TradeSource, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Sep 18, 2015

04-CA-134287 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 18, 2015)

JD–46–15
Plymouth Meeting, PA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
TRADESOURCE, INC.
and Cases 04–CA–134287
04–CA–149042
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 98
Randy M. Girer, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Walter Zimolong, Esq.,
of Philadelphia, PA,
for the Respondent.
Stephen Holroyd, Esq.,
of Philadelphia, PA,
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. GIANNASI, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on July 14 and 15, 2015. The consolidated complaint, as amended at
the hearing, alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to
hire three named employee applicants in July 2014, and by refusing to hire and consider for hire
one of those applicants, Michael Quinn, in February and March 2015, because of their affiliation
with the Charging Party Union (hereafter the Union). It also alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act by refusing to hire and consider for hire Quinn in February and
March 2015, because of charges filed with the Board on his behalf. The Respondent filed an
answer denying the essential allegations in the complaint.
JD–46–15
2
After the trial, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs and reply briefs,
which I have read and considered. The Union submitted a statement joining the General
Counsel’s initial brief. Based on those briefs and the entire record, including the testimony of
witnesses and my observation of their demeanor, I make the following
5
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. Jurisdiction
Respondent, a Delaware corporation whose headquarters are in Warwick, Rhode Island, 10
is a nationwide staffing company that provides workers to construction industry employers. Tr.
150, 308. This case involves Respondent’s location in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania. During
a representative one-year period, Respondent provided services, from its Plymouth Meeting
location, valued in excess of $50,000 to customers outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Accordingly, I find, as Respondent admits, that it is an employer “within the meaning of Section 15
2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.”
I also find, as Respondent admits, that the Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
20
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. The Facts
Background25
As indicated above, Respondent provides workers to construction industry employers.
Respondent’s website describes itself as a company that recruits skilled workers, including
electricians, and provides them to its clients, with whom it has agreements. The Respondent
basically takes care of all labor costs for its clients and is reimbursed and paid by the client for its 30
services. The website states that Respondent pays “workers compensation, payroll taxes,
benefits and other associated costs.” The website also states that, if the client is not satisfied
with “one of our tradespeople,” Respondent will replace the tradesperson and the client will not
be charged for the first 8 hours of the replacement. G.C. Exh. 44. Respondent’s clients
periodically notify it of their need for workers. Respondent then enters that information in its 35
Avionte computer system. Tr. 154-156, 198. But, aside from occasional job visits, primarily for
safety purposes, Respondent has no on-the-job contact with employees once they have been
assigned to a client. Tr. 200-202, 220-221.
Respondent obtains employees from several different sources, including employment 40
websites or job boards. An example of such a website is CareerBuilder.com, the site of a
Chicago based company of that name. Its website permits employers to post advertisements for
jobs to which employee applicants respond. In addition to applying for a particular job posting,
applicants may register their name and submit a resume with CareerBuilder. The name and
resume is then added to the CareerBuilder database of resumes. Employer customers of 45
CareerBuilder may, independent of applicants’ responses to particular job advertisements, search
CareerBuilder’s database for potential employment candidates. G.C. Exh. 21.
JD–46–15
3
Once Respondent secures applicants from whatever source, it undertakes its own hiring.
Respondent’s hiring process is as follows: Applicants fill out Respondent’s own application form
and then are interviewed by a representative of Respondent. In this case, the representatives are
Account Manager Jeffrey Slotnick and Resource Manager Jeremie Budesa. They work out of
Respondent’s offices in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania or Belmar, New Jersey; those offices 5
cover southwestern Pennsylvania, Delaware, and southern New Jersey. Tr. 151-152.1
During the interview process, the applicant completes an I-9 form and a safety
questionnaire and views a safety video. The applicant must also take and pass a saliva drug test.
If the applicant successfully completes the interview process, he is hired and issued a hard hat, 10
safety googles and an employee handbook. As Account Manager Slotnick conceded, at that
point, the applicant is hired and becomes an employee of Respondent. Tr. 169-170. New hires
are also given time cards that they must use when they report to a construction job of one of
Respondent’s clients. Tr. 23-31, 143-145, 164-166, 173, 284, 296-300, 374-377. In addition to
paying wages for the employees it hires and sends out to clients, Respondent also offers them 15
health benefits, vacation and holiday pay, and a retirement plan, all of which are set forth in the
handbook that is given to new hires. G.C. Exhs. 66 and 67.
Once Respondent hires employee-applicants, those workers are eligible to be placed with
client employers who ask Respondent for workers. New hires may be sent to a client 20
contractor’s job site immediately or after some time, depending on circumstances. Tr. 170. The
employees must call Respondent to check on work availability and let Respondent know when
their existing job is completed. Tr. 172. Indeed, they must sign a statement of availability,
which provides that, if the employee does not maintain contact with Respondent, the employee
may be viewed as “not available for work and to have voluntarily resigned from employment.” 25
Tr. 172-173, G.C. Exh. 30. After the hired employee is sent to a client’s job site, the employee
fills out one of the Respondent’s time cards and submits it to the employer client. This is done
weekly. The client contractor then signs the time card and submits it to Respondent, who pays
the employee and bills the contractor. Tr. 169. Respondent keeps extensive records of its
contacts with employees, as well as listings of hires and assignments. See G.C. Exhs. 54, 55, 48 30
and 49.
The Union’s Salting Campaign Targeting Respondent
The Union operates a salting program that attempts to place its members and other 35
electricians affiliated with the Union with nonunion employers. Tr. 387-388. Under Board law,
salts are “individuals, paid or unpaid, who apply for work with a nonunion employer in
furtherance of a salting campaign.” A “salting campaign” in turn is defined as a campaign in
which a union sends applicants to an unorganized jobsite “to obtain employment and then
organize the employees.” Tradesmen International, Inc., 351 NLRB 579, 580, fn. 6 (2007), 40
citing authorities.
The Union has attempted to organize Respondent and some of its client contractors, but
has been unsuccessful in that effort. Tr. 387-388. This case involves the attempt by several

