Eastern Energy Services, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Aug 9, 2006

34-CA-011315 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 9, 2006)

JD(ATL)—31—06
Norwich, CT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE

EASTERN ENERGY SERVICES, LLC

and Case 34-CA-11315

SHEET METAL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
LOCAL UNION No. 40

Darryl Hale, Esq., and
Thomas E. Quigley, Esq.
for the General Counsel.
Thomas Kelm, Organizer
for the Charging Party.
Bernard E. Jacques, Esq.,
for the Respondent.

DECISION

Statement of the Case

LAWRENCE W. CULLEN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard
before me in Hartford, Connecticut, on May 16 and 17, 2006. The complaint is based on a
second amended charge filed on January 26, 2006, by Sheet Metal Workers’ International
Association, Local 40 (“Local 40” or “the Union”), with the National Labor Relations Board
(“the Board”) and alleges that Eastern Energy Services, LLC (“Eastern Energy” or “the
Respondent” has committed violations of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act (“the Act”). The complaint is joined by the answer filed by the Respondent
wherein it denies the commission of any violations of the Act.

After due consideration of the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the
parties’ contentions at the hearing and the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the
Respondent, I make the following:

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

I. The Business of the Respondent

The complaint alleges, Respondent admits and I find that at all times material herein
the Respondent, is and has been a corporation with an office and place of business located in
Norwich, Connecticut, where it has been engaged as a mechanical contractor in the heating
and air conditioning industry, that during the 12-month period ending January 31, 2006,

JD(ATL)—31—06

- 2 -
Respondent in conducting its aforesaid operations, purchased and received at its facility goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Connecticut and
that at all material times Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Sections 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.

II. The Labor Organization

The complaint alleges, Respondent admits and I find that at all times material herein,
the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

III. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices

This case involves the efforts of the Union to obtain work for its members with
Respondent, a mechanical contractor and Respondent’s response to these efforts. In July of
2005, the Union had 500 active members and 35 apprentices in its jurisdiction which
encompasses the entire state of Connecticut. At that time 150 of its members were
unemployed. The Union operates as a non-signatory hiring hall and permitted its members to
seek and accept work in the sheet metal industry with non-union employers. Prior to this
period the State legislature had passed legislation requiring employees engaged in the sheet
metal industry and other trades to be licensed in order to work in their trade. Respondent
employs two separate trades, the plumbers/pipe fitters who work on piping and water and
steam flow and sheet metal employees who work on air flow and architectural metal and
copper roofing. Both of these trades are regulated by the Connecticut Department of
Consumer Protection and the Heating, Piping and Cooling Board. The tradesmen must be
licensed to work in the Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) industry. Sheet
metal employees are required to have an SM-2 license which authorizes them to perform the
entire gamut of sheet metal work. Sheet metal employees who have an SM-5 license are
authorized to perform only kitchen duct and exhaust work.

Debra Roggero, Respondent’s Director of Operations and her partner Shawn Hixson,
Respondent’s Project Manager/Estimator, are co-owners of Respondent. They purchased the
Respondent on October 20, 2003, from the prior owner who also owned two other companies
at the same location, one of which was dissolved and the other of which, Eastern USA Fuel,
Inc., was sold to another individual. However the signs for the two companies remained at
the facility including a sign advertising hiring of sheet metal workers.

On January 20, 2004, Hixson met with Local 40 representatives at the request of Paul
Massimo, a long time acquaintance and a former employee of Respondent as well as a
member of Local 40. Massimo had worked for Respondent in the past but would leave if he
were offered union work under the Local 40 agreement. This was acceptable to Respondent.
Massimo talked to Hixson about Local 40 regularly and informed him of the benefits of the
Union and of signing an agreement with the Union. Present at the meeting with Hixson were
Local 40 organizer Frank Pannone (who was retired as of the date of the hearing in this case),
Business Manager David Roche and Business Representative Luke Ford. The meeting was an
introductory meeting at which the Local 40 representatives explained how Local 40 worked
and assigned labor. Hixson told the Union representatives that he was not looking for
additional sheet metal workers at that time. The Union representatives asked that Local 40 be

