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,
Coastal International Security, Inc. and International Union of United
Government Security Officers of
March 28, 2008
DECISION AND ORDER
By Chairman Schaumber and Member Liebman
On December 6, 2007, Administrative Law Judge George Carson II issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed an answering brief to the Respondent’s exceptions, and the Respondent filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions1 and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended
Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Coastal
International Security, Inc.,
Dated,
______________________________________
Peter C. Schaumber, Chairman
______________________________________
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
(seal) National
Labor Relations Board
Edward B. Valverde, Esq., for the General Counsel.
John A. Ferguson Jr., Esq., for the Respondent.
James D. Carney, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
George Carson
II, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following2
Findings of Fact
i.
jurisdiction
The Respondent, Coastal International Security, Inc.,
Coastal, a
The Respondent admits, and I find and conclude, that International
Union of United Government Security Officers of America, AFL–CIO, and its Local
203, hereinafter separately referred to as the International and Local 203 and
jointly referred to as the
ii. alleged
unfair labor practices
A. Background
Coastal is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of AKAL Security.
In 2003, negotiations for the
acquisition of Coastal by AKAL were in progress, and management officials of
AKAL, including then director, currently Vice President of Human Resources
Janet Gunn, were involved in decisions relating to contracts upon which Coastal
was bidding, including specifically the contract relating to security services
in and around
The security personnel already performing services in the
The complaint alleges, and the answer admits, that the appropriate unit is:
INCLUDED: All security officers as defined in Section 9(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, employed by the company under the GSA security services contract #GS-7P-00-HHD-0035 or any successor contract, in Fort Worth, TX, and surrounding areas.
EXCLUDED: All office clerical employees, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The issue herein is whether Coastal violated the Act by paying $5.15 per hour, the Federal minimum wage, to newly hired employees while they were in training, a period that typically lasted from 4 to 6 weeks.
B. Facts
Security Officer Ray Matthews was initially hired by
Sooner Process and Investigation, Sooner, the predecessor of Security
Consultants. Although the employees, at
that time, were not represented by a labor union, Matthews was paid as a
security guard while in training. Thereafter,
the Union became the collective-bargaining representative of the employees, and
Sooner and the
Security Officer John Mulholland was hired by Security
Consultants on January 3, 2002, and was paid what was, at that time, the rate
specified in the collective-bargaining agreement for security guards of $17.50
an hour plus health and welfare benefits while in training. While serving as vice president of Local 203
when Security Consultants was the contractor, there were two training classes. Employees in those classes showed Mulholland “their
pay stubs, and they were given the same wage that we were, except they were not
receiving the uniform allowance.” Coastal
was awarded the GSA contract late in 2003, and, in December 2003, Mulholland
and the other security officers employed by Security Consultants “went to a
hotel in
Coastal began performing security services under the GSA
contract in April 2004. Security Officer
Michael Montgomery began training with Coastal on October 26, 2004. He was not paid the contractual rate.
Coastal never informed the Union that it was paying minimum
wage rather that the contractual rate to employees in training; thus, the Union
was unaware that this was occurring until it came to the attention of officers
of the
On September 30, 2004, Nicole Terrell, human resource coordinator for Coastal, responded to Region 16 concerning the charge filed by the Union in a letter stating that the “wages received by Officers” were in accord with the collective-bargaining agreement and that “officers who participate in training time or new weapons qualification” are paid the “agreed upon hourly rate” set out in the contract. The letter does not claim that individuals in training were not employees or were not in the unit. The Regional Director, on October 20, 2004, deferred action upon the charge pursuant to Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837 (1972).
On February 1, 2005, the Region inquired regarding the
status of the grievance, and Jonathan Rhodes, human resource officer for AKAL
Security, the parent company of Coastal, replied on February 15, 2005, that
Coastal had “not since [the deferral] received any correspondence” from Local
203 concerning “the matter.” The letter
does not mention the pending grievance dated September 9, 2004, filed by Vice
President Mulholland. Local 203 President
Ray Matthews replied to the Region on March 12, 2005, that the
By letter dated April 5, 2005, Terrell replied to the
As already noted, the
On December 19, 2005, Michael Montgomery, who had been
elected president of Local 203 in October 2005, filed two grievances, one
relating to payment of minimum wage to employees in training and the other
relating to seniority dates.