1 In its answer, Respondent admitted that Slotnick and Budesa are supervisors and agents of
Respondent within the meaning of the Act.
JD–46–15
4
salts, that is, Union members or nonmembers with some affiliation with the Union, to obtain jobs
with Respondent. None of these salts and job applicants was paid for his efforts by the Union.
As shown in more detail later in this decision, some of these salts and job applicants openly
indicated their affiliation with the Union and others did not. And all were seeking work because
they were either out of work or would soon be out of work. 5
Respondent’s Animus Against the Union
On July 3, 2012, Marc Nordo, a member of the Union who did not initially reveal his
union membership to Respondent, was hired as an electrician after speaking with Jeff Slotnick. 10
Tr. 284. Nardo was sent out on an electrician’s job two days later. He continued to work with
Respondent’s client-employers for the next two weeks. At one point, however, later in the
month of July, Slotnick called Nordo and asked if he was union. Nordo replied in the
affirmative. Slotnick then said some his contractors objected to union workers, but asked Nordo
not to mention his union status on the job. Slotnick told Nordo that he was going to send another 15
“Local 98 kid” to the job Nordo was working on, and he asked that they not hand out cards or
handbills. Nordo promised he would not, and stated that he was “just here to work.” Tr. 285-
286. After this conversation with Slotnick, Nordo did not work again for Respondent or its
clients, despite continually calling Respondent and asking about jobs. The only time he was
offered jobs was to locations that were too far from his home. Tr. 288-291.220
Also on July 3, 2012, Victor Monaco went to Respondent’s Plymouth Meeting office,
without an appointment, and applied for work as an electrician. He presented his resume, which
indicated that he was a member of the Union, to Jeff Slotnick, who asked him what the Union
thought about Monaco working non-union. Monaco responded that that was between him and 25
the Union. Slotnick told Monaco that his contractors did not “like to use union people.” Tr. 141.
Slotnick also mentioned that, on an earlier occasion, the Union had put up a picket line at one of
his contractor’s jobs and the contractor blamed him, Slotnick, for it. Monaco replied that he was
just looking for a job. Slotnick then said that, if he hired Monaco, he, Monaco should deny that
he was a member of the Union and let Slotnick know if anyone asked him about the matter. Tr. 30
142. Monaco returned two days later, and, after completing the necessary paperwork and
passing the drug test, he was given time cards and an employee handbook, thus indicating he was
hired. Tr. 143–145. During this second meeting, Slotnick repeated his concerns about Monaco
not revealing his membership in the Union, stating again that his customers did not want to use
union workers. Slotnick also showed him a video of a Union picket line and referred to Local 35
98, as “f----n crazy and absolutely nuts.” Tr. 144. The meeting ended when Slotnick told
Monaco that he would get in touch. The two made contact, but Monaco never actually worked
for a client of Respondent, although he was once offered a job that he turned down. Tr. 146-
148.3
40

2 The above is based on Nordo’s uncontradicted testimony. Slotnick did not deny Nordo’s account of
their encounters, even though Slotnick was present at the hearing and testified on other matters. Nordo’s
demeanor was impressive and his testimony was straight forward and credible. In addition, his testimony
survived cross-examination and was confirmed by his pre-trial affidavit.
3 The above is based on Monaco’s uncontradicted and credible testimony. His testimony is enhanced
because it was essentially corroborated by a similar exchange based on the uncontradicted testimony of
Nordo, who spoke with Slotnick at about the same time.
JD–46–15
5
Respondent Dispenses With In Person Applications
Sometime in February 2013, Respondent posted a notice on the door of its Plymouth Meeting
office stating as follows (G.C. Exh. 12):
5
Effective: February 20, 2013
TradeSource, Inc. will no longer be accepting resumes that are
dropped off at the office, delivered in person, sent by facsimile
or via e-mail.10
TradeSource, Inc. will post ads on employment on job boards
(e.g. CareerBuilder, Craigslist, etc.) when we are in need, along
with searching the job boards (e.g. CareerBuilder, Craigslist, etc.)
for resumes with desired qualifications and skills.15
Thank you for your interest.
That notice remained posted at least through June 2014 (G.C. Exh. 56) and there is no evidence
that it was ever removed. Indeed, Budesa testified that the sign accurately sets forth 20
Respondent’s present policy. Tr. 324.4
Respondent’s Use of CareerBuilder in Summer of 2014
Respondent has been a customer and employer user of CareerBuilder since at least 25
February 14, 2014. Pursuant to its contract with CareerBuilder, Respondent posts job
advertisements to which applicants can respond with an online application and resume. Some of
Respondent’s advertisements are blind, that is, they give no indication of the entity that posted
them; and some are not. Those ads may remain on the website continuously and for some time.
Tr. 158-162. Respondent may also search for potential applicants using CareerBuilder’s 30
application database and resume database and using customized search terms for applicants and
resumes. G.C. Exh. 21.
Respondent receives responses to its advertisements from CareerBuilder by email. This
would include the applicant’s phone number, email address and resume. Those emails from 35
CareerBuilder are searchable. Tr. 167-169. For the local office, Jeremie Budesa is the person
who receives the emails from CareerBuilder. Tr. 278. Respondent then gets in touch with the
applicant and initiates its own hiring process that has been described above. Tr. 164-165.
Respondent continued to utilize CareerBuilder throughout the summer of 2014. It posted 40
a blind job advertisement for electricians and electricians’ helpers on CareerBuilder from July 3

4 The policy does not appear to be a hard and fast one because, in early March 2015, applicant Rene
Andino called Budesa about an electrician’s job, after being told about possible hiring by another
applicant, Francisco Acosta. Andino had not utilized the websites mentioned in Respondent’s notice and
Acosta was not an existing employee when Andino called Budesa. Andino and Acosta were interviewed
at the same time by Budesa, who thereafter hired them, as shown in more detail later in this decision.
JD–46–15
6
through September 23, 2014. G.C. Exhs. 20, 21, 27-29. The online applications to that job
advertisement were emailed by CareerBuilder to Respondent at Jeremie Budesa’s email address.
G.C. Exh. 21, Tr. 158-164, Although Slotnick has a role in the hiring process, as shown by his
dealings with Nordo and Monaco, discussed above, it is Budesa who does most of the hiring for
Philadelphia and southwestern Pennsylvania (Tr. 151). Budesa testified that, during the July-5
September 2014 period, he received emails from CareerBuilder in response to Respondent’s ads
“on a daily basis.” Tr. 224-225.5
The above CareerBuilder emails included the names and resumes of applicants. Tr. 225.
But Respondent utilized CareerBuilder even before the July 3 posting. Respondent’s records 10
show that, of the 13 electricians it hired in June 2014, 6 were obtained through Career Builder.
G.C. Exh. 55.
The CareerBuilder Applications and Resumes of Union Salts
15
In July 2014, three Union salts, whose resumes prominently listed their affiliation with
the Union, at least as having been trained by the Union, participated in its apprenticeship
program or worked for union contractors (G.C. Exhs. 11, 16 and 22, Tr. 107-108), submitted
those resumes with their applications for the above blind job advertisement placed by
Respondent on the CareerBuilder website. None of them was thereafter hired or contacted by 20
Respondent.
On June 24, 2014, Bryan Galie, a member of the Union and a qualified electrician,
dropped off his resume in the mail slot at Respondent’s Plymouth Meeting office. The next day,
he followed up with an email to Jeff Slotnick, with another copy of his resume attached. Tr. 93-25
95, 107, G.C. Exhs. 16 and 17. The next day, Slotnick called Galie and asked Galie where he got
Slotnick’s email address. Galie candidly said he received the email address from “Local 98,” the
Union. Slotnick told Galie that if he needed anyone, he would get in touch. But he also told
Galie to submit an on-line application. Tr. 94-97. Galie’s uncontradicted testimony in this
respect was supported by an entry placed in Respondent’s computer system by Jeremie Budesa 30
on June 25, 2014, which stated that Galie had not followed the directions to submit applications

