Edwards Painting Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Sep 26, 2014

19-CA-116399 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 26, 2014)

JD(SF)–45–14
Oregon City, OR
i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
EDWARDS PAINTING, INC.,
And Cases 19–CA–116399
19–CA–122730
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND
ALLIED TRADES, DISTRICT COUNCIL 5,
AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of the Case……………………………… ......................................................................1
Findings of Fact ...............................................................................................................................3
I. Jurisdiction ..............................................................................................................................4
II. Labor Organization ................................................................................................................4
III. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices.....................................................................................5
A. The Facts.............................................................................................................................5
1. Supervisory status...........................................................................................................5
2. The James Oldham and Wyatt McMinn terminations....................................................6
3. McMinn applies for unemployment benefits ...............................................................15
4. The Craig Prinslow termination ...................................................................................16
5. The Sean Carter termination.........................................................................................17
6. The refusal to consider for hire Gustavo Garcia, Roben White, and Roman and
Arturo Ramos ...............................................................................................................19
a. Gustavo Garcia and Roben White .............................................................................19
b. Roman and Arturo Ramos .........................................................................................19
7. August Alteration of Respondent’s employee information forms to include
an inquiry concerning union affiliation ........................................................................20
B. The Analysis .....................................................................................................................21
1. The 8(a)(1) allegations ..................................................................................................21
a. Complaint paragraph 5 alleges Respondent’s various agents and supervisors
interrogated its employees.........................................................................................21
i. Complaint paragraph 5(a)(i)-(v) alleges that Grant Edwards interrogated
employees on June 7, 13, July 11, 12, and 30 at various projects .........................21
ii. Complaint paragraph 5(b) alleges that Bob Edwards interrogated
employees on August 5 at the Hollyfield project ..................................................22
iii. Complaint paragraph 5(c) alleges that Gene Edwards interrogated
employees on august 30 at respondent’s office ...................................................22
JD–
ii
iv. Complaint paragraph 5(d) alleges that in august respondent added a
question concerning union affiliation to an employee application form..............22
b. Complaint paragraph 6 alleges that on about July 8 grant Edwards told
its employees that it does not want the people it hires to stir up union stuff.............23
c. Complaint paragraph 7(a) and (b) alleges that Respondent’s agents and
supervisors told its employees that it is not a union shop and will never be
a union shop .............................................................................................................23
i. Complaint paragraph 7(a)(i)-(ii) allege that on July 8 and 11 Grant Edwards
told its employees that it is not a union shop and will never be a union shop .....23
ii. Complaint paragraph 7(b)(i)-(ii) allege that on August 8 and 9 Connie Edwards
told its employees that it is not a union shop and will never be a union shop ......23
d. Complaint paragraph 8 and 9 allege that on July 11 and August 2
Grant Edwards threatened employees with discharge if they attended a union
meeting and because of their union membership ......................................................24
e. Complaint paragraph 10(a) alleges that on August 2 Connie, Gene and Grant
Edwards ordered off-duty employees who supported the union to leave
its property while permitting other off duty employees to remain.............................25
g. Complaint paragraph 11 alleges that on August 8 and 9 Connie Edwards
told job applicants that Respondent does not hire union painters ............................26
h. Complaint paragraphs 12 and 13 allege that on August 9 and in mid-August
Gene Edwards promised employees wage increases if they refrained
from engaging in union activity.................................................................................26
i. Complaint paragraph 15(a)-(d) .................................................................................27
j. Complaint paragraph 17 alleges that on September 29 Gene Edwards told its
employees they were not to cause any problems, start any trouble, or hand
out any union literature while on the jobsite..............................................................28
2. The 8(a)(3) and (1) allegations ......................................................................................28
a. Complaint paragraphs 18(a) and (h) allege that on July 30 Respondent
discharged employee Craig Prinslow and in October failed to assign
Prinslow work............................................................................................................29
b. Complaint paragraph 18(b) alleges that on August 2, 9, and 29 Respondent
granted its employees wage increases.......................................................................30
c. Complaint paragraphs 18(c) and (e) allege that on August 30 and October 18
Respondent discharged its employee Sean Carter ....................................................31
d. Complaint paragraphs 18(d), 18(f) and (h) allege that in September and
October Respondent transferred its employees Oldham and McMinn from
jobsite to jobsite to isolate them from other employees and failed to assign
them work ..................................................................................................................32
e. Complaint paragraphs 18(i) and (j) allege that in November Respondent
discharged its employees Oldham and McMinn .......................................................33
f. Complaint paragraph 18(k) alleges that since January 2014 Respondent
has opposed McMinn’s receipt of unemployment benefits.........................................34
g. Complaint paragraph 19 alleges that on August 8 and 9 Respondent refused
to consider for hire Arturo Ramos, Gustavo Garcia, Roben White, and
Roman Ramos because they engaged in protected-concerted activity or to
discourage employees from engaging in protected-concerted activity .....................34
Conclusions of Law.......................................................................................................................37
JD–
iii
The Remedy...................................................................................................................................39
ORDER..........................................................................................................................................40
APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................................45
JD(SF)–45–14
Oregon City, OR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
EDWARDS PAINTING, INC.,
And Cases 19–CA–116399
19–CA–122730
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND
ALLIED TRADES, DISTRICT COUNCIL 5,
AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES
Rachel Harvey, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Gene Edwards, President, In Pro Se,
for the Respondent.
James Scott Oldham, Union Representative,
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN J. MCCARRICK, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Portland, Oregon,
over a 5-day period between May 6 and May 20, 2014, upon the Order Consolidating Cases,
Consolidated Complaint, and Notice of Hearing, as amended1 (complaint), issued on April 17,
2014, by the Regional Director for Region 19.
The complaint alleges that Edwards Painting, Inc., Respondent, violated the Act by
engaging in the following unfair labor practices:
The complaint alleges Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by:

1
On May 9, 2014, counsel for the General Counsel moved to amend the complaint to add par. 5(d) alleging that
in about August 2013 Respondent created an employee application form that asked prospective applicants for their
union affiliation. The motion to amend was granted and Respondent was deemed to deny the new allegation. In its
brief counsel for the General Counsel moved to amend the complaint to withdraw complaint pars. 5(a)(vi), 7(a)(iii),
8(b), 9(b), 14, and 16 since alleged discriminatee Carter did not appear and testify in support of these allegations
at the hearing as required under a subpoena issued to him at the request of the General Counsel. The motion is
granted.
JD(SF)–45–14
2
-interrogating its employees about their union activities on numerous occasions;
-threatening employees with lay off if they signed a petition in support of the Union or if
they voted for representation by the Union;
5
-threatening employees with discharge if they attended a union meeting;
-threatening it employees with discharge because of their union membership;
-threatening its employees with discharge if they signed a petition in support of the 10
Union;
-threatening to call and calling the police because its employees were distributing union
flyers to employees at its facility;
15
-threatening employees with lay off if they signed a petition in support of the Union or if
they voted for representation by the union;
-ordering its off-duty employees who supported the Union to leave its property while
allowing other off-duty employees to remain;20
-promising employees a wage increase if they would cease their union activities;
-telling its employees there could be no trouble;
25
telling employees that Respondent would never go union;
telling applicants for hire that it does not hire union painters;
-telling its employees that it did not want people it hires to stir up union stuff;30
-telling its employees on numerous occasions that it is not a union shop and never will be
a union shop;
-telling employees if they ceased talk about the Union, ceased organizing and there was 35
no more trouble, it would have work for them through the winter;
telling employees that the Union is mafia;
-telling employees that the Union was trying to steal its work;40
-telling its employees they would be subject to random drug testing because the
employees concertedly complained about an employee using drugs on the worksite;
-telling employees that working conditions would improve if they removed their union t-45
shirts;
JD(SF)–45–14
3
-telling its employees they were not to cause problems, start any trouble or hand out
union flyers on the jobsite and;
-engaging in surveillance of its employees’ union or concerted activities.
5
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by:
-terminating employees Craig Prinslow, Sean Carter, James Oldham, and Wyatt McMinn
for engaging in union or other concerted, protected activity;
10
-transferring its employees Oldham and McMinn to isolate them from other employees
and by failing to assign work to Oldham, Prinslow, and McMinn for engaging in union or
other concerted protected activity;
-granting its employees wage increases and by opposing McMinn’s receipt of 15
unemployment benefits for engaging in union or other concerted protected activity, and:
-refusing to consider for hire or hire applicants Arturo Ramos, Gustavo Garcia, Roben
White, and Roman Ramos because they supported the Union or to discourage employees
from engaging in union or other concerted protected activity. 20
Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint stating it had committed no
wrongdoing.
FINDINGS OF FACT25
On June 24 and 25, 2014, Respondent filed its post-hearing briefs. On June 27, 2014,
counsel for the General Counsel filed a Motion to Strike Extra-Judicial Evidence from
Respondent’s Briefs. Given the pro se nature of Respondent’s representation, counsel for the
General Counsel does not object to the apparent late filing of the briefs and I will consider 30
Respondent’s arguments contained therein. However, counsel for the General Counsel objects to
the addition of extraneous evidence referred to in Respondent’s briefs that was not offered at the
hearing. General Counsel contends that striking Respondent’s citations to extra-record evidence
is necessary because consideration of such evidence would deprive the General Counsel and the
Charging Party of due process, including the opportunity to object to introduction of the 35
evidence, cross-examine witnesses about it, call witnesses to rebut it, and respond to it
substantively in a brief.
In making my findings of fact, I have relied only on the evidence contained in the
transcript, including the testimonial and documentary evidence. While I have considered the 40
arguments of the parties, I have not considered any evidence from the briefs of either counsel for
General Counsel or Respondent. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to strike portions of
Respondent’s briefs.
Upon the entire record, except as noted above, including the briefs from counsel for the 45
General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following findings of fact.
JD(SF)–45–14
4
I. Jurisdiction
Respondent admitted it is a painting company located in Oregon City, Oregon. While it
failed to deny it is an Oregon Corporation and admitted it derived gross revenues in excess of
$500,000 during the last 12 months, it denied that it is engaged in interstate commerce by 5
denying it has purchased and received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
located outside the State of Oregon or from other enterprises located in the State of Oregon
which received the goods directly from points outside the State of Oregon.
Respondent’s tax return from the State of Washington2 reflects that, during the calendar 10
year 2013 it had sales of $100,000 within the State of Washington.
At the hearing Tracy Martin, the credit manager for Miller Paint Company, Inc. (Miller)
testified that Miller is an Oregon Corporation with an office in Portland, Oregon. During the last
calendar year Respondent purchased paint and other supplies from Miller valued in excess of 15
$50,000 and Miller in turn purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 from points located
directly outside the State of Oregon.
John Wied, the CFO of Walsh Construction Company, Oregon (Walsh) testified that
Walsh is an Oregon corporation with an office in Portland, Oregon. In the course of the past 12 20
months Respondent provided services to Walsh valued in excess of $50,000. During that same
period of time Walsh purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 from points located directly
outside the State of Oregon.
Based upon the above, I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in interstate 25
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Siemons Mailing Service,
122 NLRB 81, 85 (1959).
II. Labor Organization
30
Respondent denied that International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District
Council 5, Affiliated with International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (Union) is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
At the hearing Robin White, president, Local 10, International Union of Painters and 35
Allied Trades, District Council 5, Affiliated with International Union of Painters and Allied
Trades, testified that Local 10 represents employees of painting employers in the Portland,
Oregon area in collective bargaining, grievance/arbitration proceedings, and other matters related
to terms and conditions of employment. Local 10 is affiliated with the International Union of
Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 5, Affiliated with International Union of Painters 40
and Allied Trades, White testified that employee members of Local 10 participate in meetings to
consider proposed collective-bargaining agreements, and election of union officers. Based upon
the above, I find that Local 10, International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District
Council 5, Affiliated with International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Alto Plastics Mfg. Corp., 136 NLRB 45
850, 851–852 (1962).

2 GC Exh. 19.
JD(SF)–45–14
5
III. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. THE FACTS
Respondent is a painting contractor with an office and place of business at the home of 5
Gene and Connie Edwards in Oregon City, Oregon. Respondent engages mainly in painting the
interior and exterior of multi-family residential buildings. During the relevant period herein,
Respondent had about 20 employees. About 50 percent of those employees were inexperienced
painters who were working in their first painting job. In the 1980’s Respondent was signatory to
the Union’s master collective-bargaining agreement. At some point Respondent sought to cancel 10
the collective-bargaining agreement and as a result Gene Edwards said the Union tried to destroy
Respondent. Edwards explained, “[T]hey go after you and take every – every means at their
disposal to put you out of business.” In his affidavit to the Board on January 14, 2014, Gene
Edwards admitted “I will shut down the company before I go union.”
15
1. Supervisory status
Respondent denied that Charley Gene Edwards, Connie Edwards, Grant Eugene
Edwards, or Bob Edwards are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act or
agents within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. 20
Charley Gene Edwards (Gene Edwards) is the president of Respondent. Prior to
December 2013 he was a part owner and president of Edwards Painting Inc. After December
2013 Mrs. Edwards and their son Grant Edwards transferred all of their stock in Edwards
Painting, Inc., to Gene Edwards. Gene Edwards is the chief officer of Respondent and has 25
authority to hire, fire, assign employees’ work, and discipline Respondent‘s employees.
The record reflects that Connie Edwards (Mrs. Edwards), Charley Gene Edwards, wife,
prior to December 2013 was an officer and shareholder of Respondent. In December 2013 she
transferred her ownership interest to her husband and resigned as secretary of Edwards Painting, 30
Inc. Mrs. Edwards prepared all of the paperwork necessary for the paychecks of Respondent’s
employees and pays Respondent’s bills.
Grant Edwards was a part owner and officer of Respondent prior to December 2013 when
he resigned his position as vice president and transferred his stock to his father, Gene. Grant is 35
one of Respondent’s superintendants and has authority to hire, fire, and assign work to
employees.
Bob Edwards is Gene and Connie Edwards’ nephew. Bob Edwards works for
Respondent as an estimator and superintendant. Bob Edwards runs jobs, assigns work to 40
employees, and has effectively recommended that employees be hired.
Based upon the above, I find that Gene Edwards, Grant Edwards, and Bob Edwards are
supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents within the meaning of
Section 2(13) of the Act. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686, 687 (2006), citing NLRB 45
v. Kentucky River Community Care, 532 U.S. 706, 713 (2001). Based upon her ownership
JD(SF)–45–14
6
interest, her status as an officer of Respondent, her intake of applications and her payroll
function, I find that Connie Edwards is an agent of Respondent within the meaning of Section
2(13) of the Act. Beacon Electrical Co., 350 NLRB 238, 242 fn. 11 (2007); Diehl Equipment
Co., 297 NLRB 504, 504 fn. 2 (1989); Toering Electric Co., 351 NLRB 225, 236 (2007); Wal-
Mart Stores, 350 NLRB 879, 884 (2007); Service Employees Local 87 (West Bay Maintenance), 5
291 NLRB 82, 83 (1988).
2. The James Oldham and Wyatt McMinn terminations
James Scott Oldham (Oldham) has been a painter for 27 years. He is a member of the 10
Union and is classified by the Union as a journeyman painter. In July 2010 Oldham began
working for the Union as a field representative responsible for organizing nonunion painting
contractors. In this capacity, Oldham works as a “salt,” applying for work with nonunion
painting contractors to organize their employees.
15
Oldham and fellow Local 10 member Mike Bokamper applied for work with Respondent
at Respondent’s Four Square jobsite in Portland, Oregon. Oldham spoke with Grant Edwards
who was Respondent’s superintendant on this jobsite. Both Oldham and Bokamper were hired
by Grant Edwards on about June 2, 2013.3 Three or 4 days later Oldham went to Respondent’s
home office and filled out an application he was given by Gene Edwards.20
On about June 7, at the Four Square job, Oldham told Grant Edwards that Wyatt McMinn
(McMinn), who was Local 10’s vice president and a 17-year journeyman painter, was available
for work. Grant Edwards asked Oldham if McMinn was union and Oldham told Grant Edwards
he was not. A few days later Respondent hired McMinn and assigned him to work at the Art 25
House project. On June 8, Oldham was also assigned to work at the Art House project where
both worked for about 2 months.
On about June 13, at the Art House job McMinn spoke with Grant Edwards. Edwards
asked McMinn where he had worked and if he had worked for union shops. McMinn said he 30
had not worked for union shops. At the hearing, Grant Edwards did not describe the conversation
he had with McMinn when they first met. He generally denied interrogating any employees
about union activities, but did not deny asking McMinn if he had worked for union shops before.
Grant Edwards admitted that he asked painter Shane Rohde (Rohde ) when he was hired in the
summer of 2013, if he was a member of the Union. 35
Toward the end of June 2013, Oldham, Bokamper, and McMinn began speaking with
Respondent’s employees about the Union and asked employees to sign a petition for union
representation. Employees discussed their jobs and complained about not getting overtime,
about Respondent’s disorganization, about lack of respect from management, and about health 40
benefits.
In early July 2013, Oldham set up a meeting for Respondent’s employees to attend at a
church near the Four Square project. Oldham asked six or seven employees to attend the

