Zurn/N.E.P.C.O.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 22, 2005

345 N.L.R.B. 12 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
345 NLRB No. 1
12
Zurn/N.E.P.C.O. and Northern Michigan Building &
Construction Trades Council and its affiliated
Unions. Cases 7–CA–33443, 7–CA–33672, 7–
CA–33838, 7–CA–33920, 7–CA–33982, 7–CA–
34089, and 7–CA–34532
August 22, 2005
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
This case presents issues arising from efforts by sev-
eral building trades unions to organize the Cadillac,
Michigan worksite of the Respondent, Zurn/N.E.P.C.O.,
and from Zurn’s actions in opposition to those efforts. In
a series of three attached decisions, Administrative Law
Judge Karl H. Buschmann found that Zurn violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act on numerous occasions by threat-
ening and interrogating employees and applicants for
employment, by prohibiting employees from wearing
union insignia, and by enforcing a no-solicitation rule in
a discriminatory manner. The judge also found that Zurn
violated Section 8(a)(3) by laying off its pipefitting crew
because they engaged in union organizing activities.
Applying the principles set out by the Board in FES, 331
NLRB 9 (2000), enfd. 301 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 2002), the
judge in his second supplemental decision further found
that Zurn violated Section 8(a)(3) by discriminating in
hiring against applicants with union backgrounds.1
The Board has considered the judge’s decisions and
the record in light of the parties’ exceptions and briefs,2
and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings,3 findings,4

1 The judge arrived at the same legal conclusion in his initial and
supplemental decisions, which issued prior to FES. Pursuant to the
Board’s second remand, the judge reaffirmed his earlier decisions using
the analysis prescribed in FES.
2 We deny the Respondent’s motion to strike the Charging Party’s
cross-exceptions and brief. We find that while the Charging Party’s
exceptions and brief do not conform exactly to the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, they are not so deficient as to warrant striking.
3 We find no merit in the General Counsel’s exceptions to the
judge’s denial of his motion to consolidate this proceeding with Case
12–CA–15833, et al. The judge denied the motion on May 12, 1994,
the final day of hearing, on the ground that consolidation would not
result in a speedier or more efficient disposition of both cases. In any
event, since the Board issued its decision in Case 12–CA–15833
(Zurn/N.E.P.C.O., 329 NLRB 484 (1999)), several years ago, the entire
matter is moot.
We likewise reject the Respondent’s claim that the judge deprived it
of procedural due process by granting the General Counsel’s numerous
complaint amendments made during and after the hearing. As the
judge found, the granted amendments did no more than specify persons
or matters substantially encompassed within the complaint or amended
complaint and were fully litigated. Moreover, the Respondent has not
demonstrated that it was surprised by, or denied ample opportunity to
prepare a defense to, any of the amendments.
and conclusions as modified, and to adopt the judge’s
recommended Order as modified and set forth in full
below. Specifically, we agree with all of the 8(a)(1) vio-
lations found by the judge except for his finding that
Zurn unlawfully enforced its no-solicitation rule. We
also agree with the judge that Zurn’s layoff of the pipefit-
ters violated Section 8(a)(3). And, as we explain in de-
tail below, we find that Zurn discriminated against union
applicants in hiring, but only in certain instances. Unlike
the judge and our dissenting colleague, we do not find
that Zurn operated its entire hiring process in a discrimi-
natory manner.5
I. FACTS
A.
A local consortium contracted with the Respondent, a
general contractor headquartered in Washington State
and Maine, to build a cogeneration plant in Cadillac,
Michigan. Before it started hiring for the project in April
1992,6 the Respondent entered into an arrangement with
a State agency, the Michigan Employment Security
Commission (MESC), to register applicants for jobs at
the project and to process their applications. In late Janu-
ary, after numerous union members had attempted to
apply for jobs directly, the Respondent informed the
Charging Party Unions that it would not be accepting
direct applications, but instead that MESC would process
all applications. The Unions (Boilermakers, Carpenters,
Electricians, Ironworkers, Millwrights, Pipefitters, Sheet
Metal Workers, and Operating Engineers) then began
sending their members to the MESC office to register for
positions. Ultimately, at least 439 applicants affiliated
with the Unions registered with MESC. See Second
Supplemental Decision, appendices A and B.
Under the regular MESC job-placement procedure,
applicants registered for jobs by going to the MESC of-
fice in Cadillac and filling out a MESC registration form
(Form 2511) listing their job skills and work experience.
MESC officials would interview the applicants and enter
the information on a computer. Employers could then
request MESC to refer registrants with appropriate job

4 The parties have excepted to some of the judge’s credibility find-
ings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administra-
tive law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance
of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Stan-
dard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d
Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for
reversing the findings.
5 Member Liebman agrees with the majority’s adoption of the
judge’s decision, as modified, except that she dissents separately from
the majority’s failure to find that Zurn’s manipulation of its hiring
policy demonstrates an overall pattern of discrimination against union
applicants.
6 Unless otherwise stated, all dates refer to 1992.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 13
skills, and the MESC computer would generate a list of
registrants (in order of their expressing an interest in
working for a particular employer, or of their registration
dates). MESC would contact the individuals, who would
be called into the office to fill out a generic work applica-
tion for a position, which would be forwarded to the re-
questing employer.7
The Respondent, however, came to a special arrange-
ment with MESC called a “custom referral agreement.”
Under this arrangement, instead of referring qualified
individuals to the Respondent in the order in which they
registered, MESC agreed to honor Respondent’s priority
hiring system. This system, known as policy 303, gives
priority in hiring to qualified applicants who are present
or former employees of the Respondent, or who have
appropriate work experience and have been referred by
current managers, supervisors, or employees of the Re-
spondent.8 Thus, MESC would register individuals with
priority under policy 303 and refer them to the Respon-
dent on a “name call” basis ahead of other, nonpriority
registrants (even those who had registered before the
priority registrants).
B.
In April, construction work began on the Cadillac pro-
ject with the hiring of 4 electricians and then 13 pipefit-
ters. Several carpenters and individuals in other crafts
were also hired in the first few months.
In May, the Charging Party began scheduling regular
organizing meetings with the Respondent’s employees,
which were attended by 13 pipefitters and several car-
penters. On May 18, the Respondent’s resident manager

7 MESC’s original policy was that registrations stayed active in the
system for 30 days. In late February 1992, MESC extended the active
period to 6 months. However, the active period was extended an addi-
tional 6 months whenever the registrant had contact with the MESC
office in question.
8 Policy 303 is contained in the Respondent’s field policies and pro-
cedures. It states that:
Consideration of qualified applicants will be prioritized as follows:
1. Current Company employees who are eligible for continued
employment with the Company, and have obtained an approved
release by the Resident Manager.
2. Former Company employees eligible for rehire.
3. Individuals who have appropriate prior work experience rec-
ommended by a current Company supervisor or manager.
4. Individuals who have appropriate work experience recom-
mended by current employees.
5. Individuals who have applicable work experience in the con-
struction of cogeneration or power plants.
6. Individuals who have applicable work experience on industrial
construction projects.
7. Individuals qualifying for JTPA or T.
8. All other qualified applicants.
Within each of the above categories, consideration of qualified indi-
viduals within the immediate local area will be given first.
assembled the employees and announced that soliciting
was prohibited and threatened to fire anyone caught so-
liciting. A few days later, the Respondent laid off its
electricians. 9
On June 2, several of the Unions notified the Respon-
dent of their organizing efforts and identified their em-
ployee organizers. Sometime in early June, the pipefit-
ting crew began wearing union insignia on the jobsite.
On June 12, the Charging Party notified the Respon-
dent’s superintendent that seven pipefitters, among oth-
ers, were members of the organizing committee, and that
it was demanding recognition on behalf of the Respon-
dent’s employees at the Cadillac jobsite.
On June 18, the Unions held a rally at the Respon-
dent’s gate, which was attended by pipefitting crew
members on their lunchbreak. The pipefitters returned to
work wearing union insignia. That afternoon, the Re-
spondent laid off the entire pipefitting crew, assertedly
for lack of work. In July, the Respondent hired two
firms to complete the piping work.
After laying off the pipefitters, the Respondent began
its main hiring of construction craft workers to build the
plant, i.e., carpenters, boilermakers, ironworkers, mill-
wrights, pipefitters, and operating engineers (as well as
others), with the last hires occurring in April 1993.
C.
Unfair labor practice charges were filed against Zurn
on July 1, September 2, October 19, November 13, and
December 4. On December 5, several of the Respon-
dent’s employees struck over the Respondent’s alleged
labor law violations, including its failure to hire union
applicants. Other employees and individuals joined the
strike activity. On December 8, the Charging Party con-
tacted the Respondent and made an unconditional offer
to return to work.10 Around December 9, MESC discon-
tinued making “name call” referrals to the Respondent,
reverting to its usual “first in, first referred” method in
reaction to the Respondent’s requesting 70 more “name
call” applicants on a preferred basis.
After the strike began, the Respondent attempted to
contact 39 union applicants, identified as discriminatees
in the Union’s charges filed with the Board, with alleged
offers of employment. Respondent’s personnel manager,
Louis Sullivan, telephoned the applicants around De-
cember 8. His successor, Tom Brigham, sent followup
letters on December 23, with responses due by December
30 (later January 4, 1993). Many of these applicants

9 There are no exceptions to the judge’s finding that the Respon-
dent’s layoff of its electricians was lawful.
10 The record indicates, contrary to the judge’s finding, that the
Charging Party withdrew its offer on December 16.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
expressed interest in employment, but only one was ul-
timately hired.
D.
The judge found that, over the course of the Cadillac
project, approximately 1700 persons registered with
MESC to work for the Respondent, and 1057 completed
MESC Form 2511. Four hundred thirty nine of those
applicants had union backgrounds. The Respondent
hired 202 employees in the trades that the Union sought
to represent: carpenters, millwrights, ironworkers, pipe-
fitters, boilermakers, electricians, and operating engi-
neers. Fifty of the successful applicants had union back-
grounds. According to Respondent’s Exhibit 57, 169 of
those hired, including 17 with union backgrounds, were
hired pursuant to the Respondent’s special referral ar-
rangement with MESC. The remaining 33 were hired
according to MESC’s regular referral processes; of those,
15 had union backgrounds.11
The Cadillac project was completed in August 1993.
The Respondent never recognized the Unions as the rep-
resentatives of any of its employees on that job.12
II. DISCUSSION
A. Nonhiring Allegations
The judge found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) in numerous respects: by unlawfully interrogating
applicants for employment about their union back-
grounds, threatening job loss or other reprisals for union
adherents, directing unlawful warnings at both employ-
ment applicants and current employees, and prohibiting
employees from wearing union stickers on their hardhats.
We adopt those findings, for the reasons discussed by the
judge.13 We also agree with the judge’s finding that the

11 In all, 276 individuals were hired in Respondent’s workplace, in-
cluding supervisors, secretaries, and members of trades that the Union
was not seeking to represent. Of those, 212 were name-calls or other
preferred categories. The other 64 were referred by MESC according
to its regular processes; of those, 24 had union backgrounds.
12 There is no 8(a)(5) allegation.
13 In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent’s ban on hard-
hat stickers violated Sec. 8(a)(1), we rely on Windemuller Electric, 306
NLRB 664, 669–670, enf. denied 34 F.3d 384, 394 (6th Cir. 1994), and
Reno Hilton Resort, 319 NLRB 1154 fn. 4 (1994). While the Sixth
Circuit denied enforcement in Windemuller, holding that the employer
possessed the right to ban stickers on company-owned hardhats, the
rule here applied to “all employees’ hard hats,”—not merely those
owned by the Respondent. Indeed, the Respondent does not cite any
record evidence in support of its exceptions that it owned the hardhats
covered under its rule.
We find it unnecessary to address the General Counsel’s cross-
exceptions regarding the judge’s failure to find that three other state-
ments made by the Respondent’s supervisory and managerial personnel
violated Sec. 8(a)(1). Any further violations would not affect the rem-
edy.
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by laying off its
pipefitting crew in June.14
However, we disagree with the judge’s finding that the
Respondent unlawfully disciplined employee Donald
Diekman for engaging in union solicitation at work, even
though it allowed solicitation for the United Way cam-
paign. Although an employer may not prohibit employ-
ees from engaging in union solicitation while regularly
permitting them to solicit for other causes, the Board has
recognized “isolated ‘beneficent acts’ as narrow excep-
tions to a no-solicitation rule.” Hammary Mfg. Corp.,
265 NLRB 57 fn. 4 (1992). We find that the United Way
solicitation here comes within this limited exception.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss this allegation.
B. Hiring Allegations
These allegations chiefly concern whether the Respon-
dent unlawfully discriminated against union applicants
through policy 303. Specifically, the consolidated com-
plaint alleges that Zurn failed and refused to hire and
consider for hire qualified applicants seeking employ-
ment in the boilermaking, carpentry, electrical, ironwork-
ing, millwright, operating engineer, pipefitting, and sheet
metal crafts at the Cadillac jobsite because of their mem-
bership in or affiliation with the Charging Party Union or
other labor organization. The judge found that the Re-
spondent’s hiring policy was both inherently discrimina-
tory and discriminatorily applied.15 The Respondent
excepts, arguing, inter alia, that it consistently followed
policy 303, a companywide, facially neutral hiring policy
established prior to the events here and applicable to all
its projects. The Respondent contends that this policy of
providing preferential hiring status to current and former
employees, and to nonemployees who have been recom-
mended by company managers, supervisors, or employ-
ees was not discriminatory in any respect. For the rea-
sons discussed below, we do not agree completely with
either the judge or the Respondent.
As the judge correctly found in his Second Supple-
mental Decision, in order to establish a discriminatory
refusal-to-hire violation, the General Counsel must estab-
lish:

14 In adopting this finding, however, we do not rely on the fact that
the layoff occurred immediately after a union rally at the Respondent’s
jobsite. The record reflects that the Respondent ordered the pipefitting
crew’s last paychecks prior to the rally.
15 The judge found that the Respondent did not violate the Act by re-
fusing to consider either the applications submitted by the Unions in
bulk, or individuals’ direct applications. In exceptions, the Union and
the General Counsel argue that the Respondent did not consistently
follow this practice and that it was a pretext for discrimination. We
adopt the judge’s finding for the reasons stated in his decision.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 15
(1) that the respondent was hiring, or had concrete
plans to hire, at the time of the alleged unlawful con-
duct; (2) that the applicants had experience or training
relevant to the announced or generally known require-
ments of the positions for hire, or in the alternative, that
the employer has not adhered uniformly to such re-
quirements, or that the requirements were themselves
pretextual or were applied as a pretext for discrimina-
tion; and (3) that antiunion animus contributed to the
decision not to hire the applicants.
FES, 331 NLRB at 12. If the General Counsel meets this
initial burden, the burden shifts to the respondent to show
that it would not have hired the applicants even in the ab-
sence of their union activity or affiliation. Id.
We adopt the judge’s finding that the General Counsel
met his initial burden as to the first two FES elements.
Thus, it is undisputed that the Respondent was hiring and
that the union applicants had the relevant training and
experience for the positions to be filled. As to the final
element, we agree with the judge that union animus in-
fected a number of the Respondent’s hiring decisions,
and that the Respondent has failed to show that it would
have made those same decisions in the absence of the
applicants’ union affiliation. Unlike the judge, however,
we do not find the Respondent’s hiring policy was inher-
ently discriminatory or that union animus pervaded the
Respondent’s entire application of the policy.
1. Respondent’s policy 303 is not
inherently discriminatory
The judge found the Respondent’s hiring policy to be
inherently discriminatory. In his supplemental decision,
he observed that
Policy 303 . . . by its terms gave preference to present
and past employees and referrals by its own employees,
including management. Policy 303 on its face provides
for the preferential hiring of applicants who have a
connection with Respondent’s work force. And that
work force is not unionized. The Board has found in
similar circumstances that the practical effect of such a
priority hiring system is “to preclude employment of
union members.” D.S.E. Concrete Forms, 303 NLRB
890 fn. 2 (1991), enfd. [mem.] 21 F.3d 1109 (5th Cir.
1994).
The judge found that “Policy 303 itself is discriminatory, as
shown by the record’s statistical evidence, Respondent’s
expert testimony and the practical consequences of its appli-
cation.” We disagree.
Policy 303 does not, either by its terms or by its neces-
sary operation, discriminate in hiring among individuals
on the basis of union membership or nonmembership.
As the Board found regarding an earlier version of the
Respondent’s priority hiring policy, policy 303 “does not
on its face preclude or limit the possibilities for consid-
eration of applicants with union preferences or back-
grounds.” Zurn/N.E.P.C.O., 329 NLRB 484 (1999).
Similarly, in Custom Topsoil, Inc., 328 NLRB 446, 447
(1999), the Board found that an employer had not dis-
criminated on the basis of union activity when it differ-
entiated between “stranger” and “familiar” applicants,
but not between union and nonunion applicants.
Policy 303 does give preference to applicants who are
either current or previous employees of the Respondent,
and, thus, are “known quantities” to the Respondent, or
who are known to the Respondent’s managers, supervi-
sors, and current employees who are willing to vouch for
them as potential employees. In our view, that is a ra-
tional hiring practice for an employer that is trying to
attract a qualified, dependable work force, and does not
necessarily indicate an invidious motive. See Belfance
Electric, 319 NLRB 945, 946 (1995) (employer’s policy
of hiring friends, relatives, and business acquaintances
instead of complete strangers “hardly irrational” and
“consistent with human nature”). Indeed, the Board has
recognized, as a valid defense to an allegation of anti-
union discrimination in hiring, an employer’s reliance
upon a neutral hiring policy much like Zurn’s. Brandt
Construction Co., 336 NLRB 733 (2001), enfd. sub nom.
Operating Engineers Local 150 v. NLRB, 325 F.3d 818,
833–834 (7th Cir. 2003). If an employer can rely on a
priority hiring policy as a legitimate nondiscriminatory
reason not to hire an applicant, it follows that such a pol-
icy cannot be inherently discriminatory.
Moreover, the record does not indicate that the Re-
spondent implemented policy 303 for discriminatory
reasons. Policy 303 and its predecessors were in exis-
tence long before the Cadillac project began, and there is
no evidence that it was devised in order to avoid hiring
union adherents. As for the practical effects of policy
303, it is true, as the judge noted, that since the Respon-
dent is a nonunion employer, its former employees and
applicants referred by current managers, supervisors, and
employees would tend not to be union supporters. But
this circumstance would not necessarily blacklist union
supporters. Nor would it necessarily lead to a nonunion
work force. Because the Respondent operates all across
the United States, it could not be certain that its prior
employees or their referrals would be able to travel to a
new, distant worksite. Consequently, a nondiscrimina-
tory application of its policy could require the Respon-
dent to consider lower priority applicants: those with
appropriate work experience, but without prior employee
status or referrals. That, in fact, was what happened on
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD16
the Cadillac project. The Respondent hired 33 such indi-
viduals—15 with union backgrounds—for openings in
the trades which the Unions sought to organize, through
MESC’s normal referral process, i.e., not because of the
Respondent’s preferential process.
Moreover, the actual operation of policy 303 resulted
in the hiring of 17 union supporters, or just over 10 per-
cent of the 169 priority hires in the relevant categories.
The judge discounted these hires as mainly occurring
prior to the onset of the Unions’ organizing campaign in
June. In our view, however, the fact that these hires oc-
curred at all indicates that the hiring policy itself did not
constitute such an impermeable barrier to union appli-
cants as to be inherently discriminatory.16
Because we find policy 303 to be facially lawful, not
implemented for discriminatory reasons, and not inher-
ently discriminatory against union applicants, we shall
not order that it be rescinded.
2. Application of policy 303
In his original decision, the judge found that, since
early June, when the Unions began their organizing ef-
forts, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by its as-
sertedly discriminatory application of policy 303. The
judge relied on evidence regarding the Respondent’s
antiunion motivation, including its unlawful layoff of the
pipefitters, its antiunion statements, interrogations (both
by its own managerial and supervisory personnel and by
its agent MESC), the disparate application of its hiring
policy, the use of a “custom referral” system to subvert
the MESC referral process, and out-of-state recruiting to
avoid hiring union applicants from the local area. In
addition, the judge relied on direct evidence of discrimi-
nation against certain specific union applicants. In his
second supplemental decision, the judge reconsidered his
findings in light of FES, supra, and found that the Gen-
eral Counsel had met the criteria for establishing both
refusal-to-hire and refusal-to-consider violations. He
also found that the Respondent had failed to establish
that it would not have hired the union applicants even
absent their union affiliations.

16 The Board’s decision in D.S.E. Concrete Forms, supra, 303 NLRB
890, does not require a different result. The judge in that case found
that the practical effect of policies largely giving priority to former or
existing employees of the respondent company or another allied com-
pany was to preclude employment at the jobsite by union members. Id.
at 897. However, in affirming the judge, the Board stated that it only
agreed with the judge on the particular facts of the case: the employer
had specifically defended on the ground that union members would not
work on a nonunion job, but the General Counsel had rebutted that
defense by establishing that the union had waived that restriction for
the particular job at issue. Id. at 890 fn. 2.
a. Deviations from policy 303
As the judge found, it is clear that Zurn was hiring in
the trades that the Unions were attempting to organize
and that the union applicants had the experience and
training required for the positions for hire. It is also clear
that Zurn harbored antiunion animus. For the General
Counsel to meet the criteria for a refusal-to-hire case
under FES, however, he must demonstrate that Zurn’s
antiunion animus contributed to its decision not to hire
the union applicants. 331 NLRB at 12.
As we discuss below, beginning in June, Zurn departed
from policy 303 in 23 instances, either by hiring nonun-
ion applicants who lacked any priority under policy 303
or by failing to hire union applicants who should have
been afforded preference in hiring.17 We find that, in
those instances, the General Counsel has shown that an-
tiunion animus infected Zurn’s hiring decisions. Accord-
ing to Zurn, policy 303 was designed “to select the most
qualified applicant for the job opening.” By departing
from the criteria set forth in policy 303, the Respondent
on those occasions, failed to implement the policy’s
stated purpose.
First, as the judge found, 11 nonunion applicants were
hired despite their having little or no experience in the
job categories in which they were hired, and in the face
of the availability of highly qualified union members
who were registered with MESC.18 Almost all of these

17 The applicants hired by the Respondent in departure from policy
303 are listed in App. A.
In his Second Supplemental Decision, the judge stated that the Re-
spondent hired “as many as 70 [nonunion candidates] who had little or
no experience in their job categories.” He made no findings, however,
as to specific instances of such hiring (other than those he identified in
his original decision). We have reviewed App. C to the judge’s Second
Supplemental Decision and have found numerous instances in which
employees were hired who may have lacked relevant experience. Some
of those, however, were hired before the union organizing campaign
began, and some were applicants with union backgrounds. Nearly half
were hired into helper positions, for which pertinent craft experience
would seem to be less crucial. Moreover, some of the information in
the judge’s App. C appears to be inconsistent with information on
employment applications. In these circumstances, and in the absence of
particularized findings by the judge or argument by the parties, we shall
not attempt to determine which, if any, of the hires listed in the judge’s
App. C actually lacked relevant experience.
18 Joseph Kinney, Dan Dronzek, William Douglas, Samuel Gibson,
Peter Caisse, Martin Fisher, Ken Carter, Kelly Bennett, Bryce Friess,
James Vaughn, and Vickie Hilliard.
We do not rely, however, on the judge’s findings concerning the Re-
spondent’s alleged departure from policy 303 in hiring applicants
David Forsgren, Leonard Bowen, or Mark Eisenga for three carpenter
positions in the spring of 1992, despite their having little or no experi-
ence as carpenters. The judge specifically found that the Respondent’s
use of policy 303 to avoid hiring union applicants began in early June,
when the Union commenced its effort to organize the Respondent’s
employees at the Cadillac site. Since all three of these employees were
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 17
hires came from outside of the State of Michigan, despite
policy 303’s specific provision that “[w]ithin each of the
above categories, consideration of qualified individuals
within the immediate local area will be given first.” See
footnote 7, supra.
The Respondent also deviated from its policy in the
case of three other nonunion applicants, to whom it of-
fered employment or hired with no referrals or actually
altered their applications to indicate, falsely, that they
had referrals.19 The Respondent’s manager, Tom Brig-
ham, also conceded that in December 1992, he hired
seven applicants from nonpolicy 303 sources without
going through MESC at all.20
Finally, we adopt the judge’s findings that the Respon-
dent departed from policy 303 by failing to rehire Jeff
Kruse and Gary Macy even though, as former Zurn em-
ployees, they should have had priority in hiring. Kruse
and Macy are carpenters. Both were union supporters.
Kruse, a former employee of the Respondent, registered
for carpenter positions on April 16. He had earlier sent
an application directly to the Respondent in January and
filled out an application at the MESC office in August.
The Respondent sent Kruse a letter in September stating
that prior messages had been left and that he should
make immediate contact with the Respondent. The judge
found, however, that the Respondent had not in fact left
any prior messages.
The Respondent argues that it did not discriminate
against Kruse because it offered him a job by letter on
September 10 to which Kruse did not reply. We reject
this argument as irrelevant. Even assuming that the Sep-
tember 10 letter constituted an offer of employment, we
agree with the judge that, as a former employee of the
Respondent, Kruse should have received priority consid-

hired before that time, we do not find that these departures from the
policy discriminated against union applicants.
19 Millard Howell, Stan Brigner, and Richard Fortin. In fact, the Re-
spondent offered Howell a job over the phone (which he ultimately
refused) before he even registered with MESC.
We agree with the Respondent that the record does not support the
judge’s finding that the parties stipulated that 12 other job applications
had been falsified to indicate referrals. The parties stipulated only that
those applications bore certain markings concerning referrals, not that
they had been altered to indicate nonexistent referrals.
20 Donald Diekman, Jeff Pugh, Jimmy Penix, Jay Culpepper, Nathan
Campbell, Shawn Childress, and William Greene. The judge also
found that the Respondent hired Diekman with a false claim of referral
and that the Respondent altered the applications of both Campbell and
Green to show false referrals.
We do not rely on the judge’s finding that Richard Patrick was hired
based upon a false referral. As a current employee of the Respondent,
Patrick was in the highest priority status for hire.
eration under policy 303 for carpenter and carpenter
helper positions that were available prior to September.21
Macy was hired by the Respondent on May 26 as a
carpenter. He was laid off on November 12. Although
millwright positions opened in December, Macy was not
offered one of them, even though he had experience as a
millwright. As a recently laid-off employee of the Re-
spondent, Macy possessed a priority status for a mill-
wright position. The Respondent’s unexplained failure
to offer him such a position constituted another deviation
from policy 303.
Thus, on the 23 occasions recounted above, there was
at least one union applicant who would have been hired
under a nondiscriminatory application of policy 303. See
Appendix A. We find that, each time the Respondent
deviated from the policy, its decision was motivated in
part by antiunion animus.
We also agree with the judge that the Respondent
failed to demonstrate that it would have rejected the un-
ion applicants even in the absence of their union affilia-
tions. The Respondent has defended its decisions chiefly
on the basis that they were made in conformance with
policy 303. In these 23 instances, that defense clearly
has no merit—the Respondent did not, in fact, follow the
policy in those instances.
The Respondent has raised other defenses to its failure
to hire specific union applicants. We reject those de-
fenses as well.22
James Bragan
James Bragan registered with MESC on September 4,
for various craft positions. The Respondent departed
from its priority hiring policy in hiring other applicants
despite the availability of Bragan and other union appli-
cants.23 The Respondent asserts that Bragan was not a

21 Whether or not the September 10 letter constituted a valid offer,
the judge found that Kruse had found other employment by this time.
This circumstance could serve to toll any backpay owed to Kruse.
22 In rejecting the Respondent’s individual defenses as to union ap-
plicants James Bragan, John Card, Harold Greenleaf, and Jeffrey West-
phal and concluding that the Respondent acted with discriminatory
motive in failing to hire them, we do not necessarily find that, absent
discrimination, the Respondent would have hired or rehired these indi-
viduals. It is possible that other union applicants in the appropriate
categories might have been hired instead. We will leave to compliance
which union applicants would have been hired and would thus be enti-
tled to both instatement and backpay. See FES, supra at 14. We note
that applicant James Bragan, who is in the pool of applicants for many
of the positions discussed above, is entitled to instatement and backpay
outright for those positions in which he was the only union applicant
and another position which the Respondent subsequently offered to him
and then withdrew the offer.
23 Specifically, the Respondent departed from its policy when it of-
fered employment to Millard Howell and hired William Douglas, Dan
Drounzek, Samuel Gibson, Peter Caisse, Stan Brigner, Kelly Bennet,
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD18
bona fide applicant because he was a paid union organ-
izer who applied during the December strike; i.e., he pos-
sessed a “disabling conflict” for employment with the
Respondent. Sunland Construction Co., 309 NLRB 1224
(1992). We reject this argument for three reasons. First,
Bragan had registered with MESC and had been refused
employment by the Respondent before the December
strike. Second, the Respondent had at least ostensibly
offered work to Bragan during the strike, thus, belying its
contentions that he was disqualified. Finally, even if a
disabling conflict exists, it can be an effective defense
under FES only when the employer has proved that it
actually relied upon the conflict in refusing to hire the
applicant. Aztech Electric Co., 335 NLRB 260, 263–265
(2001), enfd. in relevant part sub nom. Contractors La-
bor Pool, Inc. v. NLRB, 323 F.3d 1051, 1060–1061 (D.C.
Cir. 2003). Given that the Respondent ostensibly offered
to employ Bragan during the strike, we find that it did
not actually rely upon his status as a paid union organizer
in denying him employment.
John Card
John Card registered with MESC for boilermaker posi-
tions on February 27 and July 15, and the Respondent
departed from its priority hiring policy in hiring other
applicants despite his (and others’) availability.24 The
Respondent asserts that it lawfully refused to hire Card
because: (1) his initial application had lapsed under its
rule stating that applications would be valid for only 30
days, and (2) he failed to reapply in December when it
offered him a position. We reject both of these defenses.
According to his MESC record, Card was actively regis-
tered from February 27, 1992, until June 1, 1993; there-
fore, if the Respondent had not discriminated against
Card, it would have contacted him for a position and he
could have filed a new application. As for Card’s al-
leged failure to contact the Respondent, the judge found
that it had refused to hire Card in December, thus, im-
plicitly crediting his testimony that he had attempted to
contact the Respondent’s personnel manager from the
guard shack on its property.
Harold Greenleaf and Jeffrey Westphal
Harold Greenleaf registered for boilermaker positions
on March 19 and re-registered on July 15. Jeffrey West-
phal registered for boilermaker positions on July 15. The
Respondent departed from its hiring policy during the
period Greenleaf and Westphal were registered when it

Bryce Friese, and Donald Diekman instead of Bragan. See fns. 17–19,
supra.
24 The Respondent offered employment to Millard Howell, and hired
Dan Drounzek, William Douglas, Samuel Gibson, Peter Caisse, Ken
Carter, and Stan Brigner. See fns. 17–19, supra.
offered employment to other applicants.25 Both men also
filled out several applications in response to the Respon-
dent’s job offer letters in December. The Respondent
rejected those applications because Greenleaf and West-
phal had written “volunteer union organizer” on the ap-
plications. The Respondent sent the applications back
and informed Greenleaf and Westphal why it had re-
jected their applications.
The Respondent argues that it lawfully refused to hire
both applicants because they had placed extraneous in-
formation on their applications. The Respondent states
that its usual practice was to tape over any extraneous
information written by applicants on their applications
and then process those applications, but that it suspended
this practice during the strike because of the press of
work processing applications and simply refused to proc-
ess any applications submitted with extraneous informa-
tion. We reject the defense. We assume arguendo that
an employer can lawfully have a policy of nondiscrimi-
natorily precluding all extraneous information on an ap-
plication, and can lawfully refuse to hire a person who
violates that policy.26 We distinguish that policy from
one which discriminates against union information.
However, the Respondent’s practice here was to tape
over any extraneous information, rather than refuse to
hire the applicant involved. The Respondent says that it
deviated from its “tape over” practice because it became
too burdensome during the strike. We reject this argu-
ment. In light of the antiunion animus discussed above,
we conclude that the Respondent’s asserted reason for
the deviation from “taping over” was pretextual.
To summarize, we find that in 23 instances, the Re-
spondent deviated from policy 303 by failing to hire
qualified union applicants and, instead, hiring applicants
without union backgrounds who were not entitled to pri-
ority consideration under the policy. We also find that
those 23 decisions were motivated in part by antiunion
animus, and that the Respondent has failed to show that
it would have made those same decisions in the absence
of the applicants’ union affiliations. We, therefore, adopt
the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section

25 The Respondent offered employment to Millard Howell and hired
Dan Drounzek, William Douglas, Samuel Gibson, Peter Caisse, Ken
Carter, Stan Brigner, and Jeff Pugh. See fns. 18–20, supra.
26 Member Liebman disagrees with this assumption. As the judge
correctly stated, the Board has held the opposite, that an employer
violates the Act when it rejects applicants for identifying themselves as
voluntary union organizers on their applications. See Mainline Con-
tracting Corp., 334 NLRB 922, 923 (2001); Irwin Industries, 325
NLRB 796, 797 (1998); but see Boilermakers v. NLRB, 127 F.3d 1300
(11th Cir. 1997) (policy banning extraneous information on applica-
tions is lawful).
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 19
8(a)(3) and (1) by failing to hire union applicants on
those occasions.
b. Hiring decisions conforming to policy 303
Unlike the judge, however, we do not find that the in-
cidents in which the Respondent departed from policy
303 are sufficient to establish that the entire policy was
being used to avoid hiring union applicants. After all,
the evidence indicates that the Respondent generally fol-
lowed policy 303’s priority criteria in hiring. Out of 169
hiring decisions made other than through MESC’s nor-
mal processes, we have found only 23 in which the Re-
spondent failed to follow the priorities set forth in policy
303. As we have found, policy 303 on its face does not
discriminate on the basis of union membership or affilia-
tion, and its stated hiring priorities are rationally related
to the goal of hiring a competent, reliable work force.
Accordingly, we find that in the great majority of in-
stances in which the Respondent hired in accordance
with those priorities, it did so in order to achieve that
goal, and not with a motive to discriminate against union
applicants. In other words, we find that only when the
Respondent deviated from the hiring policy was its con-
duct motivated by union animus. Consequently, we re-
verse the judge insofar as he found that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) even when it hired applicants
pursuant to the priority categories as laid out in policy
303.
Our dissenting colleague believes that the 23 devia-
tions from the policy yield an inference that the entire
hiring process was unlawfully motivated. We believe
that where, as here, the policy itself is lawful, the General
Counsel must show individual discriminatory deviations
(as with the 23) in order to prove violations. Conced-
edly, the exception to this principle is a case where the
discriminatory deviations are so massive that one can
infer that the entire process is unlawfully motivated.
That was true in Fluor Daniel, Inc., 333 NLRB 427
(2001), enfd. 332 F.3d 961 (6th Cir. 2003), cert. denied
125 S.Ct. 964 (2005), but it is not true here. That case
involved the employer’s failure to hire union applicants
at two jobsites, one at an Exxon refinery and the other at
an Arizona Public Service Company (APS) nuclear facil-
ity. Some 2800 individuals were hired at the Exxon site,
and 962 at the APS site. There, as here, the employer
engaged in some discriminatory treatment of union ap-
plicants. In contrast with this case, however, Fluor
Daniel deviated from its facially neutral hiring protocols
more than 3000 times at the Exxon site, and at least 892
times at the APS site, always to the benefit of nonunion
applicants. All told, in other words, the number of devia-
tions from Fluor Daniel’s stated hiring policy was actu-
ally greater than the total number of employees hired at
the two sites. Under those circumstances, the Board and
court were warranted in concluding that the employer’s
entire hiring system was infected with union animus. We
decline to draw that conclusion here, where those cir-
cumstances plainly do not exist.27
In sum, we find that the Respondent deviated from its
policy 303 on 23 occasions, and these deviations were
for the purpose of avoiding hiring union supporters. We,
therefore, find that the union-affiliated applicants who
had valid MESC registrations for the 23 positions were
shown to have been denied employment unlawfully.
However, as noted above, we have not found the overall
referral process to be either inherently discriminatory or
to have been operated in a discriminatory manner.28
Our dissenting colleague faults the Respondent for
seeking applications from persons who would be pre-
ferred under policy 303, in circumstances where there are
extant applications from persons who are not preferred
under that policy. However, there is nothing in policy
303 that forbids this process of seeking of applications
from preferred persons. Indeed, given the legitimate
reasons for having preferred categories, it is obviously
legitimate for an employer to seek out preferred persons
even where there are nonpreferred persons who have
applied. For, to the extent that this process succeeds, the
employer will have a preferred person rather than a non-
preferred person. And, the fact that the preferred person
is out-of-state is irrelevant. The policy operates to favor
local preferred people over nonlocal preferred people. It
does not operate to favor nonpreferred local people over
preferred nonlocal people.
Our colleague also says that even if policy 303 was
neither inherently discriminatory, nor adopted for unlaw-
ful reasons, it does not follow for her that hiring deci-
sions apparently consistent with the policy are lawful.
However, it is not the Respondent’s burden to show that
hiring decisions are lawful. The burden is on the General
Counsel to show that hiring decisions were unlawful.
At bottom, the dissent simply repeats (sometimes over
and over again) the unfair labor practices of the Respon-
dent, and then leaps from those repetitions to the conclu-
sion that the entire hiring process was unlawful. Con-
cededly, there can be cases where massive wholesale

27 Our dissenting colleague says that there were only 27 deviations
from the 30-day application rule in Fluor Daniel, supra. However, the
more significant point is that there were almost 2100 deviations from
the various hiring protocols.
28 Our dissenting colleague’s assertion that the lesson of our holding
is that employers can discriminate “on a large scale” and perhaps pre-
vail before the Board, does not contribute to a dispassionate analysis of
this case. We have endorsed the decision in Fluor Daniel, and the
lesson of that case is that large-scale discrimination (or indeed any
discrimination) will be remedied by this Board.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD20
violation lead to the conclusion that the entire hiring
process is tainted. See Fluor Daniel, supra. However,
absent that scenario, the General Counsel must prove
each and every violation. That was not accomplished
here.
3. Other refusal-to-hire violations
We also find that, in addition to departing from its hir-
ing policy, the Respondent specifically discriminated
against applicants Sean Redner, Tony Perez, Gerald
Richard, Lori Custer, and Joe Van Dyke.29 In finding
these violations, we rely on the judge’s findings in his
original decision that the Respondent’s conduct concern-
ing those individuals indicated an antiunion motivation
and on the Respondent’s failure to show that it would
have refused to hire them even in the absence of their
union affiliations.
a. Sean Redner
Sean Redner, an electrician, was a former employee of
the Respondent. He registered for an electrician position
on February 11 but was not hired. The Respondent ar-
gues that it refused to hire Redner because his MESC
registration, which remained effective for only 30 days,
had already lapsed when it began hiring electricians in
late April. In fact, the judge found that the Respondent
encouraged him to submit his resume directly, and that
one of its supervisors later told him that his application—
despite his priority status as a former Zurn employee—
had been set aside with other union applications in order
to avoid the risk of hiring a union applicant. We rely on
this credited admission in concluding that the Respon-
dent discriminatorily refused to hire Redner.30
b. Tony Perez and Gerald Richard
The judge found that the Respondent demonstrated an-
tiunion motivation in its conduct of job interviews with
Tony Perez and Gerald Richard. Thus, the Respondent’s
personnel manager questioned Perez regarding his union
status and initially offered to hire him if he passed a drug
test. Perez passed the test, but the personnel manager
later told him the Respondent could not use him because
of his union affiliation. Similarly, the Respondent’s field
superintendent questioned Richard about his union
status, and when Richard affirmed it, stated, “I’m done
. . . I’ve heard enough” and left the building. The Re-
spondent did not hire Richard. We rely on these findings

