promising to correct those 

grievances in an effort to undermine union support; instructing employees to ascertain 

and disclose employees’ sympathies for the Union; and confiscating employees’ union 

literature, and issuing discriminatory discipline to an vocal union supporter and 

discharging another prominent union supporter because of their activities protected 

under Section 7 of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 157], including their activities in support of the 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 4 of 21
5 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Union. In support thereof, and of the request for temporary injunctive relief, Petitioner, 

upon information and belief, shows the following: 

 (a) (1) At all material times, Respondent has been a corporation 

with an office and place of business in Phoenix, Arizona (Respondent’s facility), and 

has been engaged in the wholesale distribution of food products. 

(2) In conducting its operations during the 12-month period 

ending April 15, 2015, Respondent purchased and received at its facility goods valued 

in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Arizona. 

 (3) At all material times, Respondent has been an employer 

engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act [29 

U.S.C. § 152(2), (6), and (7)]. 

 (b) At all material times, the Union has been a labor organization 

within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 152(5)]. 

 (c) At all material times, the following individuals held the positions 

set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors of Respondents 

within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 152(11)] and agents of 

Respondents within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 152(13)]: 

Ivan Vaivao - Warehouse Operations Manager 

Mark Engdahl - Vice-President of Operation Foods Service 

Kent McClelland - Chief Executive Officer 

Dwayne Thomas - Third Shift Supervisor 

Joe Remblance - Safety Manager 

Armando Gutierrez - Warehouse Supervisor 

Jerry Kropman - Plant Manager 

Bob Beake - Director of Human Resources 

Natalie Wright - Manager of Human Resources 

David Garcia - Forklift Manager 

Brian Nicklen - Forklift Manager 

Jake Myers - Day Systems Shipping Supervisor 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 5 of 21
6 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Leland Scott - Night Shift Dock Supervisor 

Karen Garzon - Sanitation Supervisor 

Art Manning - Floor Captain 

Zack White - Floor Captain 

 (d) (1) About March 31, 2015, Respondent’s employee 

Thomas Wallace concertedly complained to Respondent regarding the wages, hours, 

and working conditions of Respondent’s employees, by criticizing the health benefits 

offered by Respondent to employees during a Town Hall staff meeting at Respondent’s 

facility. 

(2) About January 25, 2015, Respondent, by Zack White, at 

Respondent’s facility: 

 (i) interrogated its employees about their union 

membership, activities, and sympathies of other employees; and 

 (ii) by telling its employees that there were rumors in the 

warehouse about an organizing campaign, created an impression among its employees 

that their union activities were under surveillance by Respondent. 

 (3) About January 28, 2015, Respondent, by Mark Engdahl 

(Engdahl), at Respondent’s facility: 

 (i) threatened its employees with loss of benefits by 

telling employees that when employees are represented by a union, the slate is wiped 

clean on wages, benefits, and other working conditions once collective bargaining 

begins; and 

 (ii) granted employees benefits by telling employees who 

complained about working conditions to make an appointment to come see Respondent. 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 6 of 21
7 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 (4) About January 28, 2015, Respondent, by Natalie Wright 

(Wright), at Respondent’s facility, by soliciting employee complaints and grievances, 

promised its employees increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of 

employment if its employees refrained from union organizational activity. 

 (5) About January 28, 2015, Respondent, by Jake Myers, at 

Respondent’s facility, interrogated its employees about their union membership, 

activities, and sympathies. 

 (6) About January 28, 2015, Respondent, by Art Manning 

(Manning), at Denny’s restaurant on I-17 and Thomas Road in Phoenix, Arizona, 

engaged in surveillance of its employees engaged in union activities. 

 (7) About February 5, 2015, Respondent, by Ivan Vaivao 

(Vaivao), at Respondent’s facility, by soliciting employee complaints and grievances, 

promised its employees increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of 

employment if its employees refrained from union organizational activity. 

 (8) About mid-February, 2015, a more precise date being 

unknown to the General Counsel, by Vaivao and Wright, at Respondent’s facility, by 

soliciting employee complaints and grievances, promised its employees increased 

benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment if its employees refrained 

from union organizational activity. 

