Contractor Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 8, 1997

324 N.L.R.B. 1254 (N.L.R.B. 1997)

1254
324 NLRB No. 189
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The Respondent and amici curiae National Association of Tem-
porary and Staffing Services and Associated Builders and Contrac-
tors, Inc. have requested oral argument. Their requests are denied as
the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and
the positions of the parties.
2 The Respondent contends that the judge erred in his interpreta-
tion of the form, and that it was intended not to prevent the Union
from striking but to prevent the Union from barring its members
from accepting work from nonunion contractors or penalizing them
if they did so, thus precipitating the employees’ ‘‘abandonment’’ of
the work, or, put more simply, their quitting their jobs. Even under
the Respondent’s interpretation of the form, it nonetheless places a
restriction on union members’ access to employment and on their ac-
tivities as employees of the Respondent that does not extend to non-
union employees. Thus, although we agree with the judge that a rea-
sonable reading of the form is that it is intended to prevent work
stoppages and strikes, and not simply quits, as the Respondent con-
tends, our result would be the same under the Respondent’s reading
of the letter and form.
Contractor Services, Inc. and International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL–CIO, Local
443 and International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL–CIO, Local 347. Cases
10–CA–28856, 10–CA–29123, (formerly 15–CA–
13683), and 10–CA–29174 (formerly 18–CA–
13875)
November 8, 1997
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS FOX AND
HIGGINS
On July 22, 1996, Administrative Law Judge J.
Pargen Robertson issued the attached decision. The
Employer filed exceptions and a supporting brief1 and
Associated Builders and Contactors, Inc., filed an ami-
cus curiae brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions
and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rul-
ings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the rec-
ommended Order as modified.
The facts, as stipulated by the parties and found by
the judge, follow. In late 1995, three members of
IBEW union locals—Landers, Stolp, and Hunt—each
submitted an employment application to the Respond-
ent. The Respondent then mailed each applicant a let-
ter which read in pertinent part:
C.S.I. . . . provid[e]s skilled tradespeople to
both union and non-union contractors on a tem-
porary basis. C.S.I. is aware that [the Union
prohibit[s] members from working for a non-
union contractor without written permission . . . .
It does not matter to C.S.I. whether or not you
are a union member, but in order to assure
C.S.I.’s contractor/clients that the individuals sent
can complete the work, we are requiring that the
enclosed Irrevocable Authorization Form be com-
pleted by all applicants in order to continue the
listing process. . . .
C.S.I. accepts individuals for listing, and makes
referrals, without regard to union membership un-
less a particular customer has a legitimate busi-
ness reason. (For example, a contractual require-
ment . . .). . . . [O]ur general policy [is] that if
any false or misleading information is given to us,
there will be an immediate severance of our rela-
tionship.
The ‘‘irrevocable authorization form’’ included,
among other things, the following statements which re-
quired approval by the Union:
Local #ll and [the National I.B.E.W.] fur-
thermore state that the member named below is
not being subsidized and/or is not under any juris-
diction or control by the [I.B.E.W.], and will ac-
cept work of his/her own free will. This member
is a dues ‘‘paid in full’’ member and will provide
identification and his/her union card upon request
of client representative.
The undersigned represents that he/she has au-
thority to give full and irrevocable authorization
for the member . . . to work . . . at any union
and/or non-union jobsites for C.S.I. without fully
approve from this Local or [the I.B.E.W.] . . .
The undersigned . . . waives any repercussion to
this member for accepting job placement(s)
through C.S.I.
None of the three applicants returned the form to the
Respondent, the Respondent did not continue the list-
ing process for them, and none of them was hired or
referred out for employment. It is undisputed that the
Respondent would have processed the three employ-
ees’ applications but for their refusal to return a com-
pleted form.
