mand for voluntary recognition to the Respondent. The
Respondent declined recognition, and the Union imme-
diately filed a petition for a Board representation elec-
tion. On the same date, the Respondent announced that it
was restoring Sunday premium pay and un scheduled
overtime pay. The election was held on February 20 and
21, resulting in a tally of 273 votes for the Union, and
287 against it, with 10 challenged ballots The Union
filed objections to th e election that have been consolidat-
ed for consideration with the unfair labor practice allega-
tions in this proceeding.
On March 29, Abare posted a comment on Facebook
that was critical of b oth his pay and of those employees
who voted against the Union. On April 4, the Respond-
ent demoted Abare on the g rounds that his posting vio-
lated its social media policy.
II. JUDGE’S FINDINGS
The judge found that the Respondent engaged in nu-
merous and pervasive v iolations of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act during the preelectio n period. Specifically, he found
that the Respondent restored Sunday premium pay and
unscheduled overtime pay to discourage employees from
supporting the Union,7 threatened employees with plant
closure if they voted for union representation,8 th reatened
that it would lose business if they selected the Union as
their bargaining representative, threatened employees
with job loss, a reduction in wages, and more on erous
working conditions, disparaged the Union, 9 maintained
an overly broad work rule that interfered with employ-
7 We adopt the judge’s findings that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(1) by restoring Sunday premium pay and unscheduled overtime
pay to discourage employees from supporting the Union. However, we
do not rely on his finding that the solicitation of crew leaders to sign
authorization cards provided circumstantial evidence of the Respond-
ent’s prior knowledge of the union campaign, nor do we rely on any
suggestion that the Union’s January 9 demand letter provided such
evidence of employer knowledge.
8 We find that the statements at issue are more accurately described
as threats of job loss, and we will modify the Order and notice language
for this violation accordingly.
9 The judge found that the Respondent unlawfully disparaged the
Union by posting a redacted letter from the Board’s Regional Office to
the Respondent and, using this redaction, falsely representing to the
employees that the Union had filed charges seeking the rescission of
their Sunday premium pay and unscheduled overtime, and that the
Respondent would have to rescind these benefits retroactive to January
1 as a result. We agree with the judge that the Respondent’s conduct
violated the Act, because its statements and misuse of the Region’s
letter were clearly calculated to mislead employees as to the Union’s
conduct with regard to restoration of the benefits. Under these circum-
stances, the Respondent’s conduct violated Sec. 8(a)(1) as it constitutes
interference, restraint, and coercion that unlawfully tended to under-
mine the Union. See Faro Screen Process, Inc., 362 NLRB 718, 718–
719 (2015), and cases cited therein.
ees’ use of the Respondent’s email system fo r Section 7
purposes, selectively and disparately enforced the Re-
spondent’s posting and distribution rules,10 prohibited
employees from wearing union insignia on their uni-
forms while permitting employees to wear antiunion and
other insignia, interrogated employees about union activ-
ities,11 solicited employees’ complaints and grievances
and promised employees improved terms and conditions
of employment if they did n ot select the Union, and
maintained and gave effect to an overly broad unlawful
social media policy. He also found that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) by its postelection demo tion of
10 The judge found that, on four occasions i n January, the Respond-
ent’s supervisors unlawfully removed union literature from break areas
and either replaced it with company literature o f a similar nature or
permitted company literature to remain in those break areas. He rea-
soned that the supervisors’ conduct was unlawfully discriminatory.
Although we agree with the judge that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(1) on all four occasions, we affirm these violations because each of
these supervisors removed union literature from a mixed-use area. See
Superior Emerald Park Landfill, LLC, 340 NLRB 449, 456-457 (2003)
(confiscation of union literature from mixed use employee break area
found unlawful). Chairman Pearce agrees with the judge’s rationale for
all of these findings.
11 We adopt the judge’s findings that the Respondent’s supervisor
Bro violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by interrogating employees on January 23 and
30. We find it unnecessary to pass on whether Supervisor Formoza
unlawfully interrogated employees on January 28, a s any such finding
would be cumulative and would not affect the remedy. For the same
reason, Chairman Pearce finds it unnecessary to pass on whether Bro
unlawfully interrogated employees on January 23.
We also find that, as alleged in the complaint, Bro violated Sec.
8(a)(1) by threatening employees on January 23 that they did not have
to work for the Respondent if they were unhappy with their terms and
conditions of employment. Although the judge did not make a specific
finding on this complaint allegation, he addressed the issue in his anal-
ysis and included the violation in his conclusions of law.
Finally, we agree with the judge that on January 28 Supervisor
Formoza violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by impliedly threatening an employee
with layoff if employees selected the Union as their bargaining repre-
sentative. We shall modify the Conclusions of Law, Order, and notice
to include this violation.
12 We affirm the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(1) and (3) by demoting Abare because of his protected concerted
and union activities. However, we do not rely on the judge’s analysis
under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. on other grounds 662
F.2d 899 (1st Cir.1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved i n
NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983). The
Wright Line analysis is appropriately used in cases that turn on the
employer’s motive. Phoenix Transit System, 337 NLRB 510, 510
(2002), enfd. 63 Fed. Appx. 524 (D.C. Cir. 2003). But where the con-
duct for which the employee is disciplined is protected activity, the
Wright Line analysis is n ot appropriate. Id.; see also St. Joseph’s Hos-
pital, 337 NLRB 94, 95 (2001). Here, it is undisputed that the Re-
spondent demoted Abare because of his social media posting. The
judge found, and we agree, that Abare’s Facebook posting constituted
protected, concerted activity and union activity. Further, we agree with
the judge that, under Triple Play Sports Bar & Grille, 361 NLRB 308,