 (9) About February 24, 2015, Respondent, by Vaivao, at 

Respondent’s facility: 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 7 of 21
8 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 (i) by telling its employees that Respondent had an idea 

of who was organizing, created an impression among its employees that their union 

activities were under surveillance by Respondent; and 

 (ii) by asking its employees to raise their hand to let 

Respondent know if another employee contacted them, asked its employees to ascertain 

and disclose to Respondent the union membership, activities, and sympathies of other 

employees. 

 (10) About March 26, 2015, Respondent, by Vaivao, Brian 

Nicklen (Nicklen) and a Human Resource Representative, whose name is currently 

unknown to the General Counsel, created an impression among its employees that their 

union activities were under surveillance by Respondent by: 

 (i) telling its employees that Respondent knows 

everything that is going on; 

 (ii) telling its employees that they should know that 

Respondent knows who they are; 

 (iii) telling its employees that Respondent knows exactly 

who they are; and 

 (iv) telling its employees that Respondent knew there was 

a union meeting off property a few weeks ago and that Respondent knew who attended 

these meetings. 

 (11) About March 26, 2015, Respondent, by Vaivao, Nicklen and 

a Human Resource Representative, whose name is currently unknown to General 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 8 of 21
9 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Counsel, informed its employees that it would be futile for them to select the Union as 

their bargaining representative by telling employees that shifts cannot be changed. 

 (12) About April 6, 2015, Respondent discharged employee 

Thomas Wallace (Wallace). 

 (13) Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in 

paragraph 5(a)(12), because Wallace engaged in the conduct described above in 

paragraph 5(a)(1), and to discourage employees from engaging in these or other 

concerted activities. 

(14) About April 6, 2015, Respondent promulgated and since 

then has maintained the following overly-broad and discriminatory rules in its 

Separation Agreement and Release and Waiver as presented to employee Wallace on 

that same date: 

 (i) Paragraph 9

Because the information in this Separation Agreement is 

confidential, it is agreed that you will not disclose the terms of this 

Separation Agreement to anyone, except that you may disclose the 

terms of this Separation Agreement to your family, your attorney, 

your accountant, a state unemployment office, and to the extent 

required by a valid court order or by law. 

 (ii) Paragraph 10

All information, whether written or otherwise, regarding the 

Released Parties’ businesses, including but not limited to financial, 

personnel or corporate information . . . are presumed to be 

confidential information of the Released Parties for purposes of this 

Agreement. 

 (iii) Paragraph 12

You may not use/disclose any of the Company’s Confidential 

Information for any reason following your termination and during 

the transition period. 

 (iv) Paragraph 13

You agree not to make any disparaging remarks or take any action 

now, or at any time in the future, which could be detrimental to the 

Released Parties. 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 9 of 21
10 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 

(15) About April 27, 2015, Respondent, by Manning, at 

Respondent’s facility: 

 (i) by telling its employees that Respondent knew which 

employees announced they were organizing for the union in the break room at 

Respondent’s facility, engaged in surveillance of employees engaged in union activities; 

and 

 (ii) threatened its employees with unspecified reprisals 

by telling employees that they had better watch their back because Respondent was 

watching. 

 (16) About April 29, 2015, Respondent, by Engdahl, at 

Respondent’s facility: 

 (i) by telling its employees that Respondent understood 

who was behind the Union, created the impression among its employees that their union 

activities were under surveillance by Respondent; 

 (ii) threatened its employees with unspecified reprisals 

by telling its employees the Union will hurt them; 

 (iii) threatened its employees with unspecified reprisals 

by telling employees the Union will hurt everybody in the future; 

 (iv) by telling its employees that through collective 

bargaining, Respondent does not have to agree to anything, informed employees that it 

would be futile for them to select the Union as their bargaining representative. 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 10 of 21
11 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 (17) About April 29, 2015, Respondent, by Joe Remblance, at 

Respondent’s facility: 

 (i) interrogated its employees about their union 

membership, activities, and sympathies; and 

 (ii) by watching its employees talk with each other 

during non-working time and immediately asking them what they were discussing, 

engaged in surveillance of employees engaged in union activities. 