29 Except for Redner, these employees are among the 23 discrimina-
tees who were previously discussed.
30 We do not find that the Respondent’s failure to hire Redner was
the result of manipulating policy 303 to avoid hiring union applicants.
The failure to hire Redner occurred in the spring. Even under the
judge’s finding that the Respondent used policy 303 in a discriminatory
fashion, that use began later.
in adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent re-
fused to hire Perez and Richard for discriminatory rea-
sons.
c. Lori Custer
Lori Custer registered with MESC for several positions
on February 6, and updated her registration in Septem-
ber. The Respondent offered work to her in early Janu-
ary 1993, but argues that it was unable to employ her
because she was unavailable. Contrary to this argument,
we adopt the judge’s finding that the Respondent with-
drew its job offer after Custer accepted it. The falsity of
Zurn’s explanation lends support to the finding that anti-
union animus contributed to its failure to hire Custer, and
we so find.
d. Joe Van Dyke
Joe Van Dyke registered with MESC on January 27 as
an electrician but was not hired. The Respondent argues
that Van Dyke’s MESC registration had lapsed (pursuant
to MESC’s 30-day rule which applied to registrations
prior to February 27) at the time it was hiring electri-
cians. The Respondent also contends that no animus can
be found in its failure to hire Van Dyke because it hired
union applicants for three of the four electrician positions
filled.31 We reject both arguments. The judge relied on
direct evidence that the Respondent had discriminated
against Van Dyke because of his union status, and it does
not appear that the Respondent actually relied on the 30-
day rule. (Van Dyke had submitted a Zurn application in
February and was interviewed for a position.) Moreover,
his MESC registration record does not show that his reg-
istration became inactive until July 26, 1992. That the
Respondent hired several union electricians does not
negate the strong evidence that the Respondent discrimi-
nated against Van Dyke because of his union status. St.
Alphonsus Hospital, 261 NLRB 620, 634 fn. 32 (1982),
and cases cited.
4. Refusal-to-consider allegations
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) by refusing to consider the union appli-
cants, in addition to refusing to hire them.32 We find no
merit in this allegation.
In FES, supra, the Board announced that, to establish a
discriminatory refusal to consider, the General Counsel
must show that the employer excluded applicants from a
hiring process and that antiunion animus contributed to
the decision not to consider the applicants for employ-

31 One electrician-helper was hired as well.
32 The judge found that the Respondent refused to hire the union ap-
plicants who testified at the hearing, and refused to consider those who
did not. We find no basis whatsoever for this arbitrary distinction.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 21
ment. If the General Counsel makes this showing, the
burden shifts to the employer to prove that it would not
have considered the applicants even absent their union
activity or affiliation. 331 NLRB at 15.
We find that the General Counsel has failed to prove
that the Respondent excluded the union applicants from
its hiring process. First, there is no evidence that any
union applicants were denied the opportunity to register
with MESC and to be considered along with nonunion
applicants for positions with the Respondent. Although
the Respondent filled most positions through its priority
hiring policy, we have found that that policy was facially
nondiscriminatory and that, in the great majority of in-
stances, the Respondent applied policy 303 in a nondis-
criminatory fashion. And even in those instances in
which we have found that the Respondent did discrimi-
nate in hiring against union applicants, we find no basis
for concluding that those applicants were excluded from
the Respondent’s hiring process altogether. Accordingly,
we shall dismiss this allegation.
AMENDED REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and take certain affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.33 Specifically, we shall
order the Respondent to offer reinstatement to the mem-
bers of the pipefitting crew whom it unlawfully laid off.
We shall also order the Respondent to offer employment
to the union applicants whom it would have hired but for
its unlawful discriminatory practices.
As Appendix A indicates, there were more qualified
individuals with union backgrounds who registered with
MESC, or submitted applications to the Respondent, than
positions that were denied for discriminatory reasons.
As the Board held in FES, supra at 14:
Where the number of applicants exceeds the number of
available jobs, the compliance proceeding may be used
to determine which of the applicants would have been
hired for the openings.
Thus, we shall leave to compliance the determination of
which discriminatees would have been hired for the relevant
openings.34

33 App. B is an alphabetical listing of the applicants discriminated
against by the Respondent’s departure in 23 instances from its hiring
policy.
34 Under the circumstances of this case, especially the length of time
since the completion of the project, we shall not apply the presumption
of continued employment in the construction industry. Dean General
Contractors, 285 NLRB 573 (1987). Instead, we find it more appropri-
ate to match each discriminatee to a hired applicant, as shown in App.
A, and then track each slot as it actually provided employment. Jet
Electric Co., 338 NLRB 650, 658 (2002).
In this regard, we have found that the Respondent ini-
tially offered James Bragan, Lori Custer, and Tony Perez
employment on the Cadillac project but then reneged on
its offers. As there can be no doubt, on this record, that
Bragan, Custer, and Perez would have been employed
but for the Respondent’s unlawful discrimination, they
are entitled, at a minimum, to instatement in the positions
that they were offered and backpay based on what they
would have earned in those positions. Similarly, we also
rely on direct evidence of discriminatory motivation in
finding that the Respondent refused to hire Sean Redner,
Gerald Richard, and Joe Van Dyke because of their un-
ion status or activities. Accordingly, we find that Red-
ner, Richard, and Van Dyke are also entitled to instate-
ment and appropriate backpay for the positions to which
they applied and in which there was direct evidence of
discriminatory conduct.35
The remaining discriminatees will be entitled to a dif-
ferent remedy. We shall order the Respondent to place
them in the positions they would have been in, absent
discrimination, for consideration for future openings, to
consider them for openings in accord with nondiscrimi-
natory criteria, and to notify them, the Charging Party,
and the Regional Director of future openings in positions
for which the discriminatees applied or substantially
equivalent positions. FES, 331 NLRB at 14, 15.
Finally, we shall order the Respondent to make the
discriminatees whole for any lost earnings as prescribed
in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus in-
terest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded,
283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
The construction project in Cadillac is complete, and
the Respondent has ceased operations at that location.
Accordingly, we shall order the Respondent to duplicate
and mail notices to all MESC registrants and all former
employees employed by the Respondent at that location
since the start of the project. See Pan American Electric,
Inc., 328 NLRB 54, 60 (1999).36

35 We have also included these applicants, when appropriate, among
the discriminatees for other positions for which they might have been
hired, absent the Respondent’s discriminatory conduct. We leave to
compliance the determination of whether they are entitled to instate-
ment and backpay for these positions.
36 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to be consistent
with our decision in Ferguson Electric Co., 335 NLRB 142, 143
(2001), and to substitute the Board’s standard remedial language for
other portions of the judge’s recommended Order. Further, we shall
substitute a new notice in accordance with our decision in Ishikawa
Gasket America, Inc., 337 NLRB 175, 177 (2001), enfd. 354 F.3d 534
(6th Cir. 2004).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD22
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, ZURN/N.E.P.C.O., Cadillac, Michigan, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating, through its agents at the
Michigan Employment Security Commission, job appli-
cants about their union backgrounds.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees and job appli-
cants about their union sympathies and affiliations.
(c) Threatening employees with the loss of jobs or
other reprisals because of their union support.
(d) Prohibiting employees from wearing union stick-
ers, union buttons, or other union insignia on their hard-
hats and their clothing.
(e) Discriminating against employees because of their
union activity by laying them off and failing to recall
them to their former jobs.
(f) Discriminatorily refusing to hire job applicants be-
cause they are union members or sympathizers, or be-
cause they worked in establishments which had union
contracts, and discriminatorily applying a facially neutral
hiring policy in such a way as to discriminate against
suspected union applicants or sympathizers.
(g) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, 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.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
James Bragan, Lori Custer, Tony Perez, Sean Redner,
Gerald Richard, and Joe Van Dyke instatement to the
positions to which they applied or, if those positions no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions.
(b) Make James Bragan, Lori Custer, Tony Perez, Sean
Redner, Gerald Richard, and Joe Van Dyke whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits sustained by rea-
son of the discrimination against them, in the manner set
forth in the amended remedy section of this Decision and
Order.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful refusal to hire
James Bragan, Lori Custer, Tony Perez, Sean Redner,
Gerald Richard, and Joe Van Dyke, within 3 days, there-
after, notify them in writing that this has been done and
that the refusal to hire them will not be used against them
in any way.
(d) Offer instatement to 23 additional discriminatees,
whose identity is to be determined in the compliance
stage of this proceeding, consistent with the remedy sec-
tion of this Decision, to the positions to which they ap-
plied or, if those positions no longer exist, to substan-
tially equivalent positions.
(e) Make whole the 23 discriminatees whose identity is
determined in the compliance proceeding, for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the
unlawful discrimination suffered against them, in the
manner set forth in the amended remedy section of this
Decision.
(f) Consider the remaining discriminatees for future
job openings that arise subsequent to the beginning of the
hearing in accord with nondiscriminatory criteria, and
notify the discriminatees, the Charging Party, and the
Regional Director for Region 7 of such openings in posi-
tions for which the discriminatees applied, or substan-
tially equivalent positions, in the manner set forth in the
amended remedy section of this Decision and Order.
(g) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
refusal to hire the discriminatees, and notify them in
writing that this has been done and that the refusal to hire
them will not be used against them in any way.
(h) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
the pipefitters Larry Rose, Robert Cook, John Corwin,
Vince Galligan, Michael O’Hara, Shawn O’Hara, Allen
Randle, Everett Woolsey, Dan Kaiserlian, Charles
Kaiserlian, Bruce Kaiserlian, and Doyne Woolsey reem-
ployment in the positions they held at the time they were
discriminatorily laid off, or if those positions no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions.
(i) Make Larry Rose, Robert Cook, John Corwin,
Vince Galligan, Michael O’Hara, Shawn O’Hara, Allen
Randle, Everett Woolsey, Dan Kaiserlian, Charles
Kaiserlian, Bruce Kaiserlian, and Doyne Woolsey whole
for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by rea-
son of the discrimination against them as set forth in the
amended remedy portion of this Decision.
(j) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful layoffs of
Larry Rose, Robert Cook, John Corwin, Vince Galligan,
Michael O’Hara, Shawn O’Hara, Allen Randle, Everett
Woolsey, Dan Kaiserlian, Charles Kaiserlian, Bruce
Kaiserlian, and Doyne Woolsey and, within 3 days,
thereafter, notify them in writing that this has been done
and that the refusal to hire them will not be used against
them in any way.
(k) 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 desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 23
form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(l) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its corporate headquarters in Washington State and in the
State of Maine and in the Cadillac office of the Michigan
Employment Security Administration copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix C.”37 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent’s author-
ized representative, shall be posted immediately upon
receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous place, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. The
Respondent shall also duplicate and mail, at its own ex-
pense, a copy of the notice to all known registrants and
all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent on the Cadillac, Michigan power
plant since January 1, 1992.
(m) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
MEMBER LIEBMAN, dissenting in part.
The record here demonstrates that Zurn engaged in a
determined effort to prevent unionization of the Cadillac
project, by discriminating wholesale against qualified
union applicants. Today’s decision means that this
unlawful effort has largely succeeded. Where the evi-
dence is overwhelming, the majority does find a few in-
dividual instances of discrimination. But the majority
fails to recognize the significance of the pattern of viola-
tions displayed in this case. The lesson for unscrupulous
employers is clear: If you intend to discriminate, do so
on a large scale and take your chances with the Board.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Zurn contracted with a local consortium to build a co-
generation power plant in Cadillac, Michigan. Before it
began hiring employees in April 1992,1 Zurn arranged
with the Michigan Employment Security Commission

37 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read” Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
1 Unless otherwise stated, all dates refer to 1992.
(MESC), a State agency, to register applicants for jobs at
the project and to process their applications. In response
to applications for employment by union members, Zurn
informed the Unions that MESC would process all appli-
cations; ultimately at least 439 union applicants would
register with MESC for jobs at the Cadillac project in the
relevant categories.2
Zurn has a hiring policy, called policy 303, under
which it gives priority in hiring, first to applicants whom
it currently employs; next to applicants whom it formerly
employed; then to applicants who have been referred by
its current supervisors and employees; and finally to
other qualified applicants. Within each of the priority
categories, local applicants are to be preferred. Because
Zurn is a nonunion employer, application of this policy
leads, predictably, to the hiring of a largely nonunion
work force.3
Zurn persuaded MESC to adopt a custom referral or
“name-call” procedure, under which Zurn could bypass
MESC’s normal referral system and give preference to
applicants with priority under policy 303. Zurn told
MESC that the purpose of the “name-call” procedure was
to enable it to give priority in hiring to employees com-
ing off its other jobsites. In practice, however, Zurn did
not limit its use of the name call procedure to current
employees; instead, it used the procedure to largely avoid
hiring through MESC’s normal procedures. In Decem-
ber 1992, MESC discontinued the name-call procedure,
citing concerns that Zurn had used it to avoid hiring un-
ion applicants. MESC’s concerns were well founded,
because the procedure had long since become tainted
with Zurn’s antiunion animus.
As detailed in the majority’s opinion, throughout the
Cadillac project Zurn engaged in conduct demonstrating
its overt antiunion animus. Indeed, the majority rightly
concludes that much of this conduct constituted viola-
tions of the Act. From January 1992 onward, employees
of MESC, acting as Zurn’s agents, repeatedly interro-
gated applicants about their prior employment with un-
ionized employers. Zurn’s managerial and supervisory
agents also directly interrogated and threatened Union
applicants and hires regarding their union activities. In
April, Zurn issued a work rule prohibiting employees
from wearing union insignia on their hardhats. At vari-
ous times thereafter, Zurn’s managers and supervisors,
by their direct statements, indicated that the Company
was refusing to hire applicants because of their union
status. In early June, after the Unions began openly or-

2 See the Second Supplemental Decision, Apps. A and B.
3 Because I would find that Zurn’s application of its hiring policy
was discriminatory, I would find it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s
finding that the policy was also inherently discriminatory.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD24
ganizing on the construction site, Zurn laid off its pipefit-
ting crew, which had exhibited strong union support, and
subcontracted its remaining work. Then Zurn filled sub-
sequent pipefitting positions with “name-call” referrals
who possessed lower priority status under the Respon-
dent’s policy 303 than the laid off crewmembers. From
September on, Zurn’s managers and supervisors threat-
ened union adherents with job loss and other reprisals.
In October, Zurn’s superintendent directed unlawful
warnings to both employment applicants and current
employees. The seriousness of Zurn’s animus is re-
vealed by one of these incidents in which its personnel
manager called union applicants, “fucking union dogs”
and, even more bluntly, when a supervisor told two em-
ployees that “you do what you’ve gotta do and I’ll do
what I’ve gotta do, but the job won’t go Union.”
Most tellingly, as the majority finds, Zurn departed
from its priority policy at least 23 times in hiring nonun-
ion applicants. (As I will explain, the majority finds
these instances of discrimination unlawful, but still con-
cludes that adherence to policy 303, and not antiunion
animus, explains those hiring decisions that appear con-
sistent with the policy.)
Merely noting the number of divergences from policy
303, however, does not give a true picture of Zurn’s ma-
nipulation of its hiring process. The record reveals that
Zurn supervisors aggressively pursued referrals in order
to generate applicants who could be given priority, and
even processed, under the guise of referrals, nonreferred
out-of-state applicants who themselves had initiated in-
quiries to Zurn regarding employment. In some cases,
described in the majority’s opinion, the “referrer’s” name
on numerous applicants appears either to have been al-
tered or unknown to the applicants, according to some
applicants’ own testimony.
Zurn’s manipulation of its hiring policy went further.
Under policy 303 as written, an applicant who is a cur-
rent or former Zurn employee is given preference over an
applicant who is a stranger to Zurn. Nowhere does pol-
icy 303 suggest that, even if qualified, nonpreferred ap-
plicants are present and available for work, Zurn may
nevertheless go out and beat the bushes in an attempt to
find nonapplicants who would have been afforded pref-
erence if they had applied. Yet, that is exactly what Zurn
did here. Despite having hundreds of qualified union
applicants available for almost immediate employment
(and despite policy 303’s local area preference), Zurn
actively sought and hired nonunion employees from out-
of-state, many of whom had not even applied for jobs at
the Cadillac site. Seventy-five percent of Zurn’s hires in
the relevant crafts were from out-of-state. To facilitate
this influx, Zurn also broke with its normal practice and
paid the travel expenses of nonunion recruits from out-
of-state rather than hire local applicants with union back-
grounds. As a result, many of the nonunion hires that
appear, on the surface, to have been consistent with pol-
icy 303 were, in fact, additional departures from it, be-
cause the individuals hired were not true applicants cov-
ered by the policy.
Further, the actual application of policy 303 undercuts
any claim that the hiring priorities genuinely served a
legitimate purpose—preferring familiar, proven appli-
cants over untested strangers—as opposed to simply
serving as an excuse to prefer nonunion applicants over
union applicants. For example, Tom Brigham, Zurn’s
personnel manager, referred Jimmy Penix to be hired as a
pipefitter on December 14. That same day, Penix re-
ferred Richard Fortin for a pipewelder position. Two
days later, Fortin in turn referred Ronald Blackburn for
another pipefitter position. These referral “chains” oc-
curred on several occasions. Of course, while this fina-
gling was going on, there were scores of highly qualified
union applicants locally available for hire.
Despite its efforts to manipulate the policy, in Decem-
ber 1992, Zurn abandoned the priority system altogether,
ostensibly because several union members employed on
the project had gone on strike to protest Zurn’s unlawful
conduct, including its refusal to hire union applicants.
Zurn then feigned offers to hire 39 applicants, alleged by
the Charging Party to be discriminatees. In the event,
however, only 1 of those applicants was actually hired,
despite widespread interest on the part of all 39 in work-
ing for Zurn. In several instances, Zurn engaged in de-
ceptive tactics, giving applicants short deadlines (over
the Christmas and New Year’s holidays) in which to re-
spond, and revoking at least one offer after it had been
accepted. After going through this deception, Zurn then
elected to wait until January 1993 to hire a crew of non-
union pipefitters from a job in upstate New York.
In short, Zurn’s conduct demonstrates a wholesale ef-
fort to avoid unionization of the Cadillac project.
II. ANALYSIS
This case is governed by the analytical framework for
refusal-to-hire allegations established in FES, 331 NLRB
9 (2000), enfd. 301 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 2002).4 My dis-

4 The General Counsel must show (1) that the employer was hiring,
or had concrete plans to hire, at the time of the allegedly unlawful
conduct; (2) that the union applicants had experience or training rele-
vant to the announced or generally known requirements for the posi-
tions for hire (or that the requirements were either not uniformly ad-
hered to or were pretextual); and (3) that antiunion animus contributed
to the decision not to hire the union applicants. If the General Counsel
makes that showing, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that it
would not have hired the applicants even absent their union affiliation
or activity. 331 NLRB at 12. The majority properly recognizes that
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 25
agreement with the majority turns on the third FES ele-
ment: the connection between antiunion animus and the
decision not to hire union applicants. The majority ac-
knowledges a nexus, but concludes that it only extended
to the 23 cases where Zurn deviated from policy 303.
The issue, then, is whether Zurn’s antiunion animus was
narrowly confined—involving scattered instances—or
whether it extended to all of Zurn’s hiring decisions in
the relevant crafts. The evidence here establishes a pat-
tern and practice of discrimination, in which policy 303
served simply as an instrument to avoid hiring union
applicants.
Zurn had a pool of over 400 union applicants regis-
tered in MESC’s database. Why did Zurn fail to hire
these readily available and highly qualified applicants?
The answer is either that either Zurn’s (mostly) neutral
application of policy 303 happened to produce a largely
nonunion work force (this is Zurn’s only explanation), or
that Zurn manipulated its hiring process to avoid hiring
union members. The majority’s conclusion that Zurn
discriminated just some of the time—when it had a
strong incentive to discriminate consistently and so avoid
unionization, despite the large pool of union applicants—
ignores the clear pattern reflected in Zurn’s entire course
of conduct.
Zurn’s actions demonstrate that its primary goal in hir-
ing was to avoid the unionization of the Cadillac project,
even if that meant not hiring the best qualified work
force. The evidence of Zurn’s antiunion animus, only
some of which is recounted earlier, is dramatic. Apart
from the hiring decisions at issue, it includes repeated
interrogations, threats, and warnings; the layoff of the
pipefitting crew; a personnel manager’s reference to
“fucking union dogs”; the blunt statement “the job won’t
go union”; and bad-faith job offers to union applicants.
This evidence hardly suggests that the transparently dis-
criminatory hiring decisions found unlawful by the ma-
jority were out of step with Zurn’s usual practice.
Even if policy 303 was neither inherently discrimina-
tory, nor adopted for unlawful reasons, it does not follow
that any (much less every) hiring decision apparently
consistent with the policy was lawful. The majority fo-
cuses narrowly on the facial neutrality of policy 303 and
on the legitimate purposes it could serve. But a neutral
policy may be applied to achieve discriminatory ends,
and that is just what happened here. When adhering to
policy 303 would keep union applicants out, Zurn ad-
hered to it; otherwise, Zurn either manipulated the policy

Zurn had openings in the targeted mechanical trades and that the union
applicants had the relevant experience or training.
or ignored it. As described, the evidence here demon-
strates that Zurn:
(1) manipulated Policy 303 by aggressively seek-
ing to generate applicants who could be given prior-
ity, regardless of the ostensible purposes of the pol-
icy;
(2) applied Policy 303 disparately by refusing to
given [sic] Union applicants the priority that they
were entitled to; and
(3) deviated from Policy 303 repeatedly, thus un-
dermining any claim that its hiring decisions gener-
ally were driven by the policy, rather than by anti-
union animus.
Zurn manipulated policy 303. The policy was sup-
posed to operate as a mechanism to choose among appli-
cants, not to recruit them. As for referrals, the policy
presumably gave them priority because they were known
quantities. Zurn told MESC that the purpose of the
“name-call” procedure was to give priority to employees
coming off its other jobsites. The policy favored local
applicants, within each priority category. Contrary to all
of these principles, Zurn beat the bushes for “applicants,”
the great majority from outside Michigan, who could be
given priority over union MESC registrants. It utilized
chains of referrals, resulting in new hires referring new
hires and so on—undermining any notion that the per-
sons hired (always nonunion) were chosen because Zurn
could be confident of their abilities. Zurn’s affirmative
action for nonunion employees apparently troubled
MESC, and it should trouble the majority here.
Zurn disparately applied policy 303, refusing to hire
union applicants even when they should have been given
priority (e.g., Kruse, Macy, and the pipefitters). Zurn’s
disparate application of policy 303, which the majority
does recognize, by itself constitutes sufficient evidence
that animus infected all of its hiring decisions.5 It is well
established that disparate application of policies to disfa-
vor union applicants and favor nonunion applicants evi-
dences unlawful motive. Fluor Daniel, Inc., 333 NLRB
427, 440 fn. 78 (2001), enfd. in relevant part 332 F.3d
961, 970–971 (6th Cir. 2003), cert. denied 125 S.Ct. 964
(2005) ; M. J. Mechanical Servies, 325 NLRB 1098,
1105 fn. 18 (1998); Monfort of Colorado, 298 NLRB 73,
79–80 (1990), enfd. in relevant part 965 F.2d 1538 (10th
Cir. 1992).
Finally, as the majority recognizes, Zurn deviated from
policy 303 in other respects, hiring applicants who had

5 Although the judge relied on other evidence of animus, the Board
has held that disparate treatment, by itself, can support a prima facie
case of discrimination. New Otani Hotel & Garden, 325 NLRB 928 fn.
2 (1998).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD26
little or no experience in the relevant job categories, hir-
ing applicants who were not in fact referred (falsifying
some applications in the process), and going outside pol-
icy 303 (and the MESC process) entirely to hire other
applicants.
Zurn’s repeated failures to follow policy 303 preclude
it from relying on the policy to defend even those deci-
sions that do appear to conform to it. (This is Zurn’s sole
defense.6) As the Board and the courts have recognized,
in the cases cited earlier, an employer cannot rely on a
neutral policy as a defense to an allegation of antiunion
discrimination unless it consistently follows the policy.
It is Zurn’s burden to show that it would not have hired
the union applicants, even in the absence of their union
activities or affiliation, because of policy 303. Against a
background of strong antiunion animus, Zurn cannot
carry that burden, because the record establishes that,
again and again, it deviated from that policy.7 The only
reasonable inference from the actual application of policy
303, considered in context, is that the policy was a tool
for discrimination.
The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Fluor Daniel, Inc. v.
NLRB, 332 F.2d 961, 970–971 (6th Cir. 2003), is of spe-
cial relevance here. There, in the course of hiring 2800
persons, the employer deviated from its 30-day applica-
tion rule in the case of 27 nonunion applicants, but ap-
plied the rule consistently against union-affiliated appli-
cants. Id. The court rejected the employer’s argument

6 Zurn does not contend that the unsuccessful union applicants
lacked the required training and experience or were less qualified than
the successful nonunion employees.
7 That is not to say that an employer must adhere unswervingly to a
policy or practice in order to rely on it as an affirmative defense. Thus,
in Kelly Construction of Indiana, 333 NLRB 1272 (2001), the Board
found that an employer’s single deviation from a hiring policy was
“isolated and marginal” and did not mean that the policy was not ap-
plied in a neutral manner. (I dissented on other grounds.) Similarly, in
Synergy Gas Corp., 290 NLRB 1098, 1103 (1988), the Board rejected
an allegation of disparate treatment, finding that a single known devia-
tion from a disciplinary policy “appears to be an anomalous occur-
rence.” In contrast, in Avondale Industries, the Board rejected the
employer’s argument that there was no disparate treatment because
instances of its consistent application of the policy outnumbered its
departures. 329 NLRB 1064, 1066 (1999). The Board stated that to
rebut the General Counsel’s case, instances of disparate treatment must
be shown to “so few as to be an anomalous or insignificant departure
from a general consistent past practice.” Id.
that its deviations from the rule were de minimis.8 In
contrast to Fluor Daniel, where the employer deviated
from a hiring policy less than 1 percent of the time, Zurn
failed to follow policy 303 over 10 percent of the time in
hiring nonunion instead of union applicants.9 It is im-
possible to treat such wholesale departures from policy
303 as “isolated,” “marginal,” “anomalous,” or “insig-
nificant.”10
Conclusion
The majority correctly finds that Zurn discriminated in
every instance where it deviated from its priority hiring
policy or demonstrated antiunion animus against specific
applicants. But the record compels the much broader
finding that Zurn violated Section 8(a)(3) each time it
hired a nonunion applicant, instead of a qualified union
applicant, after June 1992 when the union organizing
campaign began. The majority acknowledges a few trees
here and there, but denies the existence of a forest. It
finds individual, seemingly isolated, instances of dis-
crimination against union job applicants, but misses the
obvious: that Zurn/N.E.P.C.O. manipulated its entire
hiring process to avoid hiring qualified union appli-
cants—who were readily available, in large numbers—in
order to avoid the unionization of the Cadillac, Michigan
project.
Accordingly, I dissent.

