Littlejohn Electrical Solutions, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 17, 2019

368 NLRB No. 76 (N.L.R.B. 2019)

368 NLRB No. 76
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Littlejohn Electrical Solutions, LLC and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
No. 20. Case 16–CA–214170
September 17, 2019
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS MCFERRAN
AND KAPLAN
On March 4, 2019, Administrative Law Judge Robert
A. Ringler issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the Charging Party
and the General Counsel each filed answering briefs, and
the Respondent filed a reply brief. The General Counsel
also filed limited cross-exceptions.
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 conclusions2 and to
adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recom-
mended Order of the administrative law judge and orders
that the Respondent, Littlejohn Electrical Solutions, LLC,
Denton, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 17, 2019

1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance
of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Stand-
ard 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 its exceptions, the Respondent states that the Board lacks jurisdic-
tion because the charge should have been deferred to the parties’ con-
tractual grievance-arbitration process. Because it failed to raise that con-
tention to the judge and because its brief in support of exceptions does
not advance any argument in support of this contention, the Respondent
has waived it. See Yorkaire, Inc., 297 NLRB 401, 401 (1989) (“A con-
tention raised for the first time in exceptions to the Board is ordinarily
untimely raised and, thus, deemed waived.”), enfd. 922 F.2d 832 (3d Cir.
1990); Holsum de Puerto Rico, Inc., 344 NLRB 694, 694 fn. 1 (2005)
(unsupported exceptions may be disregarded), enfd. 456 F.3d 265 (1st
Cir. 2006). In any event, under Sec. 10(a) of the Act, the Board’s juris-
diction over unfair labor practice allegations “shall not be affected by
any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be
established by agreement[.]” Moreover, the Board does not defer
charges to arbitration when, as here, a party has wholly repudiated the
very agreement that allows for arbitration in the first place. See, e.g.,
United Cerebral Palsy of New York City, 347 NLRB 603, 606 (2006).
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Becky Mata, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Clinton Kyle Littlejohn,1 for the Respondent.
David K. Watsky, Esq. (Lyon, Gorsky & Gilbert, LLP), for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. RINGLER, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was heard in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 20 and 21, 2018. The
complaint alleged that Littlejohn Electrical Solutions, LLC (LES
or the Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(5) of the National La-
bor Relations Act (the Act) by, inter alia, failing to recognize the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
No. 20 (the Union) as the limited collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of a unit of electricians, refusing to apply its 8(f) col-
lective-bargaining agreement, and disregarding the Union’s in-
formation requests. On the entire record, including my observa-
tion of witness demeanors and consideration of posthearing
briefs, I make the following
Because the Respondent failed to raise it to the judge we similarly find
the Respondent has waived its contention that the Union operated an il-
legal hiring hall by requiring prospective employees to become union
members. Yorkaire, supra. However, even if we were to reach that issue,
the record contains no credited evidence supporting the Respondent’s
contention. In fact, Union Agent Adrian Cepeda credibly testified that
the Union allowed nonmembers to register in its hiring hall and that the
Union’s problem with the Respondent was its failure to use the hiring
hall, not the membership status of its employees.
We also find no merit in the Respondent’s contention that the Union’s
alleged breaches of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement privi-
leged the Respondent to withdraw recognition. Breaches of an 8(f) pre-
hire agreement do not nullify it; the agreement remains in effect until its
expiration date, and neither party may repudiate the 8(f) bargaining rela-
tionship during the term of the agreement. John Deklewa & Sons, 282
NLRB 1375, 1387–1388 (1987), enfd. sub nom. Iron Workers Local 3 v.
NLRB, 843 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1988), cert denied 488 U.S. 889 (1988).
Moreover, the Respondent did not file any grievances over the Union’s
alleged breaches, and the record does not substantiate the Respondent’s
claim that the Union breached the agreement.
2 The judge inadvertently wrote the name of a different employer in
his fourth conclusion of law. We modify that conclusion to substitute
“LES” for “ADT.”
