03/19/2025: Telling Workers They Cannot Discuss Wages Is Still Illegal
A case where the employer made a successful Wright Line affirmative defense.
All Metals Recycling, LLC, and Aliquippa Recycling & Metals Processing, LLC, JD-24-25, 06-CA-316870 (ALJ Decision)
This case involves allegations that All Metals Recycling, LLC and Aliquippa Recycling & Metals Processing, LLC (collectively "Respondents") violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by prohibiting employees from discussing wages and laying off an employee, Laxavier Crumb, for engaging in protected concerted activity.
The administrative law judge (ALJ) first addressed whether the two companies constitute a single-integrated enterprise. Finding common ownership (both solely owned by Remo Bazzoli), common management (Remo and his son Keenan Bazzoli managing both entities), interrelated operations (shared facilities and administration), and common labor relations (same individuals handling labor matters), the ALJ determined they functioned as a single employer.
The ALJ found supervisor Chris Bokor was a statutory supervisor based on his authority to assign work, schedule overtime, and exercise independent judgment without oversight at the Aliquippa yard. The decision noted Bokor's own testimony that "I was the one that made all the decisions there" and pointed to secondary indicia including his salaried status and attendance at management meetings.
Regarding the wage discussion prohibition, the ALJ found that Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) by instructing employees not to discuss wages on multiple occasions. The evidence showed that both Keenan Bazzoli and Chris Bokor told employee Fred Kuppinger not to discuss wages with coworkers, and Bokor warned Crumb twice not to discuss wages. The ALJ determined these repeated warnings over a four-month period constituted an unlawful unwritten rule prohibiting wage discussions, a clear restraint on employees' Section 7 rights to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection.
On the issue of Crumb's layoff, the ALJ applied the Wright Line framework to determine whether the layoff was discriminatory. While finding that the General Counsel established a prima facie case (Crumb engaged in protected activity by discussing wages, Respondents knew about it, and the timing suggested animus), the ALJ ultimately concluded Respondents met their burden to show they would have laid off Crumb regardless of his protected activity.
The ALJ credited Respondents' defense that financial difficulties (including embezzlement of $500,000, declining metal prices, and loss of major customers) necessitated layoffs in November 2022. The decision noted that Respondents laid off three employees simultaneously, including two who had not engaged in protected activity, and all three were the least experienced employees. Additionally, the ALJ found that Respondents' decision not to recall Crumb was not discriminatory, as another laid-off crane operator who had not engaged in protected activity was also not recalled despite making more efforts to return.
The ALJ ordered Respondents to cease and desist from instructing employees not to discuss wages and from maintaining rules prohibiting such discussions, and to post appropriate notices. The complaint allegation that Crumb was laid off in retaliation for protected activity was dismissed.
Significant Cases Cited
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980): Established the framework for analyzing discrimination cases where employer motivation is at issue.
Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686 (2006): Defined "assignment" of work and "independent judgment" for determining supervisory status.
Spurlino Materials, LLC, 357 NLRB 1510 (2011): Set forth the four-factor test for determining single-integrated enterprise status.
Triana Industries, 245 NLRB 1258 (1979): Established that wage discussions are protected under Section 7 as they involve vital terms of employment.
Automatic Screw Products Co., 306 NLRB 1072 (1992): Found that prohibiting employee wage discussions violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.