8 The court specifically held that the Board’s decision in Kelly Con-
struction, supra, did not support the employer because it did not apply
its rule uniformly and because its deviations from the rule could not “be
considered []either isolated nor marginal.” Id. at 971.
9 In an attempt to distinguish Fluor Daniel, supra, the majority ar-
gues that the employer there departed from its hiring preference policy
far more often than from its 30-day application rule. But that is beside
the point: the court clearly—and separately—found that the employer
demonstrated a discriminatory application of the 30-day rule by depart-
ing from it a mere 1 percent of the time. That conclusion plainly sup-
ports a finding that, by departing from policy 303 some 10 percent of
the time, Zurn systematically applied that policy to exclude union ap-
plicants.
10 See fns. 7 and 8, supra.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 27
APPENDIX A
APPLICANTS HIRED IN DEPARTURE FROM HIRING POLICY
I. Departures in which the Board determined that applicants with lesser priority were hired over union applicants.
APPLICANT
HIRED DATE HIRED AS REGISTERED UNION APPLICANTS WITH ACTIVE MESC REGISTRATIONS
Joseph Kinney 9/3/92 Boilermaker-
Helper
Payne; Trudeau; VanSlambrouer.
Dan Dronzek 9/11/92 Boilermaker Adair; Berg; Bragan; Bridget; Bublitz; Burger, David; Burger, Fred; Caplinger; Card,
John; Card, Michael; Card, Robert; Cogswell; Custer; Danula; Dodge; Greenleaf;
Hintz; Hubbard; Ivey; Kraenzlain; Kuznicki; Larson; Lee; Long; Louzon; McAlpine;
McDonald; Montie; Ricards; Schoudt; Shorkley; Valentine; Strawn; Westphal;
Wright.
William Douglas 10/12/92 Boilermaker Adair; Berg; Bragan; Bridget; Bublitz; Burger, David; Caplinger; Card, John; Card,
Michael; Card, Robert; Cogswell; Custer; Danula; Dodge; Hintz; Hubbard; Ivey;
Kraenzlain; Kuznicki; Larson; Lee; Long; Louzon; McAlpine; McDonald; Montie;
Ricards; Schoudt; Shorkley; Valentine; Strawn; Westphal; Wright.
Samuel Gibson;
Peter Caisse
10/16/92 Boilermaker Adair; Berg; Bragan; Bridget; Bublitz; Burger, David; Caplinger; Card, John; Card,
Michael; Card, Robert; Cogswell; Custer; Danula; Dodge; Hintz; Hubbard; Ivey;
Kraenzlain; Kuznicki; Larson; Lee; Long; Louzon; McAlpine; McDonald; Montie;
Ricards; Schoudt; Shorkley; Valentine; Strawn; Westphal; Wright.
Martin Fischer 10/20/92 Structural Welder Adair; Andrews; Armstrong; Arndt; Bragan; Baudoux; Davenport; Ford; Hamilton,
Bradley; Hamilton, Brett; Johnson, David; Koscielecki, Daniel; Macy, Gilbert; Mar-
shall, Lee; McAlpine; Perez; Schoudt; Sorenson, Rodney; Taylor, Tom; Valentine.
Ken Carter 10/28/92 Boilermaker Adair; Berg; Bragan; Bridget; Bublitz; Burger, David; Caplinger; Card, John; Card,
Michael; Card, Robert; Cogswell; Custer; Danula; Dodge; Hintz; Hubbard; Ivey;
Kraenzlain; Kuznicki; Larson; Lee; Long; Louzon; McAlpine; McDonald; Montie;
Ricards; Schoudt; Shorkley; Valentine; Strawn; Westphal; Wright.
Stan Brigner 10/21/92 Boilermaker Adair; Berg; Bragan; Bridget; Bublitz; Burger, David; Caplinger; Card, John; Card,
Michael; Card, Robert; Cogswell; Custer; Danula; Dodge; Hintz; Hubbard; Ivey;
Kraenzlain; Kuznicki; Larson; Lee; Long; Louzon; McAlpine; McDonald; Montie;
Ricards; Schoudt; Shorkley; Valentine; Strawn; Westphal; Wright.
Kelly Bennet 11/9/92 Pipefitter-Helper Bragan.
Bryce Friese 11/9/92 Pipefitter-Helper
III
Bragan.
Millard Howell 11/17/92 Boilermaker Adair; Berg; Bragan; Bridget; Bublitz; Burger, David; Caplinger; Card, John; Card,
Michael; Card, Robert; Cogswell; Custer; Danula; Dodge; Hintz; Hubbard; Ivey;
Kraenzlain; Kuznicki; Larson; Lee; Long; Louzon; McAlpine; McDonald; Montie;
Ricards; Schoudt; Shorkley; Valentine; Strawn; Westphal; Wright.
Donald Diekman 12/7/92 Pipefitter Armstrong; Ashby; Benjamin; Bennett; Border; Bragan; Burnell; Carney; Cook; Cus-
ter; Dahlvig; Danula; Dehring; Dickens; Dreyer; Eberle; Garrison; Guenthardt;
Hagerty; Hanel; Havens; Hazen; Jipping; Kaplinger; Kelley; Klein; Kline; Kuznicki;
Melius; O’Hara, Michael; Ostrander; Peer; Peterson; Salisbury; Schaub; Sharp,
Terry; Stanick; Sutlif; Vandwelinde; Weaver, Randy; Welch; Western; Yost.
Jeff Pugh 12/12/92 Boilermaker Adair; Berg; Bragan; Bridget; Bublitz; Burger, David; Burt; Caplinger; Card, John;
Card, Michael; Card, Robert; Cogswell; Custer; Danula; Dodge; Hintz; Hubbard;
Ivey; Kraenzlein; Kuznicki; Larson, L; Lee; Long; Louzon; McAlpine; McDonald;
Montie; Myers; Ricards; Schoudt; Shorkley; Valentine; Strawn; Westphal; Wright.
Jimmy Penix 12/16/92 Pipefitter Armstrong; Ashby; Benjamin; Bennett; Border; Bragan; Bryan; Burnell; Childs; Car-
ney; Cook; Custer; Dahlvig; Danula; Dehring; Dickens; Donovan; Dreyer; Eberle;
Garrison; Gillman; Guenthardt; Hagerty; Hanel; Havens; Hazen; Jipping; Kaplinger;
Kelley; Klein; Kline; Kuznicki; Letherer; McKenna, P.; Melius; O’Hara, Michael;
Ostrander; Peer; Peterson; Raetz; Rosenberry; Salisbury; Schaub; Sherven; Stanick;
Super; Sutlif; Vandwelinde; Vine; Weaver, Randy; Wendling; Western; Yost.
Richard Fortin 12/17/92 Pipewelder Ashby; Benjamin; Cook; Donovan; Dickens; Finney; Garrison; Havens; Gillman;
Klein; Myers; Nye; Schaffer.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD28
APPLICANT
HIRED
DATE HIRED AS REGISTERED UNION APPLICANTS WITH ACTIVE MESC REGISTRATIONS
Jay Culpepper 12/17/92 Pipefitter Armstrong; Ashby; Benjamin; Bennett; Border; Bragan; Bryan; Burnell; Childs;
Carney; Cook; Custer; Dahlvig; Danula; Dehring; Dickens; Donovan; Dreyer; Eberle;
Garrison; Gillman; Guenthardt; Hagerty; Hanel; Havens; Hazen; Jipping; Kaplinger;
Kelley; Klein; Kline; Kuznicki; Letherer; McKenna, P.; Melius; Myers; O’Hara, Mi-
chael; Ostrander; Peer; Peterson; Raetz; Rosenberry; Salisbury; Schaub; Sherven;
Stanick; Super; Sutlif; Vandwelinde; Vine; Weaver, Randy; Wendling; Western;
Yost.
Nathan Campbell;
Shawn Childress
12/18/92 Pipewelder Ashby; Benjamin; Cook; Dehring; Dickens; Donovan; Finney; Gillman; Klein; Nye;
Schaffer; Western.
William Greene 12/18/02 Ironworker Adair; Arndt; Battle; Bragan; Donovan; Hamilton, Bradley; Hamilton, Brett; Hardy;
Marshall; Perez; Stawicki; Valentine.
James Vaughn 1/13/93 Pipefitter-Helper Bragan.
Vickie Hilliard 1/18/93 Pipefitter-Helper Bragan.
II. Departures in regard to the Respondent’s failure to hire Jeff Kruse, a former employee, who applied
on 4/16 for carpenter positions.
APPLICANT
HIRED DATE REGISTERED UNION APPLICANTS
Kim Ludwig 4/21 Benoit; Bishop; Coopshaw; Cox; Davis; Harju; Holmes; Itzen; Kitchen; Koscielecki, Kevin; Kruse;
Macy, Gary; Mattis; Nemethy; Radden; Sharp, Robert; Simons; Walsh.
Helmut Lackermayer 4/28 Benoit; Bishop; Coopshaw; Cox; Davis; Holmes; Itzen; Kitchen; Koscielecki, Kevin; Kruse; Macy,
Gary; Mattis; Nemethy; Radden; Sharp, Robert; Simons; Walsh.
Gary Macy;
Mark Eisena;
Daniel Woodhead
5/26; 5/27;
5/27
Benoit; Bishop; Coopshaw; Cox; Davis; Holmes; Itzen; Kitchen; Koscielecki, Kevin; Kruse; Mattis;
Nemethy; Radden; Rienas; Sharp, Robert; Slaghula; Simons; Walsh.
Daniel Premo 6/22 Benoit; Bishop; Coopshaw; Cox; Davis; Holmes; Itzen; Kitchen; Koscielecki, Kevin; Kruse; Mattis;
Nemethy; Radden; Rienas; Sharp, Robert; Slaghula; Simons; Vandyke, Michael; Walsh.
Manuel Langston 9/10 Benoit; Bishop; Cox; Davis; Holmes; Itzen; Kitchen; Kruse; Nemethy; Radden; Rienas; Slaghula;
Vandeusch; Vandyke, Michael; Sharp, Robert; Simons.
III. Departures in regard to Gary Macy, whom the Respondent did not hire for millwright positions after
his layoff as a carpenter on 11/12/92, despite his priority status.
APPLICANT
HIRED DATE REGISTERED UNION APPLICANTS (MESC Registration Date)
Roger Poole;
James Poole;
12/19; 12/12 Jackson, Robert; Macy, Gary; Richard; Stracka.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 29
APPENDIX B
Alphabetical listing of applicants
discriminated against by the Respondent’s
departures from policy 303
Adair, Larry P.
Andrews, James
Armstrong, John
Arndt, Anthony W.
Ashby, David
Battle, James P.
Baudoux, Robert M.
Benjamin, Kenneth
Bennett, Rick D.
Benoit, John F.
Berg, James
Bishop, George
Border, David E.
Bragan, James
Bridget, Cleland
Bryan, Giles D.
Bublitz, Gary
Burger, David B.
Burger, Fred
Burnell, Russell
Burt, Donald
Caplinger, Leslie A.
Carney, Thomas Lee
Card, John
Card, Michael
Card, Robert
Childs, Gary
Cogswell, William
Cook, James D.
Coopshaw, Robert J.
Cox, Ray L.
Custer, Lori
Dahlvig, H. Ray
Danula, Harry
Davenport, James A.
Davis, Chester
Dehring, David J.
Dickens, Kary Lee
Dodge, William
Donovan, Eugene
Dreyer, Leonard R.
Eberle, Kenneth W.
Finney, Rich
Ford, William
Garrison, Ralph
Gillman, William J.
Greenleaf, Harold
Guenthardt, Gerald
Hagerty, Richard
Hamilton, Bradley
Hamilton, Brett
Hanel, Donald
Hardy, Charles J.
Harju, David
Havens, Raymond
Hazen, Tim A.
Hintz, Gregory A.
Holmes, Donald L.
Hubbard, Zane
Itzen, Daniel F.
Ivey, George
Jackson, Robert
Jipping, Arie
Johnson, David
Kaplinger, Jarvis
Kelley, Albert W.
Kitchen, Wallace
Klein, Douglas
Kline, Donald
Koscielecki, Daniel
Koscielecki, Kevin
Kraenzlein, Gerald
Kruse, Jeffrey
Kuznicki, Robert
Larson, Larry
Lee, Tommy
Letherer, John R.
Long, Gaines
Louzon, Lawrence
Macy, Gary
Macy, Gilbert
Marshall, Lee
Mattis, Marshall F.
McAlpine, Jack
McDonald, John
McKenna, Patrick
Melius, Rodney
Montie, Floyd L.
Myers, Danny L.
Nemethy Sr., Steven R.
Nye, James
O’Hara, Michael
Ostrander, Leo
Payne, George
Peer, Samuel T.
Perez, Tony
Peterson, Alan S.
Radden, Rex C.
Raetz, Rick R.
Ricards, William
Richard, Gerald
Rienas, Robert D.
Rosenberry, David L.
Salisbury, Jay
Schaffer, Jeffrey
Schaub, Robert
Schoudt, Ronnie
Sharp, Robert A.
Sharp, Terry L.
Sherven, Norman
Shorkley, Henry
Simons, Nevin
Slaghula, James A.
Sorenson, Rodney
Stanick, Duane
Stawicki, Robert
Stracka, Tim N.
Strawn, Clinton
Super, John J.
Sutlif, Kirk
Taylor, Tom
Trudeau, Douglas
Valentine, Jonathan
Van Dyke, Michael
VanSlambrouer, Clayton J.
Vandwelinde, Paul C.
Vine, Terry J.
Walsh, John M.
Weaver, Randy
Welch, Larry R.
Wendling, Randy Charles
Western, Gary R.
Westphal, Jeffrey
Wright, John
Yost, James G.
APPENDIX C
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 vio-
lated 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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate, through our
agents at the Michigan Employment Security Commis-
sion, job applicants about their union background.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees and
job applicants about their union sympathies and affilia-
tions.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with the loss of jobs
or other reprisals because of their union support.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD30
WE WILL NOT prohibit employees from wearing union
stickers, union buttons, or other union insignia on their
hardhats and their clothing.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against employees because
of their union activity by laying them off and failing to
recall them to their former jobs.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily refuse to hire job appli-
cants because they are union members or sympathizers,
or because they worked in establishments which had un-
ion contracts, and discriminatorily apply a facially neu-
tral hiring policy in such a way as to discriminate against
suspected union applicants or sympathizers.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer James Bragan, Lori Custer, Tony Perez,
Sean Redner, Gerald Richard, and Joe Van Dyke in-
statement to the positions to which they applied or, if
those positions no longer exist, to substantially equiva-
lent positions.
WE WILL make James Bragan, Lori Custer, Tony
Perez, Sean Redner, Gerald Richard, and Joe Van Dyke
whole for losses sustained by reason of our discrimina-
tion against them, plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days, from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful refusal to hire James Bragan, Lori Custer, Tony
Perez, Sean Redner, Gerald Richard, and Joe Van Dyke,
and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify them in
writing that this has been done and that the refusal to hire
them will not be used against them in any way.
WE WILL offer instatement to 23 discriminatees whose
identity is to be determined in the Board’s compliance
proceeding, to the positions to which they applied or, if
those positions no longer exist, to substantially equiva-
lent positions.
WE WILL make the 23 discriminatees whole for any
losses sustained by reason of our discrimination against
them, plus interest.
WE WILL consider the remaining discriminatees for fu-
ture job openings in accord with nondiscriminatory crite-
ria, and notify them, the Charging Party, and the Re-
gional Director for Region 7 of the Board of such open-
ings in positions for which the discriminatees applied, or
substantially equivalent positions.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the
unlawful refusal to hire the discriminatees, and WE WILL
notify them in writing that this has been done and that
the refusal to hire them will not be used against them in
any way.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer the pipefitters Larry Rose, Robert Cook,
John Corwin, Vince Galligan, Michael O’Hara, Shawn
O’Hara, Allen Randle, Everett Woolsey, Dan Kaiserlian,
Charles Kaiserlian, Bruce Kaiserlian, and Doyne Wool-
sey reemployment in the positions they held at the time
they were discriminatorily laid off, or if those positions
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent position.
WE WILL make Larry Rose, Robert Cook, John
Corwin, Vince Galligan, Michael O’Hara, Shawn
O’Hara, Allen Randle, Everett Woolsey, Dan Kaiserlian,
Charles Kaiserlian, Bruce Kaiserlian, and Doyne Wool-
sey whole for any loss of earnings they may have suf-
fered by reason of the discrimination against them.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful layoff of Larry Rose, Robert Cook, John Corwin,
Vince Galligan, Michael O’Hara, Shawn O’Hara, Allen
Randle, Everett Woolsey, Dan Kaiserlian, Charles
Kaiserlian, Bruce Kaiserlian, and Doyne Woolsey, and
WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify them in writing
that this has been done and that the refusal to hire them
will not be used against them in any way.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O.
Joseph P. Canfield, Esq. and Cynthia Beauchamp, Esq., for the
General Counsel.
Michael C. Towers, Esq. and William F. Kaspers, Esq. (Fisher
& Phillips), of Atlanta, Georgia, for the Respondent.
Kenneth A. Knox, Esq. (Fisher & Phillips), of Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, for the Respondent.
Peter T. Kotula, Esq., of Detroit, Michigan, for the Attorney
General.
Michael J. Stapp, Esq. and Mary Elizabeth Metz, Esq. (Blake &
Uhlig, P.A.), of Kansas City, Kansas, for the Charging
Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
KARL L. BUSCHMANN, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Grand Rapids, and Cadillac, Michigan, intermit-
tently from June 21, 1993, to May 10, 1994, upon several com-
plaints which were consolidated and amended by order of the
General Counsel. The complaint in Case 7–CA–33443 issued
on July 1, 1992, is based upon charges filed on July 1, 1992, by
the Northern Michigan Building & Construction Trades Coun-
cil and its affiliated Unions (the Charging Party, the Unions, or
Union). The complaint in Case 7–CA–33672 is based upon
charges by the same Unions filed on September 2, 1992. The
cases were consolidated by order of October 9, 1992. An Order
consolidating cases, amended consolidated complaint, issued
on December 9, 1992, following another charge filed by the
Unions on October 19, 1992. Additional charges were filed by
the Unions in Cases 7–CA–33920 and 7–CA–33982 which
resulted in an Order consolidating cases, second amended con-
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 31
solidated complaint and notice of hearing, dated December 29,
1992. The Unions filed a charge on January 6, 1993, in Case
7–CA–34089 resulting in a complaint, dated February 10, 1993,
which was consolidated with the prior complaints by Order,
dated February 11, 1993. Additional charges were filed in Case
7–CA–34532. The complaint in that case was consolidated
with the prior complaint by order of June 8, 1993.
The complaints charge the Respondent, Zurn/N.E.P.C.O.,
and the Michigan Employment Security Commission (MESC)
as agent, with approximately 20 violations of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The
allegations include threats of reprisals or loss of jobs because of
the employees’ union support, coercive interrogations, unlawful
prohibitions against union solicitations, discriminatory layoffs
and discharges and refusals to hire boilermakers, pipefitters,
and ironworkers because of their union affiliations.
The Respondent filed timely answers to the complaints, ad-
mitting the jurisdictional allegations and denying that the Com-
pany had engaged in unfair labor practices.
The General Counsel was permitted, over the Respondent’s
objections, to amend the complaint with 16 additional allega-
tions, including the discriminatory refusals to hire applicants
from the following crafts, carpenters, millwrights, electricians,
sheet metal workers, and operating engineers.
Upon the record as a whole, including my observation of the
witnesses and the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Un-
ion and the Respondent, I make the following findings of fact
and conclusions of law
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, Zurn/N.E.P.C.O. is a Washington corpora-
tion headquartered in Redmond, Washington, and Portland,
Maine, and a jobsite in Cadillac, Michigan. As a general con-
tractor in the building and construction industry, it built a co-
generation facility at the Cadillac jobsite. With purchases and
receipts of goods and materials valued in the excess of $50,000
from points outside the State of Michigan during the 12-month
period ending July 31, 1992, the Respondent admittedly was
and is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The Northern Michigan Building & Construction Trades
Council and its affiliated Unions, AFL–CIO, is a chartered
organization composed of member unions, i.e., boilermakers,
pipefitters, ironworkers, electricians, carpenters, millwrights,
sheet metal workers, and operating engineers. Each of the Un-
ions is and has been a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. FACTS
In the early 1990’s a partnership, including Beaver Plant Op-
erations, several other companies, certain individuals, and the
City of Cadillac, developed plans to build a cogeneration power
plant in Cadillac, Michigan, and contracted with a construction
company, known as Townsend and Bouton (also appearing in
the record as Townsend & Bodham or Townsend and Bottum)
(Tr. 2845–2846, 4675–4715). Townsend and Bouton entered
into a project agreement with the Northern Michigan Building
& Construction Trades Council for the hiring of the necessary
labor force for that project. The original plan for the plant en-
visioned the production of steam for a sawmill and electricity.
The Northern Michigan Trades Council had assisted Kaiser
Industries, one of the partners for the Cadillac project, to lobby
the local legislature to enact favorable legislation, involving
water treatment for ground water-contamination, to facilitate
the construction in downtown Cadillac (Tr. 2849, 4691). The
Union’s efforts in this regard contributed to parties’ willingness
to enter into the prehire agreement with the Union to utilize
craftsmen from Northern Michigan (Tr. 2849). The plans to
build the cogeneration plant by Townsend and Bouton fell
through and the partnership turned to Zurn/N.E.P.C.O. to build
a power plant in Cadillac. Upon hearing in late 1990 or early
1991 that Zurn had been selected, Charles Westphal, vice
president of the Northern Michigan Building and Construction
Trades Council, contacted the president of Zurn/N.E.P.C.O.,
Don Butynski, and requested that Zurn honor the project
agreement of its predecessor. Westphal recalled the conversa-
tion as follows (Tr. 2851–2852):
He indicated to me that they were a merit shop con-
tractor. I asked him if he was aware that there was a pro-
ject agreement in place, and whether he was going to
honor it. He said that he wasn’t going to honor it.
I asked him if there was a possibility that I could sit
down with him and talk about the project, that my inten-
tion was to secure work for my members in northern
Michigan. I explained to him that in the last six, seven
years we had built roughly ten or twelve Cogens in north-
ern Michigan.
Had an outstanding work force that lived in the area. I
offered to send him letters from different developers and
different banks and different contractors, letters of com-
mendation that was addressed to us. We had brought
every project in under budget and ahead of schedule, indi-
cating that there was qualified crafts in all areas of exper-
tise.
I would like to talk to him about getting our members
employed, even though he was a merit shop contractor.
. . . .
He indicated that—he said that it would be tough for
him to sit down and talk with me about an arrangement in
Cadillac because of the charges that were filed by my In-
ternational in various locations, especially [P]edrickstown.
On January 26, or 27, 1992, several union officials, including
Westphal, Bob Wuelfing, business manager for the Electrical
Workers (IBEW), and Bill Tuinstra met with Butynski and
Charles Caulkins, an attorney for Zurn in Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania. Again the Union attempted to persuade Zurn to use
qualified craftsmen from the northern Michigan area. Butynski
repeated that an agreement along those lines was possible only
if the Union were to drop its charges in Pedrickstown. The
meeting ended when the Union indicated its reluctance to with-
draw the pending charges.
In the meantime, through local publicity, the Cadillac project
attracted local jobseekers. An article written by Mark Lager-
way appeared in the Cadillac Evening News, describing an
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD32
interview with Zurn’s marketing manager, James Hewitt. The
paper quoted Hewitt as follows:
Hewitt said contracting as much as 90 percent of the
construction work force locally will help the local econ-
omy and provide project partners a pool of qualified work-
ers to stay with the plant once it begins operating.
Lagerway testified and confirmed Hewitt’s statement that Zurn
would hire local labor for up to 90 percent of the necessary
work force (Tr. 1562, GC Exh. 80).
Wuelfing and Jeff Kruse, a representative of the Carpenters
Union, called Hewitt about job possibilities in Cadillac. They
were informed by Walter Neal, Zurn’s personnel manager, that
the Company would accept applications on Zurn forms (Tr.
1990, 2484, 2604). As a result, they as well as other union
members, sent resumes and applications directly to Zurn. Sev-
eral unions and their representatives encouraged their members
who wanted jobs with Zurn to meet at the Olson’s Motel in
Cadillac, Michigan, to fill out Zurn applications. More than
100 applications were sent to Zurn directly by letter of January
28, 1992 (GC Exh. 139). Among the applicants were sheet
metal workers, carpenters, iron workers, and electricians.
However, by letter of January 31, 1992, Neal returned all the
applications to the Charging Party stating that Zurn would hire
at the Cadillac project and that the Michigan Employment Se-
curity Commission (MESC) in Cadillac would process the ap-
plications (Tr. 4841–4846, GC Exh. 141). Zurn had requested
the MESC to process all job applicants on its behalf.
According to the Respondent, the MESC acted as a special
agent for Zurn in accepting and registering job applicants for
the Zurn project. Registrants filled out a form to indicate their
job skills and work experience. An employer like Zurn, was
then able to request referrals from the MESC for the necessary
job skills.
Union representatives accordingly sent their members who
needed jobs to the MESC to register. They were then asked to
return to the Olson’s Motel to fill out a small questionnaire for
the Union showing the date of registration, whether they were
hired and whether they identified themselves as union members
(GC Exh. 140).1
During the interviews with officials at the MESC, many job
applicants were asked whether they were members of a union
or whether they had a union background.
In February 1992, Sean Redner called Neal at the Com-
pany’s Portland, Maine office expressing interest in working
for Zurn. During the conversation Neal indicated that he would
accept Redner’s resume for consideration at the Cadillac job-
site. Redner sent his resume to Neal within a few days.
Tuinstra and Westphal encouraged their union members to
do likewise. They collected resumes from their membership
and sent them to Neal. Tuinstra sent approximately 100 re-
sumes by letter of March 23, 1992, and Westphal sent 44 appli-
cations by letter of March 12, 1992 (GC Exh. 142, Joint Exh.

1 That job applicants completed the slips of paper after they returned
from the MESC was supported by the testimony of numerous witnesses
who stated that they had filled out a particular slip or observed others
filling out their slips and could identify their signatures.
1). Neal returned both sets of applications within a few days
with the remark that the MESC would process all applications
(Joint Exh. 3, GC Exh. 143).
Actual construction work began sometime in April 1992, al-
though the official ground breaking ceremony was held on May
14, 1992. The first employees to be hired were electricians.
Four were hired from the MESC referral system, including
Christine Gallandt. According to her undisputed testimony,
Larry Sullivan, Zurn’s personnel manager at the jobsite, as-
sured her during the initial interview that her job would last
from 10 to 12 months (Tr. 605, 7752). Gallandt had disclosed
on her job applications that her prior employment included
unionized companies. The Respondent maintains, however,
that it had planned to subcontract the electrical work from the
beginning.
The next complement of employees to be hired were pipefit-
ters to perform the underground piping system. John O’Hara,
who possessed certain necessary licenses including a class 4
boilermaker’s license, was hired as foreman. Subsequently
Zurn hired 13 pipefitters. During the interviewing process with
Zurn officials, several pipefitters were told that their jobs would
last from 1 to 2 years. They worked up to 12 hours a day and 6
or 7 days a week.
In May 1992, the Union began to schedule regular organiz-
ing meetings with Zurn employees with the intention to organ-
ize the Cadillac jobsite. In attendance were the 13 pipefitters
and several carpenters. Several of the employees signed union
authorization cards. Union stickers and buttons were distrib-
uted to the employees during the meetings.
On or about May 18, 1992, Leon Greer, the resident manager
for Zurn, assembled the employees at the Cadillac jobsite and
lectured them about solicitation on the job. He told them that
solicitation was prohibited and anyone caught soliciting would
be looking for another job (Tr. 684). A few days later, the Re-
spondent subcontracted the electrical work to a nonunion con-
tractor and the electricians, including Christine Gallandt, were
laid off after only 7 days of work.
By letter of June 2, 1992, addressed to Leon Greer, superin-
tendent, and signed by union representatives, for the boiler-
makers, ironworkers, sheet metal workers, carpenters, and op-
erating engineers, the Company was officially notified of the
unions’ efforts to organize the Cadillac facility. The letter iden-
tified six employees, including Chester Brown, operating engi-
neer, Gary Macy and Kim Ludwig, carpenters, Peter Bellecy,
surveyor, Leonard Bowen, laborer, and Christine Gallandt,
electrician (GC Exhs. 137, 165).
While none of the pipefitting crew had been identified in the
letter as union organizers, the entire crew began to wear union
insignia, such as badges and stickers on the jobsite in early June
1992. Richard Toller, who was the mechanical superintendent
and oversaw the piping crew, testified that management was
aware of their union support (Tr. 5992). In addition, the Union
notified Leon Greer by letter of June 12, 1992, that additional
employees, especially seven pipefitters were members of the
organizing committee (GC Exh. 160(a)). By letter of June 12,
1992, Westphal also sent a letter to Greer, demanding recogni-
tion on behalf of Respondent’s employees at the Cadillac job-
site (GC Exh. 167). The demand was rejected (GC Exh. 170).
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 33
On June 18, 1992, the Union held a rally outside the com-
pany gate attended by more than 200 demonstrators. Also on
June 18, 1992, the entire crew was laid off, including their
foreman John O’Hara. The layoff followed the union rally. All
pipefitters on the job, except for their foreman, had joined the
rally during their lunchbreak. They returned wearing union
stickers which were handed out during the picketing.
Contrary to the repeated representations by management that
the pipefitters’ work would last for 1 to 2 years and even
though the underground piping system was not completed, the
crew was assembled shortly after the union demonstration and
informed that they were laid off effective immediately for “lack
of work.” Up until that moment, the crew had worked overtime
up to 12 hours a day and 6 or 7 days a week.
Gayle Hare, superintendent of piping, told one of the pipefit-
ters that the layoff occurred because of the Union.2 The Re-
spondent decided to subcontract the piping work and hired two
firms, Northern Boiler and MAT Mechanical3 to complete the
piping work in July 1992.
On July 15, 1992, the Union held another rally in an effort to
have their members hired. Approximately 200 people attended.
Union Representatives Westphal and Lee urged the guard at the
entrance gate to the building site to accept job applications.
The guard, after making a telephone call, informed the group
that they had to apply through the MESC.
When union numbers applied at the MESC office, they no-
ticed that many job applicants received preferential treatment.
They were interviewed ahead of other job seekers and quickly
processed ahead of the others.
In September the MESC sponsored an advertisement in the
local papers seeking boilermakers and millwrights for the Zurn
project. Yet approximately 40 union boilermakers had already
registered with the MESC but were not contacted for such job
openings. When the union representatives inquired at the
MESC, its director, Josie Bennett, informed the Union that all
boilermakers had been incorrectly classified at the MESC and
were therefore not referred to Zurn.
By letter of September 17, 1992, Westphal informed Leon
Greer that “a minimum of 40 boilermaker journeymen and
apprentices and numerous building trades members” had regis-
tered and are available in response to the advertisement (GC
Exh. 174). However, the letter was never answered by Zurn.
On September 21, 1992, several of the union representatives
again met with Respondent’s President Don Butynski to discuss
the employment of the Union’s members. Again, Butynski
conditioned their employment on the settlement of the charges
filed in the Pedrickstown jobsite. In September, Zurn offered
to rehire many of the pipefitters who were laid off. But none
were reinstated to their former jobs as pipefitters. Instead they
worked as welders or boilermaker helpers.
On December 5, 1992, many of the Zurn employees left their
jobs and engaged in a strike. The picket signs accused Zurn of
violating labor laws. Three days later, on December 8, 1992,

2 O’Hara denied making this statement. But his lack of candor and
general uncertainty during his testimony renders his denial not credible
(Tr. 6047).
3 MAT Mechanical was also referred to as MAP Mechanical.
Westphal communicated in writing “an unconditional offer to
return to work under the same terms and conditions of em-
ployment” (GC Exh. 177).
On December 9, 1992, the Board issued another complaint
against Zurn charging it with unfair labor practices. At about
the same time, the MESC discontinued processing “name calls”
or predesignated job applicants specifically requested by Zurn.
The decision was not made because of a strike, but faced with
Zurn’s request to process 70 “name call” applicants who would
have been given preferential referrals by the MESC, it notified
Zurn orally that henceforth it would refer applicants only a
“first in first referred” basis in accordance with its usual prac-
tice (Tr. 3861, GC Exh. 218).
Approximately 1700 individuals with various job skills were
registered at the MESC seeking employment with Zurn. It
could have hired its work force from that pool of individuals
(Tr. 7587).4 The Respondent’s total work force consisted of
276 employees including supervisors and secretaries (Tr. 7589–
7590). According to Zurn all except 64 employees were hired
on that project on a priority basis, that is 212 of the work force
were “name-calls” or other preferred employees and 64 were
referred by the MESC as regular applicants in accordance with
its normal procedure (R. Exhs. 147, 148, 151, R. Br. p. 17).
None of its boilermakers on the job for example were hired
through the regular MESC process, they all were priority refer-
rals. Only 24 of the 64 regularly hired candidates had a union
background according to the Respondent (R. Exhs. 148, 149).
According to the Union, the Respondent hired 202 employ-
ees, not counting supervisors or secretaries, in such job catego-
ries as millwrights, boilermakers, pipefitters, electricians, rig-
gers, welders, laborers, operating engineers, carpenters, and
ironworkers (CP Exh. 16). The Union also submitted a list of
523 applicants who were not hired allegedly because of their
prior union background or a showing of union support (CP Exh.
19).5
III. THE ALLEGATIONS
The consolidated complaint, as amended, alleges numerous
8(a)(1) allegations as well as allegations of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) mainly in relation to the layoff of the piping crew, and the
layoff or discharges of certain other employees, as well as the
Respondent’s refusal or failure to hire numerous applicants
with union backgrounds. The allegations in the consolidated
complaint were repeatedly amended during the hearing stage of
the case. Certain of the amendments6 are contested. The issues
presented are:

4 One thousand fifty seven registrants had completed MESC form
2511 (Tr. 3927). The record contains an exhibit showing 1731 regis-
tered individuals (R. Exh. 152, Tr. 7505).
5 This list was based upon various documents, including MESC
documents, bulk applications sent to Zurn, questionnaires filled out by
union members, Zurn documents, bulk resumes, and the Union’s out-
of-work lists. The Respondent has questioned the reliability of some of
the underlying documentation.
6 The following amendments proposed by General Counsel are de-
nied: unlawful promises made by Sullivan and Charles Owens; condi-
tioning the hiring of employees on withdrawal of charges. That testi-
mony was permitted over Respondent’s objection and with the under-
standing that it was not alleged in the complaint (Tr. 140–142); video-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD34
Whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by threatening its employees by the following supervisors:
Gayle Hare on June 18, 1992; Larry Sullivan in August and
October 1992; William McDowell on September 18, 1992; Jim
Chittum on October 22, 1993; Richard Toller on December 3,
1992; Dave Walls in September 1992; and Leon Greer in May
1992.
Whether employees were coercively interrogated by: Larry
Sullivan in August 1992 (Tony Perez), in June 1992 (Rockford
Jones, Gerald Richard), in September 1992 (Robert Cook), and
in September 1992 (Rockford Jones); by David Walls in June
1992, by Bill King in late 1992; by John Petty and from Janu-
ary to April 1992 by MESC officials of numerous registrants.
Whether the Respondent violated the Act by an unlawful so-
licitation policy and prohibitions against union stickers and
buttons.
Whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act by the following layoffs: May 21, 1992, of electricians,
including Christine Gallandt;7 on June 18 all pipefitters (Larry
Rose, Robert Cook, John Corwin, Vince Galligan, Michael
O’Hara, John O’Hara, Shawn O’Hara, Allen Radle, Everett
Woolsey, Dan Kaiserlian, Charles Kaiserlian, Bruce Kaiserlian,
and Doyne Woolsey); and the discharge on December 2, 1992,
of Roger See, and the discipline of Donald Diekman.
Whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act by discriminatory refusals to hire job applicants in the
iron working, boilermaking, pipefitting crafts, as well as those
in the carpenter, millwright, electrician, sheet metal worker,
and operating engineer crafts, including but not limited to:
Jeffrey Westphal, Harold Greenleaf, James Bragan, Jeffrey
Kruse, Gerald Richard, Joe Van Dyke, Lori Custer, Tony Perez,
Sean Redner; and the discriminatory refusal to recall or rehire:
John Corwin, John O’Hara, Charles Kaiserlian, Mark Berens,
Gary Macy, Everett Woolsey,8 and as well as the discrimina-
tory treatment of Phil Harmon and Stanley Brigner.
Whether the Respondent violated the Act by unlawfully sub-
contracting the piping work and the electrical work.
During the hearing, the General Counsel moved to amend
the amended, consolidated complaint to allege that Zurn’s pri-
ority hiring policy (policy 303) or word of mouth hiring system
is discriminatory (Tr. 5429). The Respondent objected. I
stated as follows (Tr. 5433):
I think that what I am going to do is not rule [it] on
your motion at this time. Mr. Towers is on notice that you
are making that motion for an amendment to the com-

taping of pickets and promises of benefits was not offered as an
amendment during the hearing. See, Respondent’s Motion to Strike
Counsel for General Counsel’s New Allegations, dated February 24,
1995, and General Counsel’s Response, dated April 26, 1995.
7 The electricians’ layoff was offered as an amendment to the com-
plaint but a ruling was withheld (Tr. 683). The issue was fully litigated
and the Respondent has addressed the substantive issue of the allega-
tion (R. Br. 153). The amendment should have been, and it is hereby,
granted.
8 The complaint alleges that Woolsey was unlawfully laid off, but it
does not specifically state that the Respondent unlawfully failed to
recall or rehire him. That issue is, however, implicit in the allegation of
the complaint and was fully litigated.
plaint. You can make that motion even at the end of the
case. And what I would suggest that you do is that you
make this motion in your brief, and I’ll consider it at that
time.
The General Counsel argues in his brief that the Respon-
dent’s policy was unlawful as applied on the Cadillac site, and
the Charging Party argues that such a policy is inherently de-
structive of employees’ rights. The Respondent introduced its
personnel policy into the record in its defense to the com-
plaint’s allegation that it unlawfully failed to hire union appli-
cants. The legality of the policy is therefore in issue irrespec-
tive of a specific amendment to the complaint. Furthermore,
the Respondent was on notice that the General Counsel would
challenge the policy as unlawful and had ample opportunity to
and did respond to the substantive issue. The issue is implicit
and inextricably intertwined with the allegations in the com-
plaint. Upon further reflection, I hereby grant the General
Counsel’s motion and reject the Respondent’s argument that it
was procedural error for me to withhold a ruling. The Respon-
dent has made no showing of prejudice. I also deny the Re-
spondent’s motion and memorandum to dismiss counts based
on res judicata, dated April 27, 1995.
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Was Zurn NEPCO—in its own words—the innocent victim
of the “most concentrated attack to date on traditional merit
shop hiring practices”—subjected “to the union’s web of traps”
and “in your face bully tactics combined with abuse of Board
procedures”—“set up” and targeted by “the union’s trained
agents,” who “scripted, casted, staged, and choreographed
countless scenes,” where “members of the mob [referring to job
applicants] created a chaotic scene at the MESC offices,”
“baited MESC personnel,” used “mass-mailed counterfeit”
applications and engaged in “the violent union strike on De-
cember 5, 1992” without any “genuine desire to seek employ-
ment?”9 Or did the Union in spite of its all out efforts simply
fail to get its local members employed by an out-of-state con-
tractor whose fixed price bid was based on nonunion labor
costs and, as an experienced “merit shop” employer, used all its
skills and ingenuity to shut out the Unions as soon as they made
a public effort to organize the employees. A fair reading of the
voluminous and sometimes inconsistent record evidence sup-
ports the second scenario. While the Respondent as a nonun-
ionized employer, was free to use legitimate means to remain
“a merit shop” and while several allegations have not been
substantiated, it is clear that Zurn’s relationship with the MESC
was that of a principal and an agent whose misconduct is im-
putable to the employer, and that Zurn, at whose behest the
agency relationship was created, exceeded proper bounds of
conduct and violated the Act. Zurn unlawfully laid off the
entire piping crew, and it used its priority hiring policy, the
MESC relationship, its recruitment of applicants from outside
the State of Michigan, and other methods to avoid hiring quali-
fied individuals because of their union background. It also

9 The quoted material are selected statements which Respondent’s
attorneys used in their brief.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 35
engaged in threats, interrogations and discriminatory treatment
of employees because of their union support.
A. Zurn’s Agency Relationship with the MESC
The complaint alleges and the record shows that the MESC
acted as Zurn’s agent. The MESC (Michigan Employment
Security Commission) is a state agency with offices in various
locations in Michigan, including Cadillac. One of its functions,
the employee placement service, is to register applicants for
jobs and, upon request by an employer, known as job order, to
provide him with a list of qualified individuals giving due con-
siderations to an applicant’s veteran status and time of registra-
tion. At Zurn’s request, the MESC agreed to process all indi-
viduals seeking employment at the Cadillac project. Described
by Zurn as a custom referral agreement, it required the MESC
to honor Zurn’s priority hiring system which, as described in
more detail below, discriminated against regular applicants in
favor of prior Zurn employees and referrals by Zurn employees
sometimes referred to as “name calls.” All regular applicants
were required to register with the MESC and complete a stan-
dard Form 2511. They were then interviewed by MESC per-
sonnel, who entered the relevant information on a computer.
Josie Bennett, district manager, explained the process as fol-
lows (Tr. 85–86):
And they were given the same forms as any one else
to—registering for work with our office.
During the course of the interview, if they expressed
an interest in working with this employer they were as-
signed a special code, an office use code, which indicated
their pref—their interest in working at the co-generation
plant.
In addition, they were given an occupational code or
codes which was assigned on the basis of their prior work
experience and or education.
And these things were entered in to the computer. At
the time we received a job order from the Employer for a
specific occupation we then went to the computer and
generated a list of names of individuals under that office
use code and under the appropriate occupational classifica-
tion.
From that printout we contacted names of individuals,
asking them if they were interested in working for the
Employer. If they were, they were called in to the office,
they were given initially—I’m saying initially, at the time
of this report they were being given another MESC form
to complete. An MESC 25–50, which is a work applica-
tion. We call it a generic work application form.
And upon completion of that form the applications
were given to the Employer.
Zurn admitted “that MESC employees identified in the com-
plaint were its special agents for the narrow purpose clearly
defined in the custom referral agreement between Zurn
N.E.P.C.O. and MESC” (R. Br. 91). That relationship carried
with it certain implications for which Zurn must assume the
ultimate responsibility.
B. MESC as an Agent of ZURN/N.E.P.C.O.
Section 2(13) of the National Labor Relations Act states that
“[i]n determining whether any person is acting as an ‘agent’ of
another person so as to make such other person responsible for
his acts, the question of whether the specific acts performed
were actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be
controlling.” 29 U.S.C. §152 (13). The 1947 Taft-Hartley
amendments added Section 2(13) to the Act “in order to avoid a
narrower interpretation of agency authority which would re-
quire actual instigation, participation, or ratification.” Iron
Workers (J. W. Reinforcing), 317 NLRB 817 (1995), citing 93
Cong. Rec. 6858-6859. The Board applies common law prin-
ciples of agency when determining whether an agency relation-
ship exists. Allegheny Aggregates, 311 NLRB 1165 (1993).
The restatement defines a special agent as an “agent author-
ized to conduct a single transaction or a series of transactions
not involving continuity of service.” Restatement (Second)
Agency § 3(2) (1958). Having stipulated that MESC was spe-
cial agent, it is only necessary to examine whether or not that
relationship makes Zurn responsible for any unlawful interroga-
tions by MESC. If it can also be determined that MESC dis-
criminated against applicants in referring them to Zurn or in
any way preventing their consideration for employment, Zurn
should also be held responsible for these actions.
Apparent authority is created “. . . as to a third person by
written or spoken words or any other conduct of the principal
which, reasonably interpreted, causes the third person to be-
lieve that the principal consents to have the act done on his
behalf. . . ” Restatement (Second) Agency §27 (1958, Com-
ment). In NLRB v. Donkin’s Inn, 532 F.2d 138, 141 (9th Cir.
1976); Alliance Rubber Co., 286 NLRB 645, 646 (1987), the
Board held that apparent authority is created through a manifes-
tation by the principal to a third party that supplies a reasonable
basis for the latter to believe that the principal has authorized
the alleged agent to do the acts in question. According to the
Board, two criteria must be satisfied before apparent authority
is created: (1) some manifestation by the principal to a third
party, and (2) the third party must believe that the extent of the
authority granted to the agent encompasses the contemplated
activity. Allegheny Aggregates, supra. Service Employees
Local 87 (West Bay Maintenance), 291 NLRB 82, 83 (1988).
Restatement (Second) Agency §8 (1958).
The two part Board test for the creation of apparent author-
ity, is clearly met in this case. First, Zurn unquestionably mani-
fested itself to the applicants. Newspaper articles announced
not only Zurn’s plan to build a power plant in Cadillac, but also
that its hiring would be done through MESC. Furthermore,
applicants who applied directly to Zurn were instructed to reg-
ister through the MESC office, as were union officials who sent
applications in bulk to Walter Neal. Zurn’s practice of phoning
job orders to the MESC and furnishing the MESC with Zurn
applications bolstered the authority of the MESC to act on
Zurn’s behalf.
This application process proves the second element of the
test. It gave the applicants a reasonable basis for believing that
MESC’s conduct in the application process was taken on
Zurn’s behalf. When applicants were asked about their union
background or were informed that their union affiliation made
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD36
it unlikely that they would be hired, they reasonably believed
that these representations were sanctioned by Zurn.
C. Unlawful Interrogation During the MESC Interview
The Board has held that “. . . questions involving union
membership and union sympathies in the context of a job inter-
view are inherently coercive and thus interfere with Section 7
Rights.” Service Master, 267 NLRB 875 (1983). The Board
has reasoned this is so because “[a]n employment interview is
not an abstract discussion forum, or an occasion for chance or
casual conversation. . . .” Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive
Brake Co., 161 NLRB 789, 791–792 (1966).
The record shows that many of the applicants were inter-
viewed by MESC about their union membership.
For example, Douglas Klein applied for employment at Zurn
by going to the MESC. He was interviewed at MESC by Penny
Bassi (Paddock) and questioned whether he was a union mem-
ber. She closely inspected his journeyman’s card and recorded
certain information. Klein was not contacted about a job.
Timothy Corradin was interviewed by an MESC official named
Robert Buttis. He questioned Corradin whether he belonged to
a union. When he replied that he was a member of a union, the
MESC agent appeared to write the information on a sheet of
paper. Corradin was not interviewed by Zurn for a job. Paul
Sivits went to the MESC to fill out an employment application
form and was interviewed by a man who asked whether he was
a union member. Sivits replied, yes. The MESC interviewer
inquired why he had not put that information on the application.
Sivits replied, “I was leery that they wouldn’t consider me for
employment” (Tr. 1094). Even though Sivits was a veteran and
should have been given priority, he was never contacted about a
job. James Griswold was interviewed by a lady at the MESC.
Her first question was whether he was union or nonunion.
Griswold testified that this question startled him and he said,
“what difference that made.” She said: “Well, if you’re union,
no sense in me filling this out because it wouldn’t go any fur-
ther than there.” Griswold then replied that under those cir-
cumstances he was not union because he needed a job. He
listed on his application his prior employers which were all
union employers. He was never offered a job at Zurn.
Zance Hubbard was interviewed twice at the MESC and
questioned each time about this union affiliation. At a second
interview, Penny Bassi (Paddock) asked him whether he be-
longed to a union. Timothy Gapen was asked during the inter-
view process at the MESC by Penny Bassi. Whether he be-
longed to a union. Gapen then asked Penny to give him a
statement showing that she had asked him that question. She
wrote it on the back of her business card. Shortly thereafter, he
observed her speaking to a man working in the office named Al
Matthews who approached him and said that Penny was not
supposed to have asked him that question. Dick Jocoby, a car-
penter was interviewed by a woman interviewer. Even though
he wore a union button and hat, she asked him about his union
affiliation. When he said that he was a union member, she said,
“you won’t be hired” (Tr. 2160). Other applicants who testified
that they were interrogated about the union at the MESC were
Bill Drake, Lori Custer, Roy Lambert, Thomas Mason, Marvin
Radtke, Paul LeVasseur, Thomas Bejeck, Richard Biggs,
Stanley Saxton, and William Cogswell. Most of the question-
ing occurred in January and February 1992. It is clear that
based on its prior experience involving Bill Tobias, an MESC
staff member, the Agency knew that such conduct was unlaw-
ful.
Penny Bassi testified that she recorded the applicants’ union
background information membership on the computer records
of the MESC in order to credit the applicant’s length of experi-
ence in a craft. It is clear, however, that the MESC could have
assigned the level of experience in a particular craft without
resorting to their union experience. On the basis of the forego-
ing, as well as the other evidence showing the Respondent’s
antiunion animus, I find that the MESC as agent and Zurn vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Rossmore House, 269 NLRB
1100 (1984), affd. 706 F.2d 267 (5th Cir. 1985). There is no
evidence that the Respondent disavowed these interrogations.
To the contrary, as shown below, Respondent’s management
engaged in similar conduct.
D. The Electrical Crew
According to the General Counsel’s amended complaint, the
Respondent unlawfully subcontracted the electrical work at the
Cadillac project and improperly laid off the electricians.
The record does not support these allegations. The electri-
cians were among the first employees to be hired at the Cadillac
project. Among the three or four electricians was Christine
Gallandt who testified that the initial work was considered tem-
porary work. It consisted of “doing grounding of the trailer,
temporary lighting around the yard, hooking up portable gen-
erators for the men out in the field” (Tr. 7753). Although she
was told by management, Larry Sullivan, that the job could last
for 10 to 12 months, her employment lasted from May 12 to
May 21, 1992, when she was laid off. The record shows that
the electrical work was subcontracted to Windemuller Electric.
The Union did not begin its organizational efforts at the
Cadillac project until the end of May. It held meetings, distrib-
uted union stickers, and obtained signed authorization cards.
The Company was notified by letter of June 2, 1992, that sev-
eral employees, including Christine Gallandt, electrician, Gary
Macy and Kim Ludwig, carpenters, Chester Brown, operating
engineer, and two others were on the Union’s organizational
committee. While the Company was accordingly aware of
Gallandt’s union activity, the record shows that the layoff oc-
curred on May 21, 1992. By that time, the Company had al-
ready decided to subcontract the permanent electrical work.
The record therefore does not support the allegation that the
layoff was union related.
E. The Pipefitters
Following the electrical crew, the pipefitters were the next
largest employee contingent to be hired at the Cadillac project.
Its foreman, John O’Hara was hired in April 1992. By June 16,
1992, a crew of 13 pipefitters had been hired.10 Many of them
were told that their jobs would last from 1 to 2 years. For ex-
ample, in early June, Larry Rose spoke to Larry Sullivan, the
personnel manager, stating that he “had a full time job and that