 (18) About May 1, 2015, Respondent, by David Garcia, at 

Respondent’s facility: 

 (i) by searching through the personal belongings of its 

employees, engaged in surveillance of its employees engaged in union activities; 

 (ii) created the impression among its employees that their 

union activities were under surveillance by: 

 (A) telling its employees that Respondent knew 

that employees handed a union card to another employee in the South End break room 

at Respondent’s facility; and 

 (B) informing its employees that Respondent was 

looking for union cards. 

 (iii) by soliciting employee complaints and grievances, 

promised its employees increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of 

employment if its employees refrained from union organizational activity. 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 11 of 21
12 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 (19) About May 5, 2015, Respondent, by Engdahl and Vaivao, at 

Respondent’s facility: 

 (i) threatened its employees with unspecified reprisals, 

by telling its employees that discussions and heckling related to the Union would not be 

tolerated; 

 (ii) by telling its employees that Respondent knew that 

there were problems on the floor, created the impression among its employees that their 

union activities were under surveillance by Respondent; and 

 (iii) promulgated an overly-broad and discriminatory rule 

that heckling, insulting or potential slow-down by its employees who did not share a 

similar point of view would not be tolerated in response to its employees’ organizing 

activities. 

 (20) About May 8, 2015, Respondent, by a letter issued to its 

employees from Kent McClelland: 

 (i) promulgated and has since maintained an overlybroad and discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from engaging in unlawfully 

coercive behavior or bullying, in response to employees’ organizing activities; 

 (ii) asked its employees to ascertain and disclose to 

Respondent the union membership, activities, and sympathies of other employees, by 

telling its employees to report co-workers who violate the rule described above in 

paragraph 5(x)(1); and 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 12 of 21
13 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 (iii) threatened its employees with legal prosecution if 

they violate the rule as described above in paragraph 5(x)(1). 

 (21) About May 25, 2015, Respondent, by Karen Garzon 

(Garzon), at Respondent’s facility: 

 (i) interrogated its employees about their union 

membership, activities, and sympathies; and 

 (ii) by removing Union flyers from non-work areas while 

permitting other non-work related literature to remain in non-work areas, selectively and 

disparately enforced Respondent’s overly-broad and discriminatory no-solicitation/nodistribution rule. 

 (22) About May 29, 2015, Respondent, by Vaivao, at 

Respondent’s facility, by increasing the wage rate to certain of its employees, granted 

benefits to its employees to dissuade its employees from supporting or voting for the 

Union. 

 (23) About June 15, 16, 17 and July 8, 2015, Respondent, by 

Garzon, at Respondent’s facility, by removing Union flyers from non-work areas while 

permitting other non-work related literature to remain in non-work areas, selectively and 

disparately enforced Respondent’s overly-broad and discriminatory no-solicitation/nodistribution rule. 

 (b) (1) About May 5, 2015, Respondent disciplined its employee 

Mario Lerma (Lerma). 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 13 of 21
14 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 (2) Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in 

paragraph 5(a)(12), because Wallace assisted the Union and engaged in concerted 

activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities. 

(3) Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in 

paragraph 5(b)(1) because Lerma assisted the Union and engaged in concerted 

activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities. 

6. By the conduct described above in paragraph 5(a), 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 [29 U.S.C. § 

158(a)(1)]. 

 7. By the conduct described above in paragraph 5(b), 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 [29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (3)]. 

8. The unfair labor practices of Respondent described above affect 

commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 152(6) 

and (7)]. 

9. Certain of the unfair labor practices of Respondent described above have 

taken place within this judicial district. 

 10. Upon information and belief, unless injunctive relief is immediately 

obtained, it can fairly be anticipated that employees will permanently and irreversibly 

lose the benefits of the Board’s processes and the exercise of statutory rights for the 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 14 of 21
15 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

entire period required for the Board adjudication of this matter, a harm which cannot be 

remedied in due course by the Board. 

 11. There is no adequate remedy at law for the irreparable harm being caused 

by Respondent’s unfair labor practices, as described above in paragraphs 5 through 7. 

 13. Granting the temporary injunctive relief requested by Petitioner will cause 

no undue hardship to Respondent. 

 14. In balancing the equities in this matter, if injunctive relief as requested is 

not granted, the harm to the employees involved herein, to the public interest, and to the 

purposes of the Act, would clearly outweigh any harm that the grant of such injunctive 

relief will work on Respondent. 