1 The Respondent was pro se.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
FINDINGS OF FACT2
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, LES, a corporation with an office and
place of business in Denton, Texas, has been owned by Clinton
Kyle Littlejohn (Littlejohn), and has been an electrical contractor
in the construction field. In 2017, it provided contracting ser-
vices exceeding $50,000 for the Tanger Outlets, Sur LaTable and
Wells Fargo bank (i.e., enterprises that are all directly engaged
in interstate commerce). It, therefore, admits, and I find, that it
is an employer engaged in commerce, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. It further admits, and I find,
that the Union is a Section 2(5) labor organization.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Labor Agreement
The Union has a master 8(f) agreement (the CBA) with the
North Texas Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Associa-
tion (the NECA), which is executed by signatory employers
within the Union’s jurisdiction.3 (GC Exh. 6.) Several parts the
CBA are relevant herein.
1. Duration and termination clause
Article I of the CBA contains this duration and termination
clause:
This Agreement . . . [is] effect[ive from] … De-
cember 1, 2016 . . . to November 30, 2019. . . .
nd] shall continue . . . from year to year thereaf-
ter, from December 1 through November 30 of
each year, unless changed or terminated. . . .
[An] Employer . . . desiring to . . . terminate this
Agreement must provide written notification at
least 90 days prior to the expiration date of the
Agreement or any anniversary date occurring
thereafter.
(Id. at 2.)
2. Bargaining unit
The CBA describes the Union as the limited exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the following bargaining unit
of employees (the unit):
All journeymen wiremen, foremen and apprentices performing
inside electrical work in the northern Texas counties of Collin,
Comanche, Cooke, Dallas, Delta, Denton, Ellis, Erath, Fannin,
Grayson, Hood, Hunt, Jack, Johnson, Kaufman, Navarro, Palo
Pinto, Parker, Rockwall, Somervell, Tarrant, and Wise, but, ex-
cluding office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as

2 Unless otherwise stated, factual findings arise from joint exhibits,
stipulations, and undisputed evidence.
3 Under §8(f) of the Act, the Company, a construction industry em-
ployer, may grant recognition to a union, without regard to the establish-
ment of its majority status. See John Deklewa & Sons, 282 NLRB 1375
(1987), enfd. sub nom. Iron Workers Local 3 v. NLRB, 843 F.2d 770 (3d
Cir. 1988).
defined in the Act.
(Id. at 5, 13–14).
3. Apprenticeship program
Article IV of the CBA provides the following apprenticeship
program:
There shall be a local Joint Apprenticeship and Training Com-
mittee (JATC). . . .
The JATC shall be responsible for the training of Apprentices,
Journeymen, Installers . . . and all others. . . .4
(Id. at 8–9); see also (GC Exh. 5). JATC Training Director Kim
Allen testified that, in addition to substantive electrician training,
apprentices are repeatedly introduced to the CBA and the Un-
ion’s hiring hall procedures throughout their apprenticeship. Un-
ion Business Manager Karsten Frentrup corroborated this testi-
mony.
B. 2011—Littlejohn Joins, and is Expelled from, the JATC
On April 28, 2011, Littlejohn joined the JATC and signed a
mandatory Scholarship Loan Agreement (the SLA). (GC Exh.
4(a).) His SLA had a 5-year term and required him to reimburse
the Union $12,500 for the cost of his JATC education on a slid-
ing scale basis, if he breached the SLA.5 Littlejohn’s apprentice-
ship abruptly ended, however, after his employer fired him for
stealing wire, and he was consequently expelled from the JATC.
(Tr. 94.)
C. May 3, 2012—Littlejohn Rejoins the JATC and Learns
about the CBA
Following his firing and expulsion, Littlejohn reapplied to the
JATC, and sought a fresh start. He was reinstated and signed a
new SLA with the same provisions.6 (GC Exh. 4(b).)
D. Early 2016—Littlejohn Intentionally Breaches the SLA
In spite of the Union granting him a second chance to rejoin
the JATC and his knowledge of the SLA’s clear ban against
working for a nonunion signatory, Littlejohn covertly breached
the SLA and formed LES (i.e., a nonunion electrical contractor),
without notifying the Union or becoming a signatory 8(f) em-
ployer. On April 26, 2016, he surreptitiously incorporated LES.