3 All dates herein refer to 2013 unless otherwise specified.
JD(SF)–45–14
7
meeting. At about this time Grant Edwards had a conversation with Oldham and McMinn
outside the Art House project.
Edwards asked them, ”are you guys union.” Oldham replied, “What’s a union.”
Edwards said, “I want to know are you guys union.” When Oldham asked him why he was 5
asking this, Edwards replied, “because I just want you to be honest with me there's a meeting
going on Saturday, and it's about signing a petition. And I want to know if you guys are union.”
Edwards asked if they knew about the meeting. Edwards repeatedly asked Oldham and McMinn
if they were union.4 Edwards told Oldham and McMinn that a union representative was causing
problems for Respondent. When Oldham and McMinn admitted that they had talked to a union10
representative, Edwards said that Respondent was not, and would never be, a union shop, and
that the only reason Respondent had jobs like the Art House project, was because it was
nonunion. When Oldham and McMinn asked what would happen if they signed the Union’s
petition, Edwards said that if they signed the petition, they could not work for Respondent and
that the Union would not allow them to work for Respondent if they were union. Oldham asked 15
how they could be working for him if they were union and Edwards repeated that if they were
union, they could not work for him. I credit both Oldham and McMinn as their testimony was
given in a straightforward and consistent manner that had the ring of truth to it.
While he denied interrogating his employees, Grant Edwards admitted that he asked 20
Oldham and McMinn about the union meeting. Edwards admitted that he may have told Oldham
and McMinn Respondent probably would not be able to stay in business if it went union and that
the Union would not allow its members to work for Respondent. Edwards further admitted
saying that Respondent did not “plan on going union” and in his Board affidavit admitted that he
may have told employees that Gene Edwards would never go union. 25
I found Grant Edwards to be one of the most incredible witnesses I have observed in over
29 years as a judge. His testimony was given in a painfully halting manner with minutes passing
between question and answer, giving the observer the impression that he had no recollection of
events whatsoever. He repeatedly looked to his father, who was sitting at counsel table, as if to 30
have him provide the proper response. His testimony lacked any specificity and was
characterized by his inability to recall events of even a few days past. His testimony was often
contradicted by prior statements given in his Board affidavit. I do not credit his testimony.
Grant Edwards admitted learning of Oldham and McMinn’s union meeting from painter 35
Alberto Valencia. Gene Edwards also admitted that he learned about Oldham and McMinn’s
union activities within their first few months of employment and that he heard about their
planned union meeting. Gene Edwards admitted he knew “all Oldham and McMinn were there
for was to cause problems.”5
40
On about August 2, 2013, at 4 p.m. Oldham and McMinn went to Respondent’s home
office to pick up their paychecks, as was the standard procedure for Respondent’s employees.
When picking up their checks, employees would remain on Respondent’s property for 10 to 45
minutes. Oldham’s vehicle was parked in Respondent’s driveway with two or three other
employees’ cars. A number of union members were located at the curb near the driveway to 45

4 Tr. 63, lines 4-18.
5 Tr. 394–396.
JD(SF)–45–14
8
Respondent’s home office with a three by eight foot union banner that displayed the Local 10
logo. The union members were not blocking the driveway. Oldham and McMinn went to speak
with the protesters and put on union t-shirts.6 Oldham and McMinn then went back up the
driveway to speak with Respondent’s employees. At this point Gene Edwards appeared near the
house. After a few minutes, Grant Edwards drove up, got out of his truck, looked at Oldham and 5
McMinn’s union shirts, and said so it looks like you guys are done. Oldham said that they were
not done and that they were there to organize. Grant Edwards said that they could not work for
Respondent if they were union because the Union would not let them. Grant Edwards told
Oldham and McMinn they couldn’t work here if you’re union. Grant Edwards went into the
house and Gene Edwards brought out paychecks that had been amended to add $2 per hour.7 10
Gene Edwards said I gave you boys a raise. You are doing good work and I don’t want any
trouble. Gene Edwards said that Respondent was not a union company and would never be
union. Both Grant and Gene Edwards told Oldham and McMinn that they got their checks and
to leave. Oldham and McMinn walked down the driveway to stand with the union supporters
holding the banner. Grant Edwards then walked down to Oldham and McMinn, said that he was 15
not pleased that the Union showed up at his father’s home, and asked that in the future they
respect that it was Gene Edwards’ home and not come there anymore. Oldham and McMinn
talked to Grant Edwards about the benefits of unionization, and Grant Edwards said, “You know,
I know my dad, and one thing for certain is he’s not union and he’s never going to be union. So
you’re wasting your time. You’re wasting your breath.”8 While at the hearing Grant Edwards 20
denied that he told employees Respondent would never go union, in his Board affidavit he
admitted he may have made such statements.9 As noted above, I do not credit Grant Edwards but
give credence to the testimony of Oldham and McMinn.
In early August 1013 Oldham and McMinn were assigned to Respondent’s Hollyfield job 25
in Lake Oswego, Oregon where they regularly wore their union t-shirts. Walsh Construction was
the general contractor and Bob Edwards was Respondent’s superintendant at this jobsite. On
about August 5, 2013, Bob Edwards approached Oldham and McMinn on the job and asked what
was going on. Edwards told Oldham and McMinn that Walsh was asking about the union t-
shirts. Edwards then said he had heard that there will be picketing today. Oldham replied there 30
would be no picketing. Bob Edwards said that picketing was ineffective and asked them if they
were moles for the Union. When Oldham said they were not moles, Edwards said he respected
their work and they were doing good but that they couldn’t have trouble. If they wanted to keep
working there could be no trouble. Oldham said he and McMinn were there to organize
Respondent as a union shop and Edwards replied he knew Gene (Edwards) and he would never 35
go union. He then told Oldham and McMinn that all the guys who signed the union petition
would get laid off this winter.
Bob Edwards admitted that he asked Oldham if he was in the Union and told him he
knew that union members would be kicked out if they went to work for a nonunion employer. 40
He also admitted asking Oldham, after he admitted that he was in the Union, why he was there.
While Edwards initially denied telling Oldham that there could be no trouble, he later admitted to
saying that there should be no “shenanigans.” He also admitted he told Oldham that he would

6 GC Exh. 2.
7 GC Exhs. 3 and 4.
8 Tr. 72, 272.
9 Ibid. 852–856.
JD(SF)–45–14
9
never be part of the Union. Edwards denied telling Oldham or McMinn that employees who
signed the petition would be laid off. I credit Oldham and McMinn’s version of this incident.
They both testified and an honest and straightforward manner. Their testimony was detailed and
devoid of inconsistency. I do not credit Bob Edwards as his testimony like that of all the other
Edwards’ was obviously biased based upon their close familial relationship. 5
On August 9, 2013, Oldham and McMinn went to Respondent’s home office to get their
paychecks. When they received their checks, Gene Edwards told them to keep up the good
work. Upon seeing their checks, Oldham and McMinn noticed that they had received another
$1-per hour raise.10 Gene Edwards said he did not want any trouble on his jobs. He told Oldham 10
to keep it up and you’ll get another dollar. While Gene Edwards denied generally that he had
told Oldham or McMinn that he did not want any problems on the job, he admitted in his Board
affidavit that he may have said I don’t want any problems. Respondent also granted wage
increases to about nine of its employees on August 211 and throughout August, as the Union’s
organizing campaign peaked.12 Gene Edwards admitted that he gave Oldham and McMinn wage 15
increases because they were doing a good job.
In mid-August at the Hollyfield job, Grant Edwards told Oldham that he was doing a
good job. When Oldham asked if Edwards liked his and McMinn’s work, Edwards replied that
he did. Oldham asked if they gave up wearing the five shirts and organizing if they could 20
continue to work. Edwards said if they give up the union stuff you’ll have work through the
winter. Grant Edwards stated that he recalled the conversation described by Oldham but denied
saying that he would have work for Oldham and McMinn if they ceased organizing, claiming not
to recall whether there was any mention of the Union. For the reasons stated above I credit
Oldham and McMinn over Grant Edwards.25
In about mid-August Oldham and McMinn were painting walls at the Art House job.
After about half the job was done, they noticed there was a color change in the white paint they
were using. After Oldham called Grant Edwards and described the problem, Edwards told
Oldham that what occurred was a paint manufactures’ issue. Edwards said to box the paint 30
together, i.e., mix and rotate all of the buckets of paint so that they became one batch of paint.
Oldham and McMinn did as instructed, and continued to paint the walls. According to Oldham
and McMinn, they could not see a difference in paint color once they had boxed the paint. It was
not until in late August or early September that other painters noticed the shade difference while
touching it up. When advised of the color difference, Grant Edwards told Oldham and McMinn 35
that this happened sometimes, that it was not their fault, and that they should not worry about it.
Grant Edwards failed to deny making such a statement to Oldham and McMinn. Oldham and
McMinn were never disciplined in any way for this incident.
Respondent contends that Oldham and McMinn sabotaged the Art House painting by 40
deliberately applying the wrong color of paint. No evidence was adduced to support this
allegation.

10 GC Exh. 5.
11 GC Exh. 32.
12 Ibid. and GC Exh. 8.
JD(SF)–45–14
10
By August 30, 10 of Respondent’s employees had signed a petition13 for the Union to
represent them. On August 30, Oldham was driving with McMinn to Respondent’s office to
pick up their paychecks. While driving, Oldham received a text message from painter Jeffrey
Tucciarone, who had signed the Union’s petition on August 28, saying, “hey just let you know
I’m not joining the union [sic].”145
Oldham and Tucciarone then exchanged text messages in which Jeffrey Tucciarone told
Oldham that Grant Edwards knew who had signed the petition and had repeatedly asked him
about who had signed it.
10
When Oldham got to Respondent’s home office on August 30, Gene Edwards told
Oldham not to start any trouble. He told Oldham that he was being given another raise. Oldham
asked Gene and Grant Edwards if they wanted to see the union petition15 employees had signed.
Gene Edwards replied that he knew who was on the petition but said let me see it. When
Oldham had given Gene Edwards the petition, Edwards reviewed it and said who he was going 15
to lay off. After Oldham handed him the petition, Gene Edwards went through it making
statements about individual petition signers, and said, “Well, this guy wasn’t a very good painter.
This guy we’re going to layoff anyway. This guy and this guy, I already knew about them.
I figured as much,” and, “[T]his guy’s no good, or this guy won’t be here too long.” 16
20
During the discussion painter Steve McNatt, walked past and Gene Edwards asked him if
he had signed up with the Union. McNatt replied he had not.
On September 14, 2013, Oldham and McMinn were again at Respondent’s office to get
their paychecks. Gene Edwards told both Oldham and McMinn that he had no jobs for them 25
since he only had big jobs and they were causing too much trouble. He said that when he found
a small job, he would put them on it. While at Respondent’s office, Oldham and McMinn were
passing out union flyers to employees on the driveway near the house concerning organizing
Respondent. Gene Edwards admitted he may have told Oldham and McMinn they should be
careful about what they were printing. Gene Edwards told Oldham and McMinn that they could 30
not pass out the flyers. Connie Edwards came out of the house and said that Respondent would
never go union. Meanwhile, Gene Edward’s grandson confronted Oldham and McMinn about
passing out flyers and an argument ensued. Gene Edwards threatened to call the police if
Oldham and McMinn did not leave the premises. Oldham said they were not leaving and would
continue to distribute flyers. Gene Edwards then called the police. No other employees were 35
told they had to leave the Edwards’ property.
On September 24, 2013, Oldham and McMinn were working on Respondent’s Four
Square jobsite, wearing t-shirts that said, “Walsh Construction Co. Hired a contractor That
breaks FEDERAL LAW.”17 During the day a Walsh supervisor named Lane spoke with Oldham 40
and McMinn and asked what was on the shirt. Oldham told him what the shirts stated. Lane
took a photo of the shirt and asked if Grant Edwards knew about the shirts. Lane told Oldham