JD(ATL)—31—06

- 3 -
considered for future work. According to Hixson the meeting was a “generally friendly
conversation”. Hixson did however sign an agreement with the Pipefitters and Plumbers
Local 777 in February 2004 as it had been difficult for Respondent to obtain skilled
employees in this trade. By letter of October 21, 2004, Local 40 organizer Shawn Dukett
reminded Respondent’s co-owner Debra Roggero that Massimo was an example of the very
qualified sheet metal workers that Local 40 could offer.

On March 16, 2004, then organizer Frank Pannone, received a call from a contractor
who informed him that unlicensed sheet metal workers were performing work at an Olive
Garden restaurant jobsite in Waterford, Connecticut. Pannone visited the jobsite and found
that Dendy Mechanical Contractors, Inc., an out of state contractor, had unlicensed personnel
on the jobsite. By his letter of that date, (March 16th) he filed a complaint with the
Department of Consumer Protection requesting an investigation. He subsequently received a
telephone call from the Department of Consumer Protection notifying him that three
unlicensed sheet metal employees had been found on the jobsite. On April 29, 2004, Pannone
resubmitted his March 2004 complaint to the Department of Consumer Protection and
requested another investigation after being notified by the same contractor that unlicensed
sheet metal employees were again on the Olive Garden jobsite. When Roggero learned of this
from the Department of Consumer Protection she wrote the following memo to Dendy.

This has become extremely critical. Our employee who pulled the permit
now has to go in front of the licensing board and possibly have his
licensed (sic) revoked as well as Eastern Energy’s mechanical contractors
license. They have also stated since this was the second formal complaint,
there are fines that will be assessed. …Please understand, Jose or any of
your men are not to be back on site at ALL. Not even on the weekends,
evenings, etc. They are watching and could result in arrest and further
damage our plea to reduce fines and suspension or revoking licenses.
Please understand the seriousness of this matter and comply.

As of July 2005, Local 40’s Olive Garden complaints were still pending. On July 7th, the
Occupational and Professional Licensing Division of the State Heating, Cooling, Sheet Metal
and Piping Work Examining Board issued a formal complaint against the Respondent and
issued a notice of hearing set for August 25th.

Also on July 7th, 2005, Local 40 organizer Thomas Kelm, another organizer Kenneth
Moore and two out-of-work journeymen, Arthur Bregoli and Gerald Satin went to
Respondent’s facility to apply for work. All of these four individuals were licensed sheet
metal journeymen and each of them had over 20 years of experience in the trade. Each of
them testified, without rebuttal, that they were available for work as indicated on their
applications. The four men entered Respondent’s facility and were directed to Melissa
Bradshaw, Respondent’s Administrative Assistant. Three of them wore Union insignia,
openly visual on their clothing and asked for applications. Bradshaw asked them, “Are you
union?” They replied in the affirmative. She then said, “We do not hire union sheet metal
here.” Kelm nonetheless asked her if they could file applications and could take them with
them to fill out later and asked if they could be faxed in to Respondent and Kelm also asked
Bradshaw if he could take extra copies to be filed by other sheet metal workers who might be