(Tr. 123.) His breach triggered his obligation to repay $12,500
to the JATC, which the Union sought to enforce after his sham
was exposed.
E. Early February 2017—Union Discovers LES Jobsite and
SLA Breach
In early-February, the Union discovered Littlejohn’s ruse, and
learned that LES was performing electrical contracting work in
4 The JATC is a 5-year training program, which culminates in the
receipt of a journeyman electrician license.
5 The SLA provided that an apprentice is liable for the pro-rata por-
tion of their scholarship loan, if the “Apprentice’s training agreement is
terminated by either the Apprentice’s voluntary action or by the action
of the Committee during the period of training provided for in this Agree-
ment.” (GC Exh. 4(a)). The SLA defined, by way of example, a breach
as an apprentice performing work for a non-Union entity.
6 The 2012 SLA was effectively identical to the 2011 SLA.
LITTLEJOHN ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC 3
violation of the SLA. JATC Training Director Allen told Lit-
tlejohn that the JATC intended to expel him and require him to
repay $12,500 under the 2012 SLA. Littlejohn responded with a
creative solution; he asked to avoid his JATC expulsion and
$12,500 debt by becoming a signatory contractor.
F. February 23, 2017—LES Becomes a Signatory Employer
Frentrup testified that, although the JATC initially wanted to
expel Littlejohn and end its relationship with a worker who re-
paid a substantial second chance with another sham, he eventu-
ally viewed LES becoming a signatory employer as a win-win
situation that would save Littlejohn a $12,500 fine, allow him to
continue his apprenticeship, and, most critically, provide union
members with job opportunities at LES. On February 23, 2017,
the parties memorialized Littlejohn’s creative solution into a
written agreement, and signed a Letter of Assent (the LOA),
which provided that:
[LES] hereby authorize[s] North Texas Chapter NECA as its
collective bargaining representative for all matters contained in
. . . the current and any subsequent approved inside labor agree-
ment between the North Texas Chapter, NECA and Local Un-
ion 20, IBEW. . . . [T]he undersigned firm agrees to comply
with . . . all of the provisions contained in said current and sub-
sequent labor agreements. This authorization … shall become
effective [immediately] . . . .
It shall remain in effect until terminated by the undersigned em-
ployer giving written notice to the North Texas Chapter NECA
and to the Local Union at least one hundred fifty (150) days
prior to the then current anniversary date of the applicable ap-
proved labor agreement.
(GC Exh. 2.) Union Organizer Cepeda recalled the Union
clearly reminding Littlejohn that signing the LOA meant that
LES was now a union contractor, which had to obtain electri-
cians from the Union’s hiring hall. He said that Littlejohn was
given the CBA for guidance. (Tr. 48–49.) He said that Littlejohn
did not ask questions about the LOA or CBA, and, instead, fo-
cused upon how electricians were obtained from the Union’s hir-
ing hall. He stated that Littlejohn was controlled and not under
duress. (Tr. 51–52.) Frentrup corroborated his account. (Tr.
211–213.)
Littlejohn testified that he was deeply distraught, when he
signed the LOA. He said that he was faced with a dire situation:
either pay a $12,500 fine and be expelled by the JATC, or sign
an undesired LOA. He said, while he settled on the LOA, his
acceptance was involuntary. He remarkably claimed that he did
not even know about the CBA at that point. (Tr. 324–326.)
For several reasons, I do not credit Littlejohn’s contention that
he was unaware of the CBA or that his LOA acceptance was the
involuntary product of insurmountable duress. First, after hav-
ing a JATC relationship with the Union dating back as far as
2011, it is implausible that he was unaware of the CBA. The
testimony that he was repeatedly exposed to the CBA during his

7 Or put another way, Littlejohn made a rational decision to sign the
LOA, which he likely deemed at the time to be the lesser of two compet-
ing evils. The mere fact that he engaged in damage control, which is
common to many business decisions, or that he now wishes in hindsight
JATC training is persuasive and plausible. Second, it is uncon-
vincing that Littlejohn was placed under such a high degree of
duress that his acceptance of the LOA was rendered involuntary.