The judge found that the letter and form coercively
interrogated applicants regarding their union member-
ship during the hiring process in violation of Section
8(a)(1) by making it apparent that union applicants
would be hired only if they responded to the letter and
submitted a completed form to the Respondent. In ad-
dition, the judge found that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) by requiring applicants to admit to
their union membership and by attempting to force the
Union to waive its right to ask the employees to en-
gage in a work stoppage.2 The judge also found that
the refusal of the three applicants to return the form
to the Respondent was protected union activity and
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by
refusing to hire them because of their union activities.
We agree with the judge that the Respondent’s letter
and form were facially coercive and violated Section
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:48 Apr 30, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01254 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\324.148 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
1255CONTRACTOR SERVICES
2 We reject the Respondent’s argument that the judge erred by
failing to consider Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591 (1954).
We find that the judge correctly distinguished the reassurances
against economic reprisal given there from the Respondent’s state-
ments here that it does not matter whether an applicant is a union
member, in light of the Respondent’s flat statement here that without
a truthful disclosure of union status, an applicant would not be con-
sidered for employment.
4 As noted above, we reject the Respondent’s contention that its
statements in the letter to the effect that it did not matter whether
applicants were union members render the form and letter noncoer-
cive. The documents are coercive on their face as they require em-
ployees to reveal their union affiliation in order to be considered for
employment. Thus, they are inherently destructive of employee
rights under Sec. 7 of the Act. See NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers,
388 U.S. 26, 33–34 (1967).
5 The judge inadvertently failed to include in his conclusions of
law his finding that the Respondent had violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1)
by requiring applicants to return the completed form in order to be
listed for hire, and he also failed to provide the appropriate remedial
provision. We shall modify the recommended Order accordingly. We
shall also modify the judge’s recommended Order in accordance
with our decision in Indian Hills Care Center, 321 NLRB 144
(1996).
8(a)(1).3 We also agree that the Respondent’s refusal
to hire Landers, Stolp, and Hunt violated Section
8(a)(3). We further agree that the letter and form dis-
criminated against union applicants by clearly indicat-
ing to them that the Respondent would not hire them
unless they returned to the Respondent a completed
form, which involved an attempt to force the employ-
ees to waive their right to engage in protected union
activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(3). Moreover, in
addition to the reasons stated by the judge, we find
that the Respondent’s use of the form involved dis-
crimination against union applicants in other phases of
the employment relationship.
Thus, the letter and form not only discriminated
against union employees in the hiring process, but also
singled out union activity as a proscribed reason for
resigning employment. In this last regard, we reject the
Respondent’s defense that it had a legitimate business
reason for requiring Union applicants to submit a com-
pleted form, i.e., to ensure that the Union would not
force members to quit their jobs if assigned to a non-
union contractor. At the outset, we note that, notwith-
standing the Respondent’s contention that it required
the forms for legitimate business reasons, viz., to pre-
vent quits and/or refusals of assignments, in requiring
union members to return the completed the form, it
singled out only one of the host of possible reasons
motivating employees to quiet their jobs and ignored
others, e.g., job dissatisfaction, health reasons, or an
offer of a better job. Nor did the Respondent condition
hiring on a similar guarantee from nonunion applicants
that they would not leave a job for any specified or
unspecified reason. See NLRB v. Town & Country
Electric, 116 S.Ct. 450 (1996) (arguments that ‘‘salts’’
should not be considered employees because they
could harm the company by quitting when the com-
pany has need for them fails, since as a worker who
has found a better job or wants to move might also
quit). Further, as the judge noted, the Respondent,
through the form, attempted to force union members to
waive their right under Section 7 to strike, to engage
in work stoppages, and, under some circumstances, to
participate in union activity by following union rules
while remaining employees of the Respondent. Again,
the Respondent did not require nonunion employees to
provide a waiver of their right to engage in protected
concerted activity—or to miss work for reasons en-
tirely unrelated to protected activities.4
In addition, by requiring union applicants to seek
certification from the Union that it was not ‘‘subsidiz-
ing’’ them, the Respondent yet again singled union
members out from nonunion applicants, upon whom
the Respondent apparently placed no restrictions or
prohibitions on other employment, at least. See NLRB
v. Town and Country Electric, supra (union organizers
who are hired as employees are employees and as such
are protected by the Act; employment by the union is
no different from moonlighting, which is consonant
with employer’s control over employees).