13 GC Exh. 8.
14 GC Exh. 7.
15 GC Exh. 8.
16 Tr. 94, 281.
17 GC Exh. 9.
JD(SF)–45–14
11
that he and that another of Respondent’s employees had called Grant Edwards about the t-shirts.
Later that day Grant Edwards told Oldham and McMinn that they were being moved to another
jobsite called Springwater. The Springwater job involved painting the exterior of a building.
At the time of being transferred, it was raining hard and as a result they could not work that day.
They were sent home by the Springwater general contractor. The rain continued on 5
September 25 and neither Oldham nor McMinn could work that day. Respondent had inside jobs
on September 24 and 25 that Oldham and McMinn could have worked.
Oldham called Grant Edwards the next morning to ask for work, and Grant Edwards said
he did not have any, even though Respondent had other ongoing jobs and a significant workload 10
at the time.18 After September 24, both Oldham and McMinn’s hours working for Respondent
were substantially curtailed. Oldham and McMinn had worked over 39 hours per week prior to
September 24. After September 24 they averaged 20 and 21 hours per week, respectively.19
On Sunday September 29, 2013, Oldham spoke by phone with Gene Edwards about work 15
assignments. Edwards said he did not want any problems from you guys. He said he had a job
at the Cannery job in Sherwood, Oregon, but he did not want any problems and he did not want
Oldham and McMinn handing out flyers. At the hearing Gene Edwards denied telling Oldham
or McMinn that he did not want any problems when he sent them to the Cannery project.
However, in his Board affidavit he admitted that he may have told McMinn and Oldham that he 20
did not any problems from them at the Cannery jobsite.20 I credit McMinn and Oldham. I found
Gene Edwards to be a particularly hostile witness whose testimony was marked by inconsistency
with his Board affidavit and his own testimony at the hearing. His hostility to the Union based
upon his past history with the Union was palpable and in my view colored his testimony and
rendered it unreliable. 25
On October 1, 2013, Oldham and McMinn were painting interior doors at the Cannery
job. According to Oldham it was raining and cold, about 42 degrees. Oldham had trouble
getting the paint to adhere to the doors he was painting. He had painted about 24 doors and had
problems with about six of them. In Oldham’s opinion, as a 27-year journeyman painter, the 30
inability of the paint to adhere to the doors was caused by the cold and humidity from the rain.
According to Oldham the conditions exceeded the specifications for the paint they were using.
Jim Ernstrom (Ernstrom), a sales representative for paint supplier Miller, stated that the
temperature conditions, as described by Oldham, would be “right on the bottom” and “close to
too cold” and “approaching where you could almost freeze it,” which could cause the paint to 35
dry slowly or to show “crazing” or crackling.21 Oldham immediately called Gene Edwards and
reported the problem with the doors. Edwards told Oldham to roll the doors with a paint roller.
About 20 minutes later Gene Edwards arrived at the jobsite and tried to roll paint on the doors.
This was unsuccessful and Edwards tried to spray the doors and then roll them. Neither Oldham
nor McMinn were disciplined by Respondent in any way due to the problems with the doors at 40
the Cannery job.

18GC Exh. 31.
19 GC Exhs. 26 and 27.
20 Tr. 411.
21 Tr. 796–798.
JD(SF)–45–14
12
Gene Edwards claimed at the hearing that Oldham and McMinn sabotaged the doors at
the Cannery project and asserted that he could not allow Oldham and McMinn to work on jobs
where they could blame other employees for their sabotage. No evidence was adduced that
Oldham or McMinn ever blamed other painters for anything. Oldham and McMinn both denied
that they sabotaged any of Respondent’s work. 5
Gene Edwards stated at the hearing that he should have discharged Oldham and McMinn
for the incident involving the doors at the Cannery project and should have filed a police report
over the incident. However the record is clear that Respondent did not discipline Oldham and
McMinn at the time of the incident. Rather, Respondent gave these “saboteurs” a $1- per-hour 10
raise.22 Indeed it was not until about October 11, that Gene Edwards first told Oldham and
McMinn that he thought they had sabotaged the doors. Respondent continued to employ
Oldham and McMinn for over a month after the incident, and Gene Edwards admitted that there
were no problems with their work during that time.
15
While Respondent called KeyWay Superintendent Roberts to testify that Respondent was
charged for a number of hinges that disappeared from the Cannery project, the record is devoid
of evidence that Oldham or McMinn took the hinges. Moreover there is no evidence that
Respondent relied upon missing hinges as a reason for discharging either Oldham or McMinn.
20
On October 11,23 Oldham and McMinn went to Respondent’s home to receive their
paychecks. Gene Edwards told Oldham there were no jobs for him since he could not put
Oldham on larger jobs because they caused too much trouble. Oldham and McMinn then walked
into the driveway, where they ran into painter Sean Carter (Carter). Carter told Oldham there had
been drug use on the jobsite the previous day by painter Steve McNatt (McNatt) and that 25
Respondent did not care. Grant Edwards admitted that Carter had reported that both McNatt and
painter Mendoza had used drugs on the job. Carter then left. Oldham and McMinn went to speak
with Gene Edwards about this issue and told him they did not want to work on jobs or with
employees who were using drugs. Gene Edwards told them not to worry about this as it was no
concern of theirs. McNatt then came up and asked for Carter, saying he was going to kill him 30
and asked where Carter lived. At the hearing, while Gene Edwards denied that McNatt made a
threat to Carter that day, Respondent admitted in its answer that that McNatt said Carter “needed
his hind end kicked.”24 Grant Edwards said he was going to give McNatt a drug test and if he
was clean he was going to fire Carter. Oldham asked Grant Edwards if he was going to test
McNatt then. Edwards said he would but when McNatt started to leave, Oldham said that 35
McNatt couldn’t leave or any drug test would be invalid. Gene Edwards said that Oldham
looked like he knew about drugs and that Oldham and McMinn looked like dope smokers. He
said he had a random drug testing policy and that he was going to test Oldham and McMinn.
Oldham asked to see Respondent’s drug testing policy and Edwards refused to provide it.
40
Gene Edwards told Oldham and McMinn to be ready for a drug test the following
Monday. Oldham and McMinn asked Edwards where he wanted them to take the drug test.

22 GC Exhs. 32 and 33.
23 While Oldham and McMinn testified this event occurred on October 18, based upon Carter’s
timecards the event occurred on October 11.
24 GC Exh. 1(k), par. 15(d).
JD(SF)–45–14
13
Gene Edwards initially said he had not found a place for them to be tested and later said he was
not going to give them a drug test.
At the hearing Gene Edwards claimed Respondent had sent other employees for drug
testing. However, he later admitted it had been over 10 years since he had drug tested employees 5
and this was required by the general contractor. He further admitted that Oldham and McMinn
were the only employees he had ever required to take a random drug test.25 Respondent did not
give McNatt a drug screen.
On October 21, Gene Edwards told Oldham and McMinn that there would be no drug test 10
for them that day and to follow up with him later. On October 23, Gene Edwards said there
would be no drug test for Oldham or McMinn.
Grant Edwards admitted that on October 11, Carter notified him via text message that
McNatt had sent Carter 13 text messages threatening Carter with violence.26 On October 14, 15
Carter forwarded some of McNatt’s text messages to Grant Edwards. The messages said:
“The gypsy jokers [a motorcycle gang] are my best friends,” “Snitches get stitches,”
“You f**** with my life you’re dead you f***** with my family you’re f****** with
this you’re going to f****** get your s*** kicked [sic].”27 20
The morning of October 14, Grant Edwards told Carter he needed to file a police report about
McNatt’s threats before he could come back to work. When Carter told Oldham of Grant
Edwards’ demand that he file a police report, Oldham agreed to go with Carter to file the report.
Oldham called Grant Edwards and told him he was going to go with Carter because he and 25
McMinn had both witnessed McNatt’s threats toward Carter and to file the report Carter and
Oldham left work and went to the police department in Hillsboro, Oregon, and filed a police
report. At Grant Edwards’ request, Carter provided Grant Edwards with a case number that
could be used to access his police report, but Grant Edwards never tried to access the report.
Later that day at about 3:30 p.m., as Oldham was getting ready to drive home, Gene Edwards 30
called him and said there was a new policy in place, that anyone who left work needed to get
prior permission. Oldham explained that he had contacted Grant Edwards and had gotten
permission to leave. Edwards told Oldham that he had many problems with Carter and that he
was fired.
35
On October 28, 2013, Respondent assigned Oldham and McMinn to work on the ADT
Security job in Beaverton, Oregon, for 4 days. Bob Edwards was Respondent’s supervisor on
this job. R&H was the general contractor for this job and Nate Brown was the R&H
superintendant. When Oldham and McMinn got to the job, Bob Edwards told them that the job
was too big for just the two of them to complete in 4 days. That same day R&H Superintendant 40
Brown asked Oldham how two guys were supposed to finish the job in 4 days. During the
course of the job Brown asked Oldham if they were union. When Oldham replied they had
worked for union contractors, Brown said Bob Edwards told him they had been sent from the
union hall.

25 Tr. 461–463.
26 GC Exh. 30, pp. 1–10.
27 Ibid., GC Exh, pp. 11–14.
JD(SF)–45–14
14
On the last day of the job, Oldham and McMinn prepared posters that said R&H hired
Edwards Painting who ignores drug use on the job. This poster was displayed during lunch and
breaks outside the jobsite. Brown asked them if this was a sanctioned picket.
5
After finishing work on the ADT job, Oldham called Gene Edwards about further
assignments. Gene Edwards said he didn’t want to start trouble and had no more work for
Oldham or McMinn. When Oldham later called in for work, Gene Edwards said he could not
put them on any big jobs because they caused too many problems.
10
The next job Respondent assigned to Oldham and McMinn was the Terwilliger Plaza job
in Portland, Oregon, on November 12, 2013. This job involved the remodel of one condo and
R&H was the general contractor. Respondent assigned only Oldham and McMinn to this job.
When assigning them Gene Edwards told them not to start any trouble. This warning was
repeated by Bob Edwards when he saw them on the job. While on the job on November 12, 15
Oldham and McMinn spoke with a Terwilliger employee who told them that employees had to
pay a lot for parking. On the same day, a Terwilliger supervisor told them his parking was paid
by the employer. Oldham and McMinn decided to create a poster that stated, “$80 FOR
PARKING IS UNFAIR TO THE SUPPORT STAFF! Go to: www.oregonunions.org.” 28The
following day they placed the poster on bulletin boards throughout the Terwilliger building. No 20
evidence was adduced that Terwilliger Plaza had a rule prohibiting posting on its bulletin boards.
On November 13, 2013, Bob Edwards told Oldham and McMinn to get their tools and
asked if they had put up the posters. When Oldham replied they had, Edwards said, Terwilliger
is upset and wants you off the property. I tried to keep you on the job. This decision is coming 25
from Terwilliger. Oldham and McMinn left the jobsite.
That evening Oldham called Gene Edwards for further work. Edwards asked them if they
were done over at Terwilliger Plaza. Oldham said they put out a poster, and Terwilliger Plaza
did not want them there anymore. Gene Edwards said, “So you handed out a postcard, huh? 30
Hand out flyers, right?” and said he guessed “it is what it is.”29 When Oldham again asked for
another job Edwards said he did not have anything right then and that they could not go to bigger
jobs because they started too much trouble. Oldham asked him if they should call again on
Sunday night, and Gene Edwards said he did not know and that he did not see any small jobs
coming back up anytime soon. Oldham asked if they should file for unemployment, and Gene 35
Edwards said they should do what they had to do.
Respondent did not investigate the circumstances surrounding Oldham and McMinn’s
posting on the Terwillger bulletin boards.. Both Gene and Bob Edwards denied seeing the poster
Oldham and McMinn created and posted. While Bob Edwards initially denied discussing the 40
poster with R&H superintendent Saxe, he later admitted that he assumed the postcard had
something to do with Terwilliger Plaza’s employees’ parking expenses. He later admitted that
he “assumed the whole time that [Oldham and McMinn] were trying to unionize Terwilliger

28 GC Exh. 11.
29 Tr. 161–162, 325–326.
JD(SF)–45–14
15
Plaza’s workforce” and explained, “That was what they did. They posted flyers on projects.
[…] Scott and Wyatt would post flyers on our projects about the union….”30
While Respondent never told Oldham and McMinn that they were being discharged or
laid off, it did not assign them any work after November 13 despite further calls from Oldham 5
and McMinn through December 1.
Gene Edwards claimed that he did not fire Oldham and McMinn but he admitted that he
has not assigned them work since November 13. He further admitted in an unemployment
hearing that after Oldham and McMinn were removed from the Terwilliger Plaza job for posting 10
on bulletin boards, “that was the end of their career.”31 In addition, Gene Edwards admitted that
Respondent would not let Oldham work for Respondent “because he works for somebody else.”
At the hearing Edwards admitted that McMinn is no longer employed by Respondent.32
Grant and Bob Edwards both essentially claimed that Oldham and McMinn stopped 15
working for Respondent after the Terwilliger Plaza project due to a lack of work. Grant Edwards
stated in his Board affidavit that he had no work for Oldham and McMinn after November 13.33
Despite Respondent’s claim of no work, Respondent’s payroll records reflect that from
November 2013 to the end of 2013, Respondent steadily employed between 19 and 22
employees and hired or rehired 3 employees. Gene Edwards stated that Respondent maintained 20
a work force through the end of 2013, with 20 or more employees.34
3. McMinn applies for unemployment benefits
McMinn applied for unemployment benefits35 with the State of Oregon on about 25
January 15, 2014. Respondent opposed benefits for McMinn but the benefits were granted on
appeal.36 At the hearing Gene Edwards denied Respondent had opposed unemployment benefits
for McMinn. However, in a document Respondent submitted to the State in response to
McMinn’s unemployment claim, Gene Edwards wrote, “He was band [sic] from building for
breaking rules of the building, by building management and will not be working again.”3730
The State denied McMinn’s claim on the basis that McMinn “was discharged when he
was kicked off the job by the building owner” and that he “posted a sign in the building he was
performing work in [sic] that the owners should not be charging tenants for parking.” 38
35
McMinn appealed this ruling, resulting in a telephonic hearing before an administrative
law judge for the State of Oregon. In the telephonic hearing, Gene Edwards argued that McMinn
was removed from the Terwilliger Plaza project. He stated, in response to a question about why