The LOA was plainly written, and it is improbable Littlejohn, a
relatively successful small business owner who could handle his
own affairs, was left so traumatized that he was left unable to
make rational decisions or understand the LOA. This testimony,
very candidly, appeared to be a concocted effort to avoid his le-
gal obligations. Third, Littlejohn’s willingness to engage in
other instances of deceitful conduct (e.g., stealing wire, surrepti-
tiously creating LES in violation of his SLA, etc.) undercuts his
overall credibility. Finally, Cepeda and Frentrup were generally
credible and cooperative witnesses, with strong demeanors. In
sum, I find that Littlejohn’s signing of the LOA was knowing
and voluntary, and that he was well-aware of the CBA and his
obligations.7
G. February 27, 2017—LES’ Violates the CBA by Using Non-
Union Workers
Between February 27 and December 24, 2017 (i.e., after Lit-
tlejohn signed the LOA requiring usage of the Union’s hiring
hall to obtain electricians), LES performed unit work in the
North Texas area with workers that were not referred by the Un-
ion’s hiring hall. See, e.g. (GC Exhs. 8, 9 (LES personnel rec-
ords) (LES attorney letter); Tr. 167–171, 180–182). Littlejohn
conceded that he “hired employees outside of the Union’s hiring
hall in 2017 and that [this practice] continued into 2018.”8 (Tr.
140, LL. 15–19); see also (Tr. 143, 163.)
H. January 2018—Union’s Discovers LES’ Violation of
the CBA
Union Organizer Cepeda visited the Toyota Music Factory
jobsite in Irving, Texas with fellow Union Oganizer Cesar Mar-
tinez to distribute organizing materials to nonunion electricians.
Cepeda testified that, during this visit, they observed LES per-
forming electrical work at a Gloria’s Restaurant jobsite with non-
union personnel. He said that, when they approached Littlejohn,
he did not deny his actions and said, “do what you need to do.”
(Tr. 60.) When Cepeda relayed this breach to Frentrup, he also
determined that LES was not making benefit payments in viola-
tion of the CBA.
I. Mid-January 2018—Union Meeting with Littlejohn
Littlejohn, Frentrup, and NECA Representative Steve Corley
met at Corley’s office to discuss the Gloria’s Restaurant discov-
ery, LES’ ongoing noncompliance with the LOA and CBA, and
its effective repudiation of its collective-bargaining relationship
with the Union. Frentrup said that his goal for the meeting was
to reach a resolution, although his efforts were unsuccessful.
J. January 26, 2018—Information Request
The Union sent a letter to LES, which sought to investigate
LES’ CBA breaches:
Please provide the following. . . .
that he chose a different option, does not render his initial choice invol-
untary.
8 He identified Clay Carney, Enoch Ramirez, Andrew Matos, and
Andres Olivares as examples. (Tr. 140–143.)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
[1] The names, addresses, phone numbers, . . . License classi-
fication, pay rates, hours worked, benefits contributions paid,
and termination dates of all employees hired over the last 12
months. . . .
[2] List of employees hired by methods other than those pre-
scribed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. . . .
[3] The name and locations of all projects performed in the last
12 months. . . .
[4] The names of . . . Foreman and General Foreman . . . on
each project . . . in the last 12 months.
(GC Exh. 13.) Frentrup said that, in March 2018, LES’ attorney
partially replied to paragraph 1, and provided workers’ names
and their employment status, but ignored the remainder of par.
1, and paragraphs 2 through 4 in their entirety. See also (GC
Exh. 14).
K. LES’ Attempts to Terminate the Bargaining Relationship
1. January 26 and 30, 2018 letters
On January 26, 2018, LES unsuccessfully attempted to termi-
nate its limited collective-bargaining relationship with the Un-
ion, and sent the following letter:
Please be informed that effective immediately, Littlejohn Elec-
trical Solutions is withdrawing from the Letter of Assent dated
February 23, 2017 and all other related agreements between the
Company and the [Union]. . . .
(R. Exh. 16); see also (R. Exh. 17). On January 30, 2018, LES
sent another letter to the Union, and restated its desire to termi-
nate its bargaining relationship. (R. Exh. 18.)