5 At another point in his testimony, Budesa confirmed that, during July, August and September, he
“looked for” workers on CareerBuilder “on average around once or twice a week,” and that he was
looking for an electrician in July 2014. Tr. 221-222. He seemed to suggest that he was only looking for
“one” electrician at the time. But although there may have been one ad, which remained posted
throughout the period, or perhaps several of the same ads, there clearly were many electricians that
Respondent was seeking. To the extent that Budesa meant to say that Respondent only needed to hire
one electrician, I do not credit his testimony because the documentary evidence shows that Respondent
hired some 11 electricians in July alone. See G.C. Exhs. 54 and 55. Budesa also denied personally
posting the ad that Respondent clearly posted on CareerBuilder; indeed, he said he did not “remember”
having an ad on CareerBuilder. Tr. 222. 224, 228. But he also testified that he was the person who
received the emails from CareerBuilder and that any resume or application that was submitted to the
Respondent’s ad during the July-September period would come automatically to him. Tr. 278. His
testimony on these points was evasive and lacked candor. He thus demonstrated that his testimony was
not reliable. In addition, as shown elsewhere in this decision, I have found his testimony on other issues
unreliable and unworthy of belief. Thus, I am unable to credit Budesa’s testimony on any significant
matter in this case.
JD–46–15
7
through website companies, including CareerBuilder. The entry also confirmed that Galie told
Slotnick he got Slotnick’s email address “from Local 98.” G.C. Exh. 56.
As instructed, and with the Union’s help, on July 3, 2014, Galie submitted his application
and resume with CareerBuilder, specifically targeting the blind ad placed by Respondent on the 5
website for an electrician or electrician’s helper. He was qualified for this job. Tr. 97-103, G.C.
Exhs. 18-20. It is stipulated that CareerBuilder sent Galie’s application and resume to
Respondent at Budesa’s email address on July 3, 2014. G.C. Exh. 21, no. 4. Galie was never
thereafter even contacted by Respondent and was not hired. He also credibly testified that, if
contacted, he would have accepted an offer from Respondent. Tr. 97, 101-102.10
Another qualified electrician, Song Tuy, applied for work with Respondent through
CareerBuilder, with the Union’s assistance. Like Galie, he first dropped off his resume at
Respondent’s Plymouth Meeting office. That was on June 24, 2014. Tuy observed the
Respondent’s notice stating that it was no longer accepting in person applications and suggesting 15
on-line applications. He nevertheless called Respondent’s office the next day to inquire about a
job and apparently talked to Slotnick. Tuy was told to apply to CareerBuilder or Craigslist, in
accordance with the Respondent’s notice. Tuy also testified that when he mentioned he had left
a resume at the Respondent’s office the day before, he was told that Slotnick had seen it. Tr. 70-
77, G.C. Exhs 11 and 12. 620
In accordance with Respondent’s instructions, Tuy registered with, and submitted his
application and resume to, CareerBuilder, specifically applying for the electrician’s position
posted by Respondent. He was qualified for this position. CareerBuilder sent his application
and resume to Respondent at Budesa’s email address on July 9, 2014. Tuy was not hired and 25
was never contacted by Respondent thereafter. He credibly testified that he would have accepted
a position with Respondent. G.C. Exh. 21, no. 5, G.C. Exhs. 13, 14 and 15, Tr. 77-84.
A third qualified electrician, Michael Quinn, applied to Respondent’s job advertisement
for an electrician and electrician’s helper on the CareerBuilder website. This was a blind ad; he 30
did not know who had placed it. He was qualified for this position, having been a member of the
Union for 34 years and testifying about his extensive experience in great detail. Quinn attached
his resume to his application that was dated July 12, 2014. His resume prominently lists his
apprenticeship with the Union. CareerBuilder sent his application and resume to Respondent at
Budesa’s email address on July 12, 2014. G.C. Exh. 21, no. 6, G.C. Exh. 22, 24, Tr. 112-120. 35
Respondent actually viewed Quinn’s resume on line, as shown by an entry on the CareerBuilder
website indicating the last view was on October 7, 2014. But Quinn was never hired or
contacted by Respondent. Tr. 120-133, G.C. Exh. 25.
When he submitted his application on CareerBuilder in July 2014, Quinn was finishing 40
up a job and he testified credibly that he would have accepted a job offer from Respondent when

6 Tuy did not identify Slotnick as the recipient of his call, but, on cross-examination, Respondent’s
counsel assumed that it was Slotnick who talked with Tuy. Tr. 88-89. Slotnick did not testify about this
matter, but since Slotnick and Budesa were the only representatives who handled Respondent’s local
operations, it is likely that one of them answered Tuy’s phone call and it is more likely that it was
Slotnick, not only because of counsel’s assumption, but also because Slotnick handled Galie’s call at
about the same time.
JD–46–15
8
his existing job ended, including as late as October 2014, when he was only working “off and
on.” Tr. 127-129, 134-138.
Respondent’s Hires From July Through September 2014
5
Among the applicants who registered with CareerBuilder and were hired by Respondent
was Angelo Ercolono. He originally registered with CareerBuilder and sent his resume to the
site in September of 2013; and he again sent his resume to CareerBuilder on July 29, 2014.
Ercolono applied to the Respondent’s advertisement for an electrician on the CareerBuilder
website on April 21, 2014. His application and resume were sent to Respondent on April 21, 10
2014. G.C. Exh. 21, no. 8. On July 7, 2014, Ercolono was contacted by Slotnick, who
specifically told Ercolono that he had “found” Ercolono’s resume on CareerBuilder. Tr. 20. At
the time Ercolono was working on a job for Summit Electric, which was apparently a client of
Respondent. Ercolono said he was interested in working for Respondent and asked Slotnick to
send him Slotnick’s contact information, which Slotnick did by email that same day. Ercolono 15
was hired on July 31, 2014, after being interviewed by Budesa. Ercolono was told that jobs were
available and that he would be placed with an employer, but he never was placed. However, as
late as September 23, Budesa called Ercolono to offer him a job, which he declined. Tr. 20-36,
42-43, 204, 234, 235, G.C. Exhs. 2-4.7
20
Ercolono was a salt for the Union—a covert salt because he never revealed, either on his
resume posted on the CareerBuilder website or in his dealings with Slotnick and Budesa, his
affiliation with the Union.
Another covert salt for the Union was Jason Cugley. Like Ercolono, he registered with 25
CareerBuilder and provided a resume that did not mention his affiliation with the Union. It is
stipulated that he applied to the Respondent’s job advertisement for an electrician on the
CareerBuilder website and that CareerBuilder sent his application and resume to Respondent at
Budesa’s email address on July 13, 2014. G.C. Exh. 21, no. 7. Two days later, on July 15,
Cugley was contacted by Slotnick, who told him that Respondent was hiring. They discussed a 30
specific job and a specific pay rate and Slotnick told Cugley that he would have to come into the
Respondent’s office to pass a drug test and then he would be hired and sent out on a job.
Slotnick told Cugley to follow up with Budesa and gave him Budesa’s contact information.