JD(ATL)—31—06

- 4 -
interested in employment. Bradshaw agreed to all of the above. She did not request to copy
their sheet metal licenses. However Roggero testified in this proceeding that Respondent
normally makes a copy of the applicant’s license. Bradshaw told the employees that the
applications were good for three years in answer to an inquiry by Kelm. The employees then
left the facility and Kelm took photos of two signs in front of the facility which read “SHEET
METAL INSTALLERS” and “HELP WANTED.” There was also another sign nearby on the
property listing three companies including “EES Eastern Engineering Services.” Employee
Paul Massimo testified without rebuttal that on July 15, 2005, Shawn Hixson called him and
asked whether he knew an applicant who had applied for employment with the Respondent.
Missimo told Hixson he did not know the individual. Hixson then asked Massimo why, “the
Union was sending guys down there” in apparent reference to the four Union member
applicants who had filed applications with Respondent on July 7, 2005. Massimo told Hixson
he did not know. None of the four applicants were ever called for an interview or contacted in
any manner by the Respondent. At the hearing on August 25, 2005, a stipulation containing a
Cease and Desist Order was entered into by Dendy Mechanical Contractors, Inc., and the
authorized representative of the Connecticut Heating, Piping, Cooling and sheet metal work
Examining Board providing for the payment of a civil penalty of $20,000 by Dendy to the
State of Connecticut. The charges against all of the other charged parties, including the
Respondent Eastern Energy, were dismissed at the hearing. Debra Roggero attended the
meeting and after the conclusion of the hearing, Organizer Kelm who had attended the
hearing, introduced himself to Roggero and asked to meet with her to discuss Local 40. She
told him to call her for an appointment.

On September 26, 2005, Local 40 had a second meeting with Hixson, this time at the
Pipe Fitters office as the Pipe Fitters business manager James Juliano had set up the meeting.
Present were Hixson, Luke Ford, Business Agent for the Sheet Metal workers and organizer
Thomas Kelm and Local 40 Business Manager David A. Roche. Roche was aware that
Respondent had signed an agreement with the Pipefitters and told Hixson, they might need
some union help. However when the Union began to explain the benefits it had to offer,
Hixson’s response was negative. Hixson said he did not need the Union’s help as he did not
need sheet metal workers and could obtain sufficient help without Local 40 whereas he had
signed an agreement with the Pipefitters because he had a problem in getting sufficient help
from that trade.

On October 19, 2005, Kelm and Luke Ford went to a job site at the University of
Connecticut Student Union Building where Ford had union members working for a Union
contractor, (Ernest Peterson Roofing). Ford and Kelm saw one of Respondent’s pipefitter
employees working on Black Iron Duct work which Local 40 contends these workers were
not licensed to perform. After some discussion between the Local 40 representatives and the
job superintendent, Ford and Kelm went to the Eastern Energy office and met with Roggero
in her office. Luke introduced himself and told her he had people out of work and asked if
she could employ his people on the job as Respondent had employees doing the Black Iron
Duct work who were not licensed to do it. Roggero said the Business Representative of the
Plumbers and Fitters had told her it was okay for employees to do this work. At the hearing
in this case Roggero testified she had been told the journeyman licenses of her employees
were sufficient to permit her employees to perform this work. At the October 19th meeting
Roggero held up a piece of paper and told Ford and Kelm. “I don’t do business with

JD(ATL)—31—06

- 5 -
organizations [sic] who file complaints with the Department of Consumer Protection and cost
my company money.” She also said she was not going to hire any of the Union’s sheet metal
workers as she could get other sheet metal workers as needed from other companies laying
them off. Roggero did not deny having made these comments. This was in reference to a
charge which had been filed by Kelm on October 7, 2005, with the Department of Consumer
Protection concerning the performance of Black Iron Duct work which was being performed
by a craftsman for Eastern Energy on the Student Union Jobsite at the Main Campus of the
University of Connecticut at Storrs, Connecticut. Kelm’s charge stated that the craftsman
performing their installation did not have a valid Sheet Metal license. Eastern Energy had
received a copy of the charge which Kelm recognized as the one being held by Roggero. At
the meeting Kelm told Roggero that Respondent had been hiring and that Local 40 members
were being discriminated against by Respondent. Roggero denied the discrimination charge.
At that meeting Kelm resubmitted the applications of the four employees including himself,
who had obtained the blank applications at Respondent’s facility on July 7, 2005. He also
submitted the applications of Nicholas Susko, Charles Bristol, Armand Joseph Richard, Paul
Hinds and Damien Pisani that day. Damien Pisani was in the Union’s apprenticeship program
and had approximately five years experience. The other employees were experienced
licensed journeymen. It is undisputed that none of the foregoing employees whose
applications were submitted on July 7, 2005 and October 19, 2005, were ever contacted by the
Respondent.