2 Union’s position on LES’ withdrawal attempts
Frentrup opined that LES’ withdrawal attempts were invalid
for the following reasons:
[T]wo things were missing . . . .[He] did not terminate his bar-
gaining rights with NECA. And . . . his opt-out letter . . .
[needed to be] at the close of the contract duration, which
would have been a long time later. . . .
(Tr. 240–241). Frentrup’s position was consistent with the LOA
and CBA.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Section 8(a)(5)—Failure to Recognize the Union and Repu-
diation of the CBA9
LES violated Section 8(a)(5). Since February 27, 2017, it has
failed to recognize the Union as the limited exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit and adhere to the CBA.
1. Legal precedent
Under 8(f), construction industry employers and unions can

9 These allegations are listed under complaint pars. 5, 7 and 8.
10 LES is presently locked into the LOA and CBA during its term (i.e.,
until it expires on November 30, 2019), cannot presently withdraw from
this CBA, and must diligently apply its terms. LES would be wise to
carefully study the termination procedures described in the LOA and
CBA, and make certain to timely serve its withdrawal from any successor
agreements and automatic renewals, if so desired, by supplying the
enter into collective-bargaining agreements, absent a union es-
tablishing its majority status. Parties entering into 8(f) agree-
ments are bound to those contracts for their terms, although they
remain free to repudiate a contract following its expiration. See
John Deklewa & Sons, 282 NLRB 1375, 1386 (1987), enfd. sub
nom. Iron Workers Local 3 v. NLRB, 843 F.2d 770 (3d Cir.
1988), cert denied 488 U.S. 889 (1988). Moreover, construction
contractors can bind themselves to 8(f) agreements by various
means; they can do so directly, through membership in multiem-
ployer associations bargaining on their behalf, or by signing
“me-too” agreements that bind them to agreements negotiated by
the union and the association (i.e., as LES did). See GEM Man-
agement Co., 339 NLRB 489, 496 (2003), enfd. 107 Fed.Appx.
576 (6th Cir. 2004). Such “me-too” agreements may bind an
employer not only to an existing agreement, but to successor
master contracts negotiated between the association and union.
See, e.g., W. J. Holloway & Son, 307 NLRB 487, 489 (1992)
(agreement employer signed bound it to terms of current master
agreement and “any successor agreements”); Construction La-
bor Unlimited, 312 NLRB 364, 367 (1993), enfd. 41 F.3d 1501
(2d Cir. 1994) (acceptance agreement bound an employer to cur-
rent master agreement and “any successor agreement(s)”). In or-
der to determine an employer’s obligation under a “me-too”
agreement, the Board will look to the terms of the agreement. If
the agreements has an automatic renewal provisions, it will be
given effect and bind the non-signatory “me-too” employer to
the continuation of the agreements. See Cedar Valley Corp., 302
NLRB 823, 823 (1991), enfd. 977 F.2d 1211 (8th Cir. 1992) (em-
ployer was bound by “me-too” contract and attempted repudia-
tion during its term was invalid).
2. Analysis
LES was bound by the LOA. Littlejohn knowingly signed the
LOA, which bound LES to the CBA until its November 30, 2019
expiration. See, e.g., W. J. Holloway & Son, supra; Construction
Labor Unlimited, supra. LES’ efforts to terminate the CBA dur-
ing its term were ineffective, and it remained bound. See Cedar
Valley, supra, 302 NLRB at 823 (“party may not lawfully repu-
diate an 8(f) agreement during its term.”) (citing John Deklewa
& Sons, supra). As a result, LES’s failure to recognize the Union
as the limited collective-bargaining representative of the unit,
and its repudiation of the CBA, violated Section 8(a)(5).10
B. Section 8(a)(5)—Information Request11
LES unlawfully failed to reply to the Union’s January 26,
2018 information request. Given that its recognition withdrawal
was invalid, it remained obligated to fulfill the Union’s valid in-
formation request.
1. Legal precedent
Generally, an employer must provide requested information
to a union representing its employees, whenever there is a
requisite written notice of its intention to withdraw WELL BEFORE
“at least one hundred fifty (150) days prior to” November 30, 2019.