10 The Respondent refers to 14 pipefitters.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 37
[he] would not leave that job for temporary employment”; Sul-
livan assured Rose “that the job would last at least a year” (Tr.
806). Yet he worked 6 days and was laid off with the entire
pipefitting crew. The sudden layoff was also inconsistent with
the statement by Gayle Hare, the piping superintendent, who
told O’Hara that he was “projecting between 30 and 35 fitters
and 10 welders for the piping crew” (Tr. 322). Leon Greer,
resident manager and highest company representative at the
Cadillac project, told O’Hara that the crew was going to do
everything it can “in house” (Tr. 330, 369). Indeed, a fabrica-
tion shop was constructed on site where the necessary prefabri-
cation of piping could have been performed. New materials
had been ordered to be used for “on-site” fabrication which had
actually started. The crew was working 10 to 12 hours a day 6
or 7 days a week. Yet during the afternoon on June 18, 1992,
with incomplete welding projects and half finished welds, Zurn
laid off the entire crew with the explanation of “lack of work.”
During the noontime, the Union held a demonstration outside
the building site in which the pipefitters participated.
According to the Respondent the layoff occurred
“[c]oincidentally on the 18th [after] many workers from all
crafts engaged in lunch time picketing” (R. Br. 26). Admitting
that it had knowledge of the organizing activity by members of
the pipefitting crew, the Respondent states that it occurred
“well after the decision to subcontract” the above-ground pip-
ing had been made. The underground piping was nearly fin-
ished in June—according to the Respondent—so that the crew
was only performing “fill-in-work.”
The Respondent’s scenario, as well as Hare’s testimony
about “fill-in work,” is, however, unconvincing and implausible
in the face of overwhelming evidence showing that the abrupt
layoff within hours of the Union’s picketing on the same day
was actually motivated by the Respondent’s realization that its
existence as a merit shop employer was at stake. The record
shows that the Employer became aware of the union support
among the pipefitting crew and consequently laid off the entire
crew.
The Respondent’s effort to demonstrate that it would have
laid off the crew even in the absence of any union considera-
tions is not convincing. Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980),
enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. den. 455 U.S. 989
(1982). Indeed, I regard the Respondent’s defense as totally
disingenuous so that the issue does not even rise to that of a
dual motive.
As already noted, around June 10, 1992, most members of
the pipefitting crew began to wear union buttons and union
stickers on their hard hats. Gayle Hare noticed it and ques-
tioned John O’Hara about his son Shawn O’Hara, as recalled by
John O’Hara (Tr. 331): “Gayle Hare approached me one morn-
ing. We were walking down the driveway and he says, what’s
this deal with [Sean] wearing this union button?” In another
instance, David Walls, boilermaker foreman, confronted Alan
Radle, a pipefitter, and said, “If you wear that button, all it’s
going to do is cause you problems” (Tr. 781).
By letter dated June 12, 1992, the Union formally notified
the Employer that seven pipefitters were engaged in organizing
activities. The most public display of union support occurred
on June 18, 1992, during the noon lunchbreak when the Union
had assembled a group of more than 200 demonstrators and job
applicants outside the Respondent’s building site for a brief
rally.
The entire pipefitting crew and a few members of other
crafts left the fence enclosed jobsite at noon and joined the
union rally during their lunchbreak. They were received with a
standing ovation and cheering by the demonstrators. Manage-
ment observed the scene and noticed the pipefitters with union
stickers as they returned through the gates. Management video-
taped the entire event, including the participants and their cars’
licenses.
The Respondent took swift action. It assembled the crew “in
the so-called fab shop” at about 2 p.m. Gayle Hare informed
them to collect their tools and in his words, “I told them that
due to lack of work, that we were going to lay the piping de-
partment off” (Tr. 6034).
The timing of the layoff was, according to Respondent,
purely “coincidental” and “lack of work” was the result of Re-
spondent’s decision to subcontract the above-ground piping
system. Both statements are disingenuous. It is well settled,
“the proximity in time between recent protected activity and the
measures taken against the employee[s] lend support to the
inference of an unfair labor practice.” Jim Causey Pontiac v.
NLRB, 620 F.2d 122 (1980). There, as here, it would be diffi-
cult to imagine any action taken against the employees that
were more immediate and more apparently responsive than the
layoff of the pipefitting crew.
Even more perplexing was the decision under the circum-
stances here, even assuming arguendo that the above ground
piping would be subcontracted. Up until June 16 it had hired
pipefitters. The crew had been working 6 or 7 days a week at
up to 12 hours a day. Greer and Hare informed most of the
employees during the interview that their jobs would last a year
or more and not 2 or 3 weeks. Respondent’s action was so
swift that the crew was not permitted to finish the day’s work.
Yet at least 2 weeks of work was left on the underground pip-
ing system. Witness after witness testified that the work was
unfinished. For example, Shawn O’Hara was in the field dig-
ging a ditch for an underground pipe. His work, according to
his testimony was “not even close to being completed” (Tr.
284). This witness had been transferred to the crew 1 day be-
fore the layoff. Robert Cook “was just putting flange on a
piece of pipe” with “an hour or two to go” (Tr. 392). Larry
Rose and John Corwin were similarly in the middle of a com-
plicated task with at least one more day to finish the particular
work. Others had to leave behind half finished welds. John
O’Hara, their foreman, testified that some members of the crew
were working on the above ground piping, a “48 inch connec-
tion, from the cooler to the condenser, that was probably 70 or
80 percent complete” with “18 joints lined up to do” which
would have taken 2 weeks to complete (Tr. 333–334). Not only
that work, but also the underground work would have required
approximately 2 weeks to complete. Their testimony is sup-
ported by David Banks, a representative of MAT Mechanical,
which was hired by Zurn N.E.P.C.O. to complete the under-
ground work and which was left incomplete by Zurn’s piping
crew. Banks testified that MAT started in mid-July and fin-
ished in September 1992. MAT completed unfinished welds, a
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD38
job which welders are unhappy about, because they could be
accused of bad workmanship if the prior work was deficient.
He also observed new employees being tested for welder’s
positions. Zurn also hired Northern Boiler, another firm to
finish the underground piping. It is clear therefore that, con-
trary to Respondent’s argument, on June 18 the pipefitting was
far from completing the underground work and that there was
no lack of work.
Moreover, Leon Greer and Gayle Hare had on separate occa-
sions represented to O’Hara that the crew would also work on
the above ground piping system. These representations find
support by the presence of a fabrication shop which had been
constructed on the Cadillac site and the fact that certain above
ground work on the cooling tower had already started. The
record also shows that orders had been placed for additional
materials.
The testimony of Everett Woolsey supports the evidence that
the layoff was motivated by antiunion animus. Woolsey testi-
fied about a conversation with Gayle Hare on the afternoon of
the day of the layoff when he inquired about the Company’s
reason for its decision (Tr. 905), “I go, does it have anything to
do with the Union, and he said, yes.”11
I accordingly find that the Respondent’s subcontracting deci-
sion was a pretext for the layoff on June 18, 1992.
The Respondent erroneously argues that its decision to sub-
contract the above ground pipe fabrication was a factor in the
layoff. The record shows that the Respondent, by letters, dated
May 21, 1992, solicited bids from various firms “to furnish and
deliver piping material and valves for said project. . . .” (R.
Exh. 98). In response, Zurn N.E.P.C.O. received several bids
ranging from a low of $126,100 by Team Industries, Inc. to one
quoting $177,108 by Frank Lill & Sons, Inc. (R. Exhs. 98, 99).
The Respondent selected the lowest bid, dated June 4, 1992.
By memorandum of June 5, 1992, Respondent’s Construction
Manager, Frank Manry, informed Butynski that he had advised
Leon Greer to subcontract the Pipe Fabrication, because it had
received the quote from Team Industries (R. Exh. 100).
It is important to note that the bids involve the fabrication of
piping and not its installation on site. A job costing $126,000 is
certainly not one which would keep a crew of 13 pipefitters
busy for a year or two, as Hare had estimated when he hired the
crew. At one point Hare had projected a crew of 30 or more
pipefitters and 10 pipewelders to complete the job. The Re-
spondent states in its brief that the “above ground piping was a
much larger job than the underground piping involving roughly
10 times as much linear fortage of pipe . . . [and] a much more
intricate fabrication job” (R. Br. 23). According to the Respon-
dent Hare was “the highly experienced Piping General Fore-
man.” Such an expert would have utterly misjudged the
amount of work to be done by 13 pipefitters working overtime.
Moreover, if the subcontracting of the pipe fabrication made
the piping crew so superfluous, and if that decision was com-
municated by Manry to Greer on or before June 5, 1992, as
stated in the memorandum of June 5, 1992, why did Hare hire
additional pipefitters after that date and represent to them that

11 Based on his demeanor I have not credited Hare’s denial of the
conversation.
their tenure would last from 1 to 2 years, and why was it neces-
sary for the Respondent to hire two other firms, Northern Boiler
and MAT Mechanical to finish the work on the underground
piping systems which the crew left behind. Hare clearly mis-
represented the amount of piping work either to the job appli-
cants or during his testimony.
Clearly the decision to subcontract the $126,000 fabrication
job could not justify the layoff. The record shows that after the
layoff, the Respondent tested and hired pipewelders and ulti-
mately rehired most of the laid off crew. To accept the Re-
spondent’s argument that the subcontracting decision justified
the layoff would be to ignore (a) that the underground work
was incomplete, (b) that two outside firms were subcontracted
to finish that work, (c) that Hare who is “highly experienced”
hired four new pipefitters on June 11, 1992, 6 days after Greer
had been informed of the subcontracting decision, (d) that the
crew worked 12 hours a day 6 or 7 days a week up to June 18,
1992, and (e) that the same Hare estimated a job, costing only
$126,100 for a subcontractor to require a crew of 14 pipefitters
or more for at least a year or longer.
In sum, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) for its discriminatory layoff of the pipefitters because of
their union support. I also find that the Respondent unlawfully
subcontracted the piping work, except for the fabrication work
to Team Industries. The record shows that the decision to sub-
contract the pipe fabrication preceded the union activity of the
pipefitters and was accordingly lawful. Nevertheless, the
Wright Line test was not met even to a limited extent, because
the layoff was unnecessary considering the need to hire two
firms to finish the work, the subsequent hiring of pipewelders
and the rehiring of part of the crew, and it was certainly incon-
sistent with the representations made by management about the
size of the crew and the duration of the work.
The Respondent made offers of employment to most mem-
bers of the piping crew in September 1992, but none were rein-
stated to their former positions. For example, Robert Cook was
rehired as a structural welder, Allan Radle as a boilermaker
helper, Larry Rose as a structural welder, Shawn O’Hara as a
boilermaker helper, all at less pay than they had received as
pipefitters. The Respondent offered to rehire Everett Woolsey
as a boilermaker at a lower rate of pay, but Woolsey declined to
return under the circumstances. But John O’Hara, John
Corwin, and Daniel Kaiserlian did not receive any offers of
reemployment. Respondent’s failure to reinstate them violated
the Act. The Respondent’s argument that O’Hara’s higher pay
and Corwin’s and Kaiserlian’s work performance justified Re-
spondent’s failure to recall them is without merit. First, they
were unlawfully laid off and second, Hare’s testimony as a
whole, including that about the employee’s work record, is not
credible.
F. The Hiring Practice
Following the concentrated effort by the Northern Michigan
Building and Construction Trades Council to organize the
Cadillac jobsite, the Respondent became increasingly cautious
about its hiring practice. Initially it hired several electricians
and the pipefitters in spite of their union background. But fol-
lowing the letters from the Union announcing its intentions to
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 39
organize the employees and the rally on June 18, 1992, the
Respondent used its skill and experience to exclude employees
who might join the Union’s organizational drive. As a “merit
shop” employer which submitted a construction contract based
on nonunion wages, Zurn had a financial incentive and an insti-
tutional goal to preserve its status.
Witness after witness with a union background testified how
they attempted to get a job with Zurn N.E.P.C.O., and in spite
of their skills and expertise they were not considered or re-
jected. The Respondent had created an elaborate hiring system
designed to appear fair by requiring applicants to be processed
by the State’s employment agency (MESC), pursuant to a “cus-
tom referral agreement.” Yet a procedure was set up with the
cooperation of the state agency known as a “priority hiring
system,” which by its terms discriminated against anyone not
referred by Zurn’s personnel. Moreover, Zurn had made prom-
ises to hire the vast majority or 90 percent of its work force
from the local area, yet in practice it discriminated against
Michigan applicants. More than 1700 people registered with
the MESC in hopes of finding employment and only few of
them were lucky to be hired and several of them were laid off
within a short time as has already been discussed. The MESC
ultimately discontinued its agency relationship and canceled the
custom referral agreement, realizing that it was being used by
the employer to give credence to a discriminatory hiring system
which by the Employer’s own admission gave priority to “name
calls,” which by an examination of the hired work force was
comprised by a vast majority of people from outside the State
of Michigan and which as shown below, unlawfully discrimi-
nated against applicants with union backgrounds. Why would
an employer represent to the public that 90 percent of the em-
ployees would be Michigan residents and end up with a work
force of almost 75 percent from out-of-state, why use a state
agency which, instead of making its referrals to the employer in
accordance with its usual procedure, receives referrals from the
employer under a special hiring system. The answer is that
Zurn N.E.P.C.O. came into the area as a merit shop employer,
built the cogeneration plant with a work force totaling 276 in-
dividuals and, in spite of extraordinary efforts by the several
craft unions and its umbrella organization, the Northern Michi-
gan Building & Construction Trades Council to find employ-
ment for their members, the Respondent walked away as a
merit shop employer having hired only an insignificant number
of union members.
According to the Respondent’s own statistics, it hired a total
of 276 individuals, including managerial and secretarial em-
ployees. Out of that number only 50 or less than 20 percent
had a union affiliation and at least one third of that number was
hired prior to the Unions’ organizational efforts in June 1992
(R. Exh. 151).
1. Antiunion animus
Respondent’s antiunion animus in the hiring process was re-
vealed by the testimony of Tony Perez, a member of Iron
Workers Local No. 340, who applied for a job at the Cadillac
site as an iron worker. His application was forwarded by the
MESC to Sullivan. During the interview Sullivan asked if he
would cross the union picket line. Perez answered that he
would because he had a family to support. Sullivan assured
him of a job pending a drug test. At the doctor’s office, he
noticed “four or five guys there from Texas that had Texas
plates” who ended up at the jobsite. Perez passed the urine test
but was not hired. When he repeatedly asked why, Sullivan
finally answered, “due to Union affiliation, they just couldn’t
use [him]” (Tr. 649–650).
The Respondent hired Stan Brigner and Mark Berens who
had no prior union affiliation. During the interview, Sullivan
told them “that there would be people out there wearing
. . . Union buttons and UA stickers on their hard hat and
. . . they shouldn’t get involved with it or it could mean our
jobs” (Tr. 935).
Gerald Richard, a union millwright, was interviewed for a
job by Sullivan. A field superintendent joined the conversation
as recalled by Richard as follows (Tr. 1905):
Well, the superintendent had my application and he
was turning it over and looking at it. And he said, it looks
to me like most of these employer[s] here are union em-
ployers. And I said, yeah, they are.
And he said, then I presume you’re union. Or then he
said, are you union? And I said, yes . . . cause he jumped
up and damn near run out of the building. . . [.]
He left. He told Mr. Sullivan, I’m done. I’ve heard
enough, or something to that effect. And out the door he
went.
Richards called Sullivan several times about a job but each
time he would have an excuse until finally Sullivan avoided
speaking to him completely.
During the job interview with Gordon Bonjernoor, Sullivan
and the carpenter foreman questioned him about his prior jobs
with unionized companies. Bonjernoor attempted to distant
himself from his union jobs’ background and said that he had
been hired by subcontractors that were nonunion. He was of-
fered a job and when he inquired about the picket lines, Sulli-
van said, “Well, don’t worry about them fucking union dogs
out there” and “that they were causing trouble out there and that
they weren’t going to get in there” (Tr. 3129).
The Respondent effectuated its antiunion animus in avoiding
union applicants in several ways. First, management’s exper-
tise in identifying applicants with union backgrounds; second,
the use of a priority hiring policy (policy 303); third, its “name
call” agreement with the MESC; fourth, its recruitment policy
of skilled craftsmen from out of the State of Michigan, primar-
ily southern states and its general antiunion conduct, such as a
no-solicitation policy, video surveillance of union demonstra-
tors, threats, and interrogations.
Leon Greer, resident manager and first in command in Cadil-
lac, did not testify in this case, but Personnel Manager Tom
Brigham, testified at great length. His testimony clearly shows
that management was able to classify applicants into union or
nonunion employees by looking at their applications which
showed an applicant’s past employment record. Brigham had
the expertise to know whether a particular employer was a un-
ion or a nonunion company or both. The record contains a list
of construction firms which are union employers and a list of
firms which are nonunion employers (GC Exhs. 224, 232).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD40
Brigham’s expertise also enabled him to know which of those
firms were primarily based in Michigan. In addition, many of
the applicants had indicated their union affiliation by writing
“voluntary union organizer” on their applications. Finally, the
MESC, as Respondent’s agent in the hiring process, interro-
gated numerous employees about their union affiliations, in-
formation which is unputable to the Employer, notably here
where none of those applicants so interrogated were hired after
the June demonstration.
2. Priority hiring policy
The Respondent’s employment and recruitment policy is
contained in a document entitled field policies and procedures
(policy 303). It expressly purports to comply with all applica-
ble Federal and State law and is designed “to select the most
qualified applicant for the job opening” giving consideration to
work experience, ability, reliability, honesty, integrity, and
multicraft experience (CP Exh. 25, R. Exh. 56). It provides as
follows:
Consideration of qualified applicants will be priori-
tized as follows:
1. Current Company employees who are eligible for
continued employment with the Company, and have ob-
tained an approved release by the Resident Manager.
2. Former Company employees eligible for rehire.
3. Individuals who have appropriate prior work ex-
perience recommended by a current Company supervisor
or manager.
4. Individuals who have appropriate work experience
recommended by current employees.
5. Individuals who have applicable work experience in
the construction of cogeneration or power plants.
6. Individuals who have applicable work experience
on industrial construction projects.
7. Individuals qualifying for JTPA or T.
8. All other qualified applicants.
Within each of the above categories, consideration of
qualified individuals within the immediate local area will
be given first.
The record also contains a memorandum, dated February 24,
1992, from W.I. Neal, entitled hiring procedures guidelines. It
is a 3-page document which in 14 paragraphs addresses “fre-
quent questions raised on hiring” (R. Exh. 56). This document,
however, did not appear to simplify the hiring procedure, but to
actually complicate the process by imposing additional re-
quirements, such as various time limits on job applications and
providing detailed instructions on how to deal with unsolicited
job applications and visits from representatives of labor organi-
zations. For example, it provides that if, “a large group of ap-
plicants show up at the jobsite the local police should be con-
tacted.” It also states that applications with the reference “vol-
untary union organizer” written on the application, should be
covered by a permanent sticker. While management is admon-
ished that these provisions are mere guidelines to be used with
common sense, it also states that any modifications must be
approved by the president of the Company. The record also
shows that Larry Sullivan who was not yet a Zurn N.E.P.C.O.
employee, was listed on the memorandum as a recipient of a
copy. The memorandum seemed to have been drafted with
amazing foresight of some of the occurrences almost as if it had
been prepared with the benefit of hindsight.
Of real significance was policy 303, the Respondent’s prior-
ity hiring procedure. It obviously permitted the Respondent to
hire individuals who had a proven work record with this Em-
ployer. To that extent, a priority hiring system is reasonable. It
is another matter if such a hiring scheme goes beyond that and
is used for the purpose of excluding union applicants from con-
sideration for employment. In D.S.E. Concrete Forms, Inc.,
303 NLRB 890 (1991), enfd. 21 F.3d 1109 (5th Cir. 1994), the
Board found a priority hiring policy unlawful on the particular
facts of the case, where “the practical effect of Respondent’s
first three job criteria was to preclude employment of union
members.” There, as here, the Company was a nonunion em-
ployer. It relied on past employees or employees who could be
transferred and on referrals by existing employees before going
to a “sign-in roster.” Here, the Respondent’s priority system
was more complicated, but it also preferred current and former
employees, followed by referrals from supervisors, and then by
referrals from current employees before reaching individuals
with certain work experiences and job skills. The practical
effect was the same. Respondent’s expert witness, Dr. Asher,
testified as follows when asked whether Zurn N.E.P.C.O.’s
priority hiring system would result in a union or nonunion work
force (Tr. 7578):
I would anticipate it to be definitely non-union. And
the reason for that is, as I said earlier, that we know in this
particular case that approximately 40 percent of all those
who satisfy the criteria for priority hires are prior or cur-
rent employees of Zurn. And we know that Zurn is an
open shop, a merit shop. You would expect that to hap-
pen. . . .
And, similarly, when you look at those who were re-
ferred—similarly, those referred by supervisors and fore-
men, you would anticipate that, most likely, they’ll be
coming from the ranks of the non-union.
Typically Respondent’s nonunion supervisors had a “follow-
ing,” friends or acquaintances in the same trade who often
worked together and traveled from job to job. As stated in
Ultrasystems Western Constructors, 310 NLRB 545, 554
(1993):
Although the practice of hiring from “followings” is
not unlawful in itself, it is evidence of an affirmative pref-
erence for individuals known to be both competent and to
be free of any union connection.
The Respondent’s own statistics support the scenario. Ac-
cording to the same expert, Dr. Asher, the total number of indi-
viduals hired in Cadillac pursuant to the priority hiring system
were 212, and of those only 26 had a union background (R.
Exh. 150). He testified (Tr. 7589): “That’s the priority. Out of
the 212 priority, there were 26 priority union.” It is important
to keep in mind that this number includes those union employ-
ees, i.e., the pipefitters, who had been hired prior to the com-
mencement of any union activity in late May and June 1992, so
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 41
that the discriminatory impact of the Respondent’s hiring sys-
tem after the onset of the union activity is substantially more
severe.12 More specifically, the Respondent refers in its brief to
23 union supporters hired pursuant to its priority policy because
they were former Zurn employees or employee referrals and to
22 union supporters hired (without reliance on the policy 303)
who were referred by the MESC. However, almost one third of
the former group and almost one half of the second group of
those employees were hired prior to the union campaign.
The Respondent argues, based upon the testimony of its ex-
pert witnesses, Dr. Borcherding and Dr. Asher, that the priority
system did not discriminate against union members. They
point out that such a system is widely used by nonunion em-
ployers and designed to attract applicants with the necessary
skills, experience, and reliability. They also testified—in the
words of the Respondent—that the “end result of Zurn
N.E.P.C.O.’s hiring process at Cadillac thus approximated the
industrial construction national average of 20 percent union
workers” (R. Br. 40).
The record, however, does not support the Respondent’s ar-
guments. First, the Respondent’s priority system is under scru-
tiny not in isolation but in the context of its antiunion animus;
second, as pointed out below, policy 303 did not necessarily
attract the most qualified people, and third, the relevant market
is the Cadillac, Michigan area, not the national area as a whole.
Dr. Borcherding conceded in his testimony that, “there would
be more union work in the Michigan area” than in the midwest
or in the South, because “the amount of union work goes up in
the northeast” (Tr. 6333–6334).
The record also shows that the Company did not strictly ad-
here to its hiring policy. Brigham testified that he hired at least
seven employees13 without going through the MESC and from
sources other than policy 303. Moreover, the Respondent
falsely claimed to have adhered to the referral policy with at
least three employees when in fact they were not referred by
anyone. Stan Brigner testified that, contrary to the Company’s
notation on his application, he was not referred by Walter Neal
(Tr. 948). Donald Diekman’s application showed that he was
referred by Tom Brigham, yet Diekman testified that he did not
write Brigham’s reference on his application and that he was
not recommended by anyone from Zurn (Tr. 1062). Similarly
employee Richard Patrick’s application reflected a referral by
Frank Manry when in fact he was not referred to the job by

12 For example, among the 15 union supporters that the Respondent
claimed to have hired under the priority system as prior Zurn employ-
ees were (R. Br. 51–52): Robert Cook, Daniel Kaiserlian, Michael
O’Hara, Kerry Pierson, Allan Radle, and Larry Rose. But they were all
hired prior to the union activity in June 1992. Among the eight union
employees who were direct employee referrals at least one, Charles
Kaiserlian, was hired prior to the union activity. Among the 22 union
employees whom the Respondent claimed to have hired outside the
priority procedure, the following were hired prior to the union cam-
paign: Walter Belinksi, Robert Burns, Robert Cook, Christine Gallandt,
Vincent Galligan, Kim Ludwig, Gary Macy, Larry Rose, and Everett
Woolsey (CP Exh. 16).
13 In December 1992, Brigham hired Nathan Campbell, Shawn Chil-
dress, Jay Culpepper, Donald Diekman, William Greene, Jimmy Penix,
and Jeff Pugh.
anyone (Tr. 7420). The parties stipulated that several other job
applications had been altered to indicate a referral when in fact
no referrals were made14 (Tr. 7710–7719). Witness Millard
Howell disagreed in his testimony with Sullivan’s testimony
that Zurn made him an offer of employment based upon “a
referral by a current employee” (Tr. 5209). Moreover, based on
my own examination of three applications (Richard Fortin,
William Greene, and Nathan Campbell), I find that they also
were altered (CP Exhs. 29(a–c)).
Clearly, the Respondent did not strictly adhere to policy 303
at the Cadillac jobsite, but made numerous exceptions to its
policy when it suited its purpose. Howell’s experience suggests
the answer as to why the Respondent made an attempt to con-
ceal exceptions to the policy. He had called Sullivan in Sep-
tember 1992 about jobs in Cadillac. During his conversation
with Sullivan, Howell mentioned only nonunion employers in
connection with his past experience. Speaking with a southern
accent and providing Sullivan with a Mississippi telephone
number, Howell was assured of a job in Cadillac as a boiler-
maker. While being processed at the MESC, he spoke with
Penny Bassi and had the following conversation (Tr. 848):
And I told her, you know, I said, well, you know this is
the first time I ever been through a job service to get a
construction job, you know, and she told me. [S]aid, well,
she said, well, Zurn’s just doing this because of the poli-
tics and she sort of raised her eyebrows and said, I mean, a
lot of politics.
The record also does not support Respondent’s theory that
the priority system produced the most experienced or skilled
work force. For example, Boilermaker Foreman David Walls
admitted that based upon his recommendations, the Respondent
hired Dan Drounzek as a boilermaker without any prior boiler-
maker experience and Joseph Kinny as a boilermaker helper
without any prior experience. (Tr. 1527, 1530). He also testi-
fied that Vickie Hilliard was hired as a pipefitter helper because
she was a girlfriend of a Zurn employee, and James Vaughn as
a pipefitter helper based upon his experience as a housemover.
William Douglas testified that he was an ironworker and put to
work as a boilermaker without prior experience. Indeed, a
cursory examination of the employees’ classifications com-
pared with their prior job experience shows that many were
assigned to certain job categories for which they had little ex-
perience (CP Exh. 16). Kelly Bennett, a rigger, was hired as a
boilermaker’s helper, Leonard Bowen, a carpenter’s helper,
employed as a carpenter. Peter Caisse, an ironworker, em-
ployed as a boilermaker; Ken Carter, a welder, employed as a
boilermaker. Mark Eisenga, a carpenter finisher, employed as a
journeyman carpenter, Martin Fisher, a shipwright and farmer,
employed as structural welder, David Forsgren, an operator
employed as a carpenter, Bryce Friess, a laborer employed as a
pipefitter helper, and Samuel Gibson, a welder employed as a
boilermaker.

14 The applications of Ken Carter, Shawn Cavender, Robert Ed-
wards, Mike Pugh, Steve Haynie, Leslie Howell, LeVeta Morrison,
Thomas Young, Marc Sutter, Germain Spring, James Walker, Shawn
Childress.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD42
Among the more than 1700 applicants who were not hired,
Zurn could have found experienced and highly skilled indi-
viduals who would have provided the Respondent with the
appropriate job classifications and would also have been able to
work in related skills, known as “crosscrafting.” Dr. Borcherd-
ing for example testified that many of the skilled trades come
from a union background (Tr. 6359, 6383) “like a carpenter
apprenticeship program, the individual would be considered to
be fairly qualified . . . if you look at the skilled people, the un-
ions have trained a big portion of the merit shop’s work force.”
Sullivan testified that the unions’ halls provide qualified
craftsmen.
Here, the record shows that the Respondent avoided hiring as
much as possible any of highly qualified applicants from the
general pool of applicants and instead relied on its priority hir-
ing policy not necessarily to select the best qualified people, but
to avoid union applicants.
This is also shown by Respondent’s arrangement with the
MESC.
c. The custom referral policy
Although Neal and other supervisors at Zurn had verbally as-
sured prospective job applicants that Zurn would accept their
resumes or a completed application addressed to the corporate
office in Portland, Maine, the record shows that such attempts
were unsuccessful and that all applicants were directed to go
through the MESC. As already stated above, the Union’s sub-
missions of bulk mailings, whether resumes or applications or
out-of-work lists were promptly returned without being consid-
ered by the Respondent. For example, in January 1992, the
Unions collected more than 100 applications at Olsen’s Motel
from their ranks and sent them to Zurn’s offices in Maine, and
in March 1992, the Unions sent resumes and applications in
bulk to Zurn and in January 1993, the Respondent received the
out-of-work lists from the Boilermakers and Pipefitters. Many
of the applicants followed the Respondent’s suggestion and
applied by going to MESC.
The Charging Party argues that the Respondent’s failure to
consider the bulk applications and resumes violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and has attached a list of these appli-
cants’ names as appendix to its brief. In Fluor Daniel, Inc.,
311 NLRB 498, 499 (1993), the Board rejected a defense of a
Respondent who had failed “to consider the 11 Boilermaker
applications it received . . . because they were received in
bulk.” Here, the Respondent established the agency relation-
ship with the MESC and required all job applicants to go
through the job service. Moreover here, the Respondent did not
retain any of the applications. The factual circumstances are
accordingly different from those in Fluor Daniels. I, accord-
ingly, agree with the Respondent that its rejection of the bulk
applications did not violate the Act. Regional Ambulance, Inc.,
298 NLRB 19 (1990).
However, Zurn’s “custom referral agreement” with the
MESC was one of the methods enabling the Respondent to
discriminate against union applicants. The record is clear that
the MESC’s normal procedure requires applicants to fill out the
necessary forms (MESC Form 2511). A MESC staff member
interviews a candidate, assigns occupational codes to the regis-
tration and enters the information into a computer according to
the applicant’s job classification and work history. When an
employer places a job order, the MESC is able to refer appli-
cants in a chronological order so that they can be considered on
a “first in, first out” basis, except that veterans are placed at the
top of the list. Candidates so selected are then requested to fill
out an application furnished by the employer, interviewed, and
considered for employment by the employer.
The Respondent only rarely used the regular procedure. In-
stead, Zurn and the MESC, as agent, agreed to implement the
priority hiring system discussed above. Sullivan had met with
Frank Kramer to work out the system. MESC personnel were
provided with a written copy of Zurn’s priority policy and were
told by Sullivan that the reason for this arrangement was related
to Worker’s Compensation Insurance so that Zurn would not
have to pay while Zurn employees transferred from one job to
the next. According to the arrangement, the Respondent re-
ferred “name-call” applicants to the MESC where they were
conveniently processed ahead of other applicants. They were
not screened by MESC personnel; they merely registered, filled
out Zurn applications and sent immediately to the jobsite.
Following the Union’s organizing activities in June, the Re-
spondent made increasing use of the name-call system. Sulli-
van had represented to the MESC that “name calls” were em-
ployees in transfer from one Zurn job to another. The MESC
soon became alarmed that the name calls were not merely
transfer employees but new employees as well, i.e., any one
who qualified under the priority hiring system.
Penny Bassi, the staff member who was primarily assigned
to the Zurn applicants, testified that she became increasingly
alarmed about the effects of the procedure. She finally ex-
pressed to her supervisor, Frank Kramer, her concern that union
applicants were not getting hired. She was also puzzled about
the real purpose of processing name calls through the MESC.
Prompted by complaints from the Unions, the MESC exam-
ined the practices and in two internal memoranda, dated Febru-
ary 3, and 19, 1993, Jose Bennett, the highest MESC official at
Cadillac, expressed her suspicion about the Company’s inten-
tions and its practice (GC Exhs. 187, 219):
Important Issue in Cadillac:
150 high-paying jobs announced last winter—in mid-
dle of high-unemployment period—associated with build-
ing co-generation plant.
Expectation that local workers would fill all these jobs.
Didn’t happen. General contractor—ZURN/N.E.P.C.O.—
brought in out-of-state workers—possibly their former
employees—especially for highly skilled jobs. Some local
hiring, but lots of disappointed jobseekers. (We have had
over 1,000 applicants apply for jobs with this employer!)
While Bennett testified that she found no “facts or evidence
that MESC, Cadillac, was manipulated by Zurn/N.E.P.C.O.” to
avoid hiring union applicants, or that the MESC did anything
wrong, she acknowledged such a possibility (Tr. 4641–4645).
In the memoranda she summarized the process and her suspi-
cions as follows:
We Did Goof—or Maybe We Were Set Up:
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 43
Employer agreed to list all job openings with us and to
hire only through us. We agreed to refer job seekers on
first-come, first referred basis. We did this.
BUT, we also agreed to pass on to employer directly—
as a courtesy, which the employer said helped them out
with their internal procedures related to worker’s compen-
sation coverage—any of their current employees who were
being shifted from another work site in a different state to
the Cadillac site. The company provided us with the
names of these people as they needed them. The company
also contacted these individuals directly and sent them to
our office. We made no effort to verify that these people
were, in fact, those of “transferring” employees. These
people came into our office, filled out a MESC registra-
tion, and were handed a ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. application
which they took directly to the employer. (We have not
found that the office took credit for these people as refer-
rals or as placements.) I believe the company used this to
avoid hiring union members—but we cannot prove this!
(Emphasis added).
As a result, the MESC discontinued the “name call” proce-
dure in December 1992, as she stated in the same document:
In early December 1992, we were able to change this
agreement on another pretext. We no longer pass on peo-
ple whose names they give us; we send the employer only
those persons who have been on file with us longest.
Contrary to the Respondent’s argument that the Union’s
“violent strike” was responsible for the MESC decision to stop
the special service, the record shows that the Respondent had
requested the MESC to process 70 “name-calls.” This provided
the MESC with the justification to discontinue the customer
referral procedure as recalled by Union Representative James
Bragon (Tr. 187): “And at that time Jose Bennett stated that the
Job Service saw the opportunity to stop relations with Zurn.”
Bennett testified as follows (Tr. 3858–3859):
At the time the employer contacted us . . . the names
and addresses of seventy persons who they wanted to con-
tact directly. . . . Since I had completed that review which
we just went over in September, and learned that we had
so many people being processed through and since I had
also learned that MESC had a public relations problem,
yes, we were looking for a way to change our hiring
agreement with this employer.
The Respondent thereafter used the MESC only for referrals
in accordance with the fifth or last category on its priority pol-
icy.
Whether the MESC was an intentional or an unwitting ac-
complice in Respondent’s effort to avoid union applicants is
initially unclear. While the job service may have processed
most of the name calls without realizing that they frequently
were new employees and certainly not former Zurn employees,
the record is unmistakably clear that MESC officials interro-
gated applicants about their union background and told some of
them that they would not be hired because of their union back-
ground. Such conduct violated MESC’s own policy. Yet
Penny Bassi admitted making such inquiries and asked appli-
cants to produce their union cards; Al Matthew admonished
Bassi about her conduct. Yet during his testimony he admitted
that he made notations on numerous applicants’ registrations
showing their union backgrounds. Another MESC official John
Sliss made similar notations. An applicant’s work experience
can be ascertained and recorded without a recourse to their
union affiliation. MESC’s justification for its conduct was
accordingly discredited.
The Respondent argues that it was not privy to that informa-
tion, because Zurn relied neither on MESC Forms 2511 nor the
computer printout of referrals but solely upon Zurn applica-
tions. (R. Br. 11.) This observation clearly shows that the
MESC’s function in this process was pointless and supports the
arguments by the General Counsel and the Charging Party that
the custom referral agreement was a sham. Name call appli-
cants were “processed” without any substantive purpose be-
cause the agency did not take credit for placing them into jobs.
I find, accordingly, that the MESC as Respondent’s agent was
initially an active participant in the discriminatory efforts to
discourage union applicants by interrogating them and telling
some of them they would not be hired. The MESC was famil-
iar with such issues, because one of its employees in Cadillac,
Bill Tobias, had already been disciplined in a prior case involv-
ing similar misconduct. To what extent the MESC actually
aided in manipulating the hiring system, is not clear in this
record. According to Bennett, the MESC staff would be able to
manipulate the system by intentionally misclassifying appli-
cants according to the occupational codes so that a job order for
a certain craft for example, would show that only the favored
employees had registered in that category. The record shows,
for example, that numerous boilermakers had registered for
jobs, but most of them were improperly coded and therefore
unavailable for referrals pursuant to an employer’s job order.
An applicant named Bill Drake was improperly classified by
MESC’s John Sliss. And James Bragan was improperly classi-
fied by the MESC. Paddock admitted to having processed rela-
tives and friends through her office. Several of them were
hired (Tr. 4251). But the record does not show that the MESC
actually manipulated its procedure so as to screen out union
applicants; it certainly aided Zurn to provide a neutral appear-
ance to an otherwise discriminatory hiring practice.
4. Employees from outside Michigan
The record shows conclusively that the vast majority of em-
ployees who were hired came from States other than Michigan,
despite the availability of an abundance of skilled craftsmen in
the local market. The record also shows that this was not an
accidental phenomenon but the result of the Respondent’s in-
tentional effort to bypass local applicants for one purpose, to
hire individuals who had no history of union employment. An
employer’s effort to recruit its work force from outside the area
is an indication of its discriminatory motive. Casey Electric,
313 NLRB 774 (1994); KRI Constructors, 290 NLRB 802
(1988); Shortway Suburban Lines, 286 NLRB 323 (1987). The
record contains a chart which, based upon employment records,
shows that approximately 25 percent of the Respondent’s em-
ployees came from the State of Michigan, especially journey-
men (CP Exhs. 17, 18). And 75 percent of the employees came
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD44
from other states with the largest group about 50 percent, from
the South of the United States (CP Exh. 18). Even a cursory
examination of documents entitled, ZURN NEPCO HIRING
BY JOB ORDER AND BY TRADE, which show Zurn’s job
orders, and qualified applicants referred by the MESC and the
individual hired, reveals the great disparity of rejected candi-
dates from the State of Michigan in relation to those from other
states (GC Exh. 222, R. Exh. 124 A). For example, a job order
dated “10-1-92” calling for pipefitters shows that the few appli-
cants from Texas and California were hired and none out of
several dozens of applicants from the State of Michigan. Sev-
eral witnesses observed that there was a preponderance of cars
with out-of-state license plates in Zurn’s parking lot.
The record also shows that the Respondent went so far as to
pay travel expenses for several candidates from out-of-state.
For example, John Miller from Arkansas was recruited by Re-
spondent’s Supervisor Joe Van Meter and was reimbursed for
his mileage and travel expenses, so were two employees from
Alabama. According to Brigham, the Company paid travel
expenses of up to $375 to 11 or 12 employees in order to in-
duce them to work in Cadillac. Yet hundreds of employees
from the local area, many of them Vietnam veterans were wait-
ing to be called for a job.
The Respondent’s expert witness Dr. Borcherding testified
that the southern states have a larger concentration of “merit
shops.” One of Respondent’s supervisors testified that there is
less union activity in the South than in Michigan. The Respon-
dent therefore facilitated the hiring process for applicants from
southern states. For example, Donald Diekman called the job-
site and told Brigham that he had just moved from Florida and
was looking for a job. Brigham promised him a job as a pipe-
fitter as soon as he filled out his application and passed the
necessary drug tests. He was not required to register at the
MESC and began work in December 1992. Millard Howell
called Sullivan from Texas and asked that any messages could
be left with his mother in Mississippi. On September 24, 1992,
only a week after Howell’s initial contact with Zurn, Sullivan
left a message that Howell had a job as a boilermaker. Howell
traveled to Cadillac but decided against accepting the job be-
cause he noticed a great deal of anger in the local area about
Zurn’s hiring practice, and he did not want to deal with authori-
ties about his expired driver’s license. He testified that most
nonunion contractors concentrate their recruiting in the South,
because the majority of experienced workers in the North have
a union background.
In December 1992, in another attempt to bypass local work-
ers, management in Cadillac called other Zurn jobsites in
search for skilled workers. A crew of more than a dozen pipe-
fitters was located in Massena, New York, and began work in
Cadillac in January 1993. Brigham testified that he contacted
other companies: “I certainly contacted them and told them that
I was looking for recruits . . . to staff the Cadillac job.” When
asked whether any of those companies included union compa-
nies, he answered, “No” (Tr. 7144).
Brigham testified that the reason for this recruiting from out-
of-state was due to: “The cold weather, the strike, and the
shortness of the job” (Tr. 6946). While other testimony sup-
ports Brigham’s statement that some employees left in Decem-
ber 1992 because of the cold weather, it is also true that the
Respondent refused to hire skilled craftsmen like James
Bragen, Jeffrey Westphal, Lori Custer, and John Card at about
the same time and discharged an ironworker because of his
union support in December.
The Respondent has tried to blame much of its conduct on
the “violent strike” in December 1992. In this regard, the re-
cord shows that on December 5, 1992 several employees,
David Harris, Mark Sutter, Roger See, Stanley Brigner, Samuel
Kinney, and B. J. Douglas went out on strike to protest the
Respondent’s unfair labor practice, primarily the layoff of the
piping crew. The union leaders had distributed printed instruc-
tions to the picketers cautioning against any violence (GC Exh.
168). By letter dated December 8, 1992, the Union made an
unconditional offer to return to work on behalf of the striking
employees (GC Exh. 178). Other individuals joined in the
strike, many of them frustrated jobseekers. The Respondent
videotaped the event and called the police. Yet not a single
union member was arrested or cited with misconduct, nor has
the Respondent submitted a videotape to support the testimony
of Brigham that the demonstrators were violent. There is testi-
mony that some cars or trucks were dented or that mirrors were
torn off, yet no one was injured. The record also disputes Brig-
ham’s observation that employees left their jobs because of this
event. John Miller, one of the Zurn employees, denied having
been intimidated by the strike and testified as follows whether
some employees left because of it (Tr. 7621–7622): “If they
did, I don’t know of any of them that did . . . it does not bother
most people that I know of to just drive through and come in
and go to work.” Respondent’s characterization of the strike is
therefore vastly exaggerated and its effect on the work force
unsupported by credible evidence, particularly considering that
it was of short duration.
The record, however, shows clearly that the purpose of Re-
spondent’s efforts to recruit and hire job applicants from any-
where but the local area was to avoid individuals with a union
background.
Examples of qualified applicants with union backgrounds
who were rejected for employment are James Bragen. A repre-
sentative of the Boilermakers union, he was experienced as a
pipefitter, boilermaker, pipewelder, rigger, ironworker, and
rodbuster. He applied for these jobs. The MESC showed a job
opening at Zurn for a boilermaker helper. The MESC referred
his application to Zurn. He was not contacted. Zurn advertised
for jobs for which Bragen was qualified. Bragen received a
letter from Zurn offering employment (GC Exh. 7). Bragen
responded and agreed to the offer (GC Exh. 8). In spite of tele-
phone calls and letters, the Respondent did not hire Bragan.
Lori Custer registered with the MESC in February 1992 as a
boilermaker. On her employment application she listed union
employers, and she was interrogated by an MESC staff member
about her union background. She was contacted by Brigham in
January 1993, stating that he needed her on the following day.
She replied that she needed 2-days notice but would try to get
permission from her present employer to quit immediately. She
accordingly called Brigham on the same day and left a message
confirming that she would accept the job and that she had ob-
tained permission from her present employer. She called sev-
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 45
eral times on the following day. Brigham called her that night
that he no longer needed her.
Harold Greenleaf, a member of the Boilermakers union for
16 years, registered at the MESC on March 19, 1992, wearing a
union hat. He updated his registration in July. He was called
by the MESC in August to fill out a Zurn application. He noted
“voluntary union organizer” on his application. On December
9, 1992, Greenleaf received a call from Zurn to fill out another
application. The guard at the guard desk instructed him not to
put any extraneous information on the application. Greenleaf
again wrote “voluntary union organizer” on his application.
The Respondent repeatedly rejected his applications because of
the union reference (GC Exhs. 31, 33). He completed an appli-
cation indicating only that he was a graduate apprentice of the
Boilermakers Local and received a letter from Brigham in-
structing him to reply by December 30, 1992. Greenleaf re-
plied stating that he wanted to become a Zurn employee but
that he had a temporary job until the end of January (GC Exh.
35). Zurn contacted him again by letter of January 4, 1993, in
response to which Greenleaf submitted another application on
January 20, 1993, and in which he stated that he was presently
available for employment in 1993. Thereafter, Zurn never con-
tacted him again.
Jeffrey Westphal registered with the MESC in July 1992. In
December Zurn contacted him to fill out a Zurn application.
He completed one with the notation “voluntary Union organ-
izer.” By letter of December 16, 1992, Zurn informed West-
phal that it did not accept applications containing extraneous
information (GC Exh. 15). Westphal completed another one
with the same notation, only in a less prominent location on the
application. Zurn rejected that application also (GC Exh. 18).
When Zurn finally offered Westphal a job in December, he had
found a temporary job. He expressed his interest to be em-
ployed and submitted an application in January 1993. By letter
of March 18, 1993, he was notified that there were no more
openings (GC Exh. 22).15 Ronne Schoudt an experienced boil-
ermaker, applied in December 1992 at a time when Brigham
was desperate for workers. He had written “union organizer”
on his application and was not hired.
The experience of Joe Van Dyke was typical of many ex-
perienced job applicants who had a union background. Joe Van
Dyke, an experienced electrician, applied through the MESC in
January 1992, and submitted a Zurn application in February
1992. During the interview with two representatives from
management, Van Dyke was asked whether his prior employers
were union companies. Van Dyke replied that most of his “ex-
perience has been union” (Tr. 3564). They then indicated that
they would be in touch with him within a week. Van Dyke felt
that he had the job until he was questioned about his union
background. He called Zurn repeatedly but was never able to
reach them.
The Respondent refused to consider applicants suspected of
being paid union organizers, like Sean Redner and Jeff Kruse.
Sean Redner an experienced electrician, had been employed by

