NOTICE: This
opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes
of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested
to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
Eastern Energy
Services, LLC and Sheet Metal Workers
International Association, Local Union No. 40.
Case
34–CA–11315
March 20, 2007
DECISION AND ORDER
By Members Liebman, Kirsanow,
and Walsh
On August 9, 2006,
Administrative Law Judge Lawrence W. Cullen issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief. The General Counsel
filed an answering brief, and the Respondent filed a reply brief.
The National Labor
Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
The Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,[1]
and conclusions as modified and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and
set forth in full below.[2]
Amended Remedy
Having found that the
Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to
cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
The Respondent unlawfully
refused to hire and to consider for hire Thomas Kelm, Arthur Bregoli, Gerald
Satin, and Kenneth Moore. These
individuals are entitled to the remedy for unlawful refusal to hire—instatement
and backpay—which subsumes the remedy for the Respondent’s unlawful refusal to
consider them for hire. Jobsite Staffing, 340 NLRB 332, 333
(2003). We shall order the Respondent to
make these individuals whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits that
they may have suffered due to the unlawful actions taken against them in
accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co.,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in accordance with New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB
1173 (1987).
The Respondent unlawfully
refused to consider for hire Charles Bristol, Nicholas Susko, Armand Joseph
Richard, Paul Nieves, and Damien Pisani.
We shall order that the Respondent consider these individuals for future
employment in accord with nondiscriminatory criteria. We shall also order that the Respondent
notify these individuals, the Union, and the Regional Director for Region 34 in
writing of future openings in positions for which these employees applied or
substantially equivalent positions. The
Respondent will be required to provide such notification until the Regional Director
concludes that the case should be closed on compliance.[3] If it is shown at a compliance stage of this
proceeding that, but for the failure to consider them, the Respondent would have
selected any of these individuals for job openings arising after the beginning
of the hearing on May 16, 2006, or for any job openings arising before the
hearing that the General Counsel neither knew nor should have known had arisen,
the Respondent shall be ordered to hire them for any such position and to make
them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits that they may have
suffered due to the unlawful actions taken against them in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., supra, plus
interest as computed in accordance with New
Horizons for the Retarded, supra.
ORDER
The National Labor
Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Eastern Energy Services, LLC,
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discriminatorily
refusing to consider for hire and refusing to hire applicants for employment
because of their union membership or support of the
(b) Telling job applicants
that the Respondent does not hire sheet metal workers who are union members.
(c) Interrogating employees
concerning the
(d) Telling representatives
of the Union that the Respondent will not do business with the Union or that it
will not hire members of the
(e) In any like or related
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
2 Take the following
affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the
date of this Order, offer Thomas Kelm, Arthur Bregoli, Gerald Satin, and Kenneth
Moore instatement to the positions for which they applied or, if those
positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges they would have
enjoyed absent the discrimination against them.
(b) Make Thomas Kelm,
Arthur Bregoli, Gerald Satin, and Kenneth Moore whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them,
with interest, in the manner set forth in the amended remedy section of this
Decision and Order.
(c) Consider Charles
Bristol, Nicholas Susko, Armand Joseph Richard, Paul Nieves, and Damien Pisani
for future employment in accord with nondiscriminatory criteria, and notify
these individuals, the Union, and the Regional Director for Region 34 in
writing of future openings in positions for which these individuals applied or
substantially equivalent positions. If
it is shown at a compliance stage of this proceeding that, but for the failure
to consider them, the Respondent would have selected any of these employees for
any job openings arising after the beginning of the hearing on May 16, 2006, or
for any job openings arising before the hearing that the General Counsel
neither knew nor should have known had arisen, the Respondent shall hire them
for any such position and make them whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, with interest,
in the manner set forth in the amended remedy section of this Decision and Order.
(d) Within 14 days from the
date of this Order, remove from its files any reference to the unlawful refusal
to hire and to consider for hire Thomas Kelm, Arthur Bregoli, Gerald Satin, and
Kenneth Moore, and the unlawful refusal to consider for hire Charles Bristol,
Nicholas Susko, Armand Joseph Richard, Paul Nieves, and Damien Pisani, and
within 3 days thereafter, notify them in writing that this has been done and
that these unlawful actions will not be used against them in any way.