30 Tr. 732.
31 Tr. 425–426.
32 Ibid at 413–414.
33 Ibid at 610.
34 GC Exhs. 31, 34.
35 GC Exh. 13.
36 GC Exhs. 14 and 15.
37 GC Exh. 20.
38 Ibid, GC Exhs. 14 and 21.
JD(SF)–45–14
16
McMinn was kicked off the job, “You can’t just come up there and post on their bulletin boards
anything you want, any type of obscenity or whatever, if you don’t have a right to.”39 Edwards
also alleged McMinn had sabotaged work at the Cannery and the Art House projects. Finally, he
claimed that McMinn intentionally painted the foundation at the Springwater project, though he
admitted that McMinn’s spraying the foundation was not part of his basis for discharging 5
McMinn.
About April 21, 2014, the administrative law judge issued a decision finding that
McMinn was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.40 The period for
Respondent to file an appeal from the administrative law judge’s decision had not expired at the 10
time of the instant hearing. Gene Edwards testified that he had not decided whether to file an
appeal. Thus, the record is clear that Respondent opposed the unemployment benefits on the
basis that McMinn had sabotaged doors on the Cannery job, had improperly mixed paint and had
posted flyers at the Terwilliger job.
15
4. The Craig Prinslow termination
Craig Prinslow was a 28 year journeyman painter and had been a member of Local 10
since 2012. Prinslow called Grant Edwards about a job on July 5, 2013 and Edwards indicated
Respondent had work. On July 8, 2013 Prinslow again spoke with Grant Edwards who said there 20
was work on the Four Square job and that Respondent was not a union company and would
never be. Edwards asked Prinslow if he was a union member and Prinslow said he was not up on
his dues. Edwards said he wanted to make sure Prinslow was not union and would not bring up
the union on the job.
25
On July 12, 2013, Prinslow was assigned to work on the Four Square jobsite with five to
six other painters. That day he had a conversation with Grant Edwards. Edwards said he was
making sure that Prinslow was not a union member or talking to the employees about the union.
Prinslow replied he was not a union member and just wanted to work.
30
At the hearing Grant Edwards did not describe his exchanges with Prinslow on July 8 and
12. While he generally denied interrogating employees about their union affiliation, he did not
specifically deny that he asked Prinslow about his union affiliation. Grant Edwards did not deny
Prinslow’s testimony that he told Prinslow that Respondent was not and never would be a union
shop. Only upon confrontation with his Board affidavit did Edwards admit he may have made 35
such statements to employees.41 Neither did Edwards deny Prinslow’s testimony about
statements that he did not want Prinslow or other employees to talk about the Union. I credit
Prinslow whose testimony was given in a detailed and honest manner without hostility,
contradiction or embellishment. For the reasons stated above I do not credit Grant Edwards.
40
At the Four Square job on July 30, Prinslow signed a union petition seeking Union
representation, wore a Union t-shirt42 and put a union sticker on his hard hat. He was the only

39 Tr. 425–-426.
40 GC Exh. 15.
41 Tr. 854–856.
42 GC Exh. 2.
JD(SF)–45–14
17
employee wearing a union t-shirt. When he was going into work, Prinslow talked to other
employees about the benefits of joining the Union. Later that day Grant Edwards came to the
jobsite and asked Prinslow what was with the union shirt and sticker. Prinslow said he got them
from the Union. Edwards asked if Prinslow had signed up with the Union and Prinslow said he
had. Edwards asked Prinslow if he was a union member when he came to work for him and 5
Prinslow said he was not. He asked Prinslow if he was trying to recruit guys, and Prinslow said
he was not, but that he had answered questions the guys had. Edwards said it was a good thing
the job was winding down and that he had to let Prinslow go. Edwards said Respondent was not
a union shop and never would be. Edwards said the Union would never let Prinslow work for a
non union shop. He then asked Prinslow if he had talked about the Union to other employees 10
and Prinslow said he had. Prinslow finished out the day and did not quit the job. Prinslow
admitted he went to work on another job on July 31. While being offered a job with another
employer on July 29, Prinslow claims he was going to ask Grant Edwards to match the new job
offer. He said there was still 30 days work left at the Four Square job. In October Prinslow
called Grant Edwards for work and was told there were no jobs. 15
Grant Edwards admitted that Prinslow told him he had signed with the Union that day
because he needed health insurance. Edwards did not deny Prinslow’s testimony that he told
Prinslow Respondent was not, and never would be, a union shop or that the Union would not let
him work for Respondent if he signed the petition, but as noted above, he admitted making 20
similar comments to employees. Edwards failed to deny that he asked Prinslow whether he was
a union member when he was hired and whether he was there to recruit guys. Edwards first
stated that he told Prinslow that the job he was working on was slowing down and that he would
have to let him go.43 Then, in Respondent’s case, Edwards said that he was thinking of
discharging Prinslow for slow work performance, but that Prinslow quit.44 Finally a third version 25
was given on cross-examination that he may have told Prinslow he had to let him go and that he
told him he was looking for a way to lay him off so he could collect unemployment.45
When Prinslow was terminated on July 30, three other employees were doing similar
work, yet none of those employees were discharged. The Four Square project was not winding 30
down at the time and continued until at least October.46 Respondent had substantial work for
months after July 30, and hired seven to nine new employees the month following Prinslow’s
discharge.47 Further, Grant Edwards admitted that the work performance of many employees on
the Four Square project was poor.
35
5. The Sean Carter termination
Painter Carter, hired by Respondent on June 23,48 was one of the first employees to sign
the petition that Oldham showed to Gene Edwards on August 30. While Gene Edwards said he
did not look at the petition, he admitted he assumed Carter was involved in the Union’s 40
organizing campaign because he spent time with Oldham and McMinn. Grant Edwards admitted

43 Tr. 614.
44 Ibid at 823–824.
45 Tr. 859–861.
46 GC Exh. 22.
47 Ibid. GC Exhs. 31 and 34.
48 GC Exh. 34.
JD(SF)–45–14
18
that he saw Carter wear a union t-shirt. Grant Edwards also admitted that he and Carter
discussed the union during smoke breaks and that Carter told him that Oldham and McMinn had
asked him to sign a union petition. He admitted that he told Carter he thought Respondent would
have a hard time staying busy if its employees unionized.
5
Grant Edwards admitted that he fired Carter on about August 30 and told Gene Edwards
of the discharge the same day. Grant Edwards said he fired Carter for failing to paint enough
doors or door frames. At Respondent’s office on August 30, after Oldham showed Gene
Edwards the petition his employees had signed, Carter told Oldham and McMinn that Grant
Edwards fired him. When both Oldham and McMinn asked Gene Edwards if Carter had been 10
fired, Edwards said Carter had not painted enough doors. When Carter asked Gene Edwards if
he had a job or if he was fired, Edwards gave an equivocal answer.
Oldham told Gene Edwards he thought Carter had been fired because he signed up for the
Union. At the end of the conversation, Gene Edwards asked Carter if he was available for work 15
on Monday and Carter continued working.
Carter continued to work for Respondent on the Four Square project until October 18.49
On October 18, Grant Edwards told Carter to go to Respondent’s office so that Gene Edwards
could discharge him. At Respondent’s office, Gene Edwards told Carter that he was discharged 20
and that he would be forcibly removed if he set foot on one of Respondent’s jobsites again. No
reason was given for Carter’s discharge. Carter’s final timecard reflects that he worked for
Respondent for only 1 week after making the police report about McNatt’s threats.
Gene and Grant Edwards both stated that Carter had attendance and production problems. 25
Gene Edwards said that Carter never put in a full week during his entire work history, and stated
that he was certain Carter missed workdays between the date of his filing the police report and
the date of his discharge. Grant Edwards said that Carter should have been discharged several
times and that he was the absolute worst employee Respondent had ever had with respect to
attendance. 30
The record is devoid of Carter’s alleged attendance problems. Moreover Respondent did
not discipline Carter until after he complained about McNatt’s drug use on the job and his threats
of violence. Moreover, Respondent did nothing to document Carter’s alleged production
problems.35

Respondent does not keep any formal attendance records. Respondent’s timecards may
reflect when employees missed days, but they generally do not reflect the reasons for missed
days. Respondent maintains neither personnel files nor written records documenting the reasons
for employees’ discharges. Thus, Respondent was unable to establish that any employee was 40
ever treated consistently with Carter. However, Grant Edwards told Oldham in early June that
he was having a problem with some of his employees not showing up on time or taking days off.
Respondent did not produce any evidence that any other employee was discharged for attendance
issues. Respondent’s timecards reflect that painter McNatt missed a number of days of work.50
No evidence was adduced that Respondent took any action against McNatt for his attendance. 45

49 Ibid GC Exh. 22.
50 GC Exh. 36.
JD(SF)–45–14
19
Grant Edwards also claimed that Carter was fired because the Four Square job was
ending. However, Gene Edwards admitted that Respondent maintained a large work force
through the end of the year at the Four Square job. The record shows that Respondent hired two
new employees in October and two in November.51 5
6. The refusal to consider for hire Gustavo Garcia, Roben White, and Roman and Arturo Ramos
a. Gustavo Garcia and Roben White
Gustavo Garcia (Garcia) has been an organizer and field representative for the Union for 10
6 years. His trade specialty is a drywall finisher and he has little experience painting but he has
some painting skills including taping windows and doors. Robin White (White) has been Local
10 president for 5 years and a journeyman painter for 30 years.
On August 7, 2013, Garcia and White, neither of whom was working at the time, agreed 15
to apply for work with Respondent. Both agreed they would work for Respondent indefinitely.
On August 8, 2013 both went to Respondent’s office at Gene Edwards' home wearing union t-
shirts.52 They were met at the door by Connie Edwards and told her they wanted to apply for
work with Respondent. Mrs. Edwards asked if that was what they looked like when they applied
for work. She said Respondent was a non-union company and did not hire union painters. She 20
said that they had been union before and would close down the business before going union
again. She asked for their names and phone numbers and gave them Gene Edwards' phone
number. She said that Gene Edwards did the hiring for Respondent. She said that Respondent
was union many years ago and would never go union again. She said they would never hire
union painters because they talk to employees about going union. She told them to leave and 25
never come back again because they don’t hire union painters. In his Board affidavit Gene
Edwards admitted he was not going to hire union plants. Neither Garcia nor White were called
for work with Respondent.
b. Roman and Arturo Ramos
30
Roman Ramos has been a field representative for the Union for seven years. Arturo
Ramos is a Local 10 member. Both Roman and Arturo’s trade specialty is glazer. Glazers make
window frames and they had little experience painting.
Ramon Ramos was not employed in August 2013 when he applied for work with 35
Respondent. Had he been offered work with Respondent he would have worked there
indefinitely. On August 9, Roman Ramos and his brother Arturo Ramos went to the
Respondent’s office to apply for work. They were met by Mrs. Edwards, and Roman Ramos
stated Local 10 had sent him. Mrs. Edwards said Respondent “did not hire union and that they
are a non union company. Tell Local 10 not to send anymore workers here.”53 Ramon Ramos 40
left his name and phone number with Mrs. Edwards and she gave them Gene Edwards phone
number. Ramon Ramos was never called for work with Respondent.

51 Ibid. GC Exh. 34.
52 Ibid.
53 Tr. 365.
JD(SF)–45–14
20
Both Gene and Connie Edwards admitted that the union applicants appeared at
Respondent’s office wearing union t-shirts, and that Connie Edwards asked who was sending
them there. She admitted saying that she did not think union members could work for a
nonunion shop. She denied saying Respondent did not hire union painters or that Respondent 5
would never go union. I do not credit Connie Edwards’ testimony. It is inconsistent with the
three union applicant’s testimony and inconsistent with Gene Edwards own admission that he
was not going to hire union plants. I credit the testimony of Gustavo Garcia, Roben White, and
Roman Ramos whose testimony was detailed and consistent.
10
While Respondent claims it does not hire applicants who come to its office, Connie
Edwards nevertheless admits to have left the contact information of the union applicants on the
refrigerator in her home and to have told Gene Edwards it was there. Moreover, Oldham said he
was told to go to Respondent’s office to fill out an application.
15
At the hearing, Gene Edwards admitted that he knew union applicants came to his office
to apply for work and that the Union was trying to get him to hire union members as plants.
Further, in his Board affidavit he admitted he had decided he was not going to hire union plants
to work for him.54 Despite that admission, Gene Edwards testified that Respondent did not hire
applicants who applied for work at its office, Respondent was not hiring, and Respondent was 20
not hiring employees without painting experience. Yet he admitted he knew nothing of the
applicants’ skill levels at the time when they applied.
Despite Gene Edwards’ claim that Respondent was not hiring employees who had no
painting experience, Oldham testified that about half of the painters who worked with him while 25
he was employed by Respondent had no painting experience. Gene and Grant Edwards both
admitted that Respondent hired employees with no painting experience.
While Gene Edwards’ claimed that Respondent was not hiring at the time the union
applicants applied for work, Respondent’s payroll records55 show that Respondent hired about 30
two to seven painters in August, after the four union applicants tried to get jobs with Respondent.
Among those hired were three of Respondent’s lowest paid employees, Boris Borrayo, Ernesto
Gonzalez, and Jesus Mendoza.56 Grant Edwards admitted that Borrayo and Mendoza had little or
no painting experience before they started working for Respondent, and Gene Edwards claimed
not to know whether Gonzalez had painting experience. 35

7. August Alteration of Respondent’s employee information forms to include an inquiry
concerning union affiliation
Around the time when the four union applicants came to Respondent’s office, Connie 40
Edwards changed Respondent’s employee information form that new employees had to
complete, to include a question about union affiliation. Gene Edwards admitted one employee,
Terrence Dowd, filled out the altered form around August 30 before discontinuing its use and