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent’s asserted
defenses do not withstand scrutiny and that the Re-
spondent, through its use of the letter and the form,
violated Section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Con-
tractor Services, Inc., Davenport, Iowa, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order as modified.5
1. Insert the following as paragraph 1(c) and reletter
the subsequent paragraph.
‘‘(c) Requiring union members, as a condition to
being listed for hire, to respond to its application letter
by obtaining a completed irrevocable authorization
form from the Union.’’
2. Substitute the following for paragraphs 2(c) and
(d).
‘‘(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region,
post at its facility in Davenport, Iowa, copies of the at-
tached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’2 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 10, after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:48 Apr 30, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01255 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\324.148 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
1256 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed its facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the
notice to all current employees and former employees
employed by the Respondent at any time since October
27, 1995.
‘‘(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.’’
MEMBER HIGGINS, concurring.
I concur in the result. In doing so, I rely solely on
the fact that Respondent asked applicants whether they
were being subsidized by the Union. I believe that an
employer who is in the business of supplying employ-
ees to other employers may legitimately seek assur-
ances that applicants will be able to work for any em-
ployers to whom they are referred, i.e., that their union
will not object to their working for nonunion employ-
ers. However, I recognize that an inquiry into these
matters is an inquiry that touches upon matters pro-
tected by Section 7. Further, the inquiry does so at a
particularly vulnerable time, i.e., during the process of
applying for employment. In Johnnie’s Poultry Co.,
146 NLRB 770, 775 (1964), the Board dealt with an-
other situation where an inquiry into the Section 7 area
was for legitimate purposes. The Board held, inter alia,
that ‘‘the questions must not exceed the necessities of
the legitimate purpose by prying into other union mat-
ters.’’ In the instant case, the question at issue does not
pass muster under this test. The legitimate inquiry is
whether the Union will permit the member to work for
a nonunion employer. The question of whether the
Union subsidizes that member is beyond that legiti-
mate inquiry. On this limited basis, I concur in the
finding of a violation.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these pro-
tected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their
membership in International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, Locals 347 and 443, or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT refuse to hire applicants for employ-
ment because of their union membership.
WE WILL NOT require union members, as a condition
to being listed for hire, to respond to its application
letter by obtaining a completed irrevocable authoriza-
tion form from the Union.
WE WILL within 14 days of this Order, offer Tracy
Landers, Timothy S. Stolp, and William H. Hunt, Sr.,
immediate and full employment to the positions for
which they applied and are qualified or, if those posi-
tions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi-
tions without prejudice.
WE WILL make each of the above-named employees
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits re-
sulting from our refusal to hire each of them, less any
net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL NOT in any or like manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
CONTRACTOR SERVICES, INC.
Gaye Nell Hymon, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Arthur W. Eggers, Esq., of Moline, Illinois, for the Respond-
ent.
DECISION
J. PARGEN ROBERTSON, Administrative Law Judge. This
hearing was held in Birmingham, Alabama, on May 13,
1996. The charge in Case 10–CA–28856 was filed on Octo-
ber 27, 1995, and the complaint issued on January 29, 1996.
The charge in Case 18–CA–13875 was filed on December
13, 1995, and the complaint issued on February 22, 1996.
The charge in Case 15–CA–13683 was filed on January 30,
and the complaint issued on February 28, 1996. An order
consolidating complaints issued on April 5, 1996.
Respondent and the General Counsel were represented,
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence. On con-
sideration of the entire record and briefs filed by all parties,
I make the following findings.