7 The above is based on the credible testimony of Ercolono. Skolnick did not deny telling Ercolono
that he had found Ercolono by checking with the CareerBuilder website. And he did not deny that he sent
Ercolono an email on July 7, asking Ercolono to call him “about work when you have time,” with his
telephone number. Tr. 203, G.C. Exh. 4. I reject Respondent’s contention, apparently based on Budesa’s
testimony (Tr. 338-339) and its own documents (G.C. Exhs. 54 and 55), that Ercolono was a “referral,”
and that Ercolono came to Respondent’s attention not through CareerBuilder, but by initially contacting
Slotnick on a Summit Electric job. I specifically reject Budesa’s testimony that Ercolono initiated contact
with Slotnick in a phone call Slotnick received and which Budesa overheard because he was in the office
with Slotnick. Significantly, Budesa’s testimony was contrary to that of Slotnick, who testified he “could
not recall” meeting Ercolono on a Summit Electric job and testified that he first met Ercolono during
Ercolono’s interview with Budesa. Tr. 217. Moreover, Respondent stipulated that Ercolono’s application
and resume was sent by CareerBuilder to Respondent on April 21, 2014. G.C. Exh. 21. Not only does
the above refute Respondent’s contention that it did not utilize CareerBuilder to make contact with
Ercolono, but it reflects adversely on the credibility of Budesa.
JD–46–15
9
When Cugley finally reached Budesa later in July, he was specifically told about an available
job, which paid less than what he understood from Slotnick. After thinking about accepting the
lower paid job, Cugley called Budesa and said he was not interested. Tr. 51-67, G.C. Exhs. 5-9.
In Respondent’s view, Cugley remained available for employment at least for a few months after
turning down the job in July. On October 1, 2014, Cugley received an email from Slotnick 5
asking him to call Budesa “to discuss your availability (sic) we have immediate openings for
electricians in your area.” G.C. Exh. 10.8
In addition to Ercolono and Cugley, Respondent’s records show that it hired another 15
electricians during the period July 18 through September 18, 2014.9 Eleven, including Ercolono, 10
were hired in July alone. G.C. Exhs. 54 and 55.10 Some of these employees were sent out on jobs
and some were not. Tr. 211-215, 233-234, 260-278, G.C. Exhs. 39, 53, 54, 58. One of those
hires, Tajan Durham, was sent home from his job on July 17 because the client said he did have
enough experience to do the work. G.C. Exh. 48. Another, Shane Milligan, refused a job
assignment on July 22 because it was too far for the money. G.C. Exhs. 49, 58. According to 15
one of Respondent’s position statements (G.C. Exh. 58), another hire, Robert Niemczak,
declined a job because of the location, and still another, Wifredo Cruz, was sent home for “lack
of skills.” Respondent’s records also show that four of the electricians hired between July and
September worked over 200 hours for client employers of Respondent and another worked over
100 hours. G.C. Exh. 54. Respondent conceded that it was filling positions “throughout the 20
summer.” Tr. 214. And Budesa testified that Respondent is “always looking for electricians.”
Tr. 236.
Although Respondent’s records (G.C. Exhs. 54 and 55) list the source of the hired
employees, those records were not accurate in at least one significant respect. As shown at 25
footnote 7 above, Ercolono was erroneously listed as having been a “referral, but he clearly came
to Respondent’s attention through CareerBuilder. Of the 16 hires listed in Respondent’s records
as having been hired from July through September 2014, only one was identified as being from
CareerBuilder; and he was not sent out on a job. This is a decided contrast with records
discussed above that show 6 out of 13 hires in June were from CareerBuilder (G.C. Exh. 55), a 30
circumstance that may not be unrelated to Respondent’s handling of the CareerBuilder
applications from the Union salts in July.
35

8 The above is based on Cugley’s uncontradicted testimony. Neither Slotnick nor Budesa questioned
Cugley’s testimony about his conversations with them. Even though it appears that Cugley did not go
through Respondent’s formal hiring process and his name does not appear on any of Respondent’s
documents listing hires from July through September of 2014, the evidence discussed above shows that
he was in effect hired and considered available for work by Respondent. The most significant piece of
evidence in this respect is Slotnick’s October 2014 email to Cugley asking about his availability for
“immediate” electrician’s job openings in his area.
9 G.C. Exhs. 54 and 55 indicate the first hire dates were July 18, but also indicate that some of the
hires also had a different earlier date titled, “date added.”
10 G.C. Exhs. 54 and 55 list 11 hires in July, including Ercolono, and 16, including Ercolono, from
July through September; but Cugley is not listed. As indicated in footnote 8 above, however, Cugley was
effectively hired and considered available for jobs.
JD–46–15
10
The Original Charge and Complaint
On August 7, 2014, the Union filed its initial charge in 4-CA-134287, alleging that
Respondent had refused to consider or hire its members because of their affiliation with the
Union. On January 29, 2015, the General Counsel issued a complaint in that case, alleging that 5
Respondent had refused to hire Galie, Tuy and Quinn in July 2014 because of their affiliation
with the Union. G.C. Exh. 1(a) and (c).
The Denny’s Job and the Refusal to Hire Quinn
10
On February 20, 2015, Denny’s Electric, an electrical contractor with an upcoming job in
Reading, Pennsylvania, contacted Respondent in order to obtain electricians. On February 23,
Respondent provided two electricians to Denny’s for the Reading job—Luis DeJesus and Deron
Hall; a third electrician, William Torres, was contacted on February 27 and started on the job on
March 3. This made a total of 3 electricians on the Reading job. At some point, about 7 to 1015
days after they started, DeJesus and Hall left the job: DeJesus went to another Denny’s job and
Hall was released by Denny’s because of “attendance issues.” This required replacements. G.C.
Exh. 38, Tr. 238-246, 356-365.
As indicated above, Quinn registered with CareerBuilder and submitted his resume in 20
connection with one of Respondent’s electrician’s job advertisements in July 2014. His resume
was sent to Respondent at that time and was specifically viewed thereafter by Respondent in
October 2014. Quinn’s name and resume remained on the CareerBuilder website thereafter and
his resume was viewed again by Respondent—twice on February 25, 2015 and twice again on
March 5, 2015. Tr. 123-124, 138, 240-241, G.C. Exh. 26. Budesa conceded that he viewed 25
Quinn’s resume on February 25. Tr. 242-243, G.C. Exh. 43. Budesa also conceded that he
viewed Quinn’s resume for a second time on March 5 (Tr. 362), the same day that Budesa
viewed the CareerBuilder resume of Francisco Acosta, whose resume, unlike that of Quinn, had
no reference to the Union. Tr. 240-242, 361-362, GC. Exh. 43.11
30
As shown below, Acosta and a friend of his were hired for the Denny’s job, but Quinn
was not. Quinn was never even contacted by Respondent. Quinn was working in February and
March of 2015, but the job was coming to a close and he was looking for another job at that time.