The participants in the March 28, 2006, prearbitration conference
call for the Union were Local 203 President Montgomery; Dan DeRosa, president
of a sister local, Local 213; and then vice president, now president, of the
International Union James Carney. The
participants for Coastal were Human Resources Coordinator Terrell and Sean
Engelin, labor relations manager for AKAL. Carney stated the position of the
Human Resource Coordinator Terrell contended that the contract
had not been violated. Carney pointed
out article XV, section 2, on page 19 of the collective-bargaining agreement
which states that “[n]ew hires and incumbent personnel, while attending annual
or refresher training specific to the job site, will be paid at the wage rate
established in Section 1 of this article.” He stated that the
Terrell responded that “the employees were not employees . . . they came under
The conference call ended with Carney stating that the
On March 31, 2006, Engelin responded by e-mail asking Carney to “[p]lease explain why you believe you are entitled to any of this information. Your bargaining unit does not include trainees.”
Carney responded by e-mail the same day referring to past
practice, the collective-bargaining agreement reference to new hires, and the
fact that the employees in training had been paid by Coastal, not
Engelin answered Carney’s e-mail later that same afternoon, March 31, 2006, asserting that trainees were not “new hires,” and restating that Coastal did not “recognize your claim to represent them or your ability to file grievances on their behalf.”
Late that evening, Carney sent an e-mail to Engelin
noting, inter alia, that Coastal had “never used the term ‘trainees’ until
late,” and that the
On April 3, 2006, Engelin responded stating that Coastal “had
consistently used the term trainees” and incredibly asserted that Coastal “refuted
your claim that these people are employees.” On April 4, Carney responded that
the
On April 10, 2006, the
At the hearing, Vice President of Human Resources Janet
Gunn testified that Coastal operates a training academy in the
Gunn testified that the “clerical error” to which Terrell
referred related to the reported date of hire of employees in the first
training class, a class begun prior to April to assure that Coastal was not
short staffed when it assumed the GSA contract. According to Gunn’s initial testimony the
error occurred because Coastal used the GSA Form 139 that it uses to bill the
Government, but “whited out the information from the Government” and then used
the form as a time sheet for individuals in training because it is in the “standard
format of a time sheet.” According to
Gunn, the “gentleman who was starting the contract, along with the admin person,
. . . took the time sheet, which was the GSA 139, the standard, regular, every day
GSA 139” and used that form for the first class. Thereafter “the woman who was doing the data
entry,” who worked at Coastal headquarters in
On cross-examination, when asked, “What was the form that
was actually used in the first class that was the wrong recordkeeping?” Gunn answered, “I don’t know. . . . We
actually tried to figure it out earlier and couldn’t, so—all I know is it was
submitted to
The foregoing testimony by Gunn makes no sense. The crucial error, according to Gunn, was the reporting of the hire date as the date the employee began training, and that error purportedly occurred because the “gentleman who was starting the contract” and administrative person “took the time sheet, which was the GSA 139, the standard, regular, every day GSA 139” and used that form for the first class, instead of whiting out the “information from the Government” on the form. If, as Gunn initially testified, the GSA Form 139s for the first class had not been “whited out,” whereas the “information from the Government” was purportedly whited out for subsequent classes, there should have been no reason that, when “[w]e [Gunn and unidentified others] actually tried to figure it out earlier,” they “couldn’t.”
In actual fact, the date of hire was the date the employees began training. Employers do not deduct income tax withholding and social security tax from the wages of individuals who are not employees. Michael Montgomery’s documentary evidence, payroll checks and a W-2 form for 2004 when he was in training, reflect the $5.15 wage paid to him and the withholding of income tax and social security tax by Coastal. Those documents also reflect his employee number. The foregoing documents establish that he was an employee and that Coastal was his employer. Although there is no explanation for Coastal’s reporting to the Texas Department of Public Safety that Michael Montgomery was hired on November 14, 2004, rather than October 26, 2004, the date he began training, the financial documents confirm that he was hired in October. The documentary evidence relating to Margaret Montgomery reflects that Coastal reported to the Texas Department of Public Safety that her hire date was the date she began training, October 25, 2004.
The statement of work relating to the
Vice President Gunn testified that, prior to bidding on the contract, she read the collective-bargaining agreement between Security Consultants and the Union and determined that “trainees,” whom she referred to as “candidates,” were not covered by the contract on the basis of the language in the recognition clause which provides that the appropriate unit consists of “[a]ll security officers as defined in Section 9(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, employed by the company under the GSA security services contract #GS-7P-00-HHD-0035 or any successor contract, in Fort Worth, TX, and surrounding areas.” When asked by counsel for the Respondent, “Did you consider the trainees in the bargaining unit?” Gunn answered, “Candidates are not in the bargaining unit.”