(e) Preserve and, within 14
days of a request or such additional time as the Regional Director may allow
for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place 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 electronic form, necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after
service by the Region, post at its facility copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”[4] Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 34, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. In the
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, 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 attached
notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent
at any time since July 2005.
(g) Within 21 days after
service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of
a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps
that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated,
|
Wilma B. Liebman, |
Member |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter N. Kirsanow, |
Member |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis P. Walsh, |
Member |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Seal) National Labor Relations Board
APPENDIX
Notice
To Employees
Posted
by Order of the
National
Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the
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 behalf
Act together with other
employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any
of these protected activities.
We will not refuse
to consider for hire and to hire applicants for employment because of their
membership in or support of Sheet Metal Workers International Association,
Local Union No. 40.
We will not tell
job applicants that we do not hire sheet metal workers who are union members.
We will not interrogate
employees concerning the
We will not tell
representatives of the Union that we will not do business with the Union or
hire members of the
We will not in any
like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights set forth above.
We will, within 14
days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Thomas Kelm, Arthur Bregoli, Gerald
Satin, and Kenneth Moore employment in the positions for which they applied or,
if these positions no longer exist, in substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges they would have
enjoyed absent the discrimination against them.
We will make Thomas
Kelm, Arthur Bregoli, Gerald Satin, and Kenneth Moore whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
We will consider
Charles Bristol, Nicholas Susko, Armand Joseph Richard, Paul Nieves, and Damien
Pisani for future employment in accord with nondiscriminatory criteria, and we will notify
these individuals, the Union, and the Regional Director for Region 34 in
writing of future openings in positions for which these individuals applied or
substantially equivalent positions. If
it is shown at a compliance stage of this proceeding that, but for the failure
to consider them, we would have selected any of these individuals for any other
job openings, we shall hire them for any such position and make them whole,
with interest, for any loss of earnings and other benefits.
We will, within 14
days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any reference to
the unlawful refusal to hire and to consider for hire Thomas Kelm, Arthur
Bregoli, Gerald Satin, and Kenneth Moore, and the unlawful refusal to consider
for hire Charles Bristol, Nicholas Susko, Armand Joseph Richard, Paul Nieves,
and Damien Pisani, and we will, within 3 days thereafter, notify them in writing that
this has been done and that these unlawful actions will not be used against
them in any way.
Eastern Energy Services, llc
Darryl Hale, Esq., and Thomas E. Quigley, Esq. for
the General Counsel.
Bernard E. Jacques, Esq., for the Respondent.
Thomas Kelm, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
After due consideration of the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the parties’ contentions at the hearing and the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following
Findings of Fact
i. the business of the respondent
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that at all times material the Respondent is and has been a corporation with an office and place of business located in Norwich, Connecticut, where it has been engaged as a mechanical contractor in the heating and air-conditioning industry, that during the 12-month period ending January 31, 2006, Respondent, in conducting its operations, purchased and received at its facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Connecticut, and that 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.
ii. the labor organization
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that
at all times material the
iii. the alleged unfair labor practices
This case involves the efforts of the
Debra Roggero, Respondent’s director of operations, and her partner, Shawn Hixson, Respondent’s project manager/estimator, are co-owners of Respondent. They purchased the Respondent on October 20, 2003, from the prior owner who also owned two other companies at the same location, one of which was dissolved and the other of which, Eastern USA Fuel, Inc., was sold to another individual. However, the signs for the two companies remained at the facility including a sign advertising hiring of sheet metal workers.