 15. Upon information and belief, it may fairly be anticipated that unless 

Respondent’s conduct of the unfair labor practices described above in paragraph 5 is 

immediately enjoined and restrained, Respondent will continue to engage in those acts 

and conduct, or similar acts and conduct constituting unfair labor practices, during the 

proceedings before the Board and during any subsequent proceedings before a United 

States Court of Appeals, with the predictable result of continued interference with the 

rights of employees to engage in activities protected by Section 7 of the Act [29 U.S.C. 

§ 157], with the result that employees will be deprived of their rights under Section 7 

the Act [29 U.S.C. § 157], inter alia, to form, join, or assist a labor organization or to 

refrain from any and all such activities, and will be denied their statutory right to engage 

in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 15 of 21
16 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

or protection, all to the detriment of the policies of the Act, the public interest, the 

interest of the employees involved, and the interest of the Union. 

 16. Upon information and belief, to avoid the serious consequences set forth 

above, it is essential, just, proper, and appropriate for the purposes of effectuating the 

policies of the Act and the public interest, and to avoid substantial, irreparable, and 

immediate injury to such policies and interest, and in accordance with the purposes of 

Section 10(j) of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 160(j)] that, pending final disposition of the 

matters now before the Board, Respondent be enjoined and restrained from committing 

the acts and conduct alleged above, similar acts and conduct, or repetitions thereof, and 

also be ordered to take the affirmative action set forth below in paragraph 2. 

 WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays: 

 1. That the Court issue an order directing Respondent to appear 

before this Court, at a time and place fixed by the Court, and show cause why an 

injunction should not issue and, after consideration, issue an injunction directing, 

enjoining, and restraining Respondent, its officers, agents, servants, representatives, 

successors, and assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them, 

pending the final disposition of the matters herein now pending before the Board, to 

cease and desist from: 

(a) interrogating employees about their union support and activities, 

and the sympathies of other employees; 

(b) creating the impression among employees that their union activities 

are under surveillance; 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 16 of 21
17 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

(c) engaging in surveillance of employees’ union or other protected 

activity; 

(d) threatening employees with loss of benefits if they select Bakery, 

Confectionery, Tobacco Workers’ and Grain Millers International Union, Local Union 

No. 232, AFL-CIO-CLC (the Union) as their bargaining representative; 

(e) informing employees that it is futile for them to select the Union or 

any other labor organization as their bargaining representative; 

(f) granting employees benefits, including, but not limited to, 

increased wages, in response to their and others’ union activity; 

(g) soliciting employee complaints and grievances, and promising 

employees increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment if they 

refrain from union organizing activities; 

(h) asking employees to ascertain or disclose the union membership, 

activities and sympathies of other employees; 

(i) threatening employees with unspecified reprisals because of their 

activities in support of the Union; 

(j) promulgating and maintaining overly-broad and discriminatory 

rules in response to its employees’ union organizing activities, and threatening 

employees with legal prosecution for violating such rules; 

(k) selectively and disparately enforcing its no-solicitation and nodistribution rules based on employees’ union and other protected activity; 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 17 of 21
18 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

(l) promulgating and maintaining overly-broad and discriminatory 

rules within its Separation Agreement and Release and Waiver; 

(m) disciplining employees by issuing them verbal warnings or 

otherwise because they engage in union and other protected activity to discourage 

employees from engaging in these activities; 

(n) discharging employees because they engaged in concerted 

activities involving their terms and conditions of employment or in activities in support 

of the Union, and in order to discourage membership in the Union or in any other labor 

organization; 

(o) in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing 

employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the National 

Labor Relations Act [29 U.S.C. § 157]. 

 2. That the Court require Respondent to take the following affirmative 

actions: 

(a) Within five (5) days of this Order, withdraw its offer to Wallace of 

the Separation Agreement and Release and Waiver presented to him about April 6, 

2015, and notify Wallace in writing that the offer has been withdrawn and that it is no 

longer seeking his agreement to the Separation Agreement and Release and Waiver, 

including, but not limited to, the following provisions: 

 (1) Paragraph 9 

Because the information in this Separation Agreement is 

confidential, it is agreed that you will not disclose the terms of this 

Separation Agreement to anyone, except that you may disclose the 

terms of this Separation Agreement to your family, your attorney, 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 18 of 21
19 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

your accountant, a state unemployment office, and to the extent 

required by a valid court order or by law. 