Respondent admitted in its answer to the complaint in
Case 18–CA–13875 that it is an Iowa corporation with an of-
fice and place of business in Davenport, Iowa, where it is
engaged in the business of providing skilled trades people
and other employees to contractors and other employers on
a temporary basis; that during the calendar year ending De-
cember 31, 1995, in the conduct of its business operations,
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:48 Apr 30, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01256 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\324.148 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
1257CONTRACTOR SERVICES
it performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in States
other than Iowa. Respondent stipulated that the NLRB has
jurisdiction of this consolidated case. On the basis of the
above and the full record I find that Respondent is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
Respondent admitted that the Charging Parties (the
Unions) are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
I. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ALLEGATIONS
It is alleged that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by
interrogating job applicants (employees) about their union
sympathies and Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by refus-
ing to process the job applications of Tracy Landers, Timo-
thy S. Stolp, and William H. Hunt Sr.
The parties stipulated that on dates before September 21,
November 21, and November 29, 1995, Landers, Stolp, and
Hunt submitted employment applications to Respondent.
After receipt of each of those applications Respondent mailed
the three applicants copies of the following letter (quoted in
relevant part):
C.S.I. is in the business of providing skilled
tradespeople to both union and non-union contractors
on a temporary basis. C.S.I. is aware that I.B.E.W. gov-
erning documents prohibit members from working for
a non-union contractor without written permission of
the executive board or the business manager.
It does not matter to C.S.I. whether or not you are
a union member, but in order to assure C.S.I.’s
contractor/client that the individuals sent can complete
the work, we are requiring that the enclosed Irrevocable
Authorization Form be completed by all applicants in
order to continue the listing process.
. . . .
We want to repeat that it is not material to C.S.I.
whether you are or are not a union member. C.S.I. ac-
cepts individuals for listing, and makes referrals, with-
out regard to union membership unless a particular cus-
tomer has a legitimate business reason. (For example,
a contractual requirement has been established.) If your
status should change in the future, you should request
a new form for completion. You are also reminded of
our general policy that if any false or misleading infor-
mation is given to us, there will be an immediate sever-
ance of our relationship.
The irrevocable authorization form enclosed in each of Re-
spondent’s letters to applicants includes among other matters,
the following statements that required approval by the Union:
Local # ll and the National I.B.E.W. furthermore
state that the member named below is not being sub-
sidized and/or is not under any jurisdiction or control
by the I.B.E.W., and will accept work of his/her own
free will. This member is a dues ‘‘paid in full’’ mem-
ber and will provide identification and his/her union
card upon request of a client representative.
The undersigned represents that he/she has authority
to give full and irrevocable authorization for the mem-
ber named below to work from time to time at any
union and/or non-union jobsites for C.S.I. without fur-
ther approval from this Local or the National I.B.E.W.
The undersigned further represents that his/her signature
below waives any repercussion to this member for ac-
cepting job placement(s) through C.S.I.
None of the forms have been returned to Respondent. Re-
spondent did not continue the listing process for the above-
named applicants and none was either hired or referred out
for employment. In other words, after receipt of job applica-
tions from Tracy Landers, Timothy Stolp, and William Hurt
Sr., Respondent has refused to process those applications be-
cause Landers, Stolp, and Hurt refused to follow the direc-
tions in Respondent’s letter (above). None of the three re-
turned an authorization form signed by the Local Union.
The parties stipulated to the above facts and the parties
stipulated that the IBEW has the right to bring pressure
through fines and other punitive action to attempt to force its
members to quit working for Respondent. The parties also
stipulated that the only allegation herein is that Respondent’s
requirement to process the alleged discriminatees’ job appli-
cations constitutes a per se violation of Act. It was stipulated
that Respondent’s only purpose in using the irrevocable au-
thorization forms is to insure that IBEW will not force Re-
spondent’s employees to quit work.
Respondent in its brief argued that full disclosure was
sought through its questioning of job applicants about their
union membership and that request is reasonable under the
holding of NLRB v. Town & Country Electric, 116 S.Ct. 450
(1995); and that Respondent should be able to require appli-
cants who are union members to obtain the Union’s permis-
sion to be an employee of Respondent so that applicants are
not later forced or coerced to resign their employment.