54 Tr. 441.
55 GC Exh. 34.
56 Supra. Exhs. 32–33.
JD(SF)–45–14
21
admitted destroying Dowd’s employee information form after receiving General Counsel’s
subpoena calling for its production.
B. THE ANALYSIS
1. The 8(a)(1) allegations
5
Paragraphs 5 through 17 of the complaint allege a great number of violations of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. These violations include multiple interrogations, telling employees not to stir
up union issues or trouble, telling employees Respondent is not and never would be a union
shop, threatening employees with discharge for engaging in union activities, ordering off-duty
employees who supported the Union off Respondent’s property, promising wage increases and 10
continued work to discourage union activities, threats to call the police and calling the police in
retaliation for engaging in union activity, and threatening employees with drug screening for
engaging in protected, concerted activity. For ease of review and analysis I will discuss each
allegation of the complaint seriatim.
a. Complaint paragraph 5 alleges Respondent’s various agents and supervisors interrogated 15
its employees
Interrogation of an employee about their union activities is unlawful where it would
reasonably tend to interfere with, restrain, or coerce the employee in the exercise of protected
activities. Emery Worldwide, 309 NLRB 185, 186 (1992); Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176, 20
1177–1178 (1984). The Board considers various circumstances surrounding the alleged
interrogation, including the background, the nature of information sought, identity of the
questioner, the place and method of the interrogation, and whether the interrogation is
accompanied by threats or promises. Medcare Associates, Inc., 330 NLRB 935, 939 (2000);
Hoffman Fuel Co., 309 NLRB 327, 327 (1992); Rossmore House, 269 NLRB at 1177–1178.25
The Board applies an objective test in determining if Section 8(a)(1)of the Act has been
violated. Intent is not at issue. Rather the Board considers if the alleged conduct would
reasonably tend to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act. Multi-Ad
Services, 331 NLRB 1226, 1227–1228 (2000); American Freightways Co., 124 NLRB 146, 147 30
(1959).
i. Complaint paragraph 5(a)(i)-(v) alleges that Grant Edwards interrogated employees on
June 7, 13, July 11, 12, and 30 at various projects
35
About June 7, when Oldham spoke to Grant Edwards about hiring McMinn, Grant
Edwards asked Oldham if McMinn was union. On June 13, when McMinn first met Grant
Edwards at the jobsite, Edwards questioned him about his union affiliation. On July 11, after
learning of the union meeting Oldham and McMinn had planned, Grant Edwards repeatedly
asked them about their union activities and affiliation. On July 8 and 12, when Prinslow was 40
interviewed, Grant Edwards told him he wanted to make sure he was not a union member. Grant
Edwards interrogated painter Shane Rohde when he began working for Respondent in the
summer 2013 about his union affiliation. On July 30, Grant Edwards asked Prinslow about his
union activities and affiliation.
45
JD(SF)–45–14
22
Each of these allegations constitute a coercive interrogation in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. The interrogations were conducted by a high official of Respondent and
accompanied by statements that Respondent would never go union and that employees could not
work for Respondent if they were union. I find that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act as alleged in complaint paragraph 5(a)(i)-(v).5
ii. Complaint paragraph 5(b) alleges that Bob Edwards interrogated employees on August 5 at
the Hollyfield project
On about August 5, right after Oldham and McMinn began openly displaying their union10
support, Bob Edwards questioned them about their wearing union t-shirts and asked if they were
union “moles.”
I find that this statement was a coercive interrogation asking essentially if Oldham and
McMinn were engaged in union activity. While it was obvious from their t-shirts that they were 15
open union supporters, the additional question about being “union moles” suggests that Edwards
was seeking additional information about their union activities beyond whether they were mere
supporters of the Union. I find that this question violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in
complaint paragraph 5(b).
20
iii. Complaint paragraph 5(c) alleges that Gene Edwards interrogated employees on august 30 at
respondent’s office
About August 30, while Oldham was showing Gene Edwards the union petition, Gene
Edwards asked painter McNatt if he signed the union petition. 25
When the owner of a company asks about an employee’s union affiliation and activity,
there can be little doubt of its coercive effect on their Section 7 activity. As such Gene Edwards'
interrogation of McNatt violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged.
30
iv. Complaint paragraph 5(d) alleges that in august respondent added a question concerning
union affiliation to an employee application form
The record reflects that in August 2013 Respondent added a question about union
affiliation to its employee information form. While the form existed for only a short time with 35
the question about union affiliation, it appears that at least one job applicant filled out the form.
Asking a potential employee about union affiliation, as a condition of employment,
would reasonably coerce a job applicant, implying that Respondent did not intend to hire or
employ union members. The Respondent’s form was filled out by at least one potential 40
employee interfering with the employee’s Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act as alleged.
JD(SF)–45–14
23
b. Complaint paragraph 6 alleges that on about July 8 grant Edwards told its employees that it
does not want the people it hires to stir up union stuff
An employer’s direction that an employee should not to engage in union activities tends
to interfere with employee rights to engage in such activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the 5
Act. Penn Tank Lines, Inc., 336 NLRB 1066, 1068 (2001); We Can, Inc., 315 NLRB 170, 181
(1994). Statements that employees should not start or cause trouble, in the context of the
employees engaging in union or protected concerted activities, are likewise unlawful. Sam’s
Club, 322 NLRB 8, 14–15 (1996), enfd. 141 F.3d 653 (6th Cir. 1998).
10
On July 8, Grant Edwards told Prinslow he wanted to make sure no one he hired would
bring up anything that had to do with the Union. Such a statement is clearly a direction not to
engage in union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
c. Complaint paragraph 7(a) and (b) alleges that Respondent’s agents and supervisors told its
employees that it is not a union shop and will never be a union shop15
Employer statements to the effect that the employer will never be a union shop are
unlawful because they would reasonably give employees the impression that it would be futile
for them to support the Union, thus interfering with, restraining, and coercing them in the
exercise of their right to select a union to represent them, in violation of Section 8(a)(1). Venture 20
Industries 330 NLRB 1133, 1133 (2000); Wellstream Corp., 313 NLRB 698, 706 (1994);
Bestway Trucking, 310 NLRB 651, 671 (1993); Maxi City Deli, 282 NLRB 742, 745 (1987).
i. Complaint paragraph 7(a)(i)-(ii) allege that on July 8 and 11 Grant Edwards told its employees
that it is not a union shop and will never be a union shop25
Also on July 8, Grant Edwards told Prinslow that Respondent would never be a union
shop. On July 11, Grant Edwards told Oldham and McMinn that Respondent would never be a
union shop. On July 30, when he fired Prinslow, Grant Edwards told him Respondent would
never be a union shop. On August 2, when the Union picketed with a banner at Respondent’s 30
home-office, Gene Edwards told Oldham and McMinn Respondent would never be a union
shop.57
Each of these statements gave the impression to its employees that it would be futile to
select the Union and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 35
ii. Complaint paragraph 7(b)(i)-(ii) allege that on August 8 and 9 Connie Edwards told its
employees that it is not a union shop and will never be a union shop
On August 8 and 9, when four applicants came to Respondent’s home office to apply for 40
jobs, Connie Edwards told them Respondent would never be a union shop. Similarly on

57 While the latter two allegations were not alleged in the complaint they were fully litigated and
closely related to the allegations contained in par. 7(a). I will consider these additional de facto
amendments. Pergament United Sales, 296 NLRB 333, 334 (1989).
JD(SF)–45–14
24
September 14, at the time Oldham and McMinn were distributing union flyers at Respondent’s
home office, Connie Edwards told them Respondent would never be a union shop.58
Connie Edwards repeated statement to employees and potential employees that it would
never be a union shop communicated to employees that it would be futile for them to support the 5
Union and therefore violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
d. Complaint paragraph 8 and 9 allege that on July 11 and August 2 Grant Edwards threatened
employees with discharge if they attended a union meeting and because of their union
membership10
Employer threats of job loss for engaging in union activity coerce employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Station Casinos, Inc.,
358 NLRB No. 77, slip op. at 11–12 (2012). If an employer implies job loss caused by a third
party, the Board will find this to be unlawful where the employer had no objective factual basis 15
for making such a statement. NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 617–619 (1969);
Hoffman Security, Ltd., 315 NLRB 275, 277–278 (1994); Blaser Tool & Mold Co., 196 NLRB
374, 374 (1972).
On about July 11, Grant Edwards told Oldham and McMinn that if they signed a union20
petition, they could not work for Respondent, because the Union would not allow it. Grant
Edwards claimed his statement was only a statement about the union’s rules. However, since it
misrepresented the Union’s rules about members working for nonunion contractors it was not a
statement of any rule but a threat to union supporters they could not work for Respondent. The
statement violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.25
About August 2, picketers located at the curb near the driveway to Respondent’s home
office held a three by eight foot union banner that displayed the Local 10 logo. Oldham and
McMinn went to speak with the protesters and put on union t-shirts. Oldham and McMinn then
went back up the driveway and began speaking with Respondent’s employees. Grant Edwards 30
told Oldham and McMinn so it looks like you guys are done. Oldham said that they were not
done and that they were there to organize. Grant Edwards said that they could not work for
Respondent if they were union because the Union would not let them. Grant Edwards told
Oldham and McMinn they couldn’t work here if you’re union. Grant Edwards’ statement was
made in the presence of other employees and in the context of Oldham and McMinn’s union 35
activity. This statement, coming immediately upon learning of their union activity, in the
context of statements that they could not work for Respondent because they were union,
amounted to a threat of job loss in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