(GC Exh. 2.) Such notice should be sent in a way that will allow LES
to prove such service at a later date (e.g., byr overnight mail, certified
mail, etc.), and must be sent to BOTH the Union and the North Texas
Chapter, NECA, which LES previously neglected to do. (Id.).
11 These allegations are listed under complaint pars. 6 and 8.
LITTLEJOHN ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC 5
probability that the information sought is necessary and relevant
to its representational duties. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385
U.S. 432 (1967). This duty covers relevant bargaining and griev-
ance materials. Postal Service, 337 NLRB 820, 822 (2002). In-
formation, which concerns unit terms and conditions of employ-
ment, is “so intrinsic to the core of the employer-employee rela-
tionship” that it is presumptively relevant. U.S. Information Ser-
vices, 341 NLRB 988 (2004). “[A]n unreasonable delay in fur-
nishing such information is as much a violation of the Act as a
refusal to furnish the information at all.” Postal Service, 332
NLRB 635, 640 (2000). “Absent evidence justifying an em-
ployer’s delay in furnishing . . . relevant information, such a de-
lay will constitute a violation. Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735,
737 (2000). Multimonth delays in providing information are
generally invalid. Bundy Corp., 292 NLRB 671 (1989) (2.5
months); Woodland Clinic, supra, 331 NLRB at 737 (1.5
months).
3. Analysis
On January 26, 2018, the Union validly requested the follow-
ing information: (1) names, contact information, licensing data,
pay rates, hours worked, benefits paid, and termination dates of
all employees performing unit work over the last 12 months; (2)
employees hired outside the CBA’s procedures; (3) names and
locations of all projects performed in the last 12 months; and (4)
names of Foreman and General Foreman on each project per-
formed in the last 12 months. (GC Exh. 13.) The Union needed
this information in order to investigate LES’ repudiation of the
CBA and evaluate an appropriate remedy, which was relevant to
its representational duties to the unit. LES, thus, violated the Act
by unreasonably delaying until March 2018 (i.e., waiting 2
months) to supply a partial response to paragraph 1 (see, e.g.,
Woodland Clinic, supra), and by failing to supply the remaining
information covered by paragraphs 1 to 4.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. LES is an employer engaged in commerce under Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Union is, and, at all material times, was the limited
exclusive bargaining representative of the following appropriate
unit:
[A]ll employees employed by LES, including journeymen
wiremen, foremen and apprentices performing inside electrical
work in the northern Texas counties of Collin, Comanche,
Cooke, Dallas, Delta, Denton, Ellis, Erath, Fannin, Grayson,
Hood, Hunt, Jack, Johnson, Kaufman, Navarro, Palo Pinto,
Parker, Rockwall, Somervell, Tarrant, and Wise, but, exclud-
ing office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
4. ADT violated Section 8(a)(5) by:

12 Backpay is the traditional remedy in construction industry repudia-
tion cases; the calculation of such backpay is reserved for the compliance
phase. J. E. Brown Electric, 315 NLRB 620, 622–623 fn. 8 (1994).
13 Search-for-work and interim employment expenses shall be calcu-
lated separately from taxable net backpay, with interest at the rate set in
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize the Union as the limited
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its unit em-
ployees during the term of the CBA.
(b) Refusing to apply, and repudiating, the CBA effective
from December 1, 2016, through November 30, 2019, to which
it is a signatory, and any automatic extensions thereof.
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union, by failing
and refusing to provide requested information, and unreasonably
delaying the provision of information, that is necessary and rel-
evant to its role as the limited exclusive representative of LES’
unit employees.
5. The unfair labor practices set forth above affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that LES committed unfair labor practices, it is
ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the Act’s policies.
Because LES and the Union had an 8(f) bargaining relation-
ship, LES must recognize the Union as the limited exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of their unit employees. Allied
Mechanical Services, 351 NLRB 79, 83 & fn. 18 (2007). It shall
commence assigning unit work to qualified applicants from the
Union’s hiring hall, and make unit employees and hiring hall ap-
plicants whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits they
may have suffered as a result of its unlawful conduct.12 Backpay
shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth
Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in
New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), that is compounded
daily as set forth in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB
6 (2010). Under King Soopers, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 93 (2016),
it shall compensate affected employees for search-for-work and
interim employment expenses, regardless of whether those ex-
penses exceed their interim earnings.13 Under Don Chavas, LLC
d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB 101 (2014), it shall com-
pensate affected unit employees for the adverse tax conse-
quences, if any, of receiving a lump sum backpay award, and,
under AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016),
within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed either
by agreement or Board order, it shall file with the Regional Di-
rector for Region 16 a report allocating backpay to the appropri-
ate calendar year. The Regional Director is responsible for trans-
mitting the report to the Social Security Administration.