15 It is well settled that an employer violates the Act for rejecting ap-
plicants for employment because they identified themselves as volun-
tary union organizers. Fluor Daniel, Inc., 304 NLRB 970 (1991).
Zurn at its Ada, Michigan project. There he had participated at
a union strike. In spite of his unconditional offer to return to
work, Zurn did not reinstate him, but informed him instead that
he was laid off. Redner registered at the MESC on February
11, 1992, in hopes of finding a job with Zurn in Cadillac. He
also called Walter Neal and told him about his prior employ-
ment with Zurn. Neal encouraged him to submit his resume.
Neal called him on March 27, 1992, and said that things were
undecided. Redner also spoke with Sullivan and Supervisor
Paul Powers. One of them told Redner that his job application
had been set aside with a pile of union electricians rather than
running a risk of hiring one of them. Redner was not hired.
The Respondent argues that it was not obligated to consider
Redner, because he had signed a salting agreement with the
Union as an organizer and was therefore not a bona fide appli-
cant, citing Town & Country Electric v. NLRB, 34 F.3d 625
(8th Cir. 1994).
Jeff Kruse is a union carpenter with 14 years’ experience.
He was a former Zurn employee at the Ada project. He had
made an early effort to be hired in Cadillac. He had called
Hewitt in January 1992, and with his permission sent a resume
to Zurn. He also registered with the MESC. In June, Kruse
participated in the union demonstration, where he observed that
someone from Zurn was taking video tapes of the event. He
filled out another Zurn application at the MESC in August
1992. As a former Zurn employee, he should have received
priority consideration. But the only response he received from
Zurn was a form letter, in September from Sullivan stating that
prior messages had been left and to make immediate contact.
Contrary to the letter, Kruse had never been contacted by Zurn
before and in September Kruse had found other employment.
Contrary to the Respondent’s argument, Zurn’s letter did not
constitute an offer of a job.
Kruse and Redner, as prior Zurn employees, should have
been considered for employment pursuant to Zurn’s priority
policy 303 particularly because they were regarded as good and
competent workers. Zurn did not hire them because there was a
lack of job, but because both were regarded as strong union
supporters and organizers. This is yet another example of Re-
spondent’s selective use of policy and procedure to avoid union
supporters.
In sum, I find that since the time in early June when the Un-
ions attempted to organize the employees, Zurn discriminated
against union applicants, i.e., union members and those with a
history of working for unionized employers, by the skillful and
selective use of the priority hiring policy in combination with
the MESC’s custom referral agreement and Zurn’s priority
policy for applicants from outside the State of Michigan. Even
though hundreds of highly skilled craftsmen, such as pipefit-
ters, boilermakers, carpenters, electricians, operators, and iron-
workers and others had followed the complicated application
procedure by registering with the MESC, filling out forms,
waiting for interviews, filling out Zurn applications, they were
not considered for employment because of their union back-
ground.
The General Counsel has established a prima facie case to
support the inference that the protected conduct was a motivat-
ing factor in the employer’s actions. Fluor Daniel, supra.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD46
There, as here, the Respondent’s motive is evident from the
total circumstances. Even though the Respondent hired some
union supporters does not absolve the Respondent. “The fact
that Respondent did not discriminate against all applicants does
not bar a finding of a violation.” KRI Constructors, 290 NLRB
802, 812 (1988), citing Nachman Corp. v. NLRB, 337 F.2d 421,
424 (7th Cir. 1964); and NLRB v. W. C. Nabors Co., 196 F.2d
272, 276 (5th Cir. 1952), cert. denied 344 U.S. 865 (1952).
Under the Act the Respondent should have considered a request
for employment in a lawful, nondiscriminatory manner, irre-
spective of the availability of a job at the time of employment;
that issue is relevant for purposes of the backpay obligation.
Alexander Restaurant & Lounge, 228 NLRB 165, 179 (1977),
enfd. 586 F.2d 1300 (1978). The Respondent has failed to
show that it would have taken the same action and not hired the
individuals even in the absence of any union considerations.
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980). Indeed the record shows
the Respondent’s motive for discriminating against union ap-
plicants, it shows the Company’s antiunion animus not only as
directed against specific union applicants, but also by other
violations of the Act. The record shows the Company’s meth-
ods which effectively precluded the hiring of union applicants
so that the work force remained predominantly a nonunion
work force. Attached as Appendix A is a list of union appli-
cants who testified in this case. They were experienced and
skilled, but they were not hired for discriminatory reasons, as
discussed above in selected cases. A discussion for each case
would be redundant and cumulative. Also attached as Appen-
dix B is a longer list of job applicants who registered through
the MESC for jobs with Zurn in Cadillac. These applicants had
a union background, they followed the Respondent’s directions
to be considered for employment by completing the necessary
paperwork at the MESC. Many of them filled out Zurn appli-
cations and questionnaires solicited by the Union. Their appli-
cations are part of the record (CP Exh. 19, R. Exh. 12). As
urged by the Charging Party in this case these 427 individuals
should also be considered as applicants who were not consid-
ered by the Respondent for discriminatory reasons. The names
were attached as Appendix D to the Charging Parties’ brief. As
described in Alexander’s Restaurant & Lounge, 228 NLRB at
179, the final determination of job availability and possible
backpay liability will be properly left to compliance.
G. Other Violations
1. The discharge of Roger See
William Douglas and Roger See are experienced iron work-
ers from Iowa who were hired as boilermakers on October 12,
1992. They attended a meeting in Sullivan’s office on the same
day and were instructed not to solicit on the job and to place
only company stickers on their hard hats. They also signed a
document which stated in substance that they would agree not
to place any stickers other than Company stickers on their hats
(GC Exh. 41). During the meeting, Sullivan warned them that
the Company’s experienced union problems.
On October 20, 1992, See and Douglas attended a union
meeting. They began to wear union insignia to work such as
union buttons and union stickers on their hats. Several days
later, General Foreman Jim Chittum approached See, tapped on
his union button and said, “what’s this all about?” See replied,
“it’s about a warm place to eat my lunch and be treated like a
human being.” Chittum said that he could eat his lunch in the
toilets because they “had methane heat” (Tr. 1616). After this
incident Chittum frequently observed See at his work, followed
him around and, on one occasion, commented whether he
planned to do any work that day. Even though his supervisor,
Alex (Pappy) Morrison regularly complimented See about his
work, See felt intimidated by Chittum ever since the original
episode involving his union activity.
On December 2, 1992, See was initially assigned to work on
same structural columns on the ground. At about 11 a.m. Ken
Skidmore, a fellow employee, informed See that they had been
ordered to “bolt up.”
See told Skidmore that the weather conditions were too se-
vere for them to perform that work safely. The weather was
cold, snowy, and the steel beams were covered with ice and
snow. Skidmore agreed and both men decided that they would
refuse to do the work because it would require them to walk on
a 4 inch wide and 25 feet long steel beam suspended high
above the ground.
Supervisor Morrison then approached See, Skidmore, and
David Rowell and ordered them to bolt up. See said that he did
not have his tools because they had been stolen and also said
that the work was too dangerous. Morrison repeated his order
adding that See would be fired if he refused. See disobeyed the
order and Morrison reported See to Sullivan. Morrison and
Supervisor Toller agreed that See should be terminated.
Skidmore and Rowell complied with Morrison’s order to bolt
up and were not discharged.
The General Counsel and the Charging Party allege that the
Respondent discharged See for discriminatory reasons, his
union activity and his protected, concerted activity in jointly
resisting to perform unsafe working conditions. The record
supports the argument, because See was a prominent union
supporter who was accosted by Supervisor Chittum about his
union insignia. See also acted out of concern for his safety.
While the Respondent suggested that the men could have used
a torch like a “weed burner” or “rose bud” to burn off the ice
and snow to make the job safer, the record shows that the
weather conditions were so cold and icy as to render the use of
those devices only partially effective. The argument that the
Respondent’s discharge of See was union related or prompted
by See’s safety concerns16 is entirely plausible. However, I
find that the Respondent would have discharged See even in the
absence of those considerations. Wright Line, supra.
The testimony of Morrison and Skidmore was consistent and
credible that See refused to bolt up and that Skidmore and
Powell who received the same order complied with Morrison’s
request to do that work in spite of the adverse weather condi-
tions. I accordingly find that even though the discharge of See
appeared union related, he would have been discharged for
insubordination. The allegation of a Section 8(a)(1)(3) and (1)
should therefore be dismissed.

16 See Meyers Industries, 281 NLRB 8826 (1986), affd. 835 F.2d
1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987), cert. den. 487 U.S. 1205 (1988).
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 47
2. Stickers on hard hats
The record shows that the Respondent promulgated a policy
applicable to all employees concerning hard hart stickers (R.
Exh. 79). According to the memorandum, dated April 27,
1992, the employees were informed as follows:
Please be advised that only Zurn/NEPCO authorized
and issued Hard Hart stickers will be allowed on all em-
ployees hard hats.
Employees were required to sign this statement at the time they
were hired. The Respondent argues that the policy was not
enforced and ultimately rescinded. Even though some employ-
ees disregarded the prohibition and were not penalized by the
employer, it is clear that others did not take a chance. The
chilling effect of signing a statement to that effect certainly
interfered with the employees’ Section 7 rights, particularly
here where the employees were also prohibited from wearing
union buttons or other insignia on their clothing. NLRB v. Win-
demuller Electric, 34 F.3d 384, 395 (1994). Employees were
prohibited from wearing any union stickers or buttons. The
Respondent repeatedly reprimanded employees because they
wore union buttons. Kaiserlian was warned by supervisor
McDowell that he was walking on thin ice for wearing union
buttons. Sullivan similarly warned employee Strzelecki. Su-
pervisor Walls told employee Alan Radle that wearing a union
button would cause him trouble and forced a laborer to remove
the union button. Supervisor Chittum threatened Roger See for
wearing a button. The Respondent has not shown any special
circumstances for its restrictions on the wearing union insignia.
I accordingly find that the policy interfered with the Section 7
rights of the employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
3. The no-solicitation policy
In a memorandum entitled field policies and procedures Per-
sonnel regarding solicitation and distribution, the Respondent’s
policy provides as follows (GC Exh. 226):
B. Employees
Employees may not distribute literature or solicit on
Company premises for any purpose during working time,
which includes the working time of both the employee do-
ing the distributing or soliciting and the employee to
whom such activity is directed. Employees may not util-
ize Company mailboxes for distribution of such material.
Violation of this policy will result in appropriate discipli-
nary action.
. . . .
RESPONSIBILITIES
Employees are responsible for limiting their solicita-
tion and distribution to non-work time.
This policy is presumptively valid. Our Way, Inc., 268 NLRB
394 (1983).
According to the Charging Party, two employees, Robert
Cook and Paul Strzelecki, testified that Sullivan verbally re-
stricted any solicitation during any time while at work. Cook
remembered Sullivan telling him, “there was no soliciting on
the job” (Tr. 396). And Strzelecki testified that Sullivan, refer-
ring to the handbook and rules, said “there was no solicitation
during any time frame of work” (Tr. 729). While these quoted
instructions were broader than the printed solicitation policy, it
is doubtful that the employees remembered the verbal instruc-
tions with sufficient precision to demonstrate that the Employer
intended to go beyond its printed policy. The second instance
shows that Sullivan referred to the written policy. I find ac-
cordingly that the Respondent’s solicitation policy was not
overly broad.
The next question is whether it was discriminatorily en-
forced. In this regard, the General Counsel argues that the Re-
spondent made exceptions in its solicitation policy for United
Way and an employees’ checkpool. The Respondent is correct
that the weekly check pool could have taken place during the
lunch periods and not interfered with the employees’ working
time. However, the record shows that the solicitation con-
ducted by the United Way had the official sanction of the Re-
spondent and was clearly permitted as an exception to the writ-
ten solicitation policy.
Donald Diekman was disciplined by the Respondent for vio-
lating the no-solicitation policy. The record shows that Diek-
man began to talk to two employees on the job about the Union
and attempted to interest them in supporting the Union. The
two employees complained to management about Diekman’s
conduct and submitted written complaints (R. Exhs. 131, 132).
Diekman claimed in his testimony that he solicited the employ-
ees during the lunch hour. The written notes, however, clearly
indicate that it occurred during their working time. Supervisor
Walls gave him an oral warning and issued an employee repri-
mand record (R. Exh. 128). The reprimand was improper under
Respondent’s written solicitation policy, because of its dis-
criminatory enforcement. The record shows that the Respon-
dent has enforced the policy against union solicitation only. I
accordingly find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
4. Other alleged discriminatees
Gary Macy, alleged to have been rejected for employment as
a millwright in November 1992 because of his union support,
worked as a carpenter at the Zurn project from May 1992 to
November 12, 1992, when he was laid off. He was known by
the Company as a prominent union supporter since June 1992.
At the time of his layoff he asked Sullivan to transfer him to the
millwright crew. Macy’s supervisor interceded on his behalf
with Bill King, the millwright foreman. Assuming, as the Re-
spondent argues, that no jobs for millwrights existed at that
time, it is clear, however, that Zurn was in need for such skills
in December and hired new employees. The Respondent ig-
nored its own priority hiring policy by hiring new employees
and refusing to consider Macy in December 1992. I find that
the Respondent’s failure to do so was motivated by its anti-
union animus in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act,
as already discussed in the context of its hiring policy.
Stanley Brigner and Mark Berens were interviewed by Sulli-
van in October and hired as pipewelders. One day after their
interview, Sullivan warned them about the Union, saying that
there would be people wearing union buttons and that they
should not get involved with it, or it could mean the loss of
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD48
their jobs. He also said that the job was nonunion and that the
Company would not tolerate union acts on the job. Both
Brigner and Berens began to wear union buttons in December
while they attended a Christmas party. Richard Toller, their
supervisor, noticed it and said that the job would not go union.
Both employees left the Company after their participation in the
strike in December 1992.
Contrary to the General Counsel’s argument, I find that both
employees failed to return to their jobs and in effect abandoned
their jobs. Brigner testified that he did not return to the job
after the strike. Similarly, Philip Harmon who was hired as a
boilermaker on October 28, 1992, he failed to appear at Re-
spondent’s offices with the Company’s instructions. In agree-
ment with the Respondent, I find that the Respondent did not
discriminate against these employees.
5. Threats and interrogation
As alleged in the complaint, the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening employees and interrogating
them about the Union. As already stated, the MESC as Re-
spondent’s agent coercively interrogated numerous job appli-
cants.
As already discussed, Sullivan interrogated Perez during a
job interview in August 1992 about his willingness to cross a
picket line. Hare interrogated O’Hara about his son’s union
button and a superintendent, named Bill, interrogated Gerald
Richard in the presence of Sullivan about Richard’s union
background. Van Dyke was questioned by Supervisor John
Petty during the job interview about his previous employers and
asked to what extent they were union companies. These inter-
rogations, particularly those during job interviews, were clearly
coercive and therefore in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Sullivan uttered most of the alleged threats. Sullivan told
Berens and Brigner shortly after they were hired that they
should not get involved with a lot of people wearing union
buttons or they would lose their jobs; Supervisor Toler told the
same employees at a Christmas party that the job would not
become unionized. Sullivan told employee Bonjernoor not to
worry about the “fucking union dogs,” and “that they were
causing trouble out there and that they weren’t going to get in
there. . . .” (Tr. 3130.) In September 1992, Supervisor
McDowell, pointing his finger at employee Rockford Jones’
union button, said, “that’s a no, no . . . you guys are walking on
thin ice . . . if you value your job, you’d take the button off”
(Tr. 486). In August 1992, Sullivan warned employee David
Choate not to associate with union people and that he should be
careful about others, because there were a lot of union people
out there. These statements were clear threats of loss of jobs,
designed to interfere with the Section 7 rights of job applicants
and employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, Zurn/N.E.P.C.O., Inc., is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Northern Michigan Building and Construction Trades
Council and its affiliated Unions (Boilermakers, Pipefitters,
Ironworkers, Electricians, Carpenters, Millwrights, Sheet Metal
Workers, Operating Engineers) AFL–CIO, are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By coercively interrogating job applicants about their un-
ion background through its agents at the Michigan Employment
Security Commission, Zurn violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By coercively interrogating job applicants and employees
about their union sympathies and affiliations, the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By threatening employees with the loss of jobs and other
reprisals because of their union support, the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. By promulgating a rule prohibiting the wearing of union
stickers and buttons on their hard hats and their clothing to
show support for the Union, the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. By discriminatorily enforcing a no-solicitation rule which
prohibited union solicitation but permitted other solicitations,
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
8. By disciplining an employee for his violation of the no-
solicitation rule, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act.
9. By laying off the pipefitters (John Corwin, Robert Cook,
Vincent Galligan, Bruce Kaiserlian, Daniel Kaiserlian, Charles
Kaiserlian, Michael O’Hara, Shawn O’Hara, Allen Radle, Larry
Rose, Doyne Woolsey, Everett Woolsey, and John O’Hara)
because of their union activity and by failing to reinstate them
to their former jobs at the same pay, the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
10. By failing and refusing to consider for employment job
applicants as boilermakers, pipefitters, ironworkers, carpenters,
millwrights, electricians, sheet metal workers, and operating
engineers, because they were union members or sympathizers
or had worked for unionized companies, the Respondent dis-
criminated against them in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act.
11. The unfair labor practices found above are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair la-
bor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action set
forth below to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act by unlawfully laying off the pipefitters
(Larry Rose, Robert Cook, John Corwin, Vince Galligan, Mi-
chael O’Hara, John O’Hara, Shawn O’Hara, Allen Radle,
Everett Woolsey, Dan Kaiserlian, Charles Kaiserlian, Bruce
Kaiserlian, and Doyne Woolsey); the Respondent must be or-
dered to offer them full and immediate reinstatement to their
former positions or, if those positions no longer exist, to sub-
stantially equivalent positions of employment, without preju-
dice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
them whole for any loss of wages or other rights and benefits
they may have suffered as the result of the discrimination
against them in accordance with the formula prescribed in
F. W. Woolworth, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as pro-
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 49
vided for in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987). I shall further order the Respondent to remove from its
records any reference to Donald Dickman’s unlawful discipline
and notify him in writing that this has been done and that such
information will not be used against him in any way.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully discriminated
against job applicants based on their suspected union sympa-
thies and having found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to hire applicants named
in Appendix A and by refusing to consider for hire the appli-
cants in Appendix B, the Respondent must be ordered to take
appropriate action designed to effect the policies of the Act.
The remedy in refusal-to-hire cases is the same as that in the
traditional violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3), namely a
make-whole order for backpay and reinstatement, as stated
above. Fluor Daniel, Inc., 311 NLRB 498 (1993); Dean Gen-
eral Contractors, 285 NLRB 573 (1987). In view of Respon-
dent’s cessation of construction in Cadillac, copies of the notice
identified as Appendix C must be sent to all those individuals
against whom the Respondent discriminated, as found herein.
ORDER
The Respondent, Zurn/N.E.P.C.O., Cadillac, Michigan, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating, through its agents at the Michi-
gan Employment Security Commission, job applicants about
their union background.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees and job applicants
about their union sympathies and affiliations.
(c) Threatening employees with the loss of jobs or other re-
prisals because of their union support.
(d) Prohibiting, by rule or verbal order, employees from
wearing union stickers and union buttons or other union insig-
nia on their hard hats and their clothing.
(e) Promulgating a no-solicitation policy and discriminato-
rily enforcing it against union solicitation, including the disci-
pline of employees.
(f) Discriminating against employees because of their union
activity by laying them off and failing to recall them to their
former jobs.
(g) Refusing to consider for employment job applicants for
the positions as boilermakers, pipefitters, ironworkers, carpen-
ters, millwrights, electricians, sheet metal workers and operat-
ing engineers, because they are members or sympathizers of the
Union, or because they worked in establishments which had
union contracts.
(h) 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 effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer the applicants for the positions as boilermakers,
pipefitters, ironworkers, carpenters, millwrights, electricians,
sheet metal workers and operating engineers (listed in Appen-
dices A & B), employment in positions for which they applied,
or if such positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them
as set forth in the remedy section.
(b) Offer the pipefitters Larry Rose, Robert Cook, John
Corwin, Vince Galligan, Michael O’Hara, John O’Hara, Shawn
O’Hara, Allen Radle, Everett Woolsey, Dan Kaiserlian, Charles
Kaiserlian, Bruce Kaiserlian, and Doyne Woolsey employment
and make them and Donald Diekman whole for any losses they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them
in the manner prescribed in the remedy section of this decision.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or
its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Remove from its files any reference to Donald Diek-
man’s discipline and to the unlawful layoffs and notify the
employees that this has been done and that the discipline and
layoffs will not be used against them in any way.
(e) Post at its Cadillac, Michigan building site, and at its cor-
porate headquarters in Washington State and in the State of
Maine and in the Cadillac office of the Michigan Employment
Security Administration copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix.”17 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted immedi-
ately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. Mail a copy of the
attached notice, marked as Appendix C, to the last known ad-
dress of all individuals against whom the Company discrimi-
nated.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken
to comply.
It is further ordered that the complaint is dismissed insofar as
it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.

17 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD50
APPENDIX A
Angle, David Meldrum, Cletis
Aten, Kerwin Molitor, David
Bejeck, Thomas Murray, William
Benjamin, Kenneth Mye, Claire
Biggs, Richard Ostrander, Leo
Bordages, Babylas Pacola, John
Bragan, James Perez, Tony
Card, John Plont, John
Childs, Gary Radtke, Marvin
Cogswell, William Redner, Sean
Corradin, Timothy Richard, Gerald
Custer, Lori Dawn Salisbury, Jay
Danula, Harry Saxton, Stanley
Doneth, Richard Schmoisch, Ronald
Donovan, Eugene Schoudt, Ronne
Drake, Billie Shiblie, Basil
Dudek, Michael Shiffer, Ralph
Finnerty, Robert Shoudt, Ronne
Gapen, Timothy Shorkey, Henry
Greenleaf, Harold Strawn, Clinton
Griswold, James Sivits, Paul
Griswold, Richard Stanley, Arthur
Harju, David Smith, Walter
Heiden, Kenneth St. John, Richard
Hubbard, Zane Taylor, Richard
Jacobi, Dick Taylor, Tom
Klein, Douglas Tisron, Jack
Klump, Franklin Valentine, Jonathan
Kruse, Jeffery Van Dyke, Joe
Kuznicki, Robert Wallaker, Nelson
Lambert, Roy Weiss, Karl
LaVasseur, Paul Welding, Randy
Lee, Mark Westphal, Jeffery
Macy, Gary Woolworth, William
Mason, Thomas Wright, John
APPENDIX B
1. Adair, Larry P. 25. Bejcek, Philip D.
2. Adamczak, Mark A. 26. Bejcek, Thomas A.
3. Admets, James M. 27. Benjamin, Kenneth E.
4. Ames, Terry L. 28. Bennett, John P.
5. Anderson, Paul D. 29. Bennett, Rick D.
6. Andrews, James K. 30. Bennett, Rod E.
7. Aplin, Russel H. 31. Benoit, John F.
8. Armstrong, John D. 32. Berg, James
9. Armstrong, Robert J. 33. Binkley, Kevin E.
10. Arndt, Anthony W. 34. Birgy, John R.
11. Ashby, David L. 35. Bishop, George A.
12. Aten, Kerwin Dale 36. Bishop, Maynerd A.
13. Ball, Ronald 37. Bock, Brent T.
14. Barnard, Dan 38. Bock, William J.
15. Barnhart, Craig C. 39. Boerema, Randy D.
16. Barr, Donald L. 40. Border, David E.
17. Bartholomew, Charles 41. Bostedt, James K.
18. Bartz, Richard H. 42. Bourland, James E.
19. Bates, Dale M. 43. Bower, Joseph C.
20. Battle, James P. 44. Boyle, James E.
21. Baudoux, Robert M. 45. Bragan, James A.
22. Bayne, Michael J. 46. Brennan, Timothy A.
23. Beal, Ivan S. 47. Bridget, Cleland
24. Beckwith, Michael D. 48. Briggs, Richard A.
49. Bryan, Giles D. 113. Frank, Charles L.
50. Brydon, Kenneth D. 114. Freier, John E.
51. Bublitz, Gary 115. Frontiera, Walter M.
52. Buckingham, James G. 116. Frose, David L.
53. Bufe, Robert W. 117. Gage, Richard L.
54. Burger, David B. 118. Gapen, Timothy
55. Burger, Fred 119. Garcia, Robert
56. Burnell, Russell 120. Garrison, Ralph
57. Burt, Donald 121. Gauld II, Gale E.
58. Byce, David H. 122. Gauld, Jerry
59. Campbell, Christopher J. 123. Gave, Edward W.
60. Caplinger, Leslie A. 124. Getting, Gerald D.
61. Card, John P. 125. Gibbons, Thomas R.
62. Card, Michael 126. Gilbert, Scott J.
63. Card, Robert W. 127. Gillman, William J.
64. Carlson, Janet E. 128. Gillow, Dennis H.
65. Carney, Thomas Lee 129. Gleason, Todd M.
66. Caron, Timothy J. 130. Gleason, Winston G.
67. Cascarelli, Andrew R. 131. Glynn, Michael P.
68. Childs, Gary 132. Godbold, Larry
69. Christophersen, Walter D. 133. Gollach, Raymond D.
70. Clough, Ronald 134. Gonyon Sr., Gary J.
71. Cogswell, William E. 135. Gottleber, Dan R.
72. Cook, James D. 136. Green, Scott G.
73. Coopshaw, Robert J. 137. Greenleaf, Harold
74. Corradin, Timothy W. 138. Griffin, Gerald D.
75. Cosgrove, Patrick J. 139. Griswold, Richard
76. Cox, Ray L. 140. Groth, Bradley G.
77. Curtis, John 141. Grzesiak, Patrick H.
78. Cusack, Mike C. 142. Guenthardt, Gerald
79. Custer, Lori 143. Guertin, David
80. Dahl, Robert R. 144. Guy, Michael D.
81. Dahlgren, Laurence C. 145. Hackett, Patrick J.
82. Dahlvig, H. Ray 146. Hagerty, Richard
83. Danula, Harry 147. Hall, Ricky A.
84. Davenport, David M. 148. Hamilton, Bradley E.
85. Davenport, James A. 149. Hamilton, Brett
86. Davis, Chester L. 150. Hamilton, Harry K.
87. Davis, Steven A. 151. Hamilton, Steven R.
88. Dehring, David J. 152. Hamilton, Terry L.
89. Denman, Jacob P. 153. Hanel, Donald
90. Denn, James R. 154. Hansen, David R.
91. Des Voignes, Roy A. 155. Hardman, John L.
92. Devos, David 156. Hardy, Charles J.
93. Dickens, Kary Lee, Jr. 157. Harju, David F.
94. Diebendetto, Mark 158. Harmon, Douglas C.
95. Ditty, Douglas J. 159. Havens, Raymond
96. Dodge, William 160. Hawk, Robert A.
97. Donovan, Eugene 161. Haynes, Alan A.
98. Douglas, James L. 162. Hazen, Tim A.
99. Drake, Billie D. 163. Heiden, Kenneth L.
100. Dreyer, Leonard R. 164. Heistand, Russell W.
101. Duchon, Lawrence J. 165. Helminiak, Dale E.
102. Dudek, Michael J. 166. Herek, Keith A.
103. Eberle, Kenneth W. 167. Herkelrath, Dennis L.
104. Edmondson Jr., Dale 168. Herwick, Keith R.
105. Edmondson Sr., Dale E. 169. Hintz, Gregory A.
106. Edstrom, David K. 170. Hissong, Forrest C.
107. Erickson, Doyle 171. Holmes, Donald L.
108. Fiedler, James 172. Holmes, Ross D.
109. Field, W. John 173. Hord, Dooly E.
110. Finney, Rich C. 174. Hubbard, John
111. Finout, Linda L. 175. Hubbard, Zane D.
112. Ford, William G. 176. Hubbell, Robert S.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 51
177. Huff-Gonzales, Juantia L. 241. Mattis, Marshall F.
178. Iannuccilli, Nick 242. McAlpine, Jack
179. Ingle, Darren R. 243. McCarry, Patrick W.
180. Itzen, Daniel F. 244. McDonald, John A.
181. Ivey, George 245. McEntaffer, Kevin J.
182. Jackson, Fay L. 246. McGee, Timothy J.
183. Jackson, Robert W. 247. McKenna, Patrick J.
184. Jipping, Arie 248. McLary, Terry A.
185. Johnson, David M. 249. McMillen, Ronald W.
186. Johnseon, Gerald 250. McNees, Jr., Homer J.
187. Jones, Heath A. 251. McPherson, Diana L.
188. Jones, Luther A. 252. McQuiston, Jeffrey D.
189. Kanouse, Forrest L. 253. Mead, Paul D.
190. Kapplinger, Jarvis 254. Melius, Rodney
191. Kelley, Albert W. 255. Merry, Max O.
192. Kelly, Gerald L. 256. Meter, Francis J.
193. Kendall, Ronald F. 257. Milks, Lee
194. Kincaid, Herman C. 258. Miller, Charles W.
195. King, Gerald H. 259. Miller, Don L.
196. Kitchen, Wallace 260. Miller, Mark W.
197. Klein, Douglas Wesley 261. Molitor, David A.
198. Klele, Mike 262. Montie, Floyd L.
199. Kline, Donald 263. Moore, Michael J.
200. Knapp, Steve 264. Moreau, Daniel J.
201. Koeuering, Gary L. 265. Morris, Marvin S.
202. Koscielecki, Daniel W. 266. Mosher, Ronald E.
203. Koscielecki, Kevin M. 267. Mosher, Timothy J.
204. Koscielecki, Robert S. 268. Mosher, William C.
205. Kosnik, Paul E. 269. Murchie, Michael J.
206. Kraenzlein, Gerald 270. Murphy, Greg
207. Krajkiewcz, Paul A. 271. Myers, Danny L.
208. Kravako, Timothy C. 272. Nelson, Russ D.
209. Krieger, David L. 273. Nemethy Sr., Steve R.
210. Kriesche, Dennis 274. Nestle, James E.
211. Kroll, Ray F. 275. Nolan, David B.
212. Kuriger, Terrence W. 276. Norton, Larry
213. Kuznicki, Robert 277. Nye, James
214. LaForest, Gary T. 278. O'Hare, Michael J.
215. LaForest, Paul R. 279. Ostrander, Leo F.
216. Lambert, Roy A. 280. Pacola, John E.
217. Larson, Howard O. 281. Paisley, William H.
218. Larson, Larry L. 282. Payne, George
219. Leatherman, Michael D. 283. Peckstein, Karl W.
220. Lee, Mark 284. Peer, Samuel T.
221. Lee, Tommy 285. Peil, Jess A.
222. Leenhouts, James D. 286. Peil, Tim R.
223. Leitner, Jeff S. 287. Pepera, Randall J.
224. Letherer, John R. 288. Pepera, Richard S.
225. LaVasseur, Paul J. 289. Perez, Tony
226. Lewis, Dale A. 290. Peterson, Alan S.
227. Long, Gaines 291. Peterson, Scott A.
228. Louzon, Lawrence R. 292. Pierce, Kenneth W.
229. Lovell, Kevin 293. Platt, William D.
230. Lyle, Christopher 294. Plont, John R.
231. Lynn, Rodney M. 295. Potter, Burton R.
232. Macintyre, Craig D. 296. Powers, Gregory
233. Macy, Gary L. 297. Purchase, Roge A.
234. Macy, Gilbert W. 298. Rabach, William
235. Mansfield, James R. 299. Radden, Rex C.
236. Marckini, Joseph R. 300. Radtk, Marion D.
237. Marshall, Ed 301. Raetz, Rick R.
238. Marshall, Lee N. 302. Randal, Michael C.
239. Marshall, Patrick 303. Redner, Sean R.
240. Mater, Del H. 304. Reed, Richard C.
305. Reeves, Roger E. 369. Stull, Brett D.
306. Renigar, Donald H. 370. Super, John J.
307. Reynolds, Gregory S. 371. Sutliff, Kirk S.
308. Ricards, William 372. Swartz, Cary L.
309. Richard, Gerald 373. Taylor, Randy R.
310. Richardson, William J. 374. Taylor, Richard C.
311. Richmond, Roderick 375. Taylor, Thomas
312. Riedel, Terry W. 376. Teachout, Keith E.
313. Rienas, Robert D. 377. Thies, Charles G.
314. Rivette, Matthew 378. Timchac, James
315. Roberson, Ronald D. 379. Toussaint, James A.
316. Roberts, Edward 380. Trier, Cary M.
317. Roberts, Kenneth 381. Trudeau, Douglas J.
318. Robinson, Gary 382. Trumble, Roy
319. Rosbeck, Gary L. 383. Uber, Leo
320. Rosenberg, Randall 384. Vajda, Gary
321. Rosenberry, David L. 385. Valentine, Jonathan
322. Rossell, Terry D. 386. Van Dyke, Joseph L.
323. Rule, James L. 387. Vandenbos, Peter J.
324. Rushford, Andrew S. 388. Vandeusen Sr., George D.
325. Salisbury, Jay 389. Vandwelinde, Paul C.
326. Salois, James 390. Vandyke, Michael P.
327. Sandelius, Stanley J. 391. VanKoevering, Michael D.
328. Sasse, William G. 392. VanSlambrouer, Clayton J.
329. Sawyer, Thomas P. 393. Vasold, Robert E.
330. Saxton, Stanley D. 394. Vaughn, Billy W.
331. Scanlon, Gerald K. 395. Verlin, Joseph
332. Schaffer, Jeffrey 396. Vine, Terry J.
333. Schaub, Matt R. 397. Wakefield, Robert
334. Schaub, Robert 398. Walsh, John M.
335. Schoudt, Ronne L. 399. Wasilchenko, Danny J.
336. Schutt, Michael J. 400. Watson, James W.
337. Scott, David A. 401. Watters, Daniel
338. Sellers, Timothy R. 402. Weaver, Randy F.
339. Sharp, Robert A. 403. Welch, Larry R.
340. Sharp, Terry L. 404. Wendling, Randall C.
341. Sherven, Norman J. 405. Western, Gary R.
342. Shively, Howard D. 406. Westphal, Jeffrey D.
343. Shivlie, Basil Dean 407. Wieland, Joel G.
344. Shoemaker, Joseph S. 408. Wierzbicki, James E.
345. Shorkey, Henry 409. Wigent, Gary N.
346. Simmons, Charles J. 410. Wilbanks, Billy R.
347. Simmons, Harold 411. Wildfong, Wilbur D.
348. Simons, Nevin 412. Williamson, George
349. Siuda, Philip 413. Wilsdon, William M.
350. Sivits, Paul 414. Wilson, Donald C.
351. Slaghula, James A. 415. Wissner, Dale R.
352. Smith, Dale R. 416. Witte, Charles A.
353. Smith, Dale T. 417. Woolworth, William C.
354. Smith, Richard H. 418. Wright, John W.
355. Smith, Walter E. 419. Wright, Kendall O.
356. Somerville, Bryan 420. Wuolukka, Earl B.
357. Sorenson, Robert L. 421. Wuolukka, Rickey
358. Sorenson, Rodney R. 422. Yeager, Roy
359. Spofford, Geralyn 423. Yorch, Harry F.
360. Stanick, Duane 424. Yost, James G.
361. Stark, James E. 425. Ziemba, Walter
362. Starks, Steven L. 426. Ziemer, Thomas H.
363. Stawicki, Robert L. 427. Zmich, Robert C.
364. Stender, Albert J.
365. Stickney, Dennis
366. Stiles, Douglas
367. Stracka, Tim N.
368. Strawn, Clinton
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD52
APPENDIX C
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the
National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide
by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected con-
certed activities.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate, through agents at the
Michigan Employment Security Commission, job applicants
about their union background.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees and job ap-
plicants about their union sympathies and affiliations.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with the loss of jobs or
other reprisals because of their union support.
WE WILL NOT prohibit, by rule or verbal order, employees
from wearing union stickers and union buttons or other union
insignia on their hard hats and their clothing.
WE WILL NOT promulgate a no-solicitation policy and dis-
criminatorily enforce it against union solicitation, including the
discipline of employees.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against employees because of
their union activity by laying them off and failing to recall them
to their former jobs.
WE WILL NOT refuse to consider for employment job appli-
cants for the positions as boilermakers, pipefitters, ironworkers,
carpenters, millwrights, electricians, sheet metal workers, and
operating engineers, because they are members or sympathizers
of the Union, or because they worked in establishments which
had union contracts.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer the applicants for the positions as boilermak-
ers, pipefitters, ironworkers, carpenters, millwrights, electri-
cians, sheet metal workers, and operating engineers (listed in
Appendices A & B), employment in positions for which they
applied, or if such positions no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, and make them whole for any loss of earn-
ings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against them.
WE WILL offer the pipefitters Larry Rose, Robert Cook, John
Corwin, Vince Galligan, Michael O’Hara, John O’Hara, Shawn
O’Hara, Allen Radle, Everett Woolsey, Dan Kaiserlian, Charles
Kaiserlian, Bruce Kaiserlian, and Doyne Woolsey employment
and make them and Donald Diekman whole for any losses they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them
in the manner prescribed in the remedy section of this decision.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to Donald
Diekman’s discipline and to the unlawful layoffs and notify the
employees that this has been done and that the discipline and
layoffs will not be used against them in any way.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O.
Joseph P. Canfield, Esq. and Cynthia Beauchamp, Esq., for the
General Counsel.
Michael C. Towers, Esq. and William F. Kaspers, Esq. (Fisher
& Phillips), of Atlanta, Georgia, for the Respondent.
Kenneth A. Knox, Esq. (Fisher & Phillips), of Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, for the Respondent.
Peter T. Kotula, Esq., of Detroit, Michigan, for the Attorney
General.
Michael J. Stapp, Esq. and Mary Elizabeth Metz, Esq. (Blake &
Uhlig, P.A.), of Kansas City, Kansas, for the Charging
Party.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
KARL H. BUSCHMANN, Administrative Law Judge. By Order
of September 27, 1996, the National Labor Relations Board
(the Board) remanded this proceeding to me for the limited
purpose of (1) making more specific findings to clarify whether
the Respondent’s hiring policy (policy 303) violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act),
because it is inherently discriminatory as written or because it
was discriminatorily applied at the Cadillac, Michigan jobsite;
and (2) providing appropriate guidelines to remedy the unlaw-
ful discriminations against job applicants in Appendix A,1 who
were refused employment and those listed in Appendix B,2 who
were not considered for employment.
In my decision of October 27, 1995, I found that the Re-
spondent resorted to several employment practices in order to
avoid the hiring of applicants with a union background or sym-
pathy. The most pervasive were the following: The Company
relied on a preferential hiring policy known as policy 303, it
entered into the custom referral agreement with the Michigan
Employment Security Commission (MESC) providing for pri-
ority of Zurn’s “name-calls” and it engaged in the preferential
hiring of applicants from outside the State of Michigan. First
and foremost was the Respondent’s application of a priority
hiring policy (policy 303) which by its terms gave preference to
present and past employees and referrals by its own employees,
including management. Policy 303 on its face provides for the
preferential hiring of applicants who have a connection with
Respondent’s work force. And that work force is not union-
ized. The Board has found in similar circumstances that the
practical effect of such a priority hiring system is “to preclude
employment of union members.” D. S. E. Concrete Forms,
Inc., 303 NLRB 890 fn. 2 (1991), enfd. 21 F.3d (5th Cir. 1994).
The Board’s conclusion in that case is supported by the record
in the case before me. First, Respondent’s expert witnesses