Article XV, section 1, of the collective-bargaining agreement specified a single position, guard II, and a single wage rate that, as of September 30, 2003, was $18.50 an hour. Article XV, section 2 provided that “[n]ew hires and incumbent personnel, while attending annual or refresher training specific to the job site, will be paid at the wage rate established in section 1 of this article” article IX, section 1, provided that “[n]ew employees and those hired after a break in continuity of employment” would be probationary employees for 90 days. Gunn admitted that she was aware that article XV, section 2, of the collective-bargaining agreement referred to new hires and that article IX, section 1, referred to new employees. Despite the foregoing contractual provisions, she acknowledged that she did not contact the Union to inquire regarding the past practice with regard to new hires or new employees because she thought that the “recognition language speaks for itself. . . . Candidates aren’t new hires.”
I do not credit Gunn’s testimony that Coastal based any decision relating to the wages of employees in training upon the recognition clause which Gunn contends does not cover “candidates.” Contract Manager Wingerter claimed only that the payment of minimum wage “was company policy” when denying the grievance filed by Local 203 President Montgomery. If, as Coastal now contends, payment of minimum wage to newly hired guards in training was predicated upon their exclusion from the collective-bargaining agreement by the recognition clause, Coastal would never have agreed to defer the issue raised by this charge to the grievance procedure.
During the Department of Labor investigation, Gunn obtained
an opinion letter from the Department of Labor that had been sent to the
C. Analysis and Concluding Findings
The complaint alleges that the Respondent “changed the wage rate of newly hired employees to $5.15 an hour.” The answer denies this allegation, but at the hearing the Respondent admitted that, during training, “trainees” were paid that amount.
The General Counsel contends that the undisputed evidence that both of Respondent Coastal’s predecessors, Sooner and Security Consultants, paid guards in training at the contractual rate establishes a past practice that the Respondent was not privileged to change without notice to or bargaining with the Union.
The Respondent argues that it “never included the trainees in the bargaining unit, and always paid the trainees the minimum wage” and “was not aware, and could not have become aware” that Security Consultants “chose to pay its trainees the CBA [collective-bargaining agreement] rate.”
The Respondent claims that that these individuals were not in the unit until the Form 3527 was issued to them and argues that the statement in the October 20, 2004 opinion letter that the wage determination was not applicable because “the employees, while in training or being tested, are not performing any of the guard services for which wage rates and fringe benefits are specified” supports that position. I cannot agree. The statement in the opinion letter relates to “preemployment training” and refers to a $12-an-hour wage determination. Whether, in that hypothetical situation, the wage determination was not applicable is immaterial insofar as the issue herein is whether this Respondent made a unilateral change. In this case the individuals in training were employees of Coastal and were identified by an employee number. The statement of work herein requires that the contractor “[c]onduct required Contractor provided training and testing/qualifying.” There was a collective-bargaining agreement in effect, and the Respondent was held liable for underpayment of wages to employees in the first training class because “the employer failed to pay the required wage determination rates, as incorporated by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) on the contract.”
I make no finding regarding compliance with the Service Contract Act, but I note that Gunn’s simple explanation regarding the Form 139s of the first training class is suspect in view of her admission that the Respondent “tried to figure it out earlier and couldn’t.” Gunn testified that Coastal was held liable because Coastal reported the date of hire of employees in the first class as the first date of training rather than the date the employee began “working on the contract.” If, as the Respondent contends, the relevant date was the date that the employee received a Form 3527 and actually began “working on the contract,” the reporting of a different date of hire would be immaterial. The Respondent could have defended the finding of liability by showing the records reflecting that the employees were in training. There is no evidence that the Respondent did so. Although Gunn testified that records for the “approximately” five classes that had been held were sent to the Wage and Hour Division, the record does not establish exactly what records were sent. Insofar as the Respondent was not reporting employees in subsequent training classes “as being full employees,” the wording Gunn used in her testimony, the Wage and Hour Division would have no basis for determining whether the Respondent was in compliance with the Service Contract Act.
Notwithstanding the foregoing discussion, this is not a case concerning compliance with the Service Contract Act. Numerous cases establish that, although an employer may not pay employees less than the wage determination set out in conjunction with award of a contract under the Service Contract Act, it “does not prohibit the payment of wages higher than those established by the wage determination.” Old Dominion Security, 289 NLRB 81 (1988). Whether the Respondent was or was not in compliance with the Service Contract Act is immaterial. The issue in this case is whether there was an unlawful unilateral change.