11 Budesa’s testimony on this issue, in conjunction with his pretrial affidavits, was so vacillating that
it confirms my earlier observations that he was a totally unreliable witness. In his first affidavit given and
signed on October 24, 2014, he stated that he did not recognize the name Michael Quinn. G.C. Exh. 42.
Yet there is documentary evidence that Respondent viewed Quinn’s resume on October 7, just three
weeks before. In his second affidavit, given and signed May 28, 2015, Budesa said that he could not
“recall” viewing Quinn’s resume in October, but it would “definitely” be he or Slotnick who viewed the
resume. Tr. 248, G.C. Exh. 43. Also, in his second affidavit (G.C. Exh. 43), he conceded that he viewed
Quinn’s resume on February 25, but he tried to explain away the obvious implication that he rejected
Quinn for the Denny’s job by also stating that the Denny’s job “came in” after that date. 241-243. That
was obviously false since it was conceded that the Denny’s job “came in” on February 20. G.C. Exh. 38.
When confronted with this discrepancy, he turned defensive, rambling on in an almost incoherent manner.
See Tr. 243-248. Budesa further stated in his second affidavit, and confirmed in his testimony before me,
that he actually considered Quinn for the Denny’s job and conceded that Quinn had the experience
required for the job. G.C. Exh. 43, Tr. 243-248, 356-365.
JD–46–15
11
The job Quinn was working on ended on March 12, 2015. Tr. 128-129. Quinn lives about 30
miles away from Reading, Pennsylvania, about a 40 minute drive, and he credibly testified that
he would have taken the Denny’s job in Reading, if offered. Tr. 128.
Electrician Francisco Acosta was not a member of the Union, but, with the assistance of 5
the Union, registered with and submitted his resume to CareerBuilder sometime in 2014. He
updated his resume on February 18, 2015, but nothing in his resume contains any reference to the
Union. Tr. 369-371, G.C. Exhs. 62 and 63. On March 5, 2015, Budesa viewed Acosta’s resume
on CareerBuilder. Tr. 239, G.C. Exh. 41. That same day, Acosta received an email from Budesa
stating that Budesa had received Acosta’s resume and asking Acosta to call him if Acosta was 10
still looking for work. In the email, Budesa listed his telephone number and stated that he had an
opening for an electrician’s job. G.C. Exh. 61.
Acosta called Budesa the next day and Budesa confirmed that he had seen Acosta’s
resume and had a job for him. They discussed pay and Budesa said the job paid $22 per hour. 15
They arranged for an interview in Budesa’s office the next day. Tr. 372-273. Acosta then called
his friend, Rene Andino, another out-of-work electrician, with no affiliation with the Union.
Andino arranged with Budesa to come in with Acosta for an interview. Both Andino and Acosta
came in to interview with Budesa on Monday, March 9. They filled out applications, passed the
necessary tests and were hired. Budesa wanted them to start work on the Denny’s project in 20
Reading, Pennsylvania, the next day, but they asked to start on Wednesday, March 11, which
they did. Tr. 373-377, 294-299, 302-303, G.C. Exhs. 60 and 64. Budesa did not tell Andino and
Acosta much about the type of work they would be doing, but gave them information on where
and to whom to report. Tr. 375, G.C. Exh. 65. According to Andino, the job involved fairly
routine electricians work, including “roughing, bending pipe, pulling wire” and “working with 25
transformers” as well as putting in “switchgear.” Tr. 301-302. Andino, who was Acosta’s
neighbor, testified that the Denny’s job in Reading was about a 45 minute drive from Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, where they both lived. Tr. 294-295, 369, 305.
The above is based on the credible, mostly uncontradicted, and mutually corroborated 30
testimony, of Acosta and Andino. At the time of the hearing, the Denny’s job was ongoing.
When he testified, Acosta was still working for Respondent at the Denny’s job; Andino had quit
the week before he testified. They worked 40 hours per week at the Denny’s job. Tr. 376-377,
302-303, 305.
35
New Charge and Complaint in Case 4-CA-149042, the Quinn Refusal to Hire Allegations
Although the formal file in this consolidated case (G.C. Exh. 1) does not include a copy
of the charge or amended charge in Case 4-CA-149042, the consolidated complaint states that
the charge in that case was filed on March 27, 2015 and was served on Respondent on March 30, 40
2015; an amended charge in that case was filed and served on June 24, 2015. I assume that the
charge and the amendment alleged violations in connection with the refusal to hire or consider
for hire Quinn in February and March 2015. The consolidated complaint, which issued on June
24, 2015, differed from the original complaint only in adding the new case number and the
February and March allegations as to Quinn. 45
JD–46–15
12
On May 15, 2015, during the investigation of the new charge, Respondent’s attorney,
Walter Zimolong, submitted a position statement to the General Counsel stating as follows (G.C.
Exh. 36):
Moreover, it is mindboggling why Tradesource would 5
consider Mr. Quinn because he (a) committed a felony by filing
a false claim to the Board with his first charge; and (b) was
otherwise maintaining a frivolous lawsuit. Tradesource
does not consider individuals that knowingly violate federal
law and that bring frivolous claims against the company.10
On June 22, 2015, two days before the issuance of the consolidated complaint alleging
violations in the refusal to hire Quinn, including a Section 8(a)(4) violation based on cooperating
with the Board, Zimolong and counsel for the General Counsel apparently discussed Zimolong’ s
May 15 letter and counsel’s view that Zimolong admitted that Quinn was not hired because he 15
had filed a charge against Respondent. In a letter sent the same day to counsel for the General
Counsel, Zimolong said that his earlier statement was not an admission, but rather a “legal
hypothetical and argument.” G.C. Exh. 37. Zimolong also asserted that his statement in the May
15 letter was part of ongoing settlement discussions. But nothing in Zimolong’s May 15 letter
mentioned settlement; indeed, in that letter, he asked that the charge under investigation be 20
dismissed. G.C. Exh. 36. In any event, Zimolong continued in his June 22 letter, in the event
counsel for General Counsel believed that his earlier statement was an admission, it “is hereby
disavowed and withdrawn.” G.C. Exh. 37.
B. Discussion and Analysis25
The Applicable Principles
Employee applicants, including applicants with staffing companies such as Respondent,
have Section 7 rights under the Act, even though they are sponsored by unions and even though 30
they are, unlike in this case, paid union organizers. They cannot therefore be discriminated
against in hiring because of their union affiliation and an employer who engages in such
discrimination violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. NLRB v. Town & Country Electric,
516 U.S. 85 (1995). See also Tradesmen International, Inc., 351 NLRB 579 (2007); Tradesmen
International, Inc., 351 NLRB 399 (2007); Action Multi-Craft, 337 NLRB 268 (2001); and 35
Jobsite Staffing, 340 NLRB 332 (2003).
In FES, 331 NLRB 9, 12 (2000), supplemental decision 333 NLRB 66 (2001), enfd. 301
F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 2002), the Board set forth the following analytical framework for refusal-to-hire
allegations: 40
To establish a discriminatory refusal to hire, the General
Counsel must, 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), first show the following at the 45
hearing on the merits: (1) that the respondent was hiring or had
concrete plans to hire, at the time of the alleged unlawful conduct;
JD–46–15
13
(2) that the applicants had experience or training relevant to the
announced or generally known requirements of the positions for
hire . . . ; and (3) that antiunion animus contributed to the decision
not to hire the applicants.
If the General Counsel meets his burden and the respondent 5
fails to show that it would have made the same hiring 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 10
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 discrimination against them.
331 NLRB at 12 (footnotes omitted).1215
Discriminatory personnel actions, including refusals to hire, against employees or
employee applicants for cooperating with the Board in the filing or investigation of charges
violate Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act. NLRB v. Scrivener, 405 U.S. 117 (1972). See also
Dubin Haskell Lining Corp. v. NLRB, 386 F.2d 306 (4th Cir. 1967) (en banc); and Host 20
International, 290 NLRB 442 (1988). Since motivation is the touchstone of a Section 8(a)(4)
violation, as it is in a Section 8(a)(3) violation, such cases are likewise governed by the Wright
Line analysis set forth above. See American Gardens Management Co., 338 NLRB 644, 645
(2002).
25
Under Wright Line, the General Counsel must satisfy an initial burden of showing by a
preponderance of the evidence that the employee’s protected or union activity was a motivating
factor in a respondent’s adverse action. If the General Counsel meets that initial burden, the
burden shifts to the respondent to show that it would have taken the same action even absent the
employee’s protected activity. The respondent does not meet its burden merely by showing that 30
it had a legitimate reason for its action; it must persuasively demonstrate that it would have taken
the same action in the absence of the protected conduct. And if the respondent’s proffered
reasons are pretextual—either false or not actually relied on—the respondent fails by definition
to meet its burden of showing it would have taken the action for those reasons absent the
protected activity. See Alternative Energy Applications, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 139, slip op. 3 35
(2014), citing authorities.
The establishment of pretext also supports the initial showing of animus and
discrimination. See Wright Line, supra, 251 NLRB at 1088 n. 12, citing Shattuck Denn Mining
Corp. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 1966) (Where a respondent’s reasons are false, it can 40
be inferred “that the [real] motive is one that the [respondent] desires to conceal—an unlawful