On January 20, 2004, Hixson met with Local 40 representatives
at the request of Paul Massimo, a longtime acquaintance and a former employee
of Respondent as well as a member of Local 40. Massimo had worked for
Respondent in the past but would leave if he were offered union work under the
Local 40 agreement. This was acceptable to Respondent. Massimo talked to Hixson
about Local 40 regularly and informed him of the benefits of the Union and of
signing an agreement with the
On March 16, 2004, then organizer Frank Pannone received a
call from a contractor who informed him that unlicensed sheet metal workers
were performing work at an Olive Garden restaurant jobsite in
This has become extremely critical. Our employee who pulled the permit now has to go in front of the licensing board and possibly have his licensed [sic] revoked as well as Eastern Energy’s mechanical contractors license. They have also stated since this was the second formal complaint, there are fines that will be assessed. . . . Please understand, Jose or any of your men are not to be back on site at ALL. Not even on the weekends, evenings, etc. They are watching and could result in arrest and further damage our plea to reduce fines and suspension or revoking licenses. Please understand the seriousness of this matter and comply.
As of July 2005, Local 40’s Olive Garden complaints were still pending. On July 7, the Occupational and Professional Licensing Division of the State Heating, Cooling, Sheet Metal and Piping Work Examining Board issued a formal complaint against the Respondent and issued a notice of hearing set for August 25.
Also on July 7, 2005, Local 40 organizer Thomas Kelm, another
organizer, Kenneth Moore, and two out-of-work journeymen, Arthur Bregoli and
Gerald Satin, went to Respondent’s facility to apply for work. All of these
four individuals were licensed sheet metal journeymen and each of them had over
20 years of experience in the trade. Each of them testified, without rebuttal, that
they were available for work as indicated on their applications. The four men
entered Respondent’s facility and were directed to Melissa Bradshaw,
Respondent’s administrative assistant. Three of them wore union insignia,
openly visual on their clothing and asked for applications. Bradshaw asked
them, “Are you union?” They replied in the affirmative. She then said, “We do
not hire union sheet metal here.” Kelm, nonetheless, asked her if they could
file applications and could take them with them to fill out later and asked if
they could be faxed in to Respondent and Kelm also asked Bradshaw if he could
take extra copies to be filed by other sheet metal workers who might be
interested in employment. Bradshaw agreed to all of the above. She did not
request to copy their sheet metal licenses. However, Roggero testified in this
proceeding that Respondent normally makes a copy of the applicant’s license.
Bradshaw told the employees that the applications were good for 3 years in
answer to an inquiry by Kelm. The employees then left the facility and Kelm
took photos of two signs in front of the facility which read “SHEET METAL
INSTALLERS” and “HELP WANTED.” There was also another sign nearby on the
property listing three companies including “EES Eastern Engineering Services.”
Employee Paul Massimo testified without rebuttal that on July 15, 2005, Shawn
Hixson called him and asked whether he knew an applicant who had applied for
employment with the Respondent. Missimo told Hixson he did not know the
individual. Hixson then asked Massimo why “the
On September 26, 2005, Local 40 had a second meeting with
Hixson, this time at the Pipe Fitters office as Pipe Fitters Business Manager
James Juliano had set up the meeting. Present were Hixson, Luke Ford, business
agent for the sheet metal workers, organizer Thomas Kelm, and Local 40 Business
Manager David A. Roche. Roche was aware that Respondent had signed an agreement
with the Pipefitters and told Hixson, they might need some union help. However,
when the
On October 19, 2005, Kelm and Luke Ford went to a jobsite
at the
It is undisputed that the Respondent hired seven employees
between July 7, 2005, when Kelm and the other three employees first applied and
October 3, 2005, when Respondent ceased hiring. Massimo testified, without
rebuttal that on August 11, 2005, he called Hixson for a job reference and
Hixson told him he had recently hired Mike Brainard and Victor Benintende, who
were two sheet metal workers with whom he had worked previously. On September
27, 2005, Kelm met Dave Myers, a former Local 40 member at the
Analysis
I find that the statement made by Melissa Bradshaw to the
four applicants for employment on July 7, that Respondent does not hire union
members was inherently coercive and violative of the Act and demonstrates
Respondent’s animus toward the Union. Her failure to make copies of their
licenses demonstrates her knowledge that Respondent did not hire union members.