Having found that LES violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing to
comply with the terms and conditions of the CBA, including by
failing to make health, welfare and pension benefit contributions
on behalf of unit employees, it must now comply with the agree-
ment, and make all the required benefits contributions that have
not been made since around February 27, 2017, including any
additional amounts due the benefit funds in accordance
with Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213, 1216 fn. 7
(1979).14 LES shall reimburse unit employees for any expenses
New Horizons, supra, compounded daily under Kentucky River Medical
Center, supra.
14 To the extent that any employees made personal contributions to
union funds that were accepted by the funds in lieu of the Respondents’
delinquent contributions during the period of the delinquency, LES will
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
ensuing from its failure to make the required contributions, as set
forth in Kraft Plumbing &-Heating, 252 NLRB 891 fn. 2 (1980),
enfd. 661 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1981), with such amounts to be com-
puted in the manner set forth in Ogle Protection Service, 183
NLRB 682 (1970), enfd 44 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with inter-
est as prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). LES
shall rescind those actions that have been found to constitute re-
pudiation of the LOA and CBA, recognize and bargain in good
faith with the Union as the limited exclusive collective-bargain-
ing representative of unit employees, and give full force and ef-
fect to the CBA that is effective from December 1, 2016, through
November 30, 2019, and any automatic extensions thereof.
Regarding LES’ failure to provide relevant requested infor-
mation to the Union, it shall provide such information to the ex-
tent that it has not already done so. It shall post the attached
notice in accord with J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB 11 (2010).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended15
ORDER
Littlejohn Electrical Solutions, LLC, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union by failing
and refusing to furnish it with information, and unreasonably de-
laying the provision of information, that is relevant and neces-
sary to it as the limited exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of unit employees.
(b) Altering unit employees’ terms and conditions of employ-
ment by not assigning them work and acquiring workers from
outside the Union’s hiring hall to perform unit work.(c)
(c) Failing and refusing to continue in effect unit employees’
terms and conditions of employment in the LOA and CBA ef-
fective from December 1, 2016, through November 30, 2019, to
which it is signatory, and any automatic extensions thereof, by
failing and/or refusing to make payments to the Union’s health,
welfare and pension funds.
(d) Repudiating its limited collective-bargaining relationship,
the LOA, and the CBA effective from December 1, 2016,
through November 30, 2019, and any automatic extensions
thereof, with the Union.
(e) n any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectu-
ate the Act’s policies.
(a) Furnish to the Union, to the extent that it has not already
done so, in a timely manner the information requested by it since
January 26, 2018.
(b) Rescind the changes in terms and conditions of employ-
ment for its unit employees that were implemented since about
February 27, 2017, and restore the terms and conditions of em-
ployment that were in effect before it made the changes, includ-
ing its termination of unit health, welfare and pension fund

reimburse the employees, but the amount of such reimbursement will
constitute a setoff to the amount that it otherwise owes the funds. See,
e.g., Oliva Supermarkets LLC, 363 NLRB No. 170, slip op. at 1 fn. 5
(2016).
contributions, suspension of assigning work to unit employees,
and cessation of obtaining qualified applicants from the Union’s
hiring hall to perform unit work.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer unit em-
ployees to whom it has failed and refused to offer work assign-
ments since February 27, 2017, full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights
or privileges previously enjoyed.
(d) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, offer instatement
to qualified applicants who would have been referred to LES for
employment through the Union’s hiring hall to perform unit
work were it not for LES’ unlawful conduct without prejudice to
their seniority or any other rights or privileges to which they
would have been entitled.