II. FINDINGS
A. Interrogation
Respondent did not contest that it interrogated job appli-
cants in its letter, as to their union membership. However,
Respondent contended that interrogation was not an unfair
labor practice under Blue Flash Express, 109 NLRB 591
(1954). It was Respondent’s position that its questioning of
applicants ‘‘did not reasonably lead the employees to believe
that economic reprisal might be visited upon them by Re-
spondent.’’ Blue Flash Express, supra.
The parties stipulated that Respondent’s only purpose in
requiring the irrevocable authorization is to have IBEW
members get the approval of the IBEW to come to work for
Respondent so that the IBEW will not force those employees
to quit work. Respondent pointed out in its brief that its
cover letter to applicants assures applicants that no act of re-
prisal will be taken against them based on their union affili-
ation. The letter also specified Respondent’s valid business
purpose in requiring execution of the ‘‘Irrevocable Author-
ization’’:
[I]n order to assure C.S.I.’s contractor/clients that the
individuals sent can complete the work, we are requir-
ing that the enclosed Irrevocable Authorization Form be
completed by all applicants in order to continue the list-
ing process.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:48 Apr 30, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01257 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\324.148 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
1258 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Refusal to Hire
Respondent argued that it should be able to require appli-
cants who are union members to obtain the Union’s permis-
sion to be an employee of Respondent so that applicants are
not later forced or coerced to resign their employment. It
contended that position is consistent with the Supreme
Court’s holding in NLRB v. Town & Country Electric, supra.
C. Conclusions
The General Counsel alleged that Respondent refused to
hire three job applicants because of their union membership.
See NLRB v. Town & Country Electric, supra; Town &
Country Electric, 309 NLRB 1250 (1993); Waco, Inc., 316
NLRB 73 (1995); Fluor Daniel, Inc., 311 NLRB 498 (1993);
Casey Electric, 313 NLRB 774 (1994); and AJS Electric,
310 NLRB 121 (1993).
As to whether Respondent illegally refused to employ al-
leged discriminatees, the NLRB routinely first considers
whether the General Counsel proved through persuasive evi-
dence that the Respondent acted out of antiunion animus in
refusing to hire the alleged discriminatees. Manno Electric,
321 NLRB 1 fn. 12 (1996); Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083
(1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455
U.S. 989 (1982); and NLRB v. Transportation Management
Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983).
Here there is no dispute but that Respondent was hiring
or that it would have processed the applications of Tracy
Landers, Timothy Stolp, and William Hurt Sr., but for their
being in the Union and but for their refusal to process Re-
spondent’s irrevocable authorization form.
Respondent contends there was no showing of animus.
Compare J. E. Merit Constructors, 302 NLRB 301, 303–304
(1991), where in a refusal to hire allegation the test applied
included a requirement that the General Counsel prove (1)
the applications were filed during hiring stages, (2) the Re-
spondent knew of their source, (3) it harbored union animus,
and (4) it acted on that animus in failing to hire any from
this group.
Instead Respondent gave assurances in its letter that it did
not matter whether applicants were in the Union. Respondent
contends that its interrogation of applicants is not coercive.
However, it is apparent from Respondent’s letter that
union member applicants would be hired only if they re-
sponded to Respondent’s letter and provided an irrevocable
authorization from the Union. The Union was required to
promise that it will not engage in a work stoppage involving
the applicant. No further action would be taken toward hiring
an applicant unless the applicant responded to the Respond-
ent’s letter.
Under the circumstances illustrated above I cannot agree
that Respondent’s interrogation is not coercive. The question-
ing occurred during the job application process. It is apparent
from Respondent’s letter that union members must provide
authorization from the Union and the Union and the appli-
cant must waive any right to engage in a work stoppage. I
find that interrogation is coercive and in violation of Section
8(a)(1).
Respondent argued that it has a legitimate business pur-
pose in requiring union members to provide an executed ir-
revocable authorization from the Union. That authorization
would result in the waiver of the Union’s power to call a
work stoppage involving the job applicant.