It is undisputed that the Respondent hired seven employees between July 7th, 2005,
when Kelm and the other three employees first applied and October 3, 2005, when
Respondent ceased hiring. Massimo testified, without rebuttal that on August 11, 2005, he
called Hixson for a job reference and Hixson told him he had recently hired Mike Brainard
and Victor Benintende, who were two sheet metal workers with whom he had worked
previously. On September 27, 2005, Kelm met Dave Myers, a former Local 40 member at the
Colchester Elementary School. Myers told him Respondent was very busy and had recently
hired employees. Respondent hired sheet metal workers for the field or the shop. It hired five
sheet metal mechanics and two apprentices after July 7th. Respondent contends that Michael
Brainard hired on September 6 and Timothy Kirk hired on October 3, were both hired as
foremen. Victor Benintende was rehired as a mechanic on July 13th. Warren Sealey was
hired as a mechanic on July 25th and David Myers was rehired as a mechanic on July 13th.
Apprentice Michael Donofrio was hired on August 12th and apprentice Justin Stellers was
hired on August 16th. Roggero testified that the hiring of Sealey, an African American,
helped Respondent to meet its affirmative action goals. Respondent also introduced evidence
that it had hired Local 40 members prior to July 7th. It is undisputed that Respondent hired
members of Local 40 prior to July 7th. However it is also undisputed that Respondent has not
contacted or hired any applicant who was a current member of Local 40 since July 7th. It
appears from the foregoing that Respondent’s failure and refusal to consider for hire and to
hire members of Local 40 stems from Local 40’s push to advance the employment of its
members by Respondent and from the Union’s concerted activities in the filing of charges
before the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection against Respondent.

JD(ATL)—31—06

- 6 -
Analysis
I find that the statement made by Melissa Bradshaw, to the four applicants for
employment on July 7th, that Respondent does not hire union members was inherently
coercive and violative of the Act and demonstrates Respondent’s animus toward the Union.
Her failure to make copies of their licenses demonstrates her knowledge that Respondent did
not hire union members. I find that Bradshaw was involved in the application process and
was therefore placed in a position of apparent authority on behalf of the Respondent and her
comments are attributable to the Respondent and constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. G. M. Electrics, 323 NLRB 125 (1997). Little Rock Electrical Contractors, 336 NLRB
146, 153 (2001).

I find that the July 15th interrogation of Massimo by Hixson as to why the Union was
sending its members to Respondent to apply for work was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. Although Massimo was a known member and advocate of the Union, he was
nonetheless an employee under the Act who applied for and received employment from
Respondent from time to time, Little Rock Electrical Contractors, Inc., supra at 153; Jules V.
Lane, P.D.S., P.C., 262 NLRB 118, 119 (1982). Under these circumstances the interrogation
of Massimo by Hixson was inherently coercive.

I find the statement made by Roggero to Union representatives Ford and Kelm on
October 19th, that she would not do business with organizations who file charges with the
Department of Consumer Protection and cost her company money was inherently coercive
and violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. This constituted a threat that she would not hire
the Union’s members because of the Union’s engagement in concerted activities on behalf of
their membership. Pan American Electric, Inc., 328 NLRB 54, 66 (1999).

I find that the General Counsel has established a prima facie case that Respondent
refused to consider and hire applicants Kelm, Satin, Bregoli and Moore and that it refused to
consider for hire applicants Charles Bristol, Nicholas Susko, Armand Joseph Richard, Paul
Nieves, and Damien Pisani whose applications were filed by Kelm on their behalf on October
19th.