58 While complaint par. 7(b) alleges only that Connie Edwards told employees that Respondent would
never be a union shop on August 8 and 9, the same statement made on September 14 is alleged to be
violative of Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act in General Counsel’s brief. Since this matter is closely related to the
other allegations in the complaint and was fully litigated at the hearing, I will consider the complaint may
support this additional allegation. Permanent United Sales, supra; Eisner Electric, Inc., 316 NLRB 597
(1995).
JD(SF)–45–14
25
e. Complaint paragraph 10(a) alleges that on August 2 Connie, Gene and Grant Edwards
ordered off-duty employees who supported the union to leave its property while permitting other
off duty employees to remain
The Board has held that an employer who denies off-duty employees access to non-5
working areas of its property, absent a legitimate business justification, violates section 8(a)(1)
of the Act. Sodexo America LLC, 358 NLRB No. 79, slip op. at 1–2 2012); Tri-County Med.
Ctr., 222 NLRB 1089, 1089 (1976). Santa Fe Hotel, Inc., 331 NLRB 723, 723 (2000);
Automotive Plastic Technologies, 313 NLRB 462, 463 (1993). The Board has long held that
employees have a right to distribute union literature on an employer’s premises during 10
nonworking time in nonworking areas. NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox, 351 U.S. 105, 110–111
(1956); Republican Aviation Co. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 803–804 (1945). Further, an
employer’s threats to call the police or calls to the police in response to employees’ protected
activities on its property violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Winkle Bus Co., 347 NLRB 1203,
1219 (2006).15
On August 2, when the Union picketed with a banner at Respondent’s home office,
Oldham and McMinn wore union t-shirts and talked to employees about the Union. In response,
Gene, Connie, and Grant Edwards told Oldham and McMinn to leave but allowed other
employees to remain. While Respondent contends that Oldham and McMinn were asked to 20
leave because they were blocking the driveway or because they had remained on the property too
long, there is no evidence that Oldham or McMinn blocked the driveway or that they had stayed
longer on the property than on any other occasion when they got their paychecks.
Respondent has consented to its employees’ presence on its property after working hours 25
to deliver their timesheets and to pick up paychecks. The record reflects further that it has been
common for employees to remain on Respondent’s property for from 10 to 45 minutes while
doing so. Respondent’s removal of Oldham and McMinn was for the purpose of limiting their
right to engage in Section 7 activity, including speaking with other employees about the Union.
Such discriminatory conduct in limiting off-duty employees’ access to its property for engaging 30
in Section 7 activity violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
f. Complaint paragraph 10(b)(i)-(iii)
The complaint paragraphs allege that on August 5 Bob Edwards told employees there 35
could be no trouble, threatened that employees would be laid off if they signed a petition
supporting the union or voted for the union and told employees that Respondent would never go
union.
As noted above, an employer may not tell its employees not to engage in union activities 40
without running afoul of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Penn Tank Lines, Inc., 336 NLRB 1066,
1068 (2001); We Can, Inc., 315 NLRB 170, 181 (1994).
Moreover, an employer who threatens job loss for engaging in union or other protected
activity violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Station Casinos, Inc., 358 NLRB No. 77, slip op. at 45
11–12 (2012). This rule applies even if a respondent attributes job loss to a third party if the
statement has no basis in fact. NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 617-619 (1969);
Hoffman Security, Ltd., 315 NLRB 275, 277–278 (1994); Blaser Tool & Mold Co., 196 NLRB
JD(SF)–45–14
26
374, 374 (1972). Statements that an employer will never be a union shop are likewise unlawful
Venture Industries, 330 NLRB 1133, 1133 (2000); Wellstream Corp., 313 NLRB 698, 706
(1994); Bestway Trucking, 310 NLRB 651, 671 (1993); Maxi City Deli, 282 NLRB 742, 745
(1987).
5
On about August 5, Bob Edwards told Oldham and McMinn that he wanted to have them
on the project but that they could not have any trouble, that employees who signed the Union’s
petition would be laid off in the winter, and that he knew Gene Edwards would never go union.
Each of these statements violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Telling employees that he wanted
no trouble was simply a buzz word for no union activity. As noted above telling employees that 10
a company will never go union is unlawful as is threatening layoff for engaging in union activity.
g. Complaint paragraph 11 alleges that on August 8 and 9 Connie Edwards told job applicants
that Respondent does not hire union painters
As already note above, when an employer makes threats of job loss or other negative 15
consequences for being affiliated with a union or engaging in activities in support of a union,
they coerce employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Station Casinos, Inc., 358
NLRB No. 77, supra. This applies even when an employer attributes such consequences to a
third party without factual basis. NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 617–-619 (1969);
Hoffman Security, Ltd., 315 NLRB 275, 277278 (1994); Blaser Tool & Mold Co., 196 NLRB 20
374, 374 (1972).
On August 8 and 9, when the four union applicants came to Respondent’s office to apply
for work, Connie Edwards told them Respondent did not hire union painters. While Connie
Edwards contended that her statement was only a statement concerning the Union’s rules, her 25
statement misrepresented the Union’s rules. Accordingly they amounted to telling employees
that Respondent did not hire painters who were members of the Union and violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
h. Complaint paragraphs 12 and 13 allege that on August 9 and in mid-August Gene Edwards
promised employees wage increases if they refrained from engaging in union activity30
The Board has held that when an employer promises benefits in the context of a union
organizing campaign the effect is to influence employees to relinquish their support for the union
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act absent evidence that it had a legitimate reason for the
promise. NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 408 (1964); Dyncorp, 343 NLRB 1197, 35
1198 (2004), affd. 233 Fed. Appx. 419 (6th Cir. 2007).
On August 9, Gene Edwards gave Oldham and McMinn a wage increase and he told
them that he did not want trouble on his jobs. Edwards added that if they kept it up, they would
get another raise. In mid-August, Grant Edwards told Oldham that if he and McMinn stopped 40
their organizing activities, they would have work through the winter.
Gene Edwards linked pay increases to no trouble on the job, merely a buzz word for no
union activity. He further linked additional pay raises to no more union conduct. Grant
Edwards’ promise of future work was likewise contingent upon no further union activity. These 45
JD(SF)–45–14
27
statements by both Gene and Grant Edwards were therefore coercive and unlawful violations of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
i. Complaint paragraph 15(a)-(d)
These complaint paragraphs allege that Gene Edwards from early September to October 5
18 threatened employees with discharge if they signed a petition supporting the Union,
threatened to call and called the police because employees were distributing union literature to
employees picking up paychecks and told its employees they would be subject to random drug
tests because they concertedly complained about employees using drugs on the job.
10
Employer threats of job loss for engaging in union activities violates Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. Station Casinos, Inc., 358 NLRB No. 77 slip op. at 11–12 (2012).
The Board has long held that an employer who denies off-duty employees access to
nonworking areas of its property, absent a legitimate business justification violates Section 15
8(a)(1) of the Act. Sodexo America LLC, 358 NLRB No. 79, slip op. at 1–2 (, 2012); Tri-County
Medical Center, 222 NLRB 1089, 1089 (1976). When an employer has a business justification
for denying access to nonworking areas, such a restriction cannot be based on Section 7 activity.
Santa Fe Hotel, Inc., 331 NLRB 723, 723 (2000); Automotive Plastic Technologies, 313 NLRB
462, 463 (1993). Moreover, it has long been established that employees have a right to distribute 20
union literature on their employer’s premises during nonworking time in nonworking areas.
NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox, 351 U.S. 105, 110–111 (1956); Republican Aviation Co. v. NLRB,
324 U.S. 793, 803–804 (1945).
An employer who threatens to call or calls the police in response to employees’ lawful 25
union activities on its property violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Winkle Bus Co., 347 NLRB
1203, 1219 (2006).
Finally, the Board has held that employee drug use issues, safety, and drug testing
practices are terms and conditions of employment, and concerted employee complaints about 30
such subjects are protected under Section 7 of the Act. Trompler, Inc., 335 NLRB 478, 479–480
(2001), enfd. 338 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2003); Talsol Corp., 317 NLRB 290, 316–317 (1995);
Motorola, Inc., 305 NLRB 580 fn.1 (1991), enf. denied in part on other grounds 991 F.2d 278
(5th Cir. 1993); Johnson-Bateman Co, 295 NLRB 180, 182–-184 (1989). It is a violation of
Section 8(a)(1)of the Act for an employer to threaten drug testing of employees for engaging in 35
protected activities. Pacific Custom Materials, 327 NLRB 75, –-81 (1998); Eldeco, Inc., 321
NLRB 857, 867 (1996).
On August 30, Gene Edwards while reviewing the employee petition stated which of the
individual petition signers he was going to let go. Edwards’ statements were a threat that the 40
various petition signers were going to be laid off for signing the petition in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
On September 14 while Oldham and McMinn were distributing union literature at
Respondent’s home office, Gene Edwards told them to leave, threatened to call and then called 45
the police to remove them. Respondent contends that it was required to call the police because
Oldham had caused an altercation among its employees. However, the record is devoid of
JD(SF)–45–14
28
evidence that Oldham or McMinn did more than engage in peaceful handbilling. While another
painter became hostile in reaction to Oldham’s protected activity, there is no evidence that
Oldham and McMinn engaged in similar conduct. Moreover, it is undisputed that the painting
employee’s’ confrontation with Oldham and McMinn had ended by the time Gene Edwards
threatened to call and called the police.5
Respondent makes much of the fact that Oldham and McMinn engaged in union activities
at Gene and Connie Edwards’ home. However, Respondent has invited its employees onto its
property during nonworking hours in a nonworking place to submit timecards and to receive
their paychecks. Respondent cannot justify a discriminatory denial of access to its property to 10
employees who choose to engage in union activities. Respondent’s attempts to remove Oldham
and McMinn from its property while they were engaged in union activities was discriminatory
and, therefore, violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Sodexo America LLC, 358 NLRB No. 79,
slip op. at 1–2; Santa Fe Hotel, Inc., 331 NLRB at 723; Automotive Plastic Technologies, 313
NLRB at 463; Tri-County Medical Center, 222 NLRB at 1089.15
On about October 11, as a result of Carter, Oldham, and McMinn’s concerted complaint
about the safety of painter McNatt using drugs on the job, Gene Edwards told Oldham and
McMinn that they looked like drug users and that he was going to test them under Respondent’s
random drug testing policy. It is admitted that Respondent has never had a random drug testing 20
policy nor has it ever randomly drug tested any employee. Clearly, Edwards’ statement that he
was going to drug test Oldham and McMinn was not as the result of any policy of Respondent’s
but rather in retaliation for their protected, concerted complaint. It was therefore coercive and
unlawful and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act..
j. Complaint paragraph 17 alleges that on September 29 Gene Edwards told its employees 25
they were not to cause any problems, start any trouble, or hand out any union literature while on
the jobsite
An employer’s express or explicit admonishment to an employee not to engage in union
activities tends to interfere with employee rights to engage in such activities in violation of 30
Section 8(a)(1). Penn Tank Lines, Inc., 336 NLRB 1066, 1068 (2001); We Can, Inc., 315 NLRB
170, 181 (1994). Thus, instructions to employees not to start or cause trouble, in reference to or
in response to their engaging in union or protected concerted activities, are unlawful. Sam’s
Club, 322 NLRB 8, 14–15 (1996), enfd. 141 F.3d 653 (6th Cir. 1998).
35
On about September 29, after Respondent removed Oldham and McMinn from a jobsite
after they wore t-shirts protesting Respondent’s violation of Federal law, Gene Edwards told
Oldham that he did not want any problems from him and McMinn and that they should not hand
out flyers. This statement amounted to a threat to Oldham and McMinn not to engage in union
activities and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.40
2. The 8(a)(3) and (1) allegations
In order to establish a violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, the General Counsel
must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee was engaged in 45
protected activity, that the employer had knowledge of that activity, and that the employer’s
JD(SF)–45–14
29
hostility to that activity “contributed to” its decision to take an adverse action against the
employee. Director, Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267,
278 (1994); Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083, 1089 (1980), enfd. on other grounds 662 F.2d 899
(1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982).
5
Once the General Counsel has established that the employee’s protected activity was a
motivating factor in the employer’s decision, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it
would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protected activity. Wright Line,
supra. The employer has the burden of establishing that affirmative defense. Id.
10
Discriminatory motive may be established in several ways including through statements
of animus directed to the employee or about the employee’s protected activities, Austal USA,
LLC, 356 NLRB No. 65, slip op. at p. 1 ( 2010); the timing between discovery of the employee’s
protected activities and the discipline, Traction Wholesale Center Co. v. NLRB, 216 F.3d 92, 99
(D.C. Cir. 2000); the existence of other unfair labor practices that demonstrate that the 15
employer’s animus has led to unlawful actions, Mid-Mountain Foods, 332 NLRB 251, 251 fn. 2
(2000); evidence that the employer’s asserted reason for the employee’s discipline was
pretextual, such as disparate treatment of the employee, shifting explanations provided for the
adverse action, failure to investigate whether the employee engaged in the alleged misconduct,
or providing a nondiscriminatory explanation that defies logic or is clearly baseless, Lucky Cab 20
Co., 360 NLRB No. 43 (2014); ManorCare Health Services – Easton, 356 NLRB No. 39, slip
op. at 3 (2010); Greco & Haines, Inc., 306 NLRB 634, 634 (1992); Wright Line, 251 NLRB at
1088 fn.12, citing Shattuck Denn Mining Co. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 1966);
Cincinnati Truck Center, 315 NLRB 554, 556–557 (1994), enfd. sub nom. NLRB v. Transmart,
Inc., 117 F.3d 1421 (6th Cir. 1997)).25
a. Complaint paragraphs 18(a) and (h) allege that on July 30 Respondent discharged employee
Craig Prinslow and in October failed to assign Prinslow work
It is undisputed that Prinslow engaged in union activities, including signing the Union’s
petition and wearing a union t-shirt and sticker on the job. It is likewise undisputed that30
Respondent was aware of those activities. Respondent’s plethora of threats, directives to refrain
from engaging in union activity and interrogations in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
establish Respondent’s animus toward its employees’ union activities.
Grant Edwards had interrogated Prinslow at the time of his hire about his union affiliation 35
to ensure he was not union and he assured Prinslow that Respondent would never be a union
company. On the day Edwards discharged Prinslow, he asked what Prinslow was doing with the
union t-shirt and sticker. Edwards asked Prinslow if he had signed up with the Union and
Prinslow admitted he had. After asking Prinslow if he had talked about the Union to
Respondent’s employees and Prinslow said that he had, it was only then that Edwards fired 40
Prinslow, saying it was a good thing the job was winding down and that he had to let Prinslow
go.
Respondent contends that it did not fire Prinslow, but rather Prinslow quit. In this regard
Grant Edward’s testimony and Respondent’s defense resemble an episode of the “Keystone 45
Kops.” Edwards first stated that he told Prinslow that the job he was working on was slowing
JD(SF)–45–14
30
down and that he would have to let him go.59 Then, in Respondent’s case, Edwards said that he
was thinking of discharging Prinslow for slow work performance, but that Prinslow quit.60
Finally a third version was given on cross-examination that he may have told Prinslow he had
to let him go and that he told him he was looking for a way to lay him off so he could collect
unemployment.61 5
As to Respondent’s contention that work was slowing down, when Prinslow was
terminated on July 30, three other employees were doing similar work, yet none of those
employees were discharged. The Four Square project was not winding down at the time and
continued until at least October.62 Respondent had substantial work for months after July 30, and 10
hired seven to nine new employees the month following Prinslow’s discharge.63
As to Prinslow’s poor work performance, there is no evidence of this other than Grant
Edwards' vague and discredited testimony.
15
The pretextual nature of Respondent’s defenses not only establishes Respondent’s
hostility toward Prinslow’s union activities but also defeats any attempt by Respondent to meet
its burden of establishing that it would have discharged Prinslow and refused to rehire him even
in the absence of his protected activities. Prinslow’s credited testimony was unrebutted that while
he had a job offer he accepted for July 31, he would have continued to work for Respondent if 20
they had met the wage offer of his new employer. However, Respondent never gave Prinslow
such an opportunity as it fired him once it discovered he was actively involved with the Union.
Thus General Counsel has established that Respondent fired Prinslow and refused to consider
him for rehire in October in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
25
b. Complaint paragraph 18(b) alleges that on August 2, 9, and 29 Respondent granted its
employees wage increases
An employer who grants employees wage increases during a union organizing campaign
violates Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, absent a persuasive business justification for the timing of the 30
increase other than the union campaign. Latino Express, Inc., 358 NLRB No. 94, slip op. at 1
(2012); Register Guard, 344 NLRB 1142, 1142 (2005). It is undisputed that Respondent granted
wage increases to a number of employees, including Oldham and McMinn, in August, at the
peak of the Union’s organizing campaign.
35
On August 2, the date of the first wage increase, Oldham and McMinn disclosed their
support for the Union’s organizing efforts by joining the pickets who were displaying a prounion
banner at Respondent’s office and by wearing union t-shirts when they picked up their paychecks
at Respondent’s office. Respondent handwrote the wage increases onto Oldham and McMinn’s
extant paychecks leading to the inference that Respondent had not planned to grant the wage 40
increases before seeing Oldham and McMinn’s union activity. At the same time Gene Edwards