12 The FES decision also sets forth a similar analytical framework for refusal-to-consider allegations.
331 NLRB at 15. The complaint in this case alleges refusal-to-consider allegations along with refusal-to-
hire allegations with respect to the treatment of employee-applicant Quinn in February and March 2015.
Because I find a refusal-to-hire violation on that issue, I do not reach the refusal-to-consider allegations.
As shown in my subsequent analysis of the issue, there were concrete plans to hire at the time Quinn was
discriminated against. See Tradesmen International, cited above, 351 NLRB at 403.
JD–46–15
14
motive—at least where . . . the surrounding facts tend to reinforce that inference.”). See also
Greco & Haines, 306 NLRB 634 (1992); and Lucky Cab Co., 360 NLRB No. 43, slip op. 4
(2014). Finally, a trier of fact may not only reject a witness’s testimony about his reasons for an
adverse action, but also find that the truth is the opposite of that testimony. Pratt (Corrugated
Logistics), LLC, 360 NLRB No. 48, slip op. 11-12 (2014) and cases there cited.5
Applying the above principles to the facts in this case, I find that Respondent refused to
hire employees Galie, Tuy and Quinn in July 2014 because of their affiliation with the Union. I
also find that Respondent refused to hire Quinn on and after March 5, 2015 because of his
affiliation with the Union and because charges were filed with the Board on his behalf. Because 10
Respondent gave pretextual reasons for its actions, I further find that Respondent has not met its
burden to show that it would have refused to hire those employee applicants for legitimate
reasons in the absence of their protected activity.
The July 2014 Refusals to Hire15
Applying the FES factors to the refusals to hire Galie, Tuy and Quinn, it is clear from the
factual statement in this case that, from July to September 2014, Respondent was hiring or had
concrete plans to hire at the time Respondent received CareerBuilder emails with their resumes.
The record shows that Respondent hired at least 16 electricians during that period. It is also clear 20
that Galie, Tuy and Quinn had the requisite experience to meet the requirements of the positions
that Respondent was seeking to fill and actually did fill. In its opening brief (Br. 1, 10),
Respondent admits that these initial two factors of FES have been met.
As for the final FES factor, I also find that union animus contributed to the decision not 25
to hire Galie, Tuy and Quinn. Not only were they affiliated with the Union’s salting program,
but their CareerBuilder resumes, which were sent to and received by Respondent in July 2014,
clearly indicated their affiliation with the Union. Thus, Respondent clearly knew of their
affiliation with the Union. Indeed, as shown in the factual statement, both Slotnick and Budesa
knew, even before Galie’s formal application with CareerBuilder, that he was affiliated with the 30
Union; and they likely also knew of Tuy’s affiliation because Tuy spoke to Slotnick on the same
day Slotnick and Galie spoke. Significantly, after their CareerBuilder resumes were received by
Respondent, none of the Union salts were ever hired or even contacted, while, so far as the
record shows, none of the actual hires during the relevant period were known or shown to be
affiliated with the Union. Of particular significance are the hire of covert Union salt Ercolono 35
and the effective hire of covert Union salt Cugley. The inference of discrimination is obvious.
Respondent’s discriminatory animus is also demonstrated by its statements to and
treatment of Nordo and Monaco after it found out that they too were affiliated with the Union.
Slotnick told Monaco that the Union was “crazy” and his clients did not like to “use union 40
people.” He also told Nordo not to engage in union activities and Monaco not to tell people
about his union affiliation. Although those sentiments were expressed two years before, there is
no evidence that Respondent changed its views on the matter. In his May 2015 affidavit, Budesa
repeated that Respondent’s clients are not affiliated with unions and do not want to pay union
scale wages, suggesting that Slotnick’s views remain operative to this day. G.C. Exh. 43.1345

13 In its opening brief (Brief 14-16), Respondent does not specifically focus on its treatment of Nordo
JD–46–15
15
Respondent’s discrimination and animus are further supported by the pretextual reasons
offered by Respondent to defend its actions. Respondent’s position on the July 2014 allegations, 5
as derived from the testimony of Budesa, does not even assert a Wright Line defense. Rather, it
asserts that no discrimination took place because: (1) Budesa did not read any of the
CareerBuilder emails that were admittedly sent to him, containing the resumes of Galie, Tuy and
Quinn (Tr. 332-337); (2) Respondent did not hire anyone from CareerBuilder during the July-
September period (Tr. 337-340, 349-350); and (3) Respondent hired other union affiliated 10
applicants over the last few years (Tr. 341-345, 353-356, 365-367). I reject these assertions not
only because they are without merit, but also because they come from Budesa, a witness whom I
discredit generally, as shown at various points in this decision. I specifically discredit Budesa’s
denial (Tr. 328) that a job applicant’s union affiliation matters to him and his testimony (Tr. 342)
that he does not know the difference between the Union involved in this case, which is engaged 15
in salting Respondent, and other locals of the IBEW, which are not. Thus, Budesa’s reasons
amount to pretexts that not only support the inference of discriminatory motivation, but also fail
to show that Respondent would have rejected the applicants for nondiscriminatory reasons.
Budesa’s testimony that he did not read the CareerBuilder emails that contained the 20
resumes of the Union salts is implausible and unbelievable in light of established facts. It was
stipulated that the CareerBuilder emails of these salts were sent to his email address, but Budesa
testified that there were so many of those emails that he was unable to read them all (Tr. 334-
335). He specifically denied reading the resumes of Galie, Tuy and Quinn prior to the initial
August 2014 charges in this case (Tr. 348-349), implying that he viewed them thereafter. 25
Moreover, Budesa testified that he received emails from CareerBuilder “on a daily basis” and he
generally “looked for” electricians on CareerBuilder “on average once or twice a week.” He also
testified that his job was to hire capable people and that the “more people we have available the
better.” Tr. 351. Indeed, when he testified about viewing Francisco Acosta’s CareerBuilder
resume in March 2015, he specifically stated that he “already knew” about Acosta because 30
Acosta was “originally contacted” in December 2014 (Tr. 361), thus suggesting that he consulted
the CareerBuilder website more than he originally testified; and he kept applicants in mind even
if they were not actually hired. In ordinary circumstances, a person such as Budesa, who is
responsible for selecting the most qualified applicants for Respondent’s clients, would not stop
looking just because he was overwhelmed with applicants. 35