In NLRB v. Town and Country Electric, 516 U.S. 85 (1995) the United States Supreme
Court recognized that the rights of union organizers to apply for jobs and to hold those jobs
are protected by Section 7 of the Act. Their union organizer status does not diminish their
rights to the protection of Section 7. In the instant case the evidence clearly establishes that
Kelm and Moore did not commit any act which would deprive them of the protection of the
Act. Clearly they were not hired because of their engagement in protected concerted activities
and their status as union organizers.

Under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980) end. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert
denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982) the General Counsel has the initial burden to establish that:

1. The employees engaged in protected concerted activities.

JD(ATL)—31—06

- 7 -
2. The employer had knowledge or at least suspicion of the employees’ protected
activities.

3. The employer took adverse action against the employees.

4. A nexus or link between the protected activities and the adverse action underlying
motive.

Once these four elements have been established, the burden shifts to the Respondent to
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that it took the action for a legitimate non-
discriminatory business reason. In Fluor Daniel, Inc., 304 NLRB 970 (1991) the Board said
that once the General Counsel makes a prima facie case that protected conduct was a
motivating factor in the employer’s decision, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate
that the same action would have taken place even in the absence of the protected conduct.

The elements that General Counsel must prove to establish a Refusal to Consider for
Hire are:

1) the employer excluded applicants from the hiring process and

2) antiunion animus was a contributing factor for the employer’s failure or refusal
to consider the applicants for hire. FES, 331 NLRB 9, 15 (2000). Once these two elements
have been established, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that it would not have
considered the applicants in the absence of their union activities. Wright Line, supra..

The elements of a refusal-to-hire case are:

(1) that the employer was hiring, or had concrete plans to hire, at the time of the
alleged unlawful conduct; (2) that the applicants had experience or training
relevant to the announced or generally known requirements of the positions for
hire, or in the alternative, that the employer has not adhered uniformly to such
requirements, or that the requirements were themselves pretextual or were applied
as a pretext for discrimination and (3) that antiunion animus contributed to the
decision not to hire the applicants. FES, supra; Wright Line, supra

In the instant case I find with respect to the refusal to consider that the General
Counsel has established that the applicants who filed applications on July 7th and October 19th
were excluded from the hiring process and that antiunion animus was a contributing factor for
Respondent’s failure or refusal to consider the applicants for hire. I find Respondent has
failed to prove that it would not have considered the applicants in the absence of their union
membership.

I also find that with respect to the refusal to hire case, that the General Counsel has
established that Respondent was hiring during the period beginning with the July 7th
applications, that the applicants had experience and training relevant to the generally known
requirements of the positions for which they applied and that antiunion animus contributed to
the decision not to hire the applicants. Although Respondent put on testimony as to why it

JD(ATL)—31—06

- 8 -

hired other applicants than the discriminatees who filed their applications on July 7th, I did not
find it convincing to establish that the Respondent would not have hired the discriminatees
even in the absence of its unlawful motivation. I thus find that the Refusal to Consider for
Hire and Refusal to Hire were violative of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.

Conclusions of Law

1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sections 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. Respondent has violated and is violating Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act..

The Remedy

Having found that the Respondent has violated and is violating the Act, it shall be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and in any like or related manner, interfering with,
restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act
and to take certain affirmative actions to effectuate the purposes of the Act including, but not
limited to, posting appropriate notices.

Respondent should also be ordered with respect to its failure to consider and hire
Bregoli, Moore, Kelm and Satin, to instate them to the positions for which they applied, or to
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges they would have enjoyed absent the discrimination against them and make them
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from Respondent’s refusal to hire,
less any net interim earnings, plus interest Wild Oat Markets, Inc., 344 NLRB No. 86 (Slip
Op. at 2-3 May 26 (2005) The reimbursement to employees should be computed as
prescribed in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir,
1971). Interest shall be computed as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB
1173 (1987) at the “short term Federal Rate” for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the
1986 amendment to 26 U.S. Code Section 6621.