Irrefutable evidence, the assignment of employee numbers
and the making of statutory deductions from their pay, establishes that these
guards in training were hired and were employees of the Respondent Coastal. The Respondent’s brief notes that the
recognition clause of the collective-bargaining agreement “contains a specific
reference to the government contract number” and argues that it does “not cover
the trainees before they sta[r]ted working on the contract.” I disagree. The recognition clause states that the unit is
“[a]ll security officers as defined in Section 9(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, employed by the company under the GSA security services
contract #GS-7P-00-HHD-0035 or any successor contract, in Fort Worth, TX, and
surrounding areas.” In Old Dominion Security, supra, the guards
in training were considered to be guards and subject to a wage determination
under the Service Contract Act. The
Statement of Work herein consistently refers to the individuals in training as
employees and provides that Coastal “[c]onduct required Contractor provided
training and testing/qualifying” and “[u]pon successful completion” schedule
administration of the written examination, which “tests the employees [sic]
knowledge and understanding of the Contract Guard Information Manual.” The employees in this case, unlike students
attending
The Respondent first raised the claim that employees undergoing
training were not in the unit in the e-mail of March 31, 2006, from Engelin to
Carney. In 2004, following the filing of
the charge herein, the Respondent agreed to deferral of the charge, thereby
acknowledging that these employees were covered by the grievance procedure of
the collective-bargaining agreement. Human
Resource Coordinator Terrell’s letter to the Union dated April 5, 2005, in
response to the Union’s demand for arbitration, argues that the Union “at no
time attempted to present this dispute as a grievance after the decision . . .
[to defer] on October 20, 2004,” and that the arbitration request was invalid
because the Union had not followed the steps of the grievance procedure. In response to the grievance filed by
The recognition clause includes “[a]ll security officers .
. . employed by the company under the GSA . . . contract.” It excludes “office clerical employees,
professional employees, and supervisors.” Newly hired guards in training are not separately
mentioned. “Candidates” are not mentioned.
The collective-bargaining agreement
refers to new hires and new employees. The
payment of the contractual wage rate by Sooner, the predecessor of Security
Consultants, and Security Consultants to newly hired guards in training
establishes their historical inclusion in the unit. The Respondent agreed to defer the issue
raised by the charge herein to the grievance procedure. “[A]n employer may not unilaterally alter the
scope of a bargaining unit during the term of a collective-bargaining agreement
covering that unit.”
“An employer’s practices, even if not required by a collective-bargaining
agreement, which are regular and long-standing, rather than random or
intermittent, . . . cannot be altered without offering . . . [the employees’]
collective bargaining representative notice and an opportunity to bargain over
the proposed change.” Sunoco, Inc., 349 NLRB No. 26, slip op.
at 5 (2007). The payment of the contractual rate to
newly hired guard employees in training by the predecessors established a past
practice. The Respondent, as a Burns successor, was obligated to give
notice to and bargain with the
A successor employer in Respondent’s position may not unilaterally change the terms and conditions of employment, whether they were established by a previous collective-bargaining agreement or by the predecessor’s past practices. Blitz Maintenance, 297 NLRB 1005, 1008–1009 (1990), enfd. mem. 919 F.2d 141 (6th Cir. 1990). Ibid.
The Respondent’s contention that it “was not aware, and
could not have become aware” of the practice of its predecessors has no merit. There can be no
claim of ignorance by the Respondent after September 9, 2004, when,
after learning that guards in training had not been paid the contractual rate,
the
Newly hired guard employees are in the unit. The Respondent’s predecessors, Sooner and
Security Consultants, paid newly hired guard employees the contractual wage
rate when they were in training thereby establishing a past practice. The Respondent changed that past practice
without notice to or bargaining with the
Conclusion of Law
By unilaterally, without notice to or bargaining with International Union of United Government Security Officers of America, AFL–CIO, and its Local 203, paying newly hired employees $5.15 per hour rather than the contractual wage rate, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having unilaterally paid newly hired employees $5.15 per hour rather than the contractual wage rate when they were in training, it must make them whole for the difference between that wage rate and the applicable contractual wage rate—$18.50 per hour prior to September 30, 2005, $19.06 per hour from October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2005, and $19.76 per hour from October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006,—plus interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). Records provided to the Union pursuant to its information request, General Counsel’s Exhibit 14, stipulated at the hearing to be a new hire report, include the names of the 14 employees who were compensated pursuant to the Wage and Hour determination for training prior to May 15, 2004, and their names are omitted from my recommended Order. One of those employees, Alan Boswell, who was compensated for training prior to May 15, 2004, is shown as attending training from July 24 through August 31, 2004, during which he was paid $5.15 per hour, a period for which he was not compensated. Seven employees: Jennifer Hale, Clinton MacKenzie, DeShawn Moffett, Charles Morris Sr., Matthew O’Del, Wesley Roeder, and Robert Yanick, are each reported on General Counsel’s Exhibit 14 as attending 1 day of training after March 10, 2004. Several employees’ names appear on General Counsel’s Exhibit 14 with a date prior to March 10, 2004, the 10(b) date, and I have, therefore omitted their names from my recommended Order. Insofar as records furnished pursuant to my recommend Order establish that they were underpaid within the Section 10(b) period, they are similarly situated employees and must be made whole. The record does not establish whether there were additional training classes in 2005 and 2006. My recommended Order will provide that all employees similarly situated, i.e., paid $5.15 during training after March 10, 2004, the 10(b) date, be made whole. I leave for compliance the determination as to the actual number of underpaid employees. An unprinted stripe on General Counsel’s Exhibit 14 makes the spelling of several names uncertain. If any question arises as a result of my attempt at the most likely correct spelling, the respective employee numbers should provide the correct identification.