59 Tr. at 614.
60 Ibid at 823–824.
61 Tr. at 859–861.
62 GC Exh. 22.
63 Ibid. GC Exhs. 31 and 34.
JD(SF)–45–14
31
promised Oldham and McMinn that they would get more raises if they did not cause trouble, a
buzz word that implied that Oldham and McMinn would receive further wage increases if they
abandoned their union activities. Gene Edwards’ claim that he gave wage increases at that time
of year are unsupported by any records or testimony other than Edward’s discredited testimony.
The claim is rejected. The timing of the wage increases alone is grounds for an inference that 5
Respondent’s motivation for granting them was an unlawful violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
c. Complaint paragraphs 18(c) and (e) allege that on August 30 and October 18 Respondent
discharged its employee Sean Carter10
Carter engaged in activity protected by Section 7 of the Act including signing the Union’s
petition and wearing a union t-shirt at work. It is undisputed that Respondent knew of Carter’s
union activities. Gene Edwards admitted he assumed Carter was a union supporter. While Gene
Edwards denied looking at the petition Oldham showed him on August 30, I find this implausible 15
as the credited testimony reflects that Edwards went down the petition and listed who would be
fired. Carter’s name appeared on the list.
As noted above there is a plethora of Respondent’s display of animus toward its
employees’ union activities. The timing of Carter’s initial termination by Grant Edwards on 20
August 30, came after Grant Edwards had learned of Carter’s support for the Union, including
his signing the union petition. This timing suggests that hostility toward Carter’s union activities
was a factor in his discharge. Only after Oldham and McMinn protested that Respondent had
fired Carter for engaging in union activities did Gene Edwards decide to reverse his son’s
decision and rehire Carter, further demonstrating a causal connection between Carter’s union 25
activities and his termination.
Respondent contends that Gene Edwards did not know Grant Edwards had fired Carter
yet Grant Edwards admitted he told Gene Edwards he had discharged Sean Carter for
performance problems earlier in the day on August 30. Unbelievably, Respondent contended 30
that Carter simply continued coming to work after his discharge without authorization. So,
Respondent simply allowed Carter to keep working. I find this preposterous explanation is
nothing more than a later day pretext to cover up the true nature of Respondent’s reason for
firing Carter, his union activity. This pretext undermines any attempt by Respondent to meet its
burden of establishing that it would have discharged Carter on August 30 even in the absence of 35
his protected activities.
Carter continued working for Respondent until about October 18. On October 11, Carter
engaged in additional protected, concerted activities. Together with Oldham and McMinn,
Carter complained to Respondent about painter McNatt using drugs on the job. They also 40
complained to Respondent about McNatts’ threats of violence and death to Carter for making the
complaint. Respondent was aware of Carter’s protected activity, since he told Respondent of the
complaints. Respondent’s animus toward its employees’ protected activities has been well
documented above. Respondent’s statement that these issues were of no concern to Oldham,
McMinn nor Carter together with its threats to drug test Oldham and McMinn in response to 45
their protected-concerted complaint, tends to show that the complaint was a contributing factor in
Carter’s discharge.
JD(SF)–45–14
32
Respondent claims that Carter was fired on October 18 since he was the worst employee
it had ever employed. Respondent claims that from the outset of his employment on June 23, he
had abysmal attendance, consistently refused to work at his assigned jobsites, and had extremely
slow production, however Respondent produced no documents to support of any of these 5
assertions. Moreover, I have previously noted my reasons for not crediting either Gene or Grant
Edwards’ testimony. Any claim that Respondent terminated Carter on October 18 due to lack of
work is belied by Respondent’s payroll records that show Respondent had a heavy workload and
hired or rehired employees around the time of Carter’s October 18 discharge.
10
Given the absence of documentary or credited testimonial evidence to support
Respondent’s defenses that it fired Carter for his alleged egregious work performance, I must
conclude that the reason Carter was terminated was not his poor work performance but rather his
Section 7 activity, the final Section 7 straw that broke the camel’s back for Gene Edwards. Alco
Electric Co., , 258 NLRB 819 (1981). Tres Estrellas de Oro, 329 NLRB 50, 58 (1999); PVM I 15
Associates, Inc., 328 NLRB 1141, 1152–1153 (1999).
d. Complaint paragraphs 18(d), 18(f) and (h) allege that in September and October Respondent
transferred its employees Oldham and McMinn from jobsite to jobsite to isolate them from other
employees and failed to assign them work
20
In Montgomery Ward, 290 NLRB 981, 981–982 (1988), the Board held that employer
isolation of union supporters from other employees is unlawful.
By August 2, Respondent was aware that Oldham and McMinn were actively engaged in
the union’s organizing campaign. After wearing prounion t-shirts on the Four Square jobsite on 25
September 24, Oldham and McMinn were removed from that jobsite and sent to a jobsite where
Respondent knew they would be unable to work because of heavy rain. From that time, Oldham
and McMinn were isolated from other employees and were assigned about half the work they
had been assigned previously. Respondent admits that it isolated Oldham and McMinn from
other employees by assigning them work where no other employees were working. Since 30
Respondent did not have many small jobs, this assignment resulted in fewer hours for Oldham
and McMinn. Respondent contends that it took this action to prevent them from blaming others
for their “sabotage” of property on which they were working.
That Respondent harbored animus toward Oldham and McMinn’s union activities, is 35
amply described above. Moreover, the timing of their removal from the Four Square jobsite and
the drop in their work assignments coincided with their protected activity in wearing t-shirts
protesting Respondent’s violation of federal labor law. Given Respondent’s prior admonitions
not to engage in union activity while on its jobsites, I will draw an adverse inference that
Respondent’s reason for removing Oldham and McMinn from the Four Square jobsite was 40
motivated by their protected, concerted activity. International Automated Machines, 285 NLRB
1122, 1123 (1987), enfd. 861 F.2d 720 (6th Cir. 1988).
In addition Respondent’s defense for removing Oldham and McMinn from the Four
Square job and assigning them to isolated jobs when available is no more than pretext. There is 45
no record evidence that Oldham or McMinn ever blamed any other employee for damaging
property. Moreover, I have found that there is no credible evidence that either Oldham or
JD(SF)–45–14
33
McMinn engaged in any acts of sabotage while working for Respondent. The pretextual nature
of Respondent’s defenses both shows its hostility toward Oldham and McMinn’s their protected
activities and precludes Respondent from establishing that it would have taken the same actions
even in the absence of those activities.
5
e. Complaint paragraphs 18(i) and (j) allege that in November Respondent discharged its
employees Oldham and McMinn
The evidence clearly establishes that both Oldham and McMinn were engaged in union
and other protected, concerted activities as is Respondent’s knowledge of and animus toward 10
those activities. The nexus between their protected activity and their discharge has likewise been
established.
On November 13, Respondent removed Oldham and McMinn from the Terwilliger job
and failed to assign them any further work after representatives of Terwilliger Plaza asked that 15
they leave its property because they posted flyers on bulletin boards that commented on the cost
of parking for Terwilliger employees and advised of the option of contacting a union.
There is no doubt that Respondent was aware that Oldham and McMinn were engaged in
union activity long before the incident at Terwilliger Plaza. Nor is there any dispute that 20
Respondent knew they were engaged in protected activity in putting up the posters advising
Terwilliger employees of their right to contact a union over benefit issues. Gene Edwards’
decision to discharge Oldham and McMinn after their removal from the Terwilliger Plaza project
was, at least in part, motivated by the content of their message to Terwilliger Plaza’s employees.
Gene Edwards’ statement at the unemployment hearing that “You can’t just come up there and 25
post on their bulletin boards anything you want, any type of obscenity or whatever, if you don’t
have a right to”64 reflects that Edwards believed Oldham and McMinn had no right to appeal to
Terwilliger Plaza employees concerning their terms and conditions of employment and was
therefore a legitimate basis for their discharge. Indeed, there was no record evidence that
Terwilliger Plaza prohibited a general posting of information on its bulletin boards.30
While initially denying that Respondent had terminated Oldham and McMinn, claiming
rather that it had no work for them, Gene Edwards admitted that Oldham and McMinn are no
longer employed by Respondent. He stated in the unemployment hearing that posting on the
Terwilliger Plaza bulletin boards “was the end of their career.” 35
By way of further defense, Respondent contends that Oldham and McMinn were
terminated because they sabotaged work. The evidence reflects that Oldham and McMinn
credibly testified that walls they painted at the Art House project were the wrong shade of white.
They also admitted that there were problems with doors Oldham painted at the Cannery project. 40
The problems were both reported immediately to either Gene or Grant Edwards. There is no
evidence that either Oldham or McMinn tried to hide the problems or blame anyone else for the
wall color or the paint texture on the doors. While these incidents occurred over a month before
Oldham’s and McMinn’s discharge, Oldham and McMinn were never disciplined for either
incident. Indeed, Grant Edwards absolved them of responsibility for the color of the paint on the 45
walls, blaming instead the paint supplier. Despite Gene Edwards claim that the doors at the

64 Tr. 425–426.
JD(SF)–45–14
34
Cannery project were intentionally sabotaged by Oldham and amounted to criminal conduct, he
never disciplined Oldham nor did he file a police report. I conclude that Respondent’s claims of
sabotage are pretext. Edward G. Budd Mfg. Co., 138 F.2d at 90–91; Tres Estrellas de Oro, 329
NLRB at 58; PVM I Associates, Inc., 328 NLRB at 1152–1153; Alco Electric Co., 258 NLRB at
822.5
Because Respondent again can point to nothing other than pretext to support its discharge
of Oldham and McMinn, it cannot meet its burden of establishing that it would have discharged
them even in the absence of their protected activities. I conclude that both Oldham and McMinn
were terminated by Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.10
f. Complaint paragraph 18(k) alleges that since January 2014 Respondent has opposed
McMinn’s receipt of unemployment benefits
In Grand Central Partnership, 327 NLRB 966, 966 (1999), the Board found that a 15
respondent violated the Act by opposing an employee’s unemployment application in retaliation
for the employee filing unfair labor practice charges and participating in a Board hearing.
Respondent added insult to injury after discharging McMinn by opposing his
unemployment claim with the State of Oregon. In the State unemployment hearing Gene20
Edwards raised the pretextual defenses claimed herein. Gene Edwards argued that McMinn was
removed from the Terwilliger Plaza project stating, “You can’t just come up there and post on
their bulletin boards anything you want, any type of obscenity or whatever, if you don’t have a
right to.” Edwards also alleged McMinn had sabotaged work at the Cannery project and the Art
House projects. Respondent’s contest of McMinn’s unemployment claim was an extension of its 25
previous discrimination based on McMinn’s union and other protected, concerted activity and
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
g. Complaint paragraph 19 alleges that on August 8 and 9 Respondent refused to consider for
hire Arturo Ramos, Gustavo Garcia, Roben White, and Roman Ramos because they engaged in
protected-concerted activity or to discourage employees from engaging in 30
protected-concerted activity
In FES, 331 NLRB 9, 12 (2000), supplemented, 333 NLRB 66 (2001), enfd. 301 F.2d 83
(3d Cir. 2002), the Board held that an employer may violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by
refusing to hire or refusing to consider for hire job applicants based upon anti union animus. In 35
order to establish a discriminatory refusal to hire the General Counsel must show
“. . . under the allocation of burdens set forth in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980),
enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), . . . .: (1) that
the respondent was hiring, or had concrete plans to hire, at the time of the alleged 40
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. 45
JD(SF)–45–14
35
Once this is established, the burden will shift to the respondent to show that it
would not have hired the applicants even in the absence of their union activity or
affiliation. If the respondent asserts that the applicants were not qualified for the
positions it was filling, it is the respondent’s burden to show, at the hearing on the merits,
that they did not possess the specific qualifications the position required or that others 5
(who were hired) had superior qualifications, and that it would not have hired them for
that reason even in the absence of their union support or activity. In sum, the issue of
whether the alleged discriminatees would have been hired but for the discrimination
against them must be litigated at the hearing on the merits. If the General Counsel meets
his burden and the respondent fails to show that it would have made the same hiring 10
decisions even in the absence of union activity or affiliation, then a violation of Section
8(a)(3) has been established. The appropriate remedy for such a violation is a cease-and-
desist order, and an order to offer the discriminatees immediate instatement to the
positions to which they applied or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, and to make them whole for losses sustained by reason of the 15
discrimination against them.”
In order to establish a discriminatory refusal to consider applicants for hire the
General Counsel must show:
20
(1) that the respondent excluded applicants from a hiring process; and (2) that antiunion
animus contributed to the decision not to consider the applicants for employment. Once
this is established, the burden will shift to the respondent to show that it would not have
considered the applicants even in the absence of their union activity or affiliation.
25
If the respondent fails to meet its burden, then a violation of Section 8(a)(3) is
established. The appropriate remedy for such a violation is a cease-and-desist order; an
order to place the discriminatees in the position they would have been in, absent
discrimination, for consideration for future openings and to consider them for the
openings in accord with nondiscriminatory criteria; and an order to notify the 30
discriminatees, the charging party, and the Regional Director of future openings in
positions for which the discriminatees applied or substantially equivalent positions.
Id. at 15
In Toering Electric Co, 351 NLRB 225, 228, 233 (2007), the Board further explained that 35
the requirements of discriminatory refusal to hire or consider for hire apply only to employees
defined under Section 2(3) of the Act, that is:
. . . someone genuinely interested in seeking to establish an employment relationship
with the employer. Simply put, only those individuals genuinely interested in becoming 40
employees can be discriminatorily denied that opportunity on the basis of their union
affiliation or activity; one cannot be denied what one does not genuinely seek. We further
hold that the General Counsel bears the ultimate burden of proving an individual’s
genuine interest in seeking to establish an employment relationship with the employer.
45
In Toering, supra at 233, the Board explained that in hiring cases to establish an applicant
is an employee under the Act two components must be shown:
JD(SF)–45–14
36
(1) there was an application for employment,[footnote omitted] and (2) the application
reflected a genuine interest in becoming employed by the employer. As to the first
component, the General Counsel must introduce evidence that the individual applied for
employment with the employer or that someone authorized by that individual did soon
his or her behalf. In the latter instance, agency must be shown.5
As to the second component (genuine interest in becoming employed), the
employer must put at issue the genuineness of the applicant’s interest through evidence
that creates a reasonable question as to the applicant’s actual interest in going to work for
the employer. In other words, while we will no longer conclusively presume that an 10
applicant is entitled to protection as a statutory employee, neither will we presume, in the
absence of contrary evidence that an application for employment is anything other than
what it purports to be. Consequently, once the General Counsel has shown that the
alleged discriminatee applied for employment, the employer may contest the genuineness
of the application through evidence including, but not limited to the following: evidence 15
that the individual refused similar employment with the respondent employer in the
recent past; incorporated belligerent or offensive comments on his or her application;
engaged in disruptive, insulting, or antagonistic behavior during the application process;
or engaged in other conduct inconsistent with a genuine interest in employment.
Similarly, evidence that the application is stale or incomplete may, depending upon the 20
circumstances, indicate that the applicant does not genuinely seek to establish an
employment relationship with the employer. Assuming the employer puts forward such
evidence, the General Counsel, to satisfy the genuine applicant element of a prima facie
case of hiring discrimination, must then rebut that evidence and prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the individual in question was genuinely interested in 25
seeking to establish an employment relationship with the employer. Thus, the ultimate
burden of proof as to the Section 2(3) status of the alleged discriminatee-applicant rests
with the General Counsel.
Under the Toering test, the record reflects that Garcia, White, and Roman Ramos65 had a 30
genuine interest in employment. Each came to Respondent’s office and said they were interested
in jobs with Respondent. In speaking with Connie Edwards they did nothing that would suggest
they were not genuinely interested in employment. Each testified credibly that they would have
accepted a position with Respondent, if offered.
35
The evidence shows that as of August 8 and 9, when the three attempted to apply for
work with Respondent, Respondent had concrete plans to hire, hiring several employees shortly
thereafter.
The applicants met the requirements for the positions they were seeking. Garcia and 40
Roman Ramos, though they had no professional painting experience, had some relevant
experience. While Gene Edwards claimed that Respondent was not hiring employees without
painting experience at the time, this is inconsistent with the record evidence which establishes
Respondent hired many employees without prior painting experience, including several
employees hired shortly after August 8 or 9. White was an experienced painter. 45