I find that Bradshaw was involved in the application process and was therefore
placed in a position of apparent authority on behalf of the Respondent and her
comments are attributable to the Respondent and constitute violations of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. G. M.
Electrics, 323 NLRB 125 (1997);
I find that the July 15 interrogation of Massimo by Hixson
as to why the Union was sending its members to Respondent to apply for work was
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Although Massimo was a known member
and advocate of the
I find the statement made by Roggero to union representatives
Ford and Kelm on October 19, that she would not do business with organizations
who file charges with the Department of Consumer Protection and cost her
company money was inherently coercive and violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. This constituted a threat that she would not hire the Union’s members
because of the
I find that the General Counsel has established a prima facie case that Respondent refused to consider and hire applicants Kelm, Satin, Bregoli, and Moore and that it refused to consider for hire applicants Charles Bristol, Nicholas Susko, Armand Joseph Richard, Paul Nieves, and Damien Pisani whose applications were filed by Kelm on their behalf on October 19.
In NLRB v. Town & Country Electric, 516 U.S. 85 (1995), the United States Supreme Court recognized that the rights of union organizers to apply for jobs and to hold those jobs are protected by Section 7 of the Act. Their union organizer status does not diminish their rights to the protection of Section 7. In the instant case the evidence clearly establishes that Kelm and Moore did not commit any act which would deprive them of the protection of the Act. Clearly they were not hired because of their engagement in protected concerted activities and their status as union organizers.
Under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), the General Counsel has the initial burden to establish that:
1. The employees engaged in protected concerted activities.
2. The employer had knowledge or at least suspicion of the employees’ protected activities.
3. The employer took adverse action against the employees.
4. A nexus or link between the protected activities and the adverse action underlying motive.
Once these four elements have been established, the burden shifts to the Respondent to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that it took the action for a legitimate nondiscriminatory business reason. In Fluor Daniel, Inc., 304 NLRB 970 (1991), the Board said that once the General Counsel makes a prima facie case that protected conduct was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the same action would have taken place even in the absence of the protected conduct.
The elements that General Counsel must prove to establish a refusal-to-consider for hire are:
(1) The employer excluded applicants from the hiring
process and (2) antiunion animus was a contributing factor for the employer’s
failure or refusal to consider the applicants for hire.
The elements of a refusal-to-hire case are:
(1) That the employer was hiring, or had concrete plans to
hire, at the time of the alleged unlawful conduct; (2) that the applicants had
experience or training relevant to the announced or generally known
requirements of the positions for hire, or in the alternative, that the
employer has not adhered uniformly to such requirements, or that the
requirements were themselves pretextual or were applied as a pretext for discrimination
and (3) that antiunion animus contributed to the decision not to hire the
applicants.
In the instant case, I find with respect to the refusal to consider that the General Counsel has established that the applicants who filed applications on July 7 and October 19 were excluded from the hiring process and that antiunion animus was a contributing factor for Respondent’s failure or refusal to consider the applicants for hire. I find Respondent has failed to prove that it would not have considered the applicants in the absence of their union membership.
I also find that with respect to the refusal-to-hire case, that the General Counsel has established that Respondent was hiring during the period beginning with the July 7 applications, that the applicants had experience and training relevant to the generally known requirements of the positions for which they applied and that antiunion animus contributed to the decision not to hire the applicants. Although Respondent put on testimony as to why it hired other applicants than the discriminatees who filed their applications on July 7, I did not find it convincing to establish that the Respondent would not have hired the discriminatees even in the absence of its unlawful motivation. I thus find that the refusal-to-consider for hire and refusal to hire were violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The
3. Respondent has violated and is violating Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
The Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has violated and is violating the Act, it shall be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act and to take certain affirmative actions to effectuate the purposes of the Act including, but not limited to, posting appropriate notices.