1 The individuals identified by the Board as improperly included on
App. A have been included on App. B, except Randy Welding, who
was a witness at the hearing.
2 The names which appeared on both appendices were stricken from
App. B.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 53
testified unequivocally that Zurn’s priority hiring system would
definitely result in a nonunion work force. Second, the Com-
pany regards itself as a merit shop employer, and its adherence
to policy 303 has resulted in a nonunion work force as shown
by the statistical evidence in the record.
Although generally, a priority hiring system relying on refer-
rals to hire applicants with a proven work record and without
the intention to discriminate against union members appears
reasonable, here, the employer has demonstrated its antiunion
animus with threats, coercive interrogations, and firings of
union sympathizers so that the intention to discriminate is ap-
parent. Even without the evidence in the record that the em-
ployer has drafted policy 303 with the intent to discriminate,
the record is otherwise clear that management relied on policy
303 in order to avoid the hiring of union applicants. Manage-
ment officials in Cadillac were experienced in identifying pro-
spective candidates who had a union background by an exami-
nation of the applications and the skillful use of personal inter-
views. In many instances, this policy did not produce the most
experienced and skilled employees. Numerous employees who
were hired pursuant to the priority system did not possess the
skills for the particular position and had little or no prior ex-
perience in the particular trade, as more fully discussed in my
decision. The record accordingly shows that policy 303 failed
in meeting its stated purpose, i.e., to select the most qualified
applicant and its intent, i.e., to comply with all applicable Fed-
eral and State laws. I am compelled to find that Respondent’s
policy 303 itself is discriminatory, as shown by the record’s
statistical evidence, Respondent’s expert testimony and the
practical consequences of its application. I will accordingly
recommend that the priority hiring policy be expunged or re-
vised so as to preclude the unlawful discrimination.
The record also shows that the Respondent’s hiring policy
was discriminatorily applied. The evidence is clear that the
Respondent did not rely on its priority hiring policy alone to
assure a nonunion work force. For example, policy 303 pro-
vides that “consideration of qualified individuals within the
immediate local area will be given first.” Yet, as more fully set
out in my decision, management recruited applicants from
anywhere but the local area, particularly from the southern
areas of the country in order to find employees without a union
background. The statistical evidence in the record showing the
composition of Respondent’s work force clearly supports this
finding. The Respondent’s expert testimony about merit shops
in southern states supports the conclusion that applicants from
the south are less likely to favor unions. The Respondent took
extraordinary steps in order to attract such applicants.
In several instances, the Respondent ignored its priority hir-
ing policy in order to avoid applicants with a union back-
ground. In other instances, the Respondent purported to hire
individuals through its referral policy when indeed they were
not referred by anyone. Also contrary to policy 303’s mandate
to hire “the most qualified job applicant,” the management of
Zurn/N.E.P.C.O. hired applicants who appeared unqualified so
long as they had no union background, as already mentioned
above. I, accordingly, find that the Respondent applied its hir-
ing policy in a discriminatory fashion for the purpose of ex-
cluding applicants because of their suspected union sympathies.
The 65 applicants identified on Appendix A were unlawfully
denied employment as a result of the Respondent’s discrimina-
tion. As more fully discussed in the underlying decision they
were experienced and skilled in their respective trades and
should have been hired for any of the 202 positions at the
Cadillac jobsite, particularly, where as here, their experience
exceeded that of many of the employees who were actually
hired with little regard to their prior experience because they
had no union background. The record reveals in detail the ex-
perience, training, and certificates that each of the 65 applicants
had; the record also shows the lack of experience many of the
candidates had who were placed into job categories with little
regard to their qualifications. The underlying decision de-
scribes in detail the individual experiences of many of the ap-
plicants as a representative sampling of all 65 names listed on
Appendix A who were rejected for jobs in the relevant trades.
It is accordingly appropriate for me to recommend the tradi-
tional remedy that includes reinstatement and backpay, as well
as Respondent’s obligation to these applicants because the
work at the Cadillac jobsite has been completed. Ultra Systems
Western Constructors, Inc. v. NLRB, 18 F.3d 251 (4th Cir.
1994); B E & K Construction Co., 321 NLRB 561 (1996).
In sum, the record shows conclusively that the Company and
the applicants are covered by the Act, that these applicants all
applied for employment with Zurn and were amply qualified
for the jobs which the Company filled with nonunion appli-
cants, and that these employees were rejected for employment
as a result of the Respondent antiunion animus. Instead, the
Company filled the positions with candidates who were less
qualified, so long as they had no union connection. The Re-
spondent has not carried the burden of showing that any of
these applicants would not have been hired even in the absence
of any union consideration.
Of significance to the issue of a discriminatory hiring prac-
tice was the Respondent’s arrangement with the Michigan Em-
ployment Security Commission (MESC). The “custom referral
agreement” provided the Respondent on the one hand with the
aura of an unbiased procedure and on the other with the flexi-
bility of implementing its priority hiring practice. While the
Respondent generally required each job applicant to register
with the MESC, it also had an agreement with the MESC to
process “name-call” applicants on a preferential basis. The
name calls were not screened by MESC personnel and were
processed ahead of the other job applicants. This enabled the
Respondent to hire applicants without a union background and
still maintain the requirement that each applicant had to register
through the MESC. While I see no problem with the general
idea of requiring prospective employees to be processed by the
MESC, so long as the appropriate procedures are followed, the
consequences of the custom referral agreement was that it gave
the impression to hundreds of job seekers that they had an op-
portunity to obtain a job with Zurn so long as they went
through the procedure. By Respondent’s own statistical evi-
dence, the vast majority of employees were hired on a priority
or name-call basis pursuant to the custom referral agreement.
According to the same numbers, an applicant with a union
background who registered under MESC’s regular procedure
had little or no chance to land a job at Zurn’s project in Cadil-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD54
lac. The Appendix B contains the names of job applicants with
a union background who carefully followed the procedures set
up by the Respondent and who, in spite of their experience and
skills in the trade, were not considered for employment, be-
cause their applications revealed a union background. And for
the same reason, they were not part of the group of name calls.
The MESC, suspecting that it was being used to avoid union
applicants, ultimately discontinued the custom referral proce-
dure.
To be sure, the 382 union applicants listed on Appendix B
who were not considered for employment, would not all have
been placed on Respondent’s payroll in Cadillac. But for the
Respondent’s discriminatory practices, many could have been
hired and they should be made whole. All the individuals were
lead to believe that their applications would be seriously con-
sidered. Those individuals on Appendix B who would not have
been hired should be reimbursed for the expenses incurred in
the MESC application process, which required their attendance
for the interview.
Consistent with the Board’s remand order, I have carefully
considered the authorities cited and attempted to fashion an
appropriate remedy which is congruent with the scope of Re-
spondent’s discrimination and which does not go beyond it. In
Ultrasystems Western Constructors, Inc. v. NLRB, 18 F.2d at
259, the court stated:
Thus a refusal to consider begets a remedy that the employer
must consider, and when the refusal to consider also results in
an actual refusal to hire, the refusal begets the remedy that the
employer must hire those applicants who otherwise would
have been hired.
Like the Board’s Order in Ultrasystems Western Construc-
tors, 316 NLRB 1243 (1995), to remedy the Respondent’s
unlawful refusal to consider the 382 applicants for hire, the
Respondent must be ordered to consider them for hire and to
provide backpay to those whom it would have hired but for its
unlawful conduct. If at the compliance stage it is determined
that the Respondent would have hired any of these applicants
on Appendix B the inquiry as to their backpay will include any
amounts they would have received on jobs to which the Re-
spondent would have assigned them and the Respondent should
be ordered to hire these individuals and place them in positions
substantially equivalent to those for which they applied in
Cadillac, Michigan.
Finally, as to those applicants who at the compliance stage
will be found not to have been hired because there were no job
openings, they should be compensated for their actual expense
incurred in registering at the MESC. In view of Respondent’s
arrangement with the MESC, which generated false hopes in so
many union applicants find work, they should also be made
whole to the extent that they incurred such expenses.
The order in the underlying proceeding should accordingly
be modified as follows:3
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(g).
(g) Refusing to hire or to consider for employment job ap-
plicants for the positions as boilermakers, pipefitters, ironwork-

3 See also Indian Hills Care Center, 321 NLRB 144 (1996).
ers, carpenters, millwrights, electricians, sheet metal workers,
and operating engineers, because they are members or sympa-
thizers of the Union, or because they worked in establishments
which had union contracts, and maintaining or discriminatorily
applying a hiring policy which discriminates against suspected
union applicants or sympathizers.
2. Substitute paragraph 2(a) and, instead, add the following
paragraphs 2(a)–(d).
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order offer the ap-
plicants for the positions as boilermakers, pipefitters, ironwork-
ers, carpenters, millwrights, electricians, sheet metal workers,
and operating engineers (listed in Appendix A), employment in
positions for which they applied, or if such positions no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, and make them
whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by rea-
son of the discrimination against them as set forth herein and in
the remedy section of the underlying decision.
(b) Make whole those employee-applicants listed in Appen-
dix B for any losses they may have suffered by reason of the
Respondent’s discriminatory refusal to consider them for hire
in the manner described above in this Supplemental Decision
and Order.
(c) Within 14 days offer those employee-applicants who
would have been employed but for the Respondent’s unlawful
refusal to consider them for hire, employment in the positions
for which they applied or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their senior-
ity or any other rights or privileges to which they would have
been entitled if they had not been discriminated against by the
Respondent.
(d) Further, make those applicants who would not have been
hired, whole for their expenses incurred in registering at the
MESC.
3. Add the following as paragraph 2(e) and renumber all sub-
sequent paragraphs in the underlying decision.
“Rescind or revise its preferential hiring policy (policy 303)
so as to preclude any discrimination against applicants because
of their union background or sympathies.”
ORDER
The Respondent, Zurn/N.E.P.C.O., Redmond, Washington,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating, through its agents at the Michi-
gan Employment Security Commission, job applicants about
their union background.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees and job applicants
about their union sympathies and affiliations.
(c) Threatening employees with the loss of jobs or other re-
prisals because of their union support.
(d) Prohibiting by rule or verbal order employees from wear-
ing union stickers and union buttons or other union insignia on
their hardhats and their clothing.
(e) Promulgating a no-solicitation policy and discriminato-
rily enforcing it against union solicitation, including the disci-
pline of employees.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 55
(f) Discriminating against employees because of their union
activity by laying them off and failing to recall them to their
former jobs.
(g) Refusing to hire or to consider for employment job appli-
cants for the positions are boilermakers, pipefitters, ironwork-
ers, carpenters, millwrights, electricians, sheet metal workers,
and operating engineers, because they are members or sympa-
thizers of the Union, or because they worked in establishments
which had union contracts, and maintaining or discriminatorily
applying a hiring policy which discriminates against suspected
union applicants or sympathizers.
(h) 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 effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order offer the ap-
plicants for the positions as boilermakers, pipefitters, ironwork-
ers, carpenters, millwrights, electricians, sheet metal workers,
and operating engineers (listed in Appendix A), employment in
positions for which they applied, or if such positions no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, and make them
whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by rea-
son of the discrimination against them as set forth herein and in
the remedy section of the underlying decision.
(b) Make whole those employee-applicants listed in Appen-
dix B for any losses they may have suffered by reason of the
Respondent’s discriminatory refusal to consider them for hire
in the manner described above in this Supplemental Decision
and Order.
(c) Within 14 days offer those employee-applicants who
would have been employed but for the Respondent’s unlawful
refusal to consider them for hire, employment in the positions
for which they applied or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their senior-
ity or any other rights or privileges to which they would have
been entitled if they had not been discriminated against by the
Respondent.
(d) Further, make those applicants who would not have been
hired, whole for their expenses incurred in registering at the
MESC.
(e) Rescind or revise its preferential hiring policy (policy
303) so as to preclude any discrimination against applicants
because of their union background or sympathies.
(f) Within 14 days from date of this Order, offer the pipefit-
ters Larry Rose, Robert Cook, John Corwin, Vince Galligan,
Michael O’Hara, Shawn O’Hara, Allen Radle, Everett Wool-
sey, Dan Kaiserlian, Charles Kaiserlian, Bruce Kaiserlian, and
Doyne Woolsey employment.
(g) Make Larry Rose, Robert Cook, John Corwin, Vince
Galligan, Michael O’Hara, Shawn O’Hara, Allen Radle, Everett
Woolsey, Dan Kaiserlian, Charles Kaiserlian, Bruce Kaiserlian,
Doyne Woolsey, and Donald Diekman whole for any losses
they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them in the manner prescribed in the remedy section of this
decision.
(h) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make available
to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Or-
der.
(i) Within 14 days from date of this Order, remove from its
files any reference to Donald Diekman’s discipline and to the
unlawful layoffs and within 3 days thereafter notify him in
writing that this has been done and that the discipline and lay-
offs will not be used against him in any way.
(j) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
Cadillac, Michigan building site and at its corporate headquar-
ters in Washington State and in the State of Maine and in the
Cadillac office of the Michigan Employment Security Admini-
stration copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”4
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent’s author-
ized representative, shall be posted immediately upon receipt
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 Respondent to en-
sure 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
all current employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since September 2, 1992.
(k) 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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed inso-
far as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.
APPENDIX A
Angle, David Greenleaf, Harold
Aten, Kerwin Griswold, James
Bejeck, Thoma Griswold, Richard
Benjamin, Kenneth Harju, David
Biggs, Richard Heiden, Kenneth
Bordages, Babylas Hubbard, Zane
Bragan, James Jacobi, Dick
Card, John Klein, Douglas
Childs, Gary Klump, Franklin
Cogswell, William Kruse, Jeffery
Corradin, Timothy Kuznicki, Robert
Custer, Lori Dawn Lambert, Roy
Danula, Harry LaVasseur, Paul
Doneth, Richard Lee, Mark
Donovan, Eugene Mason, Thomas
Drake, Billie Meldrum, Cletis
Dudek, Michael Molitor, David
Finnerty, Robert Murray, William
Gapen, Timothy Mye, Claire

4 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD56
Ostrander, Leo Shorkey, Henry
Pacola, John Sivits, Paul
Perez, Tony Smith, Walter
Plont, John Taylor, Richard
Radtke, Marvin Taylor, Tom
Redner, Sean Valentine, Jonathan
Richard, Gerald Van Dyke, Joe
Salsibury, Jay Wallaker, Nelson
Saxton, Stanley Weiss, Karl
Schmoisch, Ronald Welding, Randy
Schmoisch, Ronald Westphal, Jeffrey
Schoudt, Ronne Woolworth, William
Shiblie, Basil Wright, John
Shiffer, Ralph
APPENDIX B
Adair, Larry P. Bufe, Robert W.
Adamczak, Mark A. Burger, David B.
Admets, James M. Burger, Fred
Ames, Terry L. Burnell, Russell
Anderson, Paul D. Burt, Donald
Andrews, James K. Byce, David H.
Aplin, Russel H. Campbell, Christopher J.
Armstrong, John D. Caplinger, Leslie A.
Armstrong, Robert J. Card, Michael
Amdt, Anthony W. Card, Robert W.
Ashby, David L. Carlson, Janet E.
Ball, Ronald Carney, Thomas Lee
Barnard, Dan Caron, Timothy J.
Barnhart, Craig C. Cascarelli, Andrew R.
Barr, Donald L. Christophersen, Walter D.
Bartholomew, Charles Clough, Ronald
Bartz, Richard H. Cook, James D.
Bates, Dale M. Coopshaw, Robert J.
Battle, James P. Cosgrove, Patrick J.
Baudoux, Robert M. Cox, Ray L.
Bayne, Michael J. Curtis, John
Beal, Ivan S. Cusack, Mike C.
Beckwith, Michael D. Dahl, Robert R.
Bejcek, Phillip D. Dahlgren, Laurence C.
Bennett, John P. Dahlvig, H. Ray
Bennett, Rick D. Davenport, David M.
Bennett, Rod E. Davenport, James A.
Benoit, John F. Davis, Chester L.
Berg, James Davis, Steven A.
Binkley, Kevin E. Dehring, David J.
Birgy, John R. Denman, Jacob P.
Bishop, George A. Denn, James R.
Bishop, Maynerd A. Des Voignes, Roy A.
Bock, Brent T. Devos, David
Bock, William J. Dickens Jr., Kary Lee
Boerema, Randy D. Diebendetto, Mark
Border, David E. Ditty, Douglas J.
Bostedt, James K.J. Dodge, William
Bourland, James E. Douglas, James L.
Bower, Joseph C. Dreyer, Leonard R.
Boyle, James E. Duchon, Lawrence J
Brennan, Timothy A. Eberle, Kenneth W.
Bridget, Cleland Edmondson Jr., Dale
Briggs, Richard A. Edmondson Sr., Dale E.
Bryan, Giles D. Edstrom, David K.
Brydon, Kenneth D. Erickson, Doyle
Bublitz, Gary Fiedler, James
Buckingham, James G. Field, John W.
Finney, Rich C. Ivey, George
Finout, Linda L. Jackson, Fay L.
Ford, William G. Jackson, Robert W.
Frank, Charles L. Jipping, Arie
Freier, John E. Johnson, David M.
Frontiera, Walter M. Johnseon, Gerald
Frose, David L. Jones, Heath A.
Gage, Richard L. Jones, Luther A.
Garcia, Robert Kanouse, Forrest L.
Garrison, Ralph Kapplinger, Jarvis
Gauld II, Gale E. Kelley, Albert W.
Gauld, Jerry Kelly, Gerald L.
Gave, Edward W. Kendall, Ronald F.
Getting, Gerald D. Kincaid, Herman C.
Gibbons, Thomas R. Kitchen, Wallace
Gilbert, Scott J. Klele, Mike
Gillman, William J. Kline, Donald
Gillow, Dennis H. Knapp, Steve
Gleason, Todd M. Koeuering, Gary L.
Gleason, Winston G. Koscielecki, Daniel W.
Glynn, Michael P. Koscielecki, Kevin M.
Godbold, Larry Koscielecki, Robert S.
Gollach, Raymond D. Kosnik, Paul E.
Gonyon Sr., Gary J. Kraenzlein, Gerald
Gottleber, Dan R. Krajkiewcz, Paul A.
Green, Scott G. Kravako, Timothy C.
Griffin, Gerald D. Krieger, David L.
Groth, Bradley G. Kriesche, Dennis
Grzesiak, Patrick H. Kroll, Ray F.
Guenthardt, Gerald Kuriger, Terrence W.
Guertin, David LaForest, Gary T.
Guy, Michael D. LaForest, Paul R.
Hackett, Patrick J. Larson, Howard O.
Hagerty, Richard Larson, Larry L.
Hall, Ricky A. Leatherman, Michael D.
Hamilton, Bradley E. Lee, Tommy
Hamilton, Brett Leenhouts, James D.
Hamilton, Harry K. Leitner, Jeff S.
Hamilton, Steven R. Letherer, John R.
Hamilton, Terry L. Lewis, Dale A.
Hanel, Donald Long, Gaines
Hansen, David R. Louzon, Lawrence R.
Hardman, John L. Lovell, Kevin
Hardy, Charles J. Lyle, Christopher
Harmon, Douglas C. Lynn, Rodney M.
Havens, Raymond Macintyre, Craig D.
Hawk, Robert A. Macy, Gilbert W.
Haynes, Alan A. Mansfield, James R.
Hazen, Tim A. Marckini, Joseph R.
Heistand, Russell W. Marshall, Ed
Helminiak, Dale E. Marshall, Lee N.
Herek, Keith A. Marshall, Patrick
Herkelrath, Dennis L. Mater, Del H.
Herwick, Keith R. Mattis, Marshall F.
Hintz, Gregory A. McAlpine, Jack
Hissong, Forrest C. McCarry, Patrick W.
Holmes, Donald L. McDonald, John A.
Holmes, Ross D. McEntaffer, Kevin J.
Hord, Dooly E. McGee, Timothy J.
Hubbard, John McKenna, Patrick J.
Hubbell, Robert S. McLary, Terry A.
Huff-Gonzales, Juanita L. McMillen, Ronald W.
Iannuccilli, Nick McNees Jr., Homer J.
Ingle, Darren R. McPherson, Diana L.
Itzen, Daniel F. McQuiston, Jeffrey D.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 57
Mead, Paul D. Salois, James
Melius, Rodney Sandelius, Stanley J.
Merry, Max O. Sasse, William G.
Meter, Francis J. Sawyer, Thomas P.
Milks, Lee Scanlon, Gerald K.
Miller, Charles W. Schaffer, Jeffrey
Miller, Don L. Schaub, Matt R.
Miller, Mark W. Schaub, Robert
Montie, Floyd L. Schutt, Micheal J.
Moore, Michael J. Scott, David A.
Moreau, Daniel J. Sellers, Timothy R.
Morris, Marvin S. Sharp, Robert A.
Mosher, Ronald E. Sharp. Terru L.
Mosher, Timothy J. Sherven, Norman J.
Mosher, William C. Shively, Howard D.
Murchie, Michael J. Shivlie, Basil Dean
Murphy, Greg Shoemaker, Joseph S.
Myers, Danny L. Simmons, Charles J.
Nelson, Russ D. Simmons, Harold
Nemethy Sr., Steve R. Simons, Nevin
Nestle, James E. Siuda, Philip
Nolan, David B. Slaghula, James A.
Norton, Larry Smith, Dale R.
Nye, James Smith, Dale T.
O’Hare, Michael J. Smith, Richard H.
Paisley, William H. Somerville, Bryan
Payne, George Sorenson, Robert L.
Peckstein, Karl W. Sorenson, Rodney R.
Peer, Samuel T. Spofford, Geralyn
Peil, Jess A. Stanick, Duane
Peil, Tim A. Stark, James E.
Pepera, Randall J. Starks, Steven L.
Pepera, Richard S. Stawicki, Robert L.
Peterson, Alan S. Stender, Albert J.
Peterson, Scott A. Stickney, Dennis
Pierce, Kenneth W. Stiles, Douglas
Platt, William D. Stracka, Tim N.
Potter, Burton R. Strawn, Clinton
Powers, Gregory Stull, Brett D.
Purchase, Roge A. Super, John J.
Rabach, William Sutlif, Kirk S.
Radden, Rex C. Swartz, Cary L.
Radtk, Marion D. Taylor, Randy R.
Raetz, Rick R. Teachout, Keith E.
Randall, Michael C. Thies, Charles G.
Reed, Richard C. Timchac, James
Reeves, Roger E. Tisrou, Jack
Renigar, Donald H. Toussaint, James A.
Reynolds, Gregory S. Trier, Cary M.
Ricards, William Trudeau, Douglas J.
Richardson, William J. Trumble, Roy
Richmond, Roderick Uber, Leo
Riedel, Terry W. Vajda, Gary
Rienas, Robert D. Vandenbos, Peter J.
Rivette, Mathew Vandeusein Sr., George D.
Roberson, Ronald D. Vandwelinde, Paul C.
Roberts, Edward Vandyke, Michael P.
Roberts, Kenneth VanKoevering, Michael D.
Robinson, Gary VanSlambrouer, Clayton J.
Rosbeck, Gary L. Vasold, Robert F.
Rosenberg, Randall Vaughn, Billy W.
Rosenberry, David L. Verlin, Joseph
Rossell, Terry D. Vine, Terry J.
Rule, James L. Wakefield, Robert
Rushford, Andrew S. Walsh, John M.
Wasilchenko, Danny J. Wilsdon, William M.
Watson, James W. Wilson, Donald C.
Watters, Daniel Wissner, Dale R.
Weaver, Randy F. Witte, Charles A.
Wilbanks, Billy R. Wright, Kendall O.
Welch, Larry R. Wuolukka, Earl B.
Wendling, Randall C. Wuolukka, Rickey
Western, Gary R. Yeager, Roy
Wieland, Joel G. Yorch, Harry F.
Wierzbicki, James E. Yost, James G.
Wigent, Gary N. Ziemba, Walter
Wildfong, Wilbur D. Ziemer, Thomas H.
Williamson, George Zmich, Robert C.
APPENDIX C
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and
abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected con-
certed activities.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate, through agents at the
Michigan Employment Security Commission, job applicants
about their union background.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees and job ap-
plicants about their union sympathies and affiliations.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with the loss of jobs or
other reprisals because of their union support.
WE WILL NOT prohibit by rule or verbal order employees
from wearing union stickers and union buttons or other union
insignia on their hardhats and their clothing.
WE WILL NOT promulgate a no-solicitation policy and dis-
criminatorily enforce it against union solicitation, including the
discipline of employees.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against employees because of
their union activity by laying them off and failing to recall them
to their former jobs.
WE WILL NOT refuse to hire or consider for employment job
applicants for the positions as boilermakers, pipefitters, iron-
workers, carpenters, millwrights, electricians, sheet metal
workers, and operating engineers, because they are members or
sympathizers of the Union, or because they worked in estab-
lishments that had union contracts and maintain or discrimina-
torily apply a hiring policy which discriminates against sus-
pected union applicants or sympathizers.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD58
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer the
applicants for the positions as boilermakers, pipefitters, iron-
workers, carpenters, millwrights, electricians, sheet metal
workers, and operating engineers (listed in appendix A), em-
ployment in positions for which they applied, or if such posi-
tions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, and
make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suf-
fered by reason of the discrimination against them as set forth
herein and in the remedy section of the underlying decision.
And WE WILL make whole those employee-applicants listed in
appendix B for any losses they may have suffered by reason of
the discriminatory refusal to consider them for hire in the man-
ner described above in this Supplemental Decision and Order.
And WE WILL offer those employee-applicants who would have
been employed but for the unlawful reason to consider them for
hire, employment in the positions for which they applied or, if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privi-
leges to which they would have been entitled if they had not
been discriminated against by the Respondent. And further, WE
WILL make those applicants who would not he hired, whole for
their time expenses incurred in registering at the MESC.
WE WILL rescind or revise its preferential hiring policy (pol-
icy 303) so as to preclude any discrimination against applicants
because of their union background or sympathies.
WE WILL offer the pipefitters Larry Rose, Robert Cook, John
Corwin, Vince Galligan, Michael O’Hara, John O’Hara, Shawn
O’Hara, Allen Radle, Everett Woolsey, Dan Kaiserlian, Charles
Kaiserlian, Bruce Kaiserlian, and Doyne Woolsey employment
and make them and Donald Diekman whole for any losses they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them
in the manner prescribed in the remedy section of this decision.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to Donald
Diekman’s discipline and to the unlawful layoffs and notify the
employees that this has been done and that the discipline and
layoffs will not be used against them in any way.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O.
Joseph P. Canfield and Cynthia Beauchamp, Esqs., for the
General Counsel.
Michael C. Towers and William F. Kaspers, Esqs. (Fisher &
Phillips), of Atlanta, Georgia, for the Respondent.
Kenneth A. Knox, Esq. (Fisher & Phillips), of Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, for the Respondent.
Peter T. Kotula, Esq., of Detroit, Michigan, for the Attorney
General.
Michael J. Stapp and Mary Elizabeth Metz, Esqs. (Blake &
Uhlig, P.A.), of Kansas City, Kansas, for the Charging
Party.
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
KARL H. BUSCHMANN, Administrative Law Judge. By Order
of June 9, 2000, the Board remanded this case for further con-
sideration in light of FES, 331 NLRB 9 (2000), with orders to
prepare a supplemental decision as appropriate. As stated by
the Board, I issued a decision in this proceeding on October 27,
1995. On September 27, 1996, the Board remanded the case to
me for certain clarification of the Respondent’s hiring policy
and for appropriate guidance to remedy the unlawful discrimi-
nation. On February 24, 1997, I issued a supplemental decision
and on May 11, 2000, the Board issued its FES decision dealing
with refusal-to-hire and refusal-to-consider violations.
On August 18, 2000, I issued an order directing the parties to
show cause why my decisions are not in accord with FES, su-
pra, or to show what changes, if any, are necessary. The three
parties filed responses. In the General Counsel’s opinion, the
“evidence presented in the trial in this matter . . . satisfies each
of the tests announced in FES and Fluor Daniels,” that the
decision and supplemented decision addressed many of the
issues raised in FES, but that a specific finding is required “as
to whether the applicants listed on Addendum B to the Order
were qualified to perform the work and to match both the appli-
cants listed on Appendi[ces] A and B to the job openings filled
by Respondent during the relevant period.”
The Charging Party’s response states, inter alia:
. . . the Administrative Law Judge correctly found that those
discriminatees named in Appendix A to his decision are re-
fusal to hire discriminatees. However, Charging Party be-
lieves the Administrative Law Judge should not leave open
the issue of whether the remainder of the discriminatees con-
tained in Supplemental Charging Party Exhibit 19 are refusal
to hire discriminatees, to be determined in compliance.
In this regard, the Charging Party refers to 523 applicants,
including those applications which were submitted in bulk (CP
Exh. 19). The Charging Party observed that my decisions
properly established that “there were 202 positions available at
the Cadillac jobsite,” as supported by the number of employees
hired (CP Exh. 16). According to the Charging Party, the Sup-
plemental Decision also showed that the union applicants con-
tained in appendix A were experienced and qualified for the
positions available and that the applicants in appendix B had
experience and skills necessary for the jobs at the Cadillac job-
site, but the Charging Party urges a finding that all of the dis-
criminatees identified by the Charging Party have the required
training and experience relevant to the openings in question.
Finally, the Charging Party argues that all applicants should
have been classified as refusal-to-hire discriminatees.
The Respondent’s in his response took the position that the
decisions failed to comport with FES because the General
Counsel had failed to prove the qualifications of each alleged
discriminatee for any specific opening and failed to show that
each discriminatee possessed the necessary qualifications.
I have considered this case in the light of FES, as directed by
the Board, and I am satisfied that the General Counsel has met
the criteria for a discriminatory refusal-to-hire case in confor-
mity with FES,
(1) that the respondent was hiring, or had concrete plans to
hire, at the time of the alleged unlawful conduct; (2) that the
applicants had experience or training relevant to the an-
nounced 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
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 59
themselves pretextual or were applied as a pretext for dis-
crimination; and (3) that antiunion animus contributed to the
decision not to hire the applicants.
The Board stated that where the case involves numerous ap-
plicants “the General Counsel need only show that one appli-
cant was discriminated against to establish a refusal to hire
violation warranting a cease and desist order.” As articulated in
my decision and the Supplemental Decision, the record amply
supports such a finding regarding not only one but several ap-
plicants specifically identified and as a representative sampling
of the applicants listed in Appendix A. A finding of violation is
accordingly clear without any further elaboration. However,
assuming that the General Counsel sought an affirmative back-
pay and reinstatement order, the Board requires in FES that
the General Counsel must show at the hearing on the merits
the number of openings that were available, that the appli-
cants had the training or experience relevant to the openings,
and that antiunion animus contributed to the respondent’s de-
cision not to hire the applicants for the openings. Once the
General Counsel makes this showing, the burden shifts to the
respondent to show that it would not have hired the applicants
even in the absence of their union activity or affiliation.
I have, therefore, gone further and reviewed the entire re-
cord. In my reconsideration of this case in the light of FES, I
have attached as Appendix C a list of the 202 applicants who
were hired, showing the dates of their hire, their job titles, as
well as their skills. The purpose of this list is to show specifi-
cally that the Respondent was hiring or had concrete plans to
hire at the time of the alleged unlawful conduct, and that 202
openings were available in the trades for which that applicants
had submitted their applications and resumes. This category of
jobs included, boilermakers, pipefitters, millwrights, boiler-
maker and pipefitter helpers, carpenters, electricians, welders,
ironworkers, and helpers.
The Respondent’s own documentation shows a work force,
including supervisors, of approximately 270 employees making
up the trades, i.e., boilermakers, pipefitters, millwrights, opera-
tors, welders, ironworkers, electricians, and laborers (R. Exhs.
57, 58). These documents also show that the Respondent iden-
tified individuals among its work force who had a union back-
ground by, for example identifying the employee’s previous
employer as a union company. Nevertheless, the record, in-
cluding the Respondent’s own records, show that its hiring
practices, in particular the priority hiring policy produced a
nonunion work force which had few if any (certainly less than
50) employees with a union background, in spite of the Unions’
extraordinary efforts to find work for its membership at the
Cadillac jobsite.
I have also extensively reviewed and summarized in Appen-
dix A the applications1 of those candidates previously identified