The Respondent, having ceased performing services in the
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended3
ORDER
The Respondent, Coastal International Security, Inc.,
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Unilaterally, without notice to or bargaining with International Union of United Government Security Officers of America, AFL–CIO, and its Local 203, paying newly hired unit employees $5.15 per hour rather than the contractual wage rate. The appropriate unit is:
INCLUDED: All security officers as defined in Section 9(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, employed by the company under the GSA security services contract #GS-7P-00-HHD-0035 or any successor contract, in Fort Worth, TX, and surrounding areas.
EXCLUDED: All office clerical employees, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make whole the following named employees and all similarly situated employees who were underpaid during their training after March 10, 2004, for their loss of earnings in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision:
|
Edwin Alexander |
Roger McFann |
|
Michael Baker |
James Miller |
|
Joseph Barnes |
DeShawn Moffett |
|
Alan Boswell |
Margaret Montgomery |
|
Walter Braggs Jr. |
Michael Montgomery |
|
Glenn Bueker |
Charles Morris Sr. |
|
Roy Burns |
Matthew O’Del |
|
Mark Carnes |
Jimmie Page |
|
David Chapman |
Carl Pittman |
|
Will Finley |
Jeremy Pitts |
|
Steven Frazier |
Samuel Polk |
|
Rafael Garza Jr. |
Hector Reynoso |
|
Tony Gutierrez |
Taylor Rice |
|
Jennifer Hale |
Taylor Rivers |
|
Brian Hancock |
Wesley Roeder |
|
Mark Harbin |
David Rooks |
|
Bill Henderson |
Sidney Ross |
|
Scott Hunt |
Roger McFann |
|
Danny Kelly |
James Miller |
|
Edward Kenney |
Steven Sharlow |
|
Charles Kersey |
Joe Tittle |
|
Jerry Long |
Matthew Trubenstein |
|
|
John Villaneal |
|
Iqbal Mahmud |
Derrick Void |
|
William Marr |
Roy Walsh |
|
Alan Matheny |
Dawnyale Williams |
|
Douglas Maxwell |
Tyra Williams |
|
James McDaniel |
Robert Yanick |
(b) 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.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, the Respondent
shall mail copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix”4
to all former unit employees employed by the Respondent in the
(d) 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,
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 unilaterally, without notice to or bargaining with International Union of United Government Security Officers of America, AFL–CIO, and its Local 203, pay newly hired unit employees $5.15 per hour rather than the contractual wage rate. The appropriate unit is:
INCLUDED: All security officers as defined in Section 9(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, employed by the company under the GSA security services contract #GS-7P-00-HHD-0035 or any successor contract, in Fort Worth, TX, and surrounding areas.
EXCLUDED: All office clerical employees, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
We will not in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce any of you in the exercise of your rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
We will make whole the following employees and all similarly situated employees who were underpaid during their training after March 10, 2004, for their lost earnings in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the Decision:
|
Edwin Alexander |
Roger McFann |
|
Michael Baker |
James Miller |
|
Joseph Barnes |
DeShawn Moffett |
|
Alan Boswell |
Margaret Montgomery |
|
Walter Braggs Jr. |
Michael Montgomery |
|
Glenn Bueker |
Charles Morris Sr. |
|
Roy Burns |
Matthew O’Del |
|
Mark Carnes |
Jimmie Page |
|
David Chapman |
Carl Pittman |
|
Will Finley |
Jeremy Pitts |
|
Steven Frazier |
Samuel Polk |
|
Rafael Garza Jr. |
Hector Reynoso |
|
Tony Gutierrez |
Taylor Rice |
|
Jennifer Hale |
Taylor Rivers |
|
Brian Hancock |
Wesley Roeder |
|
Mark Harbin |
David Rooks |
|
Bill Henderson |
Sidney Ross |
|
Scott Hunt |
Roger McFann |
|
Danny Kelly |
James Miller |