Respondent should also be ordered with respect to its
failure to consider and hire Bregoli, Moore, Kelm, and Satin, to instate them
to the positions for which they applied, or to substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges
they would have enjoyed absent the discrimination against them and make them
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from Respondent’s refusal
to hire, less any net interim earnings, plus interest. Wild
Oat Markets, Inc., 344 NLRB No. 86, slip op. at 2–3 (2005). The
reimbursement to employees should be computed as prescribed in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682
(1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir, 1971). Interest shall be computed as
prescribed in New Horizons for the
Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), at the “short term Federal Rate” for the
underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26
Respondent should also be ordered to consider Bristol, Susko, Richard, Nieves, and Pisani for future employment, in accordance with nondiscriminatory criteria, to notify them of future openings in positions for which these employees applied, and after a compliance proceeding, make them whole for any loss of earnings and benefits that they may have suffered as a result of Respondent’s unlawful acts. See Wild Oats Markets, Inc., supra.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended1
ORDER
The Respondent, Eastern Energy Services, LLC,
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discriminatorily refusing to consider for hire and
refusing to hire applicants for employment because of their union membership or
support of the
(b) Telling employees that Respondent does not hire sheet metal workers who are union members.
(c) Interrogating employees concerning the
(d) Telling union representatives that Respondent will not
do business with the Union or that it will not hire members of the Union
because the
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer to hire discriminatees Thomas Kelm, Arthur Bregoli, Gerald Satin, and Kenneth Moore to the positions for which they applied or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges and make them whole with full backpay and benefits as set out in the Remedy, with interest.
(b) Consider for hire Charles Bristol, Nicholas Susko, Armand Joseph Richard, Paul Nieves, and Damien Pisani for future employment in accordance with nondiscriminatory criteria and notify them of future openings in the positions for which these employees applied, and after a compliance proceeding make them whole for any loss of earnings and benefits that they may have suffered as a result of Respondent’s unlawful actions, with interest.
(c) Inform the discriminatees in writing that it will not discriminate against them in any manner in the future.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”2 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 34, after being signed by Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facilities involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the attached notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since July 2005.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Regional Office, file with the Regional Director for Region 34, a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, provide at the office designated by the National Labor Relations Board or its agents, one copy of 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 electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
Dated,
APPENDIX
Notice To
Employees
Posted
by Order of the
National
Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the
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 behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
We will not inform job applicants that they will not be hired because of their union affiliation or engagement in concerted activities.
We will not interrogate employees concerning their union activities.
We will not fail and refuse to consider for hire and to hire employees because of their membership in or support of Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local Union No. 40.
We will not in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
We will within 14 days from the date of the Order offer to hire Thomas Kelm, Arthur Bregoli, Gerald Satin, and Kenneth Moore to the positions for which they applied or if those jobs no longer exist, substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges and make them whole with full backpay and benefits, with interest.
We will consider for hire in accordance with nondiscriminatory criteria Charles Bristol, Nicholas Susko, Armand Joseph Richard, Paul Nieves, and Damien Pisani and notify them of future openings in positions for which these employees applied, and after a compliance proceeding, make them whole for any loss of earnings and benefits that they may have suffered as a result of our unlawful actions, with interest.
Eastern Energy Services, LLC
[1] The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.
In affirming the judge’s finding that the Respondent, by Director of Operations Debra Roggero, violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by Roggero’s statements to union officials Thomas Kelm and Luke Ford on October 19, 2005, Member Kirsanow relies on Roggero’s statement that she was not going to hire any of the Union’s sheet metal workers. This was a direct avowal of intent to discriminate against union job applicants, having a reasonable tendency to restrain or coerce those individuals in the exercise of their Sec. 7 rights. Having affirmed the 8(a)(1) finding on this basis, Member Kirsanow finds it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s finding of an 8(a)(1) violation for Roggero’s additional statement that she does not do business with organizations that file complaints with the Department of Consumer Protection and cost her company money.
[2] We will amend the remedy section of the judge’s decision to more precisely set forth the appropriate remedy for discriminatory refusals to hire and to consider for hire. We will also modify the judge’s recommended Order in accordance with the Amended Remedy and with the Board’s standard remedial language. Finally, we have substituted a new notice to comport with these modifications.
[3]
[4]
If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a
1 If this Order is
enforced by a judgment of a
2 If this Order is
enforced by a judgment of a