 (2) Paragraph 10 

All information, whether written or otherwise, regarding the 

Released Parties’ businesses, including but not limited to financial, 

personnel or corporate information . . . are presumed to be 

confidential information of the Released Parties for purposes of this 

Agreement. 

 (3) Paragraph 12 

You may not use/disclose any of the Company’s Confidential 

Information for any reason following your termination and during 

the transition period. 

 (4) Paragraph 13 

You agree not to make any disparaging remarks or take any action 

now, or at any time in the future, which could be detrimental to the 

Released Parties. 

(b) Within five (5) days of this Order, rescind the letter dated May 8, 

2015, from Kent McClelland to its employees, including the rule therein prohibiting 

employees from engaging in unlawfully coercive behavior or bullying, the instruction to 

employees to report employees who violate that rule, and the threat of legal prosecution 

of employees who violate that rule, and notify employees in writing that the letter is 

rescinded, void, of no effect, and will not be enforced; 

(c) Within five (5) days of this Order, remove from its files, any and 

all records of the verbal warning issued to Mario Lerma, and within three (3) days 

thereafter, notify him, in writing, that this was done, and that the verbal warning will not 

be used against him in any way; 

(d) Within five (5) days of this Order, offer Thomas Wallace, in 

writing, immediate reinstatement to his former job, or if that jobs no longer exists, to a 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 19 of 21
20 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

substantially equivalent position of employment, without prejudice to his seniority and 

other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, displacing if necessary any workers hired 

or transferred to replace him; 

(e) Within five (5) days of this Order, remove from its files, any and 

all records of the discharge of Thomas Wallace, and within three (3) days thereafter, 

notify him in writing that this was done, and that the discharge will not be used against 

him in any way; 

(f) Within fourteen (5) days of this Order, post copies of this Order, as 

well as translations of this Order provided by the Regional Director of the Board in 

languages other than English as necessary to ensure effective communication to 

Respondent’s employees, at Respondent’s facilities located at 2450 N. 29th Ave., 

Phoenix, Arizona, and 2228 N. Black Canyon Highway, Phoenix, Arizona, in all places 

where notices to its employees are normally posted; maintain these postings during the 

pendency of the Board’s administrative proceeding free from all obstructions and 

defacements; grant all employees free and unrestricted access to said postings; and grant 

to agents of the Board reasonable access to its facilities to monitor compliance with this 

posting requirement; 

(g) Within ten (10) days of the Court’s issuance of this Order, hold a 

mandatory meeting or meetings during working time at Respondent’s facilities located 

at 2450 N. 29th Ave., Phoenix, Arizona, and 2228 N. Black Canyon Highway, Phoenix, 

Arizona, at which this Order is to be read aloud by a responsible management official in 

the presence of an agent of the Board, or at Respondent’s option by an agent of the 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 20 of 21
21 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Board in that official’s presence, translated into languages other than English as 

necessary to ensure the effective communication with Respondent’s employees, to all 

employees employed at Respondent’s facilities located at 2450 N. 29th Ave., Phoenix, 

Arizona, and 2228 N. Black Canyon Highway, Phoenix, Arizona, including at multiple 

meetings as necessary to ensure that the Order is read aloud to all employees; and 

(h) Within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, file with the Court, and 

submit a copy to the Regional Director for Region 28 of the Board, a sworn affidavit 

from a responsible agent of Respondent stating, with specificity, the manner in which 

Respondent has complied with the terms of the Injunction Order. 

 3. That upon return of the Order to Show Cause, the Court issue an Order 

Granting Temporary Injunction enjoining and restraining Respondent in the manner set 

forth above. 

 4. That the Court grant such further and other relief as may be just and 

proper. 

Dated at Phoenix, Arizona, this 8th day of September, 2015. 

 

 /s/ Judith Davila .

 Judith Davila, Esq. 

Sara Demirok, Esq. 

 Elise Oviedo, Esq. 

 On behalf of: 

 Cornele A. Overstreet, Regional Director 

 National Labor Relations Board, Region 28 

 2600 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400 

 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-3099 

Case 2:15-cv-01785-DJH Document 1 Filed 09/08/15 Page 21 of 21