1 Upon reconsideration of the issue, I have omitted several applicants
from App. A: David Angle, Babylas Bordages, Richard Doneth, Cletis
Meldrum, William Murray, Claire Mye, Ralph Shiffer, Nelson Wal-
laker, and Karl Weiss. The record shows that the applications of these
individuals were submitted in bulk by union organizers and that they
were not processed by the MESC.
in Appendix A to my supplemental decision who were refused
hire because of their union affiliations, showing the time of
their applications, the jobs to which they aspired, and in par-
ticular, their “training or experience relevant to openings.”
These applicants were fully considered by the Respondent or by
the MESC on behalf of the Respondent. As shown by the
summary, they were highly skilled and well qualified appli-
cants, i.e., boilermakers, pipefitters, welders, boilermaker help-
ers, carpenters, ironworkers, sheet metal workers, millwrights,
electricians, and helpers. The number of employees hired in
each of the trades met or exceeded the number of applicants in
those trades who were not hired.2 The finding is readily appar-
ent by a comparison of the individuals listed on appendices A
and C. This is particularly so considering that some applicants
had multicraft skills and were willing to be employed in any
capacity, while others, even though skilled in a trade, would
have accepted an unskilled job, such as a helper’s position. In
sum, it can safely be stated that for every applicant listed on
Appendix A, the Respondent had at least one opening. As
documented by the Charging Party, the Respondent frequently
hired candidates less qualified (as many as 70 who had little or
no experience in their job categories) than those it could have
employed from the list of highly qualified union applicants.
The record is replete with information and documentation
showing the applicants’ qualifications, including their testi-
mony, job applications, resumes and MESC records. It is ac-
cordingly clear that a remedy of reinstatement and backpay are
appropriate, as provided for in my decisions.3
Turning now to the more than 300 applicants listed on Ap-
pendix B, who, according to my previous determination, should
be considered refusal-to-consider applications, the Board held
as follows in FES:
To establish a discriminatory refusal to consider, pur-
suant to Wright Line, supra, the General Counsel bears the
burden of showing the following at the hearing on the
merits: (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 employ-
ment. 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 af-
filiation.
If the respondent fails to meet its burden, then a viola-
tion 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 considera-
tion for future openings and to consider them for the open-
ings in accord with nondiscriminatory criteria; and an or-
der to notify the discriminatees, the charging party, and the
Regional Director of future openings in positions for

2 The Respondent’s document shows show that 10 electricians were
hired which would more than match the number of applicants on App.
A (R. Exhs. 57, 58).
3 Where the number of applicants exceeds the number of available
jobs, the compliance proceeding would be the appropriate alternative.
Dean General Contractors, 285 NLRB 573 (1987).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD60
which the discriminatees applied or substantially equiva-
lent positions.
Here, the Respondent appeared to include in its hiring proc-
ess the individuals on Appendix B, by having the MESC proc-
ess the applications. But it was apparent that it did not seri-
ously consider them for employment, as stated previously. I
have reviewed the record and the qualifications of all the appli-
cants listed in Appendix B, showing the dates of their applica-
tions, their qualifications, including their last employer, as well
as their trade. Clearly, the number of applicants listed on Ap-
pendix B exceeds the number of openings, as shown on Appen-
dix C, particularly, where as here, the applicants on Appendix
A would have filled a number of the approximate 202 openings.
Having demonstrated that the applicants on Appendix B were
exceedingly well qualified to perform the work, and the Re-
spondent having failed to prove that it would not have hired
these candidates even in the absence of union considerations,
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.4
With such an extensive pool of skilled union craftsmen and
laborers available in the local area as reflected in appendices A
and B, only the most determined and concentrated effort by the
Respondent to violate the Nation’s labor laws, by excluding
these applicants, can account statistically for its nonunion work
force. The record, including a quick perusal of the Respon-
dent’s list of employees showing their “home state,” reveal one
of Respondent’s tactics. According to the Charging Party’s
statistical summary, more than 75 percent of the employees
came from out-of-state (GC Exh. 222; R. Exh. 124).
Finally, the following observations are in order as to the
identity of the union applicants listed on the appendices. Nei-
ther the General Counsel nor the Respondent have taken issue
with the identities of the individuals listed on Appendix A or B,
by suggesting for example that certain candidates were improp-
erly omitted or that others should have been added, except for
the Respondent’s comment that I “simply deleted from Appen-
dix ‘A’ the individuals who did not testify and placed them on
Appendix ‘B,’ and deleted from Appendix ‘B’ those individuals
who appeared on both Appendices.” This was done pursuant to
the Board’s concerns. The Charging Party, however, argues
with some justification that “all 523 discriminatees whose
names were set forth in Supplemental Charging Party’s Exhibit
19 should be found refusal-to-hire discriminates . . . and that all
of the discriminatees contained [there] have training or experi-
ence relevant to the openings in question.” This may be true,
but I have excluded bulk applications and find that the indi-
viduals listed on appendices A and B had the qualifications and
skills relevant the job openings.5 In my opinion, however, the
applicants in Appendix A testified about their attempts to gain
employment at the Cadillac project and revealed their efforts in

4 The Respondent’s conduct in this regard was certainly consistent
with its nearly contemporaneous actions in laying off highly skilled
employees already on its payroll solely because of union considera-
tions. The Respondent has certainly shown its reluctance and hostility
to adding even more union adherents.
5 This list does not include bulk applications, a process, which the
Respondent had not accepted in general. The Respondent’s rejection of
bulk applications without disparate treatment is not violative of the Act.
being considered by the Respondent by visits to the jobsite, by
telephone calls to the Company, by personally submitting their
applications to the Company or by being interviewed by the
MESC personnel. Their testimony showed that the Respondent
or the MESC on behalf of the Respondent, had scrutinized or
considered their applications. In spite of their efforts and their
high degree of expertise they were not hired, because of their
union affiliations. The applicants listed on Appendix B were
more remote in the application process. They registered with
the MESC, as directed by the Respondent, in the hope of find-
ing employment at the Cadillac project. It could be argued that
these applicants should also be treated as refusal-to-hire dis-
criminatees because they were not excluded from the hiring
process. Indeed, by registering with the MESC, they took the
steps required by the Respondent to be considered for jobs.
However, the record also shows that the MESC application
route was established as a formal hiring process, which the
Employer often ignored or failed to honor to the point that the
MESC ultimately discontinued its agreement known as the
custom referral agreement. I, therefore, concluded that the
Respondent failed and refused to even consider these applicants
for employment.
The Respondent’s main defense for its discriminatory con-
duct was its reliance on the Company’s priority hiring system
and its referral policy rather than a showing that the discrimina-
tees were unqualified. Indeed, on this record, the Respondent
would be hard pressed to make such an argument, given the
highly skilled and well-trained union applicants and the testi-
mony of Respondent’s expert witnesses Dr. Borcherding to the
effect that union trained trades are generally considered well
qualified. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Re-
spondent has failed to meet its Wright Line6 burden of showing
it would not have hired the discriminatees even in the absence
of their union affiliations.
The remedy set forth in my supplemental decision complies
with the Board’s following observations in FES:
By requiring that refusal to consider discriminatees be
offered jobs in such circumstances, the Board does nothing
more than exercise its statutory authority to make employ-
ees whole by “restoring the economic status quo that
would have obtained but for the company’s wrongful [ac-
tion].” NLRB v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co., 396 U.S. 258,
263 (1969). In this regard, restoring the status quo ante for
the victims of discriminatory refusals to consider by re-
quiring offers to them of subsequent openings which they
would have filled had they been given lawful considera-
tion for hire when they applied is analogous to requiring
that victims of unlawful refusals to hire or unlawful dis-
charges be offered the positions they would have occupied
in the absence of the discrimination against them.
I accordingly reaffirm my findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the recommended Order, as set forth in my prior deci-
sions. As proposed by the Charging Party, I agree that para-
graph 2(c) of the Order should be amended to require that no-

6 Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir.
1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982).
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 61
tice of present and future openings and positions be given to the
discriminatees, the Charging Party and the Regional Director.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A1
NAME DATEAPPLIED JOB EXPERIENCE LAST EMPL.
Aten, Kerwin D. 01-03-90 Heavy equip. operator (15 years’
exp.)
Heavy equip.; front-end loader; dozer;
elevated scraper
M&M Escavating
Bejcek, Thomas A. 01-27-92 Journeyman elect. (3 years’ exp.) Electric apprenticeship, master electrician Newkirk Electric
Benjamin, Kenneth 08-10-92 Pipefitting/welding (27 years’ exp.) Fitter, welder & apprenticeship exp. Carmac, Inc.
Biggs, Richard 01-27-92 Electrician (30 years’ exp.) Journeyman electrician R.W. Leak Electric
Bragan, James 09-04-92 Boilermaker; rigger, helper, pipefit-
ter, ironworker, rod buster (20 years’
exp.)
Boiler, tube, pipe welding, rigging, tube
volley, structural iron worker, mig, tig
welder, welding inspector
Intl. Boilermakers
Union
Card, John 07-15-92 Boilermaker (23 years’ exp.) Boilermaker, journeyman Monarch Welding &
Eng.
Childs, Gary 12-11-92 Welder/pipefitter (20 years’ exp.) State-licensed plumber & certified to
weld; pipefitting, plumbing & welding on
pipe
Wm. E. Walter Me-
chanical, Jonnie
Green
Cogswell, William 03-09-92 Boilermaker (22 years’ exp.) Welding, layout, rigging, milling motors
& stress relieving; boiler mechanic
Northern Boiler
Corradin, Timothy 02-04-92 Boilermaker, construction welder,
pipefitter (16 years’ exp.)
Certified welder, boilermaker; welding,
rigging, tube rolling, torch cutter; fore-
man; steward; certified on high pressure
boiler tube & pipe
Kalamazoo Boiler,
Northern Boiler
Custer, Lori Dawn 02-06-92 Construction, boilermaker, pipefitter
(4 years’ exp.)
Boilermaker apprenticeship training,
blueprint reading, welding & rigging
Northern Boiler
Danula, Harry 02-28-92 Boilermaker, boiler erection &
welder; pipefitter (18 years’ exp.)
Rigging, fitting, blueprint reading & lay-
out; boilermaker apprentice, certified
boiler tube welder; heli-arc, plasma arc
cutting & automatic burning machines
Combustion Engi-
neering Graver Tank
Co.
Donovan, Eugene 04-23-92 Ironworker, pipewelder, rigger (28
years’ exp.)
Welder, steel erection, ironworker Fluor Daniels Corp.
Drake, Billie 01-27-92 Sheetmetal (24 years’ exp.) Sheetmetal Twin Bay Sheet
Dudek, Michael 01-28-92 Electrician (14 years’ exp.) Electrician journeyman; electrical con-
struction
Lakeland Electric
Finnerty, Robert 02-19-92 Pipefitter (41 years’ exp.) Plumber Welded Construc-
tion, Northern
Plumbing
Gapen, Timothy 02-28-92 Boilermaker, fitter (30 years’ exp.) Certified welder, welding, boilermaker
tubes, repair
Monarch Welding &
Boiler Co.
Greenleaf, Harold 03-19-92 Boilermaker (16 years’ exp.) Welder & fitter; boilermaker, heli-arc
tubes, cutting, tube replacement, boiler-
maker maintenance
Northern Boiler
Griswold, James 01-28-92 Operating engineer (25 years’ exp.) Operating engineer Great Lakes
Griswold, Richard 01-28-92 Operating engineer (26 years’ exp.) Master mechanic; operated all phases of
cranes, equipment
Bailey Const.
Harju, David 01-28-92 Carpenter (35 years’ exp.) Carpenter, welder, cement finisher, pile
driver; rough & finish
Bradco Constr. Co.
Heiden, Kenneth 02-25-92 Boilermaker (18 years’ exp.) Certified welder, arc gouge, plasma arc,
milling machine, rolling motor, blueprint
reading, rig & tug; stainless, boiler insp.
Northern Boiler
Hubbard, Zane 01-27-92 Operator (15 years’ exp.) Welder, mechanic, operator Welded Const.
Jacobi, Dick 01-27-92 Carpenter (6 years’ exp.) Carpenter work Granger Construc-
tion
Klein, Douglas 01-27-92 Pipefitter/welder (20 years’ exp.) Pipefitter welder Map Mechanical
Klump, Franklin 03-26-92 Fitter, pipefitter (38 years’ exp.) Pipefitter; fitter layout Industrial Mach
Kruse, Jeffery 04-16-92 Carpenter (14 years’ exp.) Journeyman, carpenter Northern Michigan
Carpenters,
Zurn/N.E.P.C.O.

1 This list is based upon the testimony of the applicants, their applications for employment, their resumes, and MESC records, as well as General
Counsel’s and Charging Party exhibits (GC Exh. 223; CP Exh. 19).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD62
APPENDIX A (continued)
NAME DATEAPPLIED JOB EXPERIENCE LAST EMPL.
Kuznicki, Robert 02-25-92 Pipefitter, boilermaker (17 years’
exp.)
Boilermaker; weld & burn, mechanic Northern Boiler
Mec. Con.
Lambert, Roy 01-27-92 Ironworker (20 years’ exp.) Reinforcing, structural, rigging, ornamen-
tal, welding; ironworker foreman; read
blueprints
T.L. Steel Erection
Inc.
LeVasseur, Paul Electrician (11 years’ exp.) Master electrician Staff Electric &
Newkirk Electric
Lee, Mark 04-10-92 Pipefitter, welder, plumber Foreman, superintendent, pipefitter, jour-
neyman plumber; business agent, supervi-
sor, pipefitter, welder
Local 85, Plumbers
Pipe Fitters Union
Macy, Gary 11-29-90,
05-18-92
Millwright (6 years’ exp.),
Carpenter (20 years’ exp.)
Repair steam turbines, millwright inspect-
ing, welding, millwright
Zurn/N.E.P.C.O.,
Crittenden Construc-
tion
Mason, Thomas 01-01-93 Sheet metal worker (16 years’ exp.) Welding Twin Bay Sheet
Metal
Molitor, David 01-28-92 Ironworker/welder (6 years’ exp.) Reinforcing, structural, rigging, ornamen-
tal, welding, ironworker
Sorona Steel
Ostrander, Leo 07-15-92 Pipefitter (18 years’ exp.) Journeyman pipefitter; pipefitter, layout,
prep., install pipe
Carmack Corp.,
Combustion Engi-
neering
Pacola, John 01-01-92 Operator, heavy equip. operator (13
years’ exp.)
Heavy equip., grader operator, crane
operator, backhoe, dozer, operating eng.
Associated Pipe
Perez, Tony 02-06-92 Ironworker (24 years’ exp.) Ironworker, welding foreman, certified
welder, operator
General Motors
Seabrook Nuclear
Plont, John 03-07-89 Operating engineer (30 years’ exp.) Operating cranes, hook work, cable & hyd
machines
Skyline Erectors
Radtke, Marvin 01-27-92 Sheetmetal/welder (30 years’ exp.) Journeyman, sheetmetal worker, welder,
laying pipe, dock work & siding
Service Sheet Metal
Redner, Sean 02-11-92 Journeyman electrician, wireman
(4.5 years exp.)
Elect. installation; install at Cogen plants Zurn/N.E.P.C.O.,
Fluor Const. Int. Inc.
Richard, Gerald 10-17-92 Millwright (20 years’ exp.) Millwright, cert. welder, install machinery J.S. Albrarich Cont.
Co.
Salisbury, Jay 09-13-89 Plumber/pipefitter apprentice (3
years’ exp.)
Plumbing apprenticeship; htg. installation Four Winds
Saxton, Stanley 01-27-92 Sheet metal (22 years’ exp.) Gen. sheet metal; sheet metal all phases Schebler Co.
Schomisch, Ronald 11-26-91 Operating engineer (26 years’ exp.) Operating engineer Songer Corp., Duke
& Duke
Schoudt, Ronne 02-07-92 Generator, Co-Gen plant construc-
tion welder; combination boiler-
maker (22 years’ exp.)
Boilermaker, welding & apprentice
teacher; arc welding, high rigging, layout,
cutting/burning, fitup of metal; certifiied
tube welder
Kalamazoo Boiler
Co.
Shiblie, Basil 01-27-92 Pipefitter, plumber (3 years’ exp.) Pipefitter, plumber ABI Mechanical,
Northern Plumbing
& Heating
Shorkley, Henry M. 02-24-92 Boilermaker, foreman, welder Welding certificates, heli-aro & stick Monarch Welding,
Northern Boiler
Sivits, Paul 01-28-92 Pipefitter, plumbing (28 years’ exp.) Welding & master plumber; pipefitter VE & C
Smith, Walter 01-27-92 Journeyman; electrician (40 years’
exp.)
Journeyman electrician, construction ABB Combustion
Engineering
Taylor, Richard 05-04-92 Electrician (12 years’ exp.) Organizer; install conduit, pull wires,
industrial, electrical construction
IBEW Local 498
Taylor, Tom 03-06-92 Iron-metal worker (15 years’ exp.) Apprenticeship; journeyman ironworker;
reinforcing, structural, rigging, ornamen-
tal; certified welder, tie rods, erect iron,
read prints, foreman experience
Sonora Steel Co.
Valentine, Jonathan 02-26-92 Boilermaker/constr.; boilermaker or
ironworker, millwright, pipefitter,
sheetmetal (30 years’ exp.)
Certified tube welder, heli, stick, x-ray,
high carbon, blueprints & boilermaker
apprenticeship; MIG; mirror welding;
window welds; tube rolling specialist
API, Nicholson &
Hall
Van Dyke, Joe 01-27-92 Electrician (36 years’ exp.) High voltage splicers, welding, stress
cores, journeyman electrician; general
foreman; electrical work
Combustion Engi-
neering, Newkirk
Electric
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 63
APPENDIX A (continued)
NAME DATEAPPLIED JOB EXPERIENCE LAST EMPL.
Wendling, Randy
Charles
12-11-92 Pipefitter, plumber (7 years’ exp.) Steamfitter, licensed plumber Wm. Walker Me-
chanical Contractors
Westphal, Jeffrey 07-15-92 Build boiler, boilermaker (10 years’
exp.)
Boilermaker Northern Boiler
Woolworth, Wil-
liam
01-28-92 Ironworker (16 years’ exp.) Rods, structural welding, innershield, tig,
mig & stick; ironworker
Sonara
Wright, John 07-15-92 Boilermaker (20 years’ exp.) Rigging, rolling motors, grinders, air
tugers, plazma arc, air tools, chain falls;
boiler repair
Combustion Engi-
neering
APPENDIX B1
NAME DATEAPPLIED JOB EXPERIENCE LAST EMPL.
Adair, Larry P. 02-03-92 Welder, boilermaker;
ironworker
Ironworker/welder; conveyor work, overhead
cranes, millwright work, skilled trades; boilermaker
Ironworkers #25, &
Metro Industrial, Tri
County Steel
Adamczak, Mark A. 03-03-92 Construction worker,
laborer
Labor ACS & Fluor North
Shore Const.
Admets, James M. 05-06-92 Electrician Electrical construction; foreman Universal Systems
Ames, Terry L. 05-18-92 Electrician Electrician const., installation of conduit, wiring,
lighting
Essexville Elect. &
Nuacor, Inc.
Anderson, Paul D. 07-29-92 Operator Crane operator, dozer, hoe, backhoe, loader,
scraper, diesel hammer, truckdriver; heavy equip.
operator
Welded Const. Co. &
Miller Development
Andrews, James K. 05-26-92 Ironworker, welder Ironworker welder, structural steel, rerod, sheeting,
rigging; certified welder
Boldt Const. & Skyline
Erectors
Aplin, Russel H. 01-27-92 Millwright & constr. Millwright const., foreman, layout & mach; mill-
wright, carpentry const.
Criffender Const.
Armstrong, John D. 07-15-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter/plumber John E. Green
Armstrong Robert J. 04-20-92 Ironworker Certified welder, comm. drivers license, hi-lo op-
erator, mig welder; rigging foreman; heavy ma-
chinery movers; millwright
Bechtel Const.
Arndt, Anthony W. 02-19-92 Ironworker, welding Welding, torch, iron fabricating; iron erecting
buildings; welding, torch work, layout, blueprint
reading
Broad Vogt & Conant
Ashby, David L. 10-13-92 Welding; pipefitter Welder, pipefitter, tubewelder, pipewelder; all type
of welding, plumbing, millwright work
H. Murphy Bros.
Ball, Ronald 02-06-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker, welder & rigging; gen. foreman Hunter Corp.
Barnard, Dan Electrician Journeyman electrician; all equip. relating to trade MJ Electric
Barnhart, Craig C. 08-10-92 Sheetmetal Mig & stick welding Cooke Sheetmetal
Barr, Donald L. 04-21-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter/welder; arc welding The Stanley Carter Co.
Bartholomew, Charles 12-18-89 Maintenance me-
chanic help
Oiler Henkel McCoy
Bartz, Richard H. 02-18-92 Millwright Millwright Atlantic Plant Maint.
Bates, Dale M. 10-12-89 Operating engineer Dozer, backhoe, hydraulic crane, grader, scraper,
roller
Milboeker & Sons
Battle, James P. 01-28-92 Ironworker USAF 4 yrs. electronics; 1 yr. elect. school USAF;
ironworker bridge iron, rods & structural
Robinson Cartage Co.
Baudoux, Robert M. 04-20-92 Structural steel wkr. Welding; ironworker, ironworker foreman McGuire Steel
Bayne, Michael J. 02-11-92 Electrical Install conduit; pulling wire; handing fixtures,
install ground ring
Gibson Electric
Beal, Ivan S. 02-06-92 Boiler erection Boilermaker apprentice, aircraft armament repair;
rigging rube bundles; prepping tubes for welding;
boilermaker foreman; repairing boilermakers; in-
stall stainless shields
Northern Boiler Mech.
Beckwith, Michael D. 02-18-92 Structural steel wkr. Certified welding, for trucks, gen. mechanics, blue
print reading, rigging; mech. welding, foreman
McGuire Erectors