and Monaco, but rather addresses Slotnick’s statements to them, asserting that the Board may not rely on
the statements because they were mere opinions under Section 8(c) of the Act. That assertion is without
merit. Slotnick’s statements included admonishments not to engage in union activities while employed
by Respondent, which went beyond the expression of opinion. Although the statements are not alleged
and may not be found as specific violations because of obvious Section 10(b) limitations, the statements
may be used as background to shed light on conduct within the limitations period. See Wilmington
Fabricators, 322 NLRB 57, 58 n.6 (2000). The statements also amounted to unlawful coercion under
Section 8(a)(1) and thus do not run afoul of Section 8(c). See Penn Tank Lines, Inc., 336 NLRB 1066,
1068 (2001). See also Boeing Co., 362 NLRB No. 195, slip op. 4 (2015).
JD–46–15
16
Budesa’s second point—that Respondent did not hire anyone from CareerBuilder during
the relevant time period—makes no sense. First of all, the assertion itself is wrong: As shown in
the factual statement, on July 31, Respondent did hire Ercolono, a covert salt, from
CareerBuilder. Respondent’s documents also show an additional CareerBuilder hire, Brian
Sammons on September 15 (G.C. Exh. 54). Moreover, the record shows that, in June 2014, 5
Respondent hired 13 electricians, 6 of whom were from CareerBuilder. G.C. Exh. 55. And, as
shown above, Budesa originally viewed Acosta’s CareerBuilder resume in December 2014 and
contacted him at that time; and he later hired Acosta in March 2015. The question then becomes:
Why would Budesa testify that Respondent did not hire from CareerBuilder from July through
September 2014? Budesa offered no nondiscriminatory reason for the asserted hiatus, which is 10
especially strange in view of Respondent’s notice posted at its Plymouth Meeting location
specifically directing that applicants use CareerBuilder. The reason might well be that, as also
shown in the factual statement, Galie revealed to Respondent in late June, his affiliation with the
Union. Indeed, at the same time, Slotnick also admitted to Tuy that he viewed Tuy’s resume,
which listed his affiliation with the Union. This was before they followed the instructions in 15
Respondent’s notice that they apply with CareerBuilder and the suggestion by Slotnick that they
apply on-line, thus alerting Respondent to the possibility that Union salts were using
CareerBuilder.
Finally, again relying on Budesa’s testimony, Respondent contends that it did not 20
discriminate on the basis of affiliation with the Union because it has hired other union members
According to Budesa, Respondent hired Union members Nordo and Monaco in 2012 (Tr. 344).
As I have discussed earlier in this decision, Respondent’s treatment of Nordo and Monaco was
hardly benevolent. Not only did Respondent express its animus against hiring people affiliated
with the Union to them, but, once it found out about their affiliation with the Union, it no longer 25
used them on jobs. The other 3 hires mentioned by Budesa (Tr. 340-345, 353-356, G.C. Exhs. 2
and 3) were not hired in the July-September 2014 time frame; and they were not shown to be
members of the Union, but perhaps of other locals of IBEW, which did not, so far as the record
shows, use salting in order to place employees with Respondent, as did the Union in this case.
Tr. 365-367. Significantly, Budesa did not assert, nor do Respondent’s records (G.C. 54) show, 30
that any of the electricians hired from July through September 2014 were known to be union
members or people affiliated with the Union. Thus, here again, Budesa’s testimony does not
explain away the evidence of discrimination, but rather its lack of merit supports the finding of
discrimination.
35
In these circumstances, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by refusing to hire Galie, Tuy and Quinn in July 2014 because of their affiliation with the Union.
The Refusal to Hire Quinn in March 2015
40
As shown in the factual statement, from on or about March 5, 2015, Respondent had at
least 2 job openings to fill for the Denny’s job in Reading. Budesa admittedly viewed Quinn’s
CareerBuilder resume both on February 25 and March 5. According to Budesa, who did the
hiring for the Denny’s job, Quinn “definitely” had the “experience required for the job.” G.C.
Exh. 43. Yet Quinn was not hired or even contacted for that job. Thus, as Respondent has 45
admitted (Br. 1, 10), the first two aspects of the FES requirements for a refusal to hire showing
have been satisfied.
JD–46–15
17
Moreover, the evidence clearly shows that Respondent did not hire Quinn for the
Denny’s job because of his affiliation with the Union, which was prominently displayed on his
CareerBuilder resume viewed by Budesa. In addition to the obvious animus shown in my
finding that Respondent had earlier discriminatorily refused to hire Quinn and two other Union 5
salts, it is reasonable to infer that the discrimination against Quinn continued with respect to the
Denny’s hiring. Two other applicants, Acosta and Andino, who did not reveal any affiliation
with the Union, in a resume, application or otherwise, were hired at about the same time Quinn
was rejected. Acosta’s CareerBuilder resume was viewed for the first time the same day that
Quinn’s was viewed for the second time. Indeed, Andino was hired after simply calling Budesa, 10
in violation of Respondent’s policy against in person contacts. Moreover, Quinn was part of the
original Board complaint alleging unlawful refusals to hire in July 2014. That initial complaint
was filed on January 29, 2015, less than a month before Budesa viewed Quinn’s CareerBuilder
application and resume and less than a month before Respondent needed to provide electricians
for the Denny’s job. The timing of the naming of Quinn in the original complaint and the refusal 15
to hire him in March 2015 is obvious, thus supporting the finding of discrimination not only on
the basis of his affiliation with the Union, but also on the basis of his cooperation with the Board
in the original charge and complaint. That finding is strengthened by the admission of
Respondent’s attorney, its agent, that Respondent would not hire someone who filed what it
viewed as a false charge with the NLRB. Budesa himself tied his consideration of Quinn’s 20
resume in February and March 2015 to review of the earlier unfair labor practice charge.14
The above circumstances well support the General Counsel’s initial burden of showing a
discriminatory refusal to hire Quinn both because of his Union affiliation and because he
cooperated with the Board in the charge filed on his behalf, each of which are protected 25
activities. But, as demonstrated below, such a showing is reinforced by the pretextual reasons
offered by Respondent for refusing to hire Quinn.
Here again, Respondent relies for its defense on the testimony of Budesa, who was doing
the hiring for the Denny’s job. Unlike in the July 2014 refusals to hire, Budesa did not deny 30
viewing Quinn’s CareerBuilder application and resume during the time he filled at least two of
the Denny’s jobs. Budesa’s testimony concedes that he actually considered Quinn, although he
never contacted him, but suggests that he rejected Quinn because (1) he lived too far away from
the location of the Denny’s job, unlike the other people Respondent hired and sent to that job; (2)
he was “overqualified” since he had previously worked as a foreman; and (3) he had previously 35
worked jobs that paid union scale, far above the pay of the Denny’s job. Tr. 242-248, 356-365,
345-347, G.C. 43. All of these reasons are specious and pretextual.
Budesa’s testimony about Quinn must be analyzed in the context of his completely
unreliable testimony on other issues, particularly in connection with the unlawful July 2014 40