(e) Make unit employees and applicants whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the unilateral
changes in their terms and conditions of employment, in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(f) Compensate affected employees for the adverse tax con-
sequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award, and
file with the Regional Director for Region 16, within 21 days of
the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or
Board Order, a report allocating the backpay awards to the ap-
propriate calendar years for each employee.
(g) Give full force and effect to the terms and conditions of
employment provided in the CBA effective from December 1,
2016 through November 30, 2019, and any automatic extensions
thereof, by making all required payments to the Union’s health,
welfare and pension funds that have not been made since about
February 27, 2017, including any additional amounts due the
funds, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this deci-
sion.
(h) Recognize and bargain in good faith with the Union as the
limited exclusive collective-bargaining representative of em-
ployees in the unit identified in the CBA during the term of the
agreement, and any automatic extensions thereof.
(i) Rescind its repudiation of the CBA effective through No-
vember 30, 2019, and give full force and effect to the terms and
conditions of employment provided in the agreement during the
terms of the agreement, and any automatic extensions thereof.
(j) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional 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 elec-
tronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due un-
der this Order.
(k) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
Denton, Texas facility copies of the attached notice marked
15 If no exceptions are filed as provided by §102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Or-
der shall, as provided in §102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board
and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
LITTLEJOHN ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC 7
“Appendix.”16 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 16, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices,
notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, post-
ing on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its em-
ployees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. If 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 notice to all current employees and former employees em-
ployed by the Respondent at any time since February 27, 2017.
(l) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director for Region 16 a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to
the steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated Washington, D.C. March 4, 2019
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
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 be-
half
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 bargain collectively with the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 20
(the Union) by failing and refusing to furnish it with, and unrea-
sonably delaying the provision of, requested information that is
relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its func-
tions as the limited exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT change your terms and conditions of employ-
ment by ceasing to assign you work and ceasing to obtain quali-
fied applicants from the Union’s hiring hall to perform unit work.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to continue in effect the terms
and conditions of employment contained in our collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Union, which is effective from De-
cember 1, 2016 through November 30, 2019 (the CBA), and any
automatic extensions thereof, by failing and/or refusing to make
payments to the Union’s health, welfare and pension plans.
WE WILL NOT repudiate our limited collective-bargaining

16 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
relationship, or the CBA, which is effective from December 1,
2016, through November 30, 2019, and any automatic extensions
thereof.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you
by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor-
mation requested by the Union on January 26, 2016.
WE WILL rescind the changes in the terms and conditions of
employment for our unit employees that were unilaterally imple-
mented about February 27, 2017, and restore the terms and con-
ditions of employment that were in effect before we made the
changes, including assigning work to Unit employees and ob-
taining qualified applicants from the applicable local union of-
fice to perform unit work.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order,
offer unit employees to whom we have failed and refused to offer
work assignments since February 27, 2017, full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order,
offer instatement to qualified applicants who would have been
referred to us for employment through the applicable local union
hiring hall to perform unit work were it not for our unlawful con-
duct, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges to which they would have been entitled.
WE WILL make unit employees and applicants whole for any
loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the uni-
lateral changes in their terms and conditions of employment, plus
interest, less any net interim earnings, plus reasonable search-
for-work and interim employment expenses.
WE WILL compensate affected employees for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards,
and WE WILL file with the Regional Director for Region 16,
within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either
by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the backpay
awards to the appropriate calendar years for each employee.
WE WILL give full force and effect to the terms and conditions
of employment provided in the CBA effective from December 1,
2016 to November 30, 2019, and any automatic extensions
thereof, by making all required payments to the Union’s health,
welfare and pension funds that have not been made since about
February 27, 2017, including any additional amounts due the
funds.
WE WILL recognize and bargain in good faith with the Union
as the limited exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
our employees in the bargaining unit identified in the CBA dur-
ing the terms of the agreement, and any automatic extensions
thereof.
WE WILL rescind our repudiation of the CBA effective from
December 1, 2016, to November 30, 2019, and give full force
and effect to the terms and conditions of employment provided
in the agreement during its term, and any automatic extension
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
thereof.
LITTLEJOHN ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/16-CA-214170 or by using the QR code be-
low. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from
the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015
Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202)
273-1940.