1 This list is based, inter alia, upon General Counsel’s exhibits (GC Exh. 223), Charging Party’s exhibits (CP Exh. 19), and Respondent’s exhibits (R.
Exh. 59).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD64
APPENDIX B (continued)
NAME DATEAPPLIED JOB EXPERIENCE LAST EMPL.
Bejcek, Phillip D. 05-06-92 Electrician Journeyman electrician; industrial elect. install. Swan Electric Co.
Bennett, John P. 05-13-92 Electrical, construc-
tion-heavy industrial
Welding, forklift, cherrypicker, ironworker, rebar,
structural; superintendent
Fru-Con Const.
Bennett, Rick D. 05-22-92 Pipefitter Plumber, pipefitter worked on gas, water, drain-
age lines; some welding; stick welding; master
licensed plumber
John E. Green Mech.
Contractor
Bennett, Rod E. 06-02-92 Plumber Journeyman plumber; no welding just pipefitting
& all phases of plumbing
J. Bennett & Sons
Plumbing
Benoit, John F. 01-27-92 Carpenter, operator Carpenter, heavy equip. operator; mechanical
trouble shooter; rough & trim work; journeyman
carpenter, backhoe, bulldozer
Carpenters Local 819
Berg, James 07-15-92 Boilermaker Rigging; blueprint reading, welding, apprentice-
ship & certificate
Monarch Welding
Binkley, Kevin E. 02-19-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Jacksonville Shipyards
Birgy, John R. 04-01-92 Welding/pipefitting Plumber’s license, welding & fitters apprentice-
ship; welder/pipefitting with construction
Mid State Plumbing
Heating
Bishop, George A. 04-07-92 Carpenter Carpenter; concrete forms; work doors & hard-
ware; layout work
Grand River Construc-
tion
Bishop, Maynerd A. 09-11-92 Insulation worker,
laborer
Heat & frost insulator; insulate boilers; pipes &
related machinery & equip.; refrig., piping &
equip.
Northern Boiler
Bock, Brent T. 01-28-92 Journeyman elect. Comm. & industrial elect. jobs, running conduit,
pulling wire, installing serv., motor controls &
reading blueprints, journeyman electrician
Thiel Electrical
Bock, William J. 01-28-92 Journeyman elect. Residential, comm. & industrial electrical work Smith Electric & Re-
frig.
Boerema, Randy D. 01-28-92 Sheetmetal journey. Roofer apprenticeship & sheetmetal apprentice-
ship; sheet metal; siding duct work heavy metal
Pelt Fab Inc.
Border, David E. 12-15-92 Pipefitter Experience on instruments & power houses; pipe-
fitter, fabricate & install various piping systems
Mapp Mechanical
Const.
Bostedt, James K. 02-04-92 Pipefitter Welder; install & maintain pipe systems Eichilay Corp.
Bourland, James E. 05-06-92 Electrician Electrician, industrial & commercial M.J. Electric
Bower, Joseph C. 05-12-92 Electrician Electrical construction Shaw Electric
Boyle, James E. 06-08-92 Laborer Construction labor Bradco Const.
Brennan, Timothy A. 06-23-92 Metalworker Ironworker Hardoway Const.
Bridget, Cleland 03-09-92 Boilermaker All boilermaker equip.; certified welder; high
pressures, rigging, general x-ray construction
Northern Boiler
Briggs, Richard A. 01-27-92 Electrician Electrical apprenticeship, elect. licenses; install
elect. systems comm. & residential installations
R.W. Leet Electric
Bryan, Giles D. 12-11-92 Fitter/welder/plumber Pipefitter; welder stick; x-ray welder WE Walters
Brydon, Kenneth D. 02-06-92 Boilermaker Welding, burning & move heavy equip.; built,
maintain power operating boilers, repair tanks,
pressure vessels, smoke stacks
Northern Boiler
Bublitz, Gary 07-14-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker, rigging, welding, grinding; laborer Acts
Buckingham, James
G.
05-18-92 Laborer, helper Plumbers helper; carpenters helper; scaffold
building, jackhammer, construction
Laborers Union
Bufe, Robert W. 02-21-92 Pipefitter/instrument
fitter
Instrument & material control; pipefit-
ter/instrument fitter, fabricate & install all pipes or
instruments & there tubing
Rust Engrg. Co.
Burger, David B. 03-06-92 Boilermaker, rigger Gen. boiler erection & repairs, mechanic, rigging
& welding; boilermaker apprentice; boiler fabrica-
tion; blueprint reading
N.B. Processing North-
ern Boiler
Burger, Fred 03-31-92 Pipefitter All phases of metal trades of powerhouse constr.;
boilermaker gen. foreman & superintendent;
certified TIG welder, master rigger
Northern Boiler & N.B.
Processing
Burnell, Russell 08-10-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter/welder Carma Con
Burt, Donald 12-10-92 Boilermaker Certified welder, pipefitter; weld boiler tubes,
some rigging
ABB CE Service
Byce, David H. 01-28-92 Sheet metal/welder License to install duct work; heating & cooling;
weld & fabricate
Cimco Inc.
Campbell, Christo-
pher J.
03-02-92 Construction boiler-
maker
Rigger, mechanic, heavy construction Faulkner Const. Co.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 65
APPENDIX B (continued)
NAME DATEAPPLIED JOB EXPERIENCE LAST EMPL.
Caplinger, Leslie A. 07-15-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker, welder; front-end loader Glic Inc.
Card, Michael 07-15-92 Boilermaker Tube & boiler repair, boiler stack erection, plate
& tube welder; rigging; tube rolling
Monarch
Card, Robert W. 07-15-92 Boilermaker Boiler erection; boilermaker, welding & mechanic Monarch Welding &
Eng.
Carlson, Janet E. 01-28-92 Welder/electrician Cert. welder, pipe & plate, mig, tig, for mild steel Hyre Electric
Carney, Thomas Lee 12-16-92 Journeyman/
steamfitter/pipefitter
Licensed journeyman plumber & teamfitter; pipe-
fitter; design, fabricate & install piping, gen.
foreman
ABB Combustion
Engineering
Caron, Timothy J. 01-28-92 Sheetmetal; welding
all sheetmetal
Certified energy mgt. person, testing & balancing
instructor, welder; sheet metal layout & installer
Pentecost Const.
Cascarelli, Andrew R. 05-14-92 Electrician Apprentice electrician comm. & residential Central Mich. Electric
Christophersen, Wal-
ter D.
05-07-92 Electrician Pipe running, wire pulling, pane installing Leet Electric
Clough, Ronald 02-10-92 Electrical Industrial electrical work W.T. Stege Co.
Cook, James D. 09-08-92 Welder; pipefitter
welder
Welder; layout of nozzles & welding; pipefitting;
pipewelding; bending, welding instrument weld-
ing, pipe hangers
American Vessel I
Coopshaw, Robert J. 01-27-92 Carpenter Apprentice schooling, welding, fab., carpentry Comstock Con.
Cosgrove, Patrick J. 09-04-92 Electrician Elec. resp. for all phases of wiring ini. resid. &
comm. & indust. bldgs., foreman & elect. contrac-
tor
MBM Electric
Cox, Ray L. 03-06-92 Carpenter Shoring, decking, footings, leadman; dozer, pet-
tybone, bobcat, backhoe
Fast Decks Inc.
Curtis, John 02-06-92 Pipefitter All phases of boilermaker work Northern Boiler
Cusack, Mike C. 02-11-92 Electrician All asp. of elect. trade-commer./resid. elec. hyd.,
panel, read blueprints
Leet Elect.
Dahl, Robert R. 05-08-92 Electrician Journeyman electrician; conduit, wiring, lighting,
MCC’s prints
R.W. Leet Elec.
Dahlgren, Laurence
C.
05-26-92 Construction worker Laborer, construction concrete, mason tender,
jackhammers, power buggie, mixers
Bralco Co.
Dahlvig, H. Ray 03-30-92 Pipefitter Plumbers & pipefitters apprenticeship training;
journeyman pipefitter; welder, licensed plumber,
certified welder
Flour Constructors Inc.
Davenport, David M. 04-28-92 Construction worker Cutting torch, operator, dozier, loader, backhoe,
dump truck, semi, air compressor
Local 25
Davenport, James A. 04-28-92 Welder Ironworker, welder, detail iron Ironworkers Local #25
Davis, Chester L. 03-23-92 Carpenter Carpenter; concrete forming, finish work, all
types of carpentry
Fast Decks Inc.
Davis, Steven A. 04-24-92 Construction worker Painter, construction, steel worker, carpenter Genasse Painting
Dehring, David J. 05-18-92 Pipefitter/welder Welder, journeyman carpenter, track cutting
torch’s, hand-grinding; certified arc welder; fab.
Bobit Leasing
Denman, Jacob P. 02-20-92 Welder/laborer Sheet metal worker & welder R&R Metal Engine
Denn, James R. Electrician Install all elect. equip., wiring, controls, lighting,
etc.
Des Voignes, Roy A. 01-27-92 Electrician Prog. controller, high voltage splicing, machine
repair, IBEW JIW, elect. license; Elect. Foreman
South Haven Elect.
Devos, David 04-13-90 Operating engineer Heavy equipment Associated Pipeline
Contractors, Inc.
Dickens Jr., Kary Lee 03-26-92 Pipefitter/welder Thread, bevel, welding pipes Faulkner Const.
Diebendetto, Mark 05-01-90 Equipment operator Crane operator, tugger, 3-ton forklift ACTS
Ditty, Douglas J. 12-04-89 Construction worker
I
CMC Catalytic Corp.
Dodge, William 03-19-92 Boilermaker 1 Welder, boilermaker, steel erection, blueprint
reading, piping turbines & heavy equipment
Northern Boiler Mech.
Douglas, James L. 05-07-92 Electrician Elect. const. John Miller Elect.
Dreyer, Leonard R. 01-29-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter, some welding, hangers; all types of
machinery
Sycamore Eng.
Duchon, Lawrence J. 04-09-92 Pipefitter Plumber; foreman ABI Mech Inc.
Eberle, Kenneth W. 03-09-92 Plumber, pipefitter Master plumber, pipefitting, water treatment &
boiler instructors license
ABJ Mach Const.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD66
APPENDIX B (continued)
NAME DATEAPPLIED JOB EXPERIENCE LAST EMPL.
Edmondson Jr., Dale 04-09-92 Pipefitter Welding, pipefitting, fabrication, plumbing Manistee Welding &
Piping
Edmondson Sr., Dale
E.
04-21-92 Pipefitter apprentice Steamfitter; steamfitter foreman Mainstee Welding
Edstrom, David K. 04-06-92 Journeyman electrician Class 3 electricians license, welder; journeyman
electrician; foreman
Newkirk Electrical Asso.
Inc.
Erickson, Doyle 02-04-92 Welding Pipewelder; repair boilers, welding of pipe &
plate; arc welding, rigging, fabricate duct work
Northern Boiler
Fiedler, James 02-13-92 Pipefitter/plumber Work exp.–install stainless steel pipe & supports,
hangers, instrument tubing
E.D. Lilly
Field, John W. Pipefitter Plumbing, heating & pipefitting; tube bender U.A. Local 85
Finney, Rich C. 07-15-02 Pipewelder Pipewelder W. Soule
Finout, Linda L. 04-09-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter, welder, x-ray welding, rigging, install
new pipe on high line, passed bend welding test
Mainstee Welding
Ford, William G. 05-08-92 Welder, ironworker Welder, mechanic, heavy equip. operator, truck-
driver; journeyman structural iron worker
Hi-Tech Electric
Frank, Charles L. 04-09-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter, instruments Northshore Const.
Freier, John E. 01-27-92 Sheetmetal/welder Fab. & install, ind. & comm. duct, certified in mig
stick & heli arc welding; Bay City appr. school
Sheet Metal Local
Frontiera, Walter M. 12-30-91 Electrician Electrician; run conduit Taylor Electric
Frose, David L. Welder/sheet metal Sheet metal mech; duet, framing Pentecost Const. Co.
Gage, Richard L. 01-29-92 Ironworker Welder, burner, rigging, machinery Bradco Co.
Garcia, Robert 12-11-92 Steamfitter/welder Training in welding; pipefitter; welder; plumber Boldt Const. Co.
Garrison, Ralph 07-15-92 Pipefitter/welder License master plumber; welder; plumber; fitter,
layout form, print install
UA Local 85 Plumb-
ers/Fitters
Gauld II, Gale F. 01-06-92 Operator Hyd. crane, loader, dozer, backhoe; welder, crane
operator, fork truck
MA Mortenson
Gauld, Jerry 01-28-92 Operator/dozer Dozer, scraper, loader Lloyer Inc.
Gave, Edward W. 12-19-90 Electrician Electrician Swan Elec. Co. Inc.
Getting, Gerald D. 01-27-92 Ironworker; journey-
man rod buster
Ironworkers apprenticeship; reinforcing, struc-
tural, rigging, ornamental welding
Robinson Cartage
Gibbons, Thomas R. 01-28-92 Electrical/journeyman
Class 3
Run electrical pipe, assemble lighting, pull wire
Gilbert, Scott J. 02-26-92 Steelworker Ironworker Acker Steel
Gillman, William J. 12-15-92 Pipewelder/fitter Construction, pipefitting, welding & plumbing Faulkner Construction
Gillow, Dennis H. 10-10-91 Crane operator Work exp.–crane operator; equip. operator; tower
crane operator; superintendent; foreman
Schiffer Mason Const.
Gleason, Todd M. 06-01-92 Pipefitter Ironworker, welder, fabricator, layout iron, crane Steel/Con/SCI
Gleason, Winston G. 06-01-92 Steelworker Certified welder, heavy rigging, alignment, weld-
ing, burning, layout, fab., forklift, overhead crane
Pres-Tec. Inc.
Glynn, Michael P. 01-27-92 Equipment mechanic Mechanic, dozers, graders, scraper, cranes Holloway Const.
Godbold, Larry 04-28-92 Electrician Electrician; all electrical construction equip. United Engineers
Gollach, Raymond
D.
02-06-92 Welder Welder, boilermaker, gen. foreman Northern Boiler
Gonyon Sr., Gary J. 02-06-92 Welder Mechanic & welder; boilermaker R. Taylor Bids
Gottleber, Dan R. 05-06-92 Electrician Electrical construction Thiel Electric
Green, Scott G. 05-01-92 Pipefitter Ironworker, welder, mechanic Local 25
Griffin, Gerald D. 02-12-92 Pipefitter Boilermaker welder, gen. boiler repair Northern Boiler
Groth, Bradley G. 05-13-92 Pipefitter ARC & TIG welding, fab., repair, journ. welder Brad Groth Self Employed
Grzesiak, Patrick H. 01-28-92 Sheet metal worker Sheetmetal, install HVAC, duct work Beth Bros.
Guenthardt, Gerald 04-20-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter, welder; ARC-TIG Manistee Welding Piping
Guertin, David 05-15-92 Electrician Journeyman elect.; install elect. fittings, pull wire Somes Electric
Guy, Michael D. 01-28-92 Electrician All phases of electrical work, substation tech.,
Michigan State 4 J. license
L K Comstock
Hackett, Patrick J. 11-30-89 Carpenter Finish carpenter; carpenter Comstock Const.
Hagerty, Richard 01-04-93 Pipefitter Plumber; pipefitter, blueprints, install piping, pipe
welding
Carmac Const.
Hall, Ricky A. 05-21-92 Electrician Journeyman elect.; install wire, conduit, equip.;
repair springs
IBEW Local 107
Hamilton, Bradley E. 04-09-92 Ironworker, Welder Ironworker; ironwork detail foreman; blueprint
reading, structural, certified welder
Precision Surveillance
Corp.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 67
APPENDIX B (continued)
NAME DATEAPPLIED JOB EXPERIENCE LAST EMPL.
Hamilton, Harry K. 04-09-92 Ironworker Ironworker Precision Surveillance
Corp.
Hamilton, Steven R. 03-10-92 Metal Worker Cat, bobcat, forklift, front-end loader, tractor;
ironworker, construction, carpenter, boilermaker
Broad Vogt & Conant
Hamilton, Terry L. 05-20-92 Steelworker Structural steelworker Sherman Co.
Hanel, Donald 04-07-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter welder UETC-A/Catalytic
Hansen, David R. 11-12-92 Electrician Journeyman electrician; conduit Davis Elect/Contractors
Hardman, John L. 01-27-92 Crane operator; operating
heavy equip.
Crane operator; all cranes OOCG
Hardy, Charles J. 08-10-92 Ironworker Journeyman iron worker; iron worker, rod
buster, rigger, heavy hauler
D.A. Corbin
Harmon, Douglas
C.
01-27-92 Journeyman electrician,
const. electrician
Electrician appr., cable splicer, service truck,
elect., instrum., line work, ind. estimating; job
foreman
Newkirk Electric
Havens, Raymond 07-15-92 Pipefitter/Welder/
Plumber
Master plumber, journeyman pipefitter & weld-
ing, fab. & installation of piping & equip.
Eron & Gee Const.
Hawk, Robert A. 02-21-90 Electrician Journeyman; electrician, run conduit, pull wire Waggoner Electric
Haynes, Alan A. 02-27-92 Electrician Journeyman electrician; run conduit, pull wire,
install light fixture, read prints
J. Ranck Electric
Hazen, Tim A. 08-10-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter/welder Valley Mechanical
Heistand, Russell
W.
08-27-90 Electrician Electrician M.J. Electric
Helminiak, Dale E. 03-03-92 Construction worker Front loader, fork lift, bob cat, jack hammer,
power tools
A-C & S
Herek, Keith A. 01-27-92 Welder/pipefitter Welder/pipefitter; all phases of pipefitting;
certified welder
P.S.I.
Herkelrath, Dennis
L.
02-26-92 Welder, laborer Iron work, welder, laborer Austin Co.
Herwick, Keith R. 02-03-92 Boilermaker Assembly boilers, tanks, vats according to blue
prints; certified welder; experience rigger
Northern Boiler
Hintz, Gregory A. 08-10-92 Boilerwork Welding, rigging, fitting, tube welding Combustion Engineering
Hissong, Forrest C. 05-26-92 Welder Rod buster; labor structural; welder, rigging Bradco Const. Inc.
Holmes, Donald L. 01-27-92 Carpenter Carpenter skill, cement finishing, pile driver;
fixtures; drywall; carpenter work; union carpen-
ter; form work; some framing & drywall
Conlon Const.
Holmes, Ross D. 05-21-92 Electrician Run ridged pipe, pull wire, wiring, electrical
serv.
Stone-Webster Co.
Hord, Dooly E. 03-17-92 Construction pipefit-
ter/welding
Pipefitting, welding, inst. welding; start-up
testing, heating
Oscar J. Boldt Co.
Hubbard, John 07-15-92 Boilermaker Work exp.–years of serv. & certified welder;
certified welder & mechanic; tube welder; boil-
ermaker
Combustion Eng.
Hubbell, Robert S. 05-06-92 Electrician Electrical supervisor; electrician, install conduit,
lighting, electrical terminating
AK Industrial Contrac-
tors, Inc.
Huff-Gonzales,
Juanita L.
03-20-92 Electrician Welding, electrical, acetylene, torch, 2 tone
winch
Schindler Hought Eleva-
tor Co.
Iannuccilli, Nick 02-06-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker, weld tubes, iron, roll rubes, hang
iron, read prints, mig, tig, arc welding
Northern Boiler
Ingle, Darren R. 05-05-92 Journeyman electrician;
electrician
Specializing in all aspects of electrical maint. &
industrial aspects; journeyman electrician
M&J Electric
Itzen, Daniel F. 04-16-92 Carpenter Carpenter Townsend & Bottom
Ivey, George 08-24-92 Boilermaker welding; boil-
ermaker
Boilermaker welder; x-ray weld; heli-arc; certi-
fied welder
Detroit Boiler
Jackson, Fay L. 01-28-92 Operating engineer Bulldozer, motor grader, backhoe loader; journ. Holloway Const. Co.
Jackson, Robert W. 10-17-90 Millwright Millwright, carpenter, pour concrete Rust Engineering
Jipping, Arie 01-27-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter; journeyman Rochester Product
Johnson, David M. 02-19-92 Welder Ironworker; journeyman ironworker Johnson Steel Fab Inc.
Johnson, Gerald 05-07-92 Electrician Electrician construction & maintenance Belgsco Electric
Jones, Heath A. 06-01-89 Construction worker Wiring, beading, conduit, labor, clean-up; press
operator, truckdriver
Remus Electric Co.
Jones, Luther A. 01-28-92 Journeyman Electrician Rough & trim; layout drywall; cabinetry; ceil-
ing, grid & tile; welder, equip. operator, jour-
neyman
M-J Electric
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD68
APPENDIX B (continued)
NAME DATEAPPLIED JOB EXPERIENCE LAST EMPL.
Kanouse, Forrest L. 05-08-92 Electrician Electrical license; wireman, run conduit, pull
wire, terminate wires
NewKirk Elec.
Kapplinger, Jarvis 03-06-92 Pipefitter Boilermaker, certified in pressure & x-ray
welding & heavy rigging
Northern Boiler Processing,
Inc.
Kelley, Albert W. 12-10-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter, apprenticeship Flour
Kelly, Gerald L. 02-10-92 Pipefitter License journeyman plumber & pipefitting Wares & Son
Kendall, Ronald F. 10-23-89 Journeyman
combo/welder
Welding; arc, tig, mig, & gas Manpower Four Winns
Kincaid, Herman C. 05-13-92 Pipefitter Plumbing/heating; pipefitter Milan Plumbing & Heating
King, Gerald H. 04-14-92 Electrical-constr. Electrician; foreman Alpha Elec.
Kitchen, Wallace 03-02-92 Carpenter Footing & bldg. comm.; gen. for.; carpenter
work
Construction Specialist Inc.
Klele, Mike 02-06-92 Electrician Electrician construction Shaw Electric
Kline, Donald 09-28-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter Scope
Knapp, Steve 02-13-92 Steelworker Welding, rigging, all ironworker skills Skyline Erectors
Koeuering, Gary L. 05-04-92 Electrician Electrical foreman; electrician M.J. Electric
Koscielecki, Daniel W. 08-28-92 Steelworker Welding Skyline Erectors
Koscielecki, Kevin M. 03-17-89 Carpenter Built pope bldgs. plumber/pipefitter apprentice Merritt Poe Bldg.
Koscielecki, Robert S. 11-27-91 Welding Welding, mechanic CBI Services Inc.
Kosnik, Paul E. 01-28-92 Electrician/Welder Electrical, welding, heavy equip.; layout, oper-
ate backhoe & dozer; certified MIG, TIG,
ARC–cutting structural steel; electrical appren-
tice
M.C.V.
Kraenzlein, Gerald 07-15-92 Boilermaker Journeyman boilermaker Northern Boiler
Krajkiewcz, Paul A. 05-21-92 Journeyman elect. IBEW apprenticeship, journeyman electrician Newkirk Electric Assoc.
Inc.
Kravako, Timothy C. 02-04-92 Pipefitter Boilermaker, welder, mechanic Northern Boiler
Krieger, David L. 01-28-92 Sheet metal Sheet metal welder; fitting duct work; welding ABB Maint. Inc.
Kriesche, Dennis 05-19-92 Pipefitter Welding; install tubing, piping M&M Mechanical
Kroll, Ray F. 02-03-92 Pipefitter Plumber’s license; pipefitter Johny Grover
Kuriger, Terrence W. 02-13-92 Welder, metal worker Welding stick, structural, braising work, rod-
buster
Skyline Erectors Inc.
LaForest, Gary T. 02-06-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker, welder, high rigger, layout &
steel fabrication
Boilermaker 1
LaForest, Paul R. 02-03-92 Boilermaker Plasma cutting, tube rolling, rigging, fit-up &
layout; boiler repair
Pentecost Const.
Larson, Howard O. 07-29-92 Heavy equip. operator Run payloader; boom truck, dozer, forklift,
dump truck, low boy, CDL’s driver’s license,
road boring, small heavy crane; 580 case back-
hoe
Bradco Const.
Larson, Larry L. 09-10-92 Boilermaker Pipewelder, mech. rolled tubes, welder mech. House of Flavors
Leatherman, Michael
D.
03-11-92 Steelworker/welder Welding, arc, MIG, TIG; steel erection Pioneer Const. Inc.
Lee, Tommy 06-23-92 Boilermaker Welding burning, rigging & supervisor exp.;
boilermaker, foreman
Boilermakers 169
Leenhouts, James D. 05-07-92 Electrician Electrician, install wire controls Motor Shop Elec. Const.
Leitner, Jeff S. 01-27-92 Sheet metal Sheet metal layout, field installation, welding;
install sheet metal duct systems
Shebleco Co.
Letherer, John R. 12-11-92 Plumbing/pipefitting Master plumber, class C heating license; pipe
work, supervisor
United Plb. & Htg. System
Lewis, Dale A. 02-24-92 Boilermaker/
welder
Certified welder, rigg & read blueprints; boil-
ermaker apprenticeship; welding, rigging, tube
rolling, blueprint reading
ABB Brown Boveri Maint.
Long, Gaines 07-15-92 Boilermaker Certified welder, fix/weld/erect metal, sales,
management, boilermaker helper
Monarch
Louzon, Lawrence R. 02-06-92 Boilermaker/
welder
Boilermaker apprenticeship, welding, foreman;
carbon & stainless steel; MIG & TIG; manual
stick; burning & welding machines; high rig-
ging; connecting & fitting steel
Atlas Boiler
Lovell, Kevin 01-29-92 Operator Operation engineer Crittenden Const.
Lyle, Christopher 02-03-92 Pipefitter Welder; pipewelder JE Johnson Inc.
Lynn, Rodney M. 05-07-92 Electrician Foreman, electrician, run conduit, install light-
ing, fixtures
R.W. Leet Electric Inc.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 69
APPENDIX B (continued)
NAME DATEAPPLIED JOB EXPERIENCE LAST EMPL.
Macintyre, Craig D. 01-28-92 Sheetmetal worker Good in the air, ironworker apprenticeship M.B.M.
Macy, Gilbert W. 06-02-92 Steelworker; iron-
worker
Journeyman ironworker, rerod installer,
welder, structural steel
Crittenden Const.
Mansfield, James R. 06-04-92 Ironworker Foreman, journeyman ironworker D.A. Corbin Contracting
Marckini, Joseph R. 01-28-92 Sheetmetal; welder GMAW, GTAW, SMAC, welding in all posi-
tions, drywall, journeyman in sheetmetal,
apprentice welder; HVAC systems
Tweet/Garot
Marshall, Ed 03-02-92 Ironworker Ironwork, lay duct for cat walk, welding
Marshall, Lee N. 05-29-92 Ironworker Ironworker, welding, welder cutting torch,
reinforcing steel; forklift, reinforcing steel
Vander Raddel Const.
Marshall, Patrick 02-05-92 Welding, pipefitter Construction, welding skills of mig, tig &
stick; Welding, mechanical work on boilers,
repair, installlation according to blueprints
Atlas Boiler Co.
Mater, Del H. 05-07-92 Electrician Journeyman electrician construction; supervi-
sor
R.W. Leet
Mattis, Marshall F. 02-03-92 Carpenter Carpenter, form for cement, rough & fin.
carpenter
Bradco Const. Inc.
McAlpine, Jack 07-15-92 Construction worker;
boilermaker
Welding, fit-up, grinding, boilermaker, pipe-
welder, helicopter mechanic; mechanic
Monarch Welding & Engi-
neering
McCarry, Patrick W. 05-21-92 Carpenter apprentice Carpenter apprentice; tieing rerod, welding Grand Transfer Construc-
tion
McDonald, John A. 02-25-92 Boilermaker Welder, rigging, burning & layout; boiler-
maker, stickwelding heli-arc
Northern Boiler Co.
McEntaffer, Kevin J. 05-05-92 Electrician High voltage terminations & splices, elect.
licenses, apprenticeship; journeyman electri-
cian; foreman
Leet Electric
McGee, Timothy J. 01-28-92 Millwright Jr. millwright, installlation of heavy equip.,
conveyors, tubing, etc.
Songer Const. Co.
McKenna, Patrick J. 12-11-92 Welding/pipefitting Journeyman pipefitter & welder Sheek
McLary, Terry A. 02-11-92 Electrician Electrician, welder Herzel Beuler
McMillen,Ronald W. 05-11-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter King Nursing Centre
McNees Jr., Homer J. 03-09-92 Metalworker Ironwork, tied rods, welding, read prints,
cutting torch, rigging, rodbuster; rebar place-
ment, structural steel
Schweitzaer Co.
McPherson, Diana L. 03-02-92 Construction worker Const., forms, roofing, framing, siding, layout,
blueprints, drills, saws, welding-stick; ship-
ping, receiving, purchaser
Ideas in Motion, Inc.
McQuiston, Jeffrey D. 12-14-92 Plumbing/steamfitter Apprentice; pipefitter, install boiler system,
rigging, welding
Map Mechanical
Mead, Paul D. 04-28-92 Electrician; journey-
man inside wireman
Install equipment, cable, wire molding R.W. Leet Electric Inc.
Melius, Rodney 02-05-91 Pipefitter Pipefitter, welder U.E. & C Catalytic
Merry, Max O. 01-28-92 Operator; heavy equip.
operator
Dozer loader, grader, backhoe; foreman Fitzsimmons Mfg.
Meter, Francis J. 07-21-92 Electrician Cable splicer, foreman, welding, boiler repair,
plumbing, heating, cooling
N.G. Gilbert Corp.
Milks, Lee 05-12-92 Electrician Journeyman elect., gen. foreman, terminating
electrical equip.
M&J Electric
Miller, Charles W. 10-30-92 Laborer Construction laborer Boradco Construction
Miller, Don L. 09-17-92 Carpenter Carpenter & labor framing spec, roughneck for
oil rig, equip op, dozer op, cutting torch, iron
welder, arc welding
Northern Contractor
Miller, Mark W. 04-21-92 Electrician Electrician, install conduit, control cabinets,
electrical inspector
Pinetec
Montie, Floyd L. 07-15-92 Boilermaking Years of service & certified welder; welding,
burning, rigging, connecting iron
Boilermakers Local #169
Moore, Michael J. 04-22-92 Electrician apprentice Apprentice electrician; construction, remodel-
ing
Schuberg Elec. Services
Moreau, Daniel J. 05-04-92 Elect./welder; elect.;
pipefitter welder
Band saw, drill press, ironworker & overhead
crane, electrician license; all phases of elect.
work
MJ Electric
Morris, Marvin S. 09-28-90 Electrician Electrician Morris Mfg.
Mosher, Ronald E. 04-02-92 Pipefitting/welding/
plumbing
Plumbing, pipefitting, pipewelding I.M.C.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD70
APPENDIX B (continued)
NAME DATEAPPLIED JOB EXPERIENCE LAST EMPL.
Mosher, Timothy J. 05-28-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter, carpentry, plumbing apprentice, la-
borer, builder
J.D. Plumbing & Heat-
ing
Mosher, William C. 01-28-92 Sheetmetal/welder Welding skills, stainless & carbon stick, welding
certificate; sheetmetal foreman
ABB MI
Murchie, Michael J. 01-27-92 Sheetmetal/welder Sheetmetal, layout installer, fabrication, welder Cooke Sheet Metal
Murphy, Greg 02-04-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter, welder, layout Carmac
Myers, Danny L. 12-11-92 Pipewelding B.T.J., pipefitter & welder; welder Tibbetts Plumbing &
Heating Co.
Nelson, Russ D. 01-29-92 Electrician Electrician, comm., residential & comm. wiring,
building maintenance
Nelson Electric
Nemethy Sr., Steve R. 01-24-92 Carpenter Carpenter; carpenter equipment Carvier Const. Co.
Nestle, James E. 05-06-92 Electrician Journeyman electrician, comm., ind., residential Floor Const.
Nolan, David B. 11-08-91 Heavy Equip. Oper. Heavy equipment operator Hinkle & McCoy
Norton, Larry 05-18-92 Electrician Electrician, journeyman, foreman Alpine Electric
Nye, James 10-20-92 Pipewelder Pipewelder, stick, heli-arc, tig, x-ray welder Tibbetts Mech.
O’Hare, Michael J. 04-28-92 Pipefitter Piping super., piping foreman, plumber, pipefitter Frucon Const.
Paisley, William H. 05-12-92 Electrician Electrical construction Shaw Electric
Payne, George 07-15-92 Boilermaker helper Welding & fitting; boilermaker welding & form-
ing
ABB
Peckstein, Karl W. 02-06-92 Boilermaker; pipefitter Welder, rigging, boilermaker Northern Boilers
Peer, Samuel T. 02-06-90 Pipefitter Plumber/pipefitter Fluor Const.
Peil, Jess A. 02-06-92 Electrician Journeyman electrician; all elect. tools & equip. Laibe Electric Co.
Peil, Tim A. 02-06-92 Electrician Electrician, comm. & residential; supervisor IBEW
Pepera, Randall J. 01-29-92 Welding, rigging Welding, rigging, cutting fab., iron wk, sheeting Bladco Const.
Pepera, Richard S. 01-29-92 Ironworker, welding Welding, burning, foreman, certified welder Manistee Welding
Peterson, Alan S. 10-16-92 Pipefitter/welder Piping layout, installlation, weld with heli-arc or
stick; pipefitter, plumbing, welding
Mainstee Welding
Peterson, Scott A. 02-11-92 Electrician Elect. wk. & layout, pulled wire, ran pipe team,
welding
AKIC
Pierce, Kenneth W. 02-03-92 Electrician Class 3 elect. license, confined space entry &
safety operations officer; hand tools, earth mov-
ers, all machinery; foreman electrician
G.W. Electric
Platt, William D. 01-28-92 Sheetmetal wkr.; weld-
ing/sheetm. wkr.
Certified welder; sheetmetal worker/welder Mechrrall Inc.
Potter, Burton R. 01-28-92 Sheetmetal worker Welder; sheetmetal mech. Service Metal Co.
Powers, Gregory 11-31-90 Operator Heavy equip. operator; oiler Operating Engineers
Local 324
Purchase, Roge A. 05-05-92 Electrician Condo wiring, journeyman elect., foreman-school
house wiring, op. own contracting bus.
D&S Electric
Rabach, William 02-06-92 Boilermaker, rigger Certified welder & rigger; boilermaker, repair
boilers, welding, rigging
Northern Boiler
Radden, Rex C. 01-28-92 Carpenter Master carpenter; labor foreman; forklift Bradco Co.
Radtk, Marion D. 01-27-92 Steelmetal worker Sheetmetal Twin Bay Sheet Metal
Raetz, Rick R. 12-11-92 Pipefitter/welder Pipefitter & welder Valley Mechanical
Contracting
Randal, Michael C. 05-18-92 Laborer, const. wkr. Labor; labor foreman; operator Fisher Const.
Reed, Richard C. 05-06-92 Electrician Electrician Ferndale Elect.
Reeves, Roger E. 01-29-92 Pipefitting helper Concrete, carpentry, heavy equip. operator Self-Employed Farmer
Renigard, Donald H. 01-28-92 Journeyman wireman;
electrician
Master license, HT2 air conditioner, refrigerator,
fiber optics, boiler operator license; elect. const.
Thiel Electric
Reynolds, Gregory S. 01-27-92 Sheetmetal welder Welding skills in sheet metal; fabricating, weld-
ing
Tweet Garet
Ricards, William 07-15-92 Boilermaker Journeyman boilermaker, rigger steel connector,
welder mechanic, layout man, foreman & struc-
tural welder; certified welder
Boilermaker Local 169
Richardson, William
J.
04-07-92 Laborer, operator Mason tender, backhoe labor, forklift operator Strauss Masonry
Richmond, Roderick 05-12-92 Electrician Electrician; installer Waggother Electric
Riedel, Terry W. 03-23-92 Sheetmetal worker Journeyman, install duct work, sheetmetal fabri-
cation & installation
Climatech Inc.
Rienas, Robert D. 05-04-92 Carpenter Trim carpentry, outdoor furn.; res. framing, trim;
drywall; metal studs; cement forms; demolition;
trim work & fixture assembly; carpenter
Rokes Const.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 71
APPENDIX B (continued)
NAME DATEAPPLIED JOB EXPERIENCE LAST EMPL.
Rivette, Matthew 04-08-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter; plumber; journeyman pipefitter, fab.,
installation of piping sys.; foreman; gen. foreman
John M. Jacobs
Plumbing/Heating
Roberson, Ronald D. 02-05-92 Pipefitter Welder, rigger Northern Boiler
Roberts, Edward 03-26-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter John M. Jacobs
Roberts, Kenneth 06-08-92 Steelworker Fence/gate installer, wdk shut down as concrete,
iron worker steel erection apprentice
Couturier Iron Craft
Inc.
Robinson, Gary 01-24-92 Pipefitter/welding Welding, pipefitting, stainless steel pipe welder,
certified pipefitter
Philip-Getschow
Rosbeck, Gary L. 02-18-92 Millwright Millwright Alandtic Plant Matain
Rosenberg, Randall 08-14-91 Electrician JIW electrician, all types of electrical work Newkirk Electric
Rosenberry, David L. 12-10-92 Pipefitting Pipefitter, repair valves, replace piping British Petroleum
Rossell, Terry D. 03-13-89 Heavy equip. oper. Heavy equip. operator, highway const. D.J. McQuestion Sons
Inc.
Rule, James L. 04-29-92 Electrician New const. R.W. Leet
Rushford, Andrew S. 01-31-92 Electrician apprentice Electrical apprentice; ridig conduit; forklift, hi-lo Milbrandt Electric
Salois, James 09-09-92 Operator Crane & picker exp.; heavy equip. operator, crane
operator, dozer
B.C. Hendrick
Sandelius, Stanley J. 11-27-89 Electrician Master electrician W. T. Stege Co.
Sasse, William G. 01-28-92 Sheet metal Sheetmetal work ABB
Sawyer, Thomas P. 02-03-92 Operating engineer Crane operator; operating engineer Northern Boiler Inc.
Scanlon, Gerald K. 01-27-92 Sheetmetal/welder Sheetmetal Transco
Schaffer, Jeffrey 08-17-92 Pipewelder/fitter Certifications in tube welding, rigging, etc.; boil-
ermaker, layout, fabrication
A.R.B. Combustion
Eng.
Schaub, Matt R. 04-13-92 Electrician apprentice Electrician apprentice; elect. work–new constr. Newkirk Electric
Schaub, Robert 03-05-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter, plumber, layout, high pressure Bishop
Schutt, Michael J. 05-05-92 Electrician Installation of electrical equip.; elect. construction M. J. Electric
Scott, David A. 05-05-92 Operator Operating engineer Bourdow Trucking
Sellers, Timothy R. 10-24-91 Laborer, helper Application of painting materials J.W. Krause
Sharp, Robert A. 01-24-92 Carp./res. or comm.. Carpenter apprenticeship; truckdriver M.S. Carriers
Sharp, Terry L. 06-12-92 Pipefitter Fitter, welder, piping Carmac Const.
Sherven, Norman J. 12-11-92 Pipefitter Plumber & pipefitter; crew foreman Valley Mechanical
Contracting
Shively, Howard D. 02-10-92 Pipefitter/welder Industrial steamfitting; install. of heating & cool-
ing, pipe welding
Honeywell, Inc.
Shivlie, Basil Dean 12-02-91 Plumber; apprentice
plumber
Plumber ABI
Shoemaker, Joseph S. 05-04-92 Electrician apprentice Ditch witch, electrician; electrician apprentice Fagan Zylsdra
Simmons, Charles J. 03-27-92 Cement mason, laborer Cement finisher, trowel machine; set forms, labor,
brick layer, forming & finishing
Self Employment
Simmons, Harold 05-06-92 Electrician Journeyman electrician Saginaw Resnick
Simons, Nevin 01-24-92 Carpentry Rough, finish, comm. carpentry; all forms of carp. Wood Market
Siuda, Philip 05-19-92 Electrician Electrical construction Smith Fluor & Refrig-
eration
Slaghula, James A. 05-07-92 Carpenter Carpenter, concrete forming R.E. Daily
Smith, Dale R. 03-09-92 Structural steel wkr. Rods, welding, set iron, rodbuster, journeyman
ironworker
Sky Line Erc.
Smith, Dale T. 10-17-90 Laborer Labor construction Oscar J. Bolo
Smith, Richard H. 02-03-92 Laborer, helper Labor, concrete work, carpenters helper, finishers
helper
Manistee Welding
Somerville, Bryan 12-11-92 Plumber, welder Plumber, pipe welder & fitter Map Mech
Sorenson, Robert L. 03-31-92 Structural steel wkr. Ironworker; welding; rodbuster structural Skyline Erectors
Sorenson, Rodney R. 03-09-92 Metal worker Iron worker; steel erection, rerod, welding, steel
fabrication, rigging
Skyline Erectors
Spofford, Geralyn 05-19-92 Electrician Journeyman electrician, rewire, layout ABCEE Combustion
Engineering
Stanick, Duane 06-26-92 Welder, pipefitter Welder; journeyman welding fitter, pipewelder,
fitter, install duct work
JE Johnson
Stark, James E. 03-10-89 Equipment operator Welding, operator of a roller & grader, equip.
oper.
JE Johnson
Starks, Steven L. 12-18-92 Pipefitter or welder Pipefitter, welder & small equipment M.A.P.
Stawicki, Robert L. 09-18-92 Welder, structural steel Journeyman sheetmetal None
Stender, Albert J. 01-28-92 Electrician/welder Electrician, certified welder, equipment operator,
overhead crane operator; foreman
John Miller Elec.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD72
APPENDIX B (continued)
NAME DATEAPPLIED JOB EXPERIENCE LAST EMPL.
Stickney, Dennis 12-10-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker, mech & welder; burner, layout,
tube repair, air arc, torch burning
Northern Soner
Stiles, Douglas 05-18-92 Electrician Electrical construction NewKick Elec.
Stracka, Tim N. 09-15-92 Metal/millwright-welder Welding, arc-mig; carpenter, welder, tool maker,
ironworker, millwright, sheetmetal, layout, as-
sembler
Genes Welding
Strawn, Clinton 02-26-92 Boilermaker Apprenticeship, journeyman boilermaker, certi-
fied welder, tig, carbon & stainless plate, layout
& blueprint, grinding, burning & rigging
N.B. Processing
Stull, Brett D. 03-09-92 Electrical Apprentice electrician; wiring Deisler Electric
Super, John J. 12-15-92 Pipefitter-plumber-welder Pipe welder, pipe fitter, master plumber & steam
fitter
Pipefitter-Plumber
Sutlif, Kirk S. 07-15-92 Welder/fitter Foreman, welder, pipefitter Local 85 Plumbers &
Pipe Fitters
Swartz, Cary L. 02-26-92 Electrical apprentice Apprentice electrician Village IGA
Taylor, Randy R. 03-09-92 Journeyman electrician;
electrical
Machine control, fire alarm, ind. trouble shoot-
ing, class 3 electrician license; journeyman elec-
trician
Jackpine Business
Teachout, Keith E. 02-04-92 Steamfitter-welder Apprenticeship; journ. ironworker; reinforcing,
structural, rigging, ornamental; certified welder,
tie rods, erect iron, read prints, foreman exp.
Carmac Inc.
Thies, Charles G. 05-15-92 Journeyman wireman Electrician; install conduit R.W. Leet Electric,
Inc.
Timchac, James 02-27-92 Boilermaker Certified welder; boilermaker welder Carmac Comtr Co.
Tisron, Jack 04-14-92 Truckdriver Heavy truckdriver Packer Tree Farm
Toussaint, James A. 06-25-92 Sheetmetal worker Sheet metal journeyman, decking, siding, lag-
ging, blow pipe, duck work & apprenticeship
Twin Bay Sheet Metal
Trier, Cary M. 05-11-92 Electrician Journeyman electrician Spring City Electric
Trudeau, Douglas J. 06-12-92 Boilermaker helper; elec-
trician
Electrical drafting; welding; journeyman electri-
cian
Bob’s Electric &
Heating
Trumble, Roy 02-24-92 Electrician Class III State of Michigan electrical license,
electrician/const.
Essex Ville Electric
Co.
Uber, Leo 05-12-92 Electrician Journeyman wireman, foreman M.J. Electric
Vajda, Gary 05-06-92 Journeyman elect. Electrical apprenticeship, class 3 electrical li-
cense
David Electric
Vandenbos, Peter J. 12-07-89 Operator Operator of heavy equipment; welder Smalley, Const.
Vandeuseh Sr.,
George D.
06-29-92 Carpenter Carpenter, formed concrete Alviado Const.
Vandwelinde, Paul
C.
06-29-92 Pipefitter Pipefitting, welding, plumbing Kiekllan Construction
Vandyke, Michael P. 06-01-92 Carpenter Residential carpenter; lift operator, journeyman
carpenter
Traversen Home Im-
provements
VanKoevering, Mi-
chael D.
05-04-92 Electrician Journeyman electrician; JIW electrician ABB Construction
VanSlambrouer,
Clayton J.
05-28-92 Mechanic/welder/
rigger; boilermaker helper
Boilermaker journeyman, welding, rigging, lay-
out, burning; foreman, gen. foreman
Boilermaker Local
169
Vasold, Robert E. 01-28-92 Sheetmetal worker HVAC, boiler lagging, gen. sheetmetal erection;
sheet metal worker
Haden Schwieter
Vaughn, Billy W. 04-06-89 Operating engineer Backhoe operator; bulldozer The Bishop Inc.
Verlin, Joseph 03-09-92 Electrician Electrical, welding; light equip. operator Motor City Elec.
Vine, Terry J. 12-11-92 Pipefitting/plumbing Pipefitting, plumbing Brown Plbg. & Htg.
Wakefield, Robert 05-06-92 Electrician Electrical, journeyman inside wire Ferndale Electric Co.
Walsh, John M. 01-27-92 Carpenter Concrete finisher; install store pictures, gen.
carp.
J.C. Penn7
Wasilchenko, Danny
J.
01-28-92 Journeyman elect. Cert. arc welder, elect. licenses; journeyman
elect.
M.J. Electric
Watson, James W. 01-28-92 Journeyman elect. Welding, cable splicing, Class 3 elect. license,
national joint apprenticeship program
Common Watt Elec-
tric
Watters, Daniel 05-21-92 Electrician Supervisor; electrical installer NewKirk Electrical
Assoc.
Weaver, Randy F. 10-01-91 Plumber/pipefitter Plumbing license; plumber ABI Mach Contractor
Welch, Larry R. 06-08-92 Pipefitter Plate welder, tube welder, boilermaker, foreman ABB Construction
Eng. Inc.
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 73
APPENDIX B (continued)
NAME DATEAPPLIED JOB EXPERIENCE LAST EMPL.
Wendling, Randall C. 12-11-92 Plumber/pipefitter Journeyman plumber & pipefitter; Pipefitter;
Plumber; Foreman, plumbers helper, pipefitter
apprentice
William E. Walter
Western, Gary R. 03-24-92 Pipefitter, welder Plumbing, welding, supervision, lead journey-
man, mech. design, pipefitter
Carmac Mech. Con-
tract
Wieland, Joel G. 04-15-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter, plumber, steamfitter, licensed master
plumber, licensed mechanical contractor
Wares & Son
Wierzbicki, James E. 05-27-92 Electrician Electrical apprentice, all phases of electrical
const.
Davis Electric Inc.
Wigent, Gary N. 04-06-92 Operating engineer Heavy equip. operator; laborer; supported car-
penters, pipefitter, ironworkers
Townsend & Bottom
Wilbanks, Billy R. 05-12-92 Electrician, operator Aviation electronics, bulldozer, skiploader,
dump truck; const. elect., maint. elect., termi-
nate wires
Morrow Meadows,
Inc.
Wildfong, Wilbur D. 02-18-92 Millwright Millwright Atlantic Plant Maint.
Williamson, George 02-06-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker welder, rigger, mig, tig & stick
welding, pipefitter
CBI Service
Wilsdon, William M. 01-28-92 Sheetmetal Sheetmetal; const., install exhaust; repair Pentecost Const.
Wilson, Donald C. 09-14-92 Journeyman elect. Journeyman license; journeyman electrician J. Rank Elec. Inc.
Wissner, Dale R. 04-20-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter, welder Manistee Welding
Witte, Charles A. 12-09-92 Millwright apprentice Steeplejack, industrial, const., maint., painter-
resid. & commercial
Performance Painting
Wright, Kendall O. 08-30-90 Electrician apprentice Electrical mech.; electrical apprentice LA Martin Elec.
Serv. & Cont.
Wuolukka, Earl B. 02-20-92 Sheetmetal Install duct work, weld ductwork, fab., sheet-
metal worker
Tweet Garot
Wuolukka, Rickey 01-27-92 Sheet metal Sheetmetal apprenticeship Tweet Garot
Yeager, Roy 02-03-92 Boilermaker Welder & mech.; boilermaker, boiler repair,
welder
No. Boiler
Yorch, Harry F. 07-21-89 Plumber Plumbing T.L. Cholette Inc.
Yost, James G. 05-04-92 Pipefitting/Plumbing Pipefitter; journeyman plumber; welding Jim Welding Service
Ziemba, Walter 02-11-92 Electrician Foreman electrician, journeyman electrician Schier Motors
Ziemer, Thomas H. 01-24-92 Laborer Labor, operator–tractor, dozer Teamsters Local 406
Zmich, Robert C. 09-04-92 Heavy equip. operator Backhoe, track & rubber pickers, groves, P&H;
heavy equip. operator, fork truck, overhead
crane
Piping Service Inc.
APPENDIX C
APPLICANTS HIRED1
NAME DATEHIRED JOB TITLE APPLIED FOR EXPERIENCE
Alderson, Charles 10-01-92 Millwright Millwright Millwright, pipefitter
Anderson, Kenneth 09-16-92 Boilermaker helper I Boilermaker helper Welding, big equip.; const., elect., heavy labor,
maint.
Ayala, Juan 12-28-92 Pipefitter helper (blank) none
Banks, Joffere 01-13-93 Pipefitter Pipefitter Pipefitter, survey
Barron, Russell 09-23-92 Millwright Millwright, millwright-
maintenance
Millwright, crane repair, fabrication, welding
Beardsley, Daniel
L.
10-05-92 Ironworker welder Co-gen; structural welder Welder; boilermaker welder; welder, structural
welder
Beckworth, Joel 08-19-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Iron, rigging, crane operator; fabricator
Beecham, Kenneth
R.
10-29-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter Pipefitter & welder foreman; pipefitter gen. fore-
man
Belinski, Walter 05-11-92 Electrician Electrician; Co-gen const. Equip. operator, masters license; master electrician
Bennett, Kelly 11-09-92 Pipefitter helper Rigger Rigger
Berens, Mark 10-21-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Pipefitter, welder
Blackburn, Ronald 12-18-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter Structural welder; pipefitter

1 This list is based upon various exhibits, including General Counsel’s exhibits (GC Exh. 222), Charging Party’s Exhibits (CP Exh. 16), and Respon-
dent’s Exhibits (R. Exh. 60).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD74
APPENDIX C (continued)
NAME DATEHIRED JOB TITLE APPLIED FOR EXPERIENCE
Blasingame, Peter 09-16-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Rigger, hanging pipe
Blasingame, Wil-
liam
09-16-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Boilermaker, fitter, welder
Bodnar, Bena 09-12-92 Millwright helper Co-gen. plant Welding, heavy equipment
Bonjerndor, Gordon 11-05-92 Millwright Millwright Journeyman millwright; heavy equip. pumps
conveyors; repair turbine & related equip.,
pumps
Boswell, Joseph 09-08-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Boilermaker, ironworker
Bowen, Leonard 04-23-92 Carpenter Laborer; const.-masonry wk. Laborer; carpenter helper; concrete pourer
Bray, Burnard 09-10-92 Operating engi-
neer
Crane operator Rigging foreman; crane operator
Bray, Kevin 10-08-92 Pipefitter helper PF apprentice Pipefitter, cut bevel pipe
Bray, Wilburn 09-10-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter, boilermaker Pipefitter, drilling oil, gas wells
Brigner, Stan 10-21-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Welding, boilermaker, pipe & tube welding
Brinkley, Jim L. 10-28-93 Pipefitter Pipefitter Pipefitter, install piping system per blueprints;
pipefitter/millwright
Brown, Chester Operating engi-
neer
Crane operator Crane operator
Bunting, Jim 07-13-92 Carpenter helper Labor; railroad Forklift, end loader, backhoe, cutting torches,
ballast regulator & tamper
Burns, Robert 05-07-92 Electrician journ. Electrician Class 3 journeyman, apprentice ind. electrician
Caisse, Peter 10-16-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Iron fab., welder; siding, ironworker, gen. fab.,
machine operator
Campbell, Nathan 12-18-92 Pipewelder Pipewelder Pipe
Cardinal, Tim 08-20-92 Ironworker welder Welding-metal work Welding; structural welding
Carter, Ken 10-28-92 Boilermaker Welder/boilermaker welder Welder; pipe welding
Cavender, Luther 09-24-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Machinists, welder/boiler-maker
Cederberg, Len C. 12-28-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter, welder, boiler-
maker welder
Pipefitter, welder, boilermaker
Chandler, Michael 10-08-92 Millwright Millwright Hydraulic crane, forklift, welding, ironworker,
pipefitter; millwright for., set pumps, crane oper.
Childress, Shawn 12-18-92 Pipewelder Pipewelder Pipewelder & fitter, boilermaker
Chittum, James 08-12-92 Ironworker (blank) Rigger, ironworker, boilermaker
Chiviek, William 08-19-92 Boilermaker
helper I
Ironwork Ironworker
Coleman, Matthew 09-10-93 Boilermaker Boilermaker Iron, boilermaker
Cook, Robert A. 06-12-92 Welder Welder Welder; pipewelder, heliarc, stick carb on
stainless
Corwin, John 05-27-92 Pipefitter jour-
neyman
Pipefitter Pipefitting, rigging, welding; pipewelder, fab.
metal & plastic
Crawford, Victor 11-09-92 Pipefitter helper I (blank) Rigger
Culpepper, Jay 12-17-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter; boilermaker Boilermaker, pipefitter
Davis, Charles 11-09-92 Pipefitter helper I none
Dean, Marvin 10-14-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker; Co-gen. Boiler operator, ironworker, millwright
DeBlieux, David 11-09-92 Pipefitter helper I (blank) Rigger
Decembly, Larry 09-25-92 Boilermaker Journeyman; Co-gen Iron; ironworker
Dickson, Shawn 01-13-93 Pipewelder Pipewelder Pipe
Diekman, Donald 12-07-92 Pipefitter Ironwork, boilermaker, millwright, fitter
Domec, Luke 10-05-92 Millwright Millwright Millwright, electrician; electrician, gen. foreman
Douglas, William 10-12-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker; ironworker Ironworker, millwright, welding
Dronzek, Dan 09-11-92 Boilermaker Piping foreman Pipefitting; rigging, pipefitter, carpenter
Edwards, Michael 01-13-92 Pipefitter helper
III
Welder/pipe II Pipe II, structural welder
Edwards, Robert 01-22-93 Pipewelder Pipewelder Welding
Edwards, Sam 09-16-92 Millwright Millwright; Co-gen const. Millwright; foreman
Eisenga, Mark 05-27-92 Carpenter journ. Cement work, carpenter,
steel worker; Co-gen
Heavy equip., cement wk., welding, torches,
carpenter finisher
Evans, Randall 08-17-92 Boilermaker Ironworker Welder, ironworker, refractory, boilermaker
Evens, Richard 01-13-92 Pipefitter (blank) Pipe, fabrication pipefitter
Farris, Robert D. 10-15-92 Pipewelder Pipewelder Pipe welding
Fischer, Gerhard 10-23-92 Pipefitter helper
III
Pipewelder Welding, cutting, blueprint
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 75
APPENDIX C (continued)
NAME DATEHIRED JOB TITLE APPLIED FOR EXPERIENCE
Fischer Sr., Gerhard 10-14-92 Pipefitter Boiler/piping gen. foreman Gen. foreman; pipe & boiler, welding & blueprint
Fisher, Martin 10-20-92 Structural welder Welder Shipwright, farming, heavy equip.
Foley, David 01-13-93 Pipewelder (blank) Drafting
Forsgren, David 03-30-92 Carpenter Laborer Forklift, dump truck, 1 year bldg. trade certificate;
over-the-road semidriver
Fortin, Rick 12-17-92 Pipewelder Pipewelder Pipewelder
Foshee, Michael A. 08-27-92 Boilermaker Iron/boilermaker Crane operator, boilermaker, ironworker
Fox, Michael A. 10-15-92 Pipewelder Pipewelder Welding
Friess, Bryce A. 11-09-92 Pipefitter helper
III
Boilermaker helper; oper. Labor; carpenter
Gallandt, Christine 05