Respondent should also be ordered to consider Bristol, Susko, Richard, Nieves and
Pisani for future employment, in accordance with nondiscriminatory criteria, to notify them of
future openings in positions for which these employees applied, and after a compliance
proceeding, make them whole for any loss of earnings and benefits that they may have
suffered as a result of Respondent’s unlawful acts. See Wild Oats Markets, Inc., supra.

On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended:1

1 If no exceptions are filed as provided by § 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order 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.

JD(ATL)—31—06

- 9 -

ORDER

The Respondent, Eastern Energy Services, LLC, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall:

1. Cease and desist from:

(a) Discriminatorily refusing to consider for hire and refusing to hire
applicants for employment because of their union membership or support of the Union.

(b) Telling employees that Respondent does not hire sheet metal workers
who are union members.

(c) Interrogating employees concerning the Union and its members’
engagement in concerted activities.

(d) Telling Union representatives that Respondent will not do business
with the Union or that it will not hire members of the Union because the Union has filed
charges against it with the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection.

(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.

2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act.

(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer to hire discriminatees
Thomas Kelm, Arthur Bregoli, Gerald Satin and Kenneth Moore to the positions for which
they applied or if those jobs no longer exist, substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to
their seniority or any other rights or privileges and make them whole with full backpay and
benefits as set out in the Remedy, with interest.

(b) Consider for hire Charles Bristol, Nicholas Susko, Armand Joseph
Richard, Paul Nieves and Damien Pisani for future employment in accordance with
nondiscriminatory criteria and notify them of future openings in the positions for which these
employees applied, and after a compliance proceeding make them whole for any loss of
earnings and benefits that they may have suffered as a result of Respondent’s unlawful
actions, with interest.

(c) Inform the discriminatees in writing that it will not discriminate against
them in any manner in the future.

JD(ATL)—31—06

- 10 -

(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility copies of
the attached notice marked “Appendix.”2 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 34, after being signed by Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facilities involved in these proceedings, the Respondent
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the attached notice to all current
employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since July 2005.

(e) Within 21 days after service by the Regional Office, file with the
Regional Director for Region 34, a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form
provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.

(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, provide at the office
designated by the National Labor Relations Board or its agents, one copy of all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.

Dated at Washington, D.C., August 9, 2006.

_______________________
Lawrence W. Cullen
Administrative Law Judge

2 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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.

JD(ATL)—31—06

- 11 -
APPENDIX

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

Posted by the 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 behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.

WE WILL NOT inform job applicants that they will not be hired because of their union
affiliation or engagement in concerted activities.

WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union activities.

WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to consider for hire and to hire employees because of their
membership in or support of Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local Union
No. 40.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.

WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Order offer to hire Thomas Kelm, Arthur
Bregoli, Gerald Satin and Kenneth Moore to the positions for which they applied or if those
jobs no longer exist, substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights or privileges and make them whole with full backpay and benefits, with interest.

WE WILL consider for hire in accordance with non-discriminatory criteria Charles Bristol,
Nicholas Susko, Armand Joseph Richard, Paul Nieves and Damien Pisani and notify them of
future openings in positions for which these employees applied, and after a compliance
proceeding, make them whole for any loss of earnings and benefits that they may have
suffered as a result of our unlawful actions, with interest.

EASTERN ENERGY SERVICES, LLC
(Employer)

Dated: By:_______________________________________________
(Representative) (Title)

JD(ATL)—31—06

- 12 -
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to
enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine
whether employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor
practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and
how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the
Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s
website: www.nlrb.gov.

280 Trumbull Street, 21st Floor, Hartford, CT 06103-3503,
(860) 240-3002, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE.
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE
DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY
ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE
REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (860) 240-3524