It is not disputed that Respondent’s sole purpose in inter-
rogating job applicants about union membership and use of
the irrevocable authorization, is to prevent employees from
quitting at the direction of the Union.
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act provides protection for
employees to engage in protected union activity. It has long
been recognized that Unions may engage in economic activ-
ity in furtherance of their roles and objectives. For several
reasons including its right to organize employees, a Union
may call upon its members to cease work. Here, Respondent
seeks to require the Union to waive its right to demand that
action from its members. Absent that waiver Respondent will
not employ the Union’s members.
In view of the full record I am convinced that the alleged
discriminatees were engaged in protected union activity when
each refused to process Respondent’s irrevocable authoriza-
tion form. Moreover, by requiring the applicants to admit
their union membership and by requiring the Union to waive
its right to ask the employees to engage in a work stoppage,
Respondent has engaged in direct violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.
The Act provides for employees’ protection. Employees
may engage in union activity including the right to engage
in work stoppage. By requiring the execution of the irrev-
ocable authorization form, Respondent sought to preclude the
alleged discriminatees from exercising those rights.
There was no evidence showing that the applicants were
not authentic job applicants and employees. NLRB v. Town
& Country Electric, supra.
I find that Respondent’s action is inherently destructive of
Section 7 rights. The record shows that Respondent refused
to consider applicants for hire because of their union status
and affiliation and Respondent failed to demonstrate that it
would have disqualified them for lawful reasons. Brown &
Root USA, Inc., 319 NLRB 1009 (1995); Tualatin Electric,
319 NLRB 1237 (1995); and E & L Transport Co., 315
NLRB 303 (1994).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Contractor Services, Inc. is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL–
CIO, Locals 347 and 443 are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent, by coercively interrogating its employees
about their union activities has engaged in conduct violative
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Respondent by refusing to hire Tracy Landers, Timothy
S. Stop, and William H. Hunt Sr., because of their union af-
filiation and preference has engaged in conduct violative of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6), (7), and (8) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:48 Apr 30, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01258 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\324.148 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
1259CONTRACTOR SERVICES
1 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
2 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that Respondent has illegally refused to
hire Tracy Landers, Timothy S. Stop, and William H. Hunt
Sr., in violation of Sections of the Act, I shall order Re-
spondent to offer those employees immediate and full em-
ployment to the positions for which they applied and are
qualified or, if those positions no longer exist, to substan-
tially equivalent positions. I further order Respondent to
make those employees whole for any loss of earnings suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination against them. Backpay
shall be computed as described in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as described in New Hori-
zons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
Despite the above findings, the record failed to resolve
several issues that may be relevant to the employment and
make whole portions of the remedy. Those issues which may
include among others, when each alleged discriminatee
would have been hired in the absence of union activities
under Respondent’s normal nondiscriminatory practices and
if and when each alleged discriminatee may have been laid
off in the absence of union activities under Respondent’s
normal nondiscriminatory practices, may be considered in
compliance proceedings if necessary. Casey Electric, 313
NLRB 774 (1994); and Dean General Contractors, 285
NLRB 573 (1987).
On the foregoing findings, conclusions of law and the en-
tire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I issue
the following recommended1
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act it is ordered that Respondent, Contractor Services, Inc.,
Davenport, Iowa, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating its employees or job appli-
cants about the Union.
(b) Refusing to employ job applicants because of their
Union or other protected activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days of this Order, offer Tracy Landers,
Timothy S. Stop, and William H. Hunt Sr., immediate and
full employment to the positions for which they applied and
are qualified or, if those positions no longer exist, to substan-
tially equivalent positions without prejudice and make them
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as
a result of the discrimination against them plus interest, in
the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(b) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make avail-
able to the Board or its agents for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records, and
timecards, personnel records, reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this order.
(c) Post at its facility in Davenport, Iowa, copies of the
attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’2 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained 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, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:48 Apr 30, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01259 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\324.148 APPS10 PsN: APPS10