65 The General Counsel concedes that Arturo Ramos would not have accepted a position with
Respondent, if offered, as of August 9, when he attempted to apply.
JD(SF)–45–14
37
It has been well established that Respondent harbored animosity toward employees’
union activities. Respondent’s altered employee information form, requiring applicants to
divulge their union affiliation, together with Connie Edwards’ statements to the four applicants
that Respondent did not hire union painters because they would try to organize its employees, 5
that it would never go back to being union again, and that it would close down its business
before it would go union again, demonstrates Respondent’s hostility to union applicants.
Moreover, by telling the applicants that Respondent did not hire union painters, Connie
Edwards excluded them from the hiring process. In addition while Respondent contends it does 10
not hire applicants who come to its home office, this assertion is inconsistent with Connie
Edwards’ testimony that she posted the applicants’ telephone numbers on the refrigerator at her
home for Gene Edwards’ consideration.
The evidence establishes that Garcia, White, and Roman Ramos were employees within 15
the meaning of the Act as they had a genuine interest in working for Respondent and would have
accepted jobs if offered. All three met the standard of the jobs applied for as they had some
painting experience and Respondent in fact hired many totally inexperienced painters. The
record further shows that Respondent intended to and in fact hired painters at the time the three
applied and hired painters with no experience. Respondent’s antiunion animus contributed to the 20
decision to exclude the applicants from the hiring process, and Respondent’s pretextual defenses
are insufficient to meet its burden of showing that it would not have considered the applicants in
the absence of their union activities or affiliation. I conclude that Respondent failed to hire or
consider for hire Garcia, White, and Roman Ramos in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.25
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Edwards Painting, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce and in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
30
2. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 5, affiliated with
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (Union) is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in the following conduct, the Respondent committed unfair labor 35
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(a) Interrogating employees about their union activities or affiliation or the union
activities or affiliation of other employees.
40
(b) Telling employees that it wants to make sure no one it hires will bring up anything
having to do with the Union.
(c) Instructing employees not to discuss the Union or engage in union activities,
including by telling them, in reference to their union activities, not to cause trouble or problems.45
(d) Instructing employees not to hand out union flyers on its jobsites.
JD(SF)–45–14
38
(e) Telling employees that support for the union is futile, including by telling them that
it is not, and will never be, a union shop.
(f) Threatening employees with layoff, discharge, or job loss because of their union
activities, membership, or support, including attendance of union meetings, signing petitions in 5
support of the Union, or selecting the union as their collective bargaining representative.
(g) Threatening to administer drug tests to employees because they concertedly
complain about terms and conditions of employment, including employee drug use on the job.
10
(h) Telling applicants for hire that it does not hire union painters.
(i) Promising employees benefits, including wage increases and future work, if they
cease activities in support of the Union.
15
(j) Ordering off-duty employees who support the Union to leave its property while
allowing other off-duty employees to remain on its property.
(k) Threatening to call or calling the police because employees are distributing union
literature.20
4. By engaging in the following conduct, the Respondents committed unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act:
(a) Discharging employees Craig Prinslow, Sean Carter, James Oldham, and Wyatt 25
McMinn for engaging in union or other protected, concerted activities.
(b) Opposing employee Wyatt McMinn’s receipt of unemployment benefits for
engaging in union or other protected, concerted activities.
30
(c) Transferring employees James Oldham and Wyatt McMinn among jobsites to
isolate them from other employees for engaging in union or other protected, concerted activities.
(d) Failing to assign work to employees James Oldham, Wyatt McMinn, and Craig
Prinslow for engaging in union or other protected, concerted activities.35
(e) Failing to rehire employee Craig Prinslow for engaging in union or other protected,
concerted activities.
(f) Granting employees wage increases in order to discourage employees from 40
engaging in union or other protected, concerted activities.
(g) Refusing to hire or refusing to consider for hire applicants Gustavo Garcia, Roben
White, and Roman Ramos for engaging in union or other protected, concerted activities.
45
JD(SF)–45–14
39
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended.66
THE REMEDY
5
In addition to the ordinary remedies, General Counsel seeks the extraordinary remedy of
having the notice read to employees. The Board had held in Federated Logistics, 340 NLRB
255, 258 (2003), that when an employer commits pervasive unfair labor practices by high level
managers in the context of an organizing campaign, that such conduct will tend to have a chilling
effect. To fully remedy these unfair labor practices the Board will order that the notice to 10
employees be read to employees.
Here, Respondent has engaged in numerous egregious unfair labor practices, These
include threats of termination, directions to refrain from engaging in union activity and the firing
of four employees who included the main union organizers, all in retaliation for the Union’s 15
organizing campaign. There can be little doubt that Respondent’s conduct has chilled employee
support for the Union. Accordingly, I will order that the notice to employees be read to
employees in English and Spanish by Respondent and/or by a Board agent in the presence of
Respondent, to assure employees of their rights and Respondent’s obligations under the Act.
20
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The evidence having established that the Respondent discharged its employees Craig 25
Prinslow, Sean Carter, James Oldham, and Wyatt McMinn, having failed to assign work to
Prinslow, Oldham, and McMinn, having opposed McMinn’s unemployment benefits, having
granted its employees wage benefits, and having failed to consider for hire Gustavo Garcia,
Roben White and Roman Ramos, my recommended Order requires the Respondent to make
them whole. My recommended Order also requires the Respondent to offer Craig Prinslow, Sean 30
Carter, James Oldham, and Wyatt McMinn, immediate reinstatement to their former positions,
displacing if necessary any replacements, or if their positions no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without loss of seniority and other privileges previously enjoyed, and to
make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them. My order in addition requires Respondent to offer Gustavo Garcia, 35
Roben White, and Roman Ramos instatement to the positions for which they applied or, if those
positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or any other rights or privileges. My recommended order further requires that backpay
shall be computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest
as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), plus daily compound 40
interest as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010).
The recommended order also requires that the Respondent shall expunge from its files
and records any and all references to the unlawful discharges and any reference to the unlawful

66 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted
by the Board and all objections shall be waived for all purposes.
JD(SF)–45–14
40
refusal to hire issued to the above-named employees, and to notify them in writing that this has
been done and that the unlawful discrimination will not be used against them in any way.
Sterling Sugars, Inc., 261 NLRB 472 (1982). Further, the Respondent must not make any
reference to the expunged material in response to any inquiry from any employer, employment
agency, unemployment insurance office, or reference seeker, or use the expunged material 5
against them in any other way.
The Respondent shall be required to post a notice that assures its employees that it will
respect their rights under the Act. As the Respondent has a large number of employees whose
primary language is Spanish, the Respondent shall be required to post the paper notice in both 10
English and Spanish.
In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the
Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. J. Picini Flooring, 15
356 NLRB No. 8 (2010).
General Counsel also requests that discriminatees be reimbursed for any excess taxes
owed as a result of a lump-sum backpay award and that Respondent be ordered to complete the
appropriate paperwork as set forth in IRS Publication 975 to notify the Social Security 20
Administration what periods to which the backpay should be allocated as requested in the
remedy section of the complaint herein.
In Don Chavas LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB No. 10 (2014), Board
ordered that it will routinely require the filing of a report with the Social Security Administration 25
allocating backpay awards to the appropriate calendar quarters. The Board also held that it will
routinely require respondents to compensate employees for the adverse tax consequences of
receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering periods longer than 1 year. The Board
concluded that it is the General Counsel’s burden to prove and quantify the extent of any adverse
tax consequences resulting from the lump-sum backpay award and that such matters shall be 30
resolved in compliance proceedings.
Pursuant to Don Chavas LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, I will order that Respondent
shall file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating any backpay awards to the
appropriate calendar quarters. 35
ORDER
The Respondent, Edwards Painting, Inc., Oregon City, Oregon, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns shall40
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating employees about their union activities or affiliation or the union
activities or affiliation of other employees.45
(b) Telling employees that it wants to make sure no one it hires will bring up anything
having to do with the Union.
JD(SF)–45–14
41
(c) Instructing employees not to discuss the Union or engage in union activities,
including by telling them, in reference to their union activities, not to cause trouble or problems.
(d) Instructing employees not to hand out union flyers on its jobsites.5
(e) Telling employees that support for the Union is futile, including by telling them
that it is not, and will never be, a union shop.
(f) Threatening employees with layoff, discharge, or job loss because of their union 10
activities, membership, or support, including attendance of union meetings, signing petitions in
support of the Union, or selecting the Union as their collective-bargaining representative.
(g) Threatening to administer drug tests to employees because they concertedly
complain about terms and conditions of employment, including employee drug use on the job.15
(h) Telling applicants for hire that it does not hire union painters.
(i) Promising employees benefits, including wage increases and future work, if they
cease activities in support of the Union.20
(j) Ordering off-duty employees who support the Union to leave its property while
allowing other off-duty employees to remain on its property.
(k) Threatening to call or calling the police because employees are distributing union 25
literature.
(l) Discharging employees for engaging in union or other protected, concerted
activities.
30
(m) Opposing employees’ receipt of unemployment benefits for engaging in union or
other protected, concerted activities.
(n) Transferring employees among jobsites to isolate them from other employees for
engaging in union or other protected, concerted activities.35
(o) Failing to assign work to employees for engaging in union or other protected,
concerted activities.
(p) Failing to rehire employees for engaging in union or other protected, concerted 40
activities.
(q) Granting employees wage increases in order to discourage employees from
engaging in union or other protected, concerted activities.
45
(r) Refusing to hire or refusing to consider for hire applicants for engaging in union or
other protected, concerted activities.
JD(SF)–45–14
42
(s) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
5
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Craig Prinslow, Sean Carter,
James Scott Oldham, and Wyatt McMinn full reinstatement to their former positions, or, if those
positions no longer exist, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to their
seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
10
(b) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, notify the Oregon Employment
Department that it no longer opposes Wyatt McMinn’s receipt of unemployment benefits and
withdraw any appeal it has filed to the Oregon Employment Department’s determination that
Wyatt McMinn is not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
15
(c) Make Craig Prinslow, Sean Carter, James Scott Oldham, and Wyatt McMinn
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of their discharges, less any
net interim earnings, plus interest.
(d) Make Craig Prinslow whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as 20
a result of its refusal to rehire him in October 2013, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
(e) Make James Scott Oldham and Wyatt McMinn whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of its failure to assign them work in September, October, and
November 2013, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.25
(f) Compensate Craig Prinslow, Sean Carter, James Scott Oldham, and Wyatt
McMinn for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award, and
file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating the backpay award to the
appropriate calendar quarters.30
(g) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from its files all references to
the discharge of Craig Prinslow about July 30, 2013;the refusal to rehire Prinslow in October
2013; the discharge of Sean Carter about August 30, 2013; the discharge of Sean Carter about
October 18, 2013; the failure to assign work to James Scott Oldham in September through 35
November 2013; the failure to assign work to Wyatt McMinn in September through November
2013; the discharge of James Scott Oldham about November 13, 2013; the discharge of Wyatt
McMinn about November 13, 2013; and the opposition to Wyatt McMinn’s claim for
unemployment benefits since about January 2014, and, within 3 days thereafter, notify each of
them in writing that this has been done and that those actions will not be used against them in 40
any way.
(h) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Gustavo Garcia, Roben White,
and Roman Ramos instatement to the positions for which they applied, or, if those positions no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any 45
other rights or privileges they would have enjoyed had Gustavo Garcia and Roben White been
hired on August 8, 2013, and had Roman Ramos been hired on August 9, 2013.
JD(SF)–45–14
43
(i) Make Gustavo Garcia, Roben White, and Roman Ramos whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the refusal to hire them, less any net interim
earnings, plus interest.
(j) Compensate Gustavo Garcia, Roben White, and Roman Ramos for the adverse tax 5
consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award, and file a report with the Social
Security Administration allocating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar quarters.
(k) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from its files any reference to
the refusal to hire Gustavo Garcia, Roben White, and Roman Ramos, and, within 3 days 10
thereafter, notify each of them in writing that this has been done and that this action will not be
used against them in any way.
(l) Consider Arturo Ramos for hire for the position for which he applied, or, if that
position no longer exists, for a substantially equivalent position, in the event that he applies for 15
such a position in the future.
(m) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records 20
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.
(n) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Oregon City, Oregon
facility, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”67 Copies of the notice, on forms 25
provided by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic 30
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees 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. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to 35
all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
June 7, 2013.
(o) Within 14 days after service by the Region, hold a meeting or meetings, during
working time, scheduled to ensure the widest possible attendance, at which the attached notice 40
is to be read in English and Spanish to the employees assembled for this purpose, by Gene
Edwards or another responsible official of the Respondent in the presence of a Board agent,
and/or by a Board agent in the presence of Gene, Connie, Grant, and Bob Edwards.

67
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.”
JD(SF)–45–14
44
(p) Within 21 days after service by the Region, filed with the Regional Director for
Region 19 a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that Respondent has taken to comply.
5
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 26, 2014
____________________
John J. McCarrick10
Administrative Law Judge
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 behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
After a trial at which we appeared, argued and presented evidence, the National Labor Relations
Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has directed us to post
this notice to employees and to abide by its terms.
Accordingly, we give our employees the following assurances:
WE WILL NOT ask you about your union activities or membership or the union activities or
membership of other employees.
WE WILL NOT tell you that we want to make sure no one we hire brings up anything that has
to do with International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 5, affiliated the
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (the “Union”).
WE WILL NOT tell you not to discuss the Union or engage in union activities, including by
telling you, in reference to your union activities, not to cause trouble or problems.
WE WILL NOT tell you not to hand out union flyers on our jobsites.
WE WILL NOT tell you that your support for the Union is pointless, including by telling you
that we will not, and will never be, a union shop.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with layoff, discharge, or job loss because of your union
activities, membership, or support, including attendance of union meetings, signing petitions in
support of the Union, or selecting the Union as your collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten to drug test you because you concertedly complain about your terms
and conditions of employment, including employee drug use on the job.
WE WILL NOT tell applicants for hire that we do not hire union painters.
WE WILL NOT promise you benefits, including wage increases and future work, to discourage
you from supporting the Union.
WE WILL NOT order you to leave our property because you support the Union while allowing
employees who do not support the Union to remain on our property.
WE WILL NOT threaten to call or call the police because you are distributing union flyers.
WE WILL NOT fire you because of your union membership or support or because you act
together with other employees for your benefit and protection.
WE WILL NOT oppose your receipt of unemployment benefits because of your union
membership or support.
WE WILL NOT refuse to rehire you because of your union membership or support.
WE WILL NOT give you wage increases in order to discourage you from supporting a union.
WE WILL NOT refuse to hire you or refuse to consider you for hire because of your union
membership or support.
WE WILL offer Craig Prinslow, Sean Carter, James Oldham, and Wyatt McMinn their jobs
back along with their seniority and all other rights or privileges.
WE WILL notify the Oregon Employment Department that we no longer oppose Wyatt
McMinn’s receipt of unemployment benefits and withdraw any appeal we have filed to the
Oregon Employment Department’s determination that Wyatt McMinn is not disqualified from
receiving unemployment benefits.
WE WILL pay Craig Prinslow, Sean Carter, James Oldham and Wyatt McMinn for the wages
and other benefits they lost because we fired them.
WE WILL pay Craig Prinslow for the wages and other benefits he lost because we refused to
rehire him.
WE WILL pay James Scott Oldham and Wyatt McMinn for the wages and other benefits they
lost because we failed to assign them work.
WE WILL compensate Craig Prinslow, Sean Carter, James Oldham, and Wyatt McMinn for the
adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering
periods longer than 1 year.
WE WILL file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay for Craig
Prinslow, Sean Carter, James Oldham and Wyatt McMinn to the appropriate quarters.
WE WILL remove from our files all references to the discharge of Craig Prinslow, Sean Carter,
James Oldham, and Wyatt McMinn, the opposition to Wyatt McMinn’s unemployment claim,
the refusal to rehire Craig Prinslow, and the failure to assign work to James Scott Oldham and
Wyatt McMinn, and WE WILL notify them in writing that this has been done and that these
actions will not be used against them in any way.
WE WILL offer to Gustavo Garcia, Roben White, and Roman Ramos the jobs they applied for,
or similar jobs, and give them their seniority and other benefits from the date they should have
been hired.
WE WILL pay Gustavo Garcia, Roben White, and Roman Ramos for the wages and other
benefits they lost because we failed to hire them.
WE WILL compensate Gustavo Garcia, Roben White, and Roman Ramos for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering periods
longer than 1 year.
WE WILL file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay for
Gustavo Garcia, Roben White, and Roman Ramos to the appropriate quarters.
WE WILL remove from our files all references to the failure to hire Gustavo Garcia, Roben
White and Roman Ramos and WE WILL notify them in writing that this has been done and that
the failure to hire them will not be used against them in any way.
WE WILL consider Arturo Ramos for hire for the job he applied for, or a similar job, if he
applies for such a job in the future.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with your rights under Section 7 of the
Act.
EDWARDS PAINTING, INC.,
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
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.
915 2nd Avenue, Room 2948, Seattle, WA 98174-1078
(206) 220-6300, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-116399 or
by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy o f the decision from the
Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
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, (206) 220-6284.