14 Budesa conceded that, when he viewed Quinn’s CareerBuilder resume in February and March
2015, he was reviewing the resume with his attorney in connection with an investigation of the original
complaint. Tr. 345-346. That does not rule out a finding that Quinn’s resume was reviewed in
connection with the Denny’s job. There is no inconsistency between a review in connection with an
investigation of the original complaint and a review for hiring purposes, especially since Budesa viewed
Quinn’s resume and Acosta’s resume on the same day. Indeed, as discussed below, Budesa claimed to
have considered Quinn for the Denny’s job and rejected him on the merits.
JD–46–15
18
refusals to hire. But his testimony about rejecting Quinn in March 2015 is inherently incredible
on its own. He supposedly used factors gleaned from Quinn’s resume to reject him without even
contacting him. Thus, his surmise that Quinn lived too far away from the Denny’s job in
Reading was presumably based on his simple reading of Quinn’s address in the resume.
Significantly, he did not even talk to Quinn to see if he truly lived too far from the job. In fact, 5
as Quinn testified, the job was only a 40 minute drive for him and he would gladly have accepted
the job if offered. Tr. 128. Indeed, both Acosta and Andino, who were hired for the Denny’s job
at the same time Quinn was rejected, lived at least as far away from the Reading job. Contrary to
Budesa’s testimony that they both lived in Reading itself (Tr. 362), they actually lived in
Lancaster, about a 45 minute drive from Reading. Tr. 294, 305, 369. Thus, Budesa gave false 10
reasons for rejecting Quinn on the basis of geography. Budesa also testified falsely about having
secured Andino’s name from Acosta in their initial conversation about the Denny’s job. Tr. 362.
That was contrary to both Acosta and Andino, whose testimony makes clear that Acosta did not
tell Budesa about Andino. It was Acosta, who, after initially talking to Budesa about his
application, separately called Andino and told him about a possible job opening. Andino then 15
separately called Budesa about the job. Tr. 372-373, 376, 294-295.
Budesa’s testimony, confirming his affidavit (Tr. 244, G.C. Exh. 43), about Quinn being
overqualified, again without having consulted the applicant, is likewise not credible. It would
seem that an employer honestly looking for good people would try to hire the best and someone 20
who had once served as a foreman would be among the best. Indeed, Budesa’s testimony in this
respect seems contradictory to his testimony that Quinn was “definitely” qualified for the
Denny’s job (Tr. 245, G.C. Exh. 43). Apparently undaunted by such contradiction, Budesa also
offered the conclusory assertion that the other people he hired for the Denny’s job were “more
qualified.” Tr. 245. But that assertion was not supported by any further evidence, including the 25
comparative resumes or applications. Moreover, Budesa’s reliance on this factor is questionable
for another reason. Quinn testified that he only worked as a foreman briefly in the summer of
2014 (Tr. 132-133) and that he worked 99% of the time as a journeyman, including experience
doing the kind of work that was being done on the Denny’s job. Tr. 129-133. He also testified
credibly that he would have accepted the Denny’s job in March of 2015 because the job he was 30
on was finishing up. Tr. 128. Budesa would have found out about all of this, including the short
period of time that Quinn worked as a foreman, had he at least contacted Quinn. But the real
reason Budesa did not contact Quinn, in my view, was that, when he read Quinn’s resume, he
focused not on Quinn’s experience, but on that part of the resume that showed Quinn’s affiliation
with the Union.35
Finally, most damaging is Budesa’s suggestion, made more sharply in his affidavit, that
Quinn was rejected because he was earning union scale and Respondent’s clients, apparently
including Denny’s, were not paying union scale and indeed did not have union contracts. Far
from showing that Quinn was rejected for the Denny’s job because of nondiscriminatory reasons, 40
Budesa’s suggestion in this respect confirms that discriminatory reasons motivated Respondent’s
rejection of Quinn. To the extent that Budesa’s point can be stripped of its union considerations
and viewed as assuming Quinn would not accept the job because it paid too little, it fails to
withstand scrutiny. The best way to test whether Quinn would have rejected the Denny’s job
because it paid too little would have been to ask him about it. The fact that Budesa did not 45
simply reinforces the initial showing that Respondent rejected Quinn for the job because he was
JD–46–15
19
affiliated with the Union and also because he had been part of the earlier discrimination that was
brought to the attention of the Board.
In these circumstances, I find that Respondent refused to hire Quinn on and after March
5, 2015 because he was affiliated with the Union and because he cooperated with the Board in 5
bringing the initial unfair labor practice case, all in violation of Section 8(a)(4), (3) and (1) of the
Act.15
Conclusions of Law
10
1. By discriminatorily refusing to hire employee-applicants Bryan Galie, Song Tuy and
Michael Quinn in July 2014 because of their affiliation with the Union, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
2. By discriminatorily refusing to hire employee-applicant Michael Quinn on and after15
March 5, 2015 because of his affiliation with the Union and because charges were filed on his
behalf with the Board, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and 8(a)(4) and (1) of the
Act.
3. The above violations constitute unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act.20
Remedy
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily refused to hire certain individuals, as
indicated above, the Respondent shall be ordered to offer them instatement and make them 25
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits they may have suffered as a result of the
unlawful discrimination against them. Any backpay shall be computed in accordance with F.W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest, as prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB
1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No.
8 (2010). The duration of the backpay period shall be determined in accordance with Oil Capital 30
Sheet Metal, 349 NLRB 1348 (2007).
ORDER
Respondent, Tradesource, Inc., its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall35
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to hire or consider for hire employee-applicants because of their union

15 Even though it is clear that Budesa viewed Quinn’s CareerBuilder resume on February 25, as well
as on March 5, I do not reach the issue whether Respondent refused to hire Quinn earlier than March 5,
2015. It is clear that Acosta and Andino were hired instead of Quinn at a time when all three were
considered, but it is not clear that Quinn would have been hired and sent to the Denny’s job before Torres,
who was contacted on February 27 and sent to the job on March 3. At the time, Torres, who had been a
previous hire, was on Respondent’s available for work list. Tr. 239, 347, 360. Nor would it make any
difference because it appears that Quinn would not have been available to start work before Torres. See
Tr. 128.
JD–46–15
20
affiliation and/or because they had charges filed with the National Labor Relations Board on
their behalf.
(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.5
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer instatement to Bryan Galie, Song Tuy and Michael Quinn to the positions for
which they applied, or, if these positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, 10
without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights and privileges to which they would have
been entitled had they not been discriminated against.
(b) Make Bryan Galie, Song Tuy and Michael Quinn whole, with interest, for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner 15
set forth in the remedy section of this Order.
(c) 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.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post, at its Plymouth Meeting,
Pennsylvania facility, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”16 Copies of the notice, 25
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, 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. 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 30
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 all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since August 7, 2014.
35
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
40

16 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice
reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
JD–46–15
21
Dated at Washington, D.C., September 18, 2015.
5
_______________________________
Robert A. Giannasi
Administrative Law Judge
10
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 or your behalf.
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to hire or consider for hire employee-applicants because of their union
affiliation or because charges have been filed on their behalf with the National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL offer instatement to Bryan Galie, Song Tuy and Michael Quinn to the positions for
which they applied, or if these positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights and privileges to which they would have
been entitled had they not been discriminated against.
WE WILL make Bryan Galie, Song Tuy and Michael Quinn whole, with interest, for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
TRADESOURCE, 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
615 Chestnut Street, 7th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19106-4404
(215) 597-7601, Hours: 8:30 am to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case /04-CA-134287 or by using
the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of 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 NOTIE OF COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED
TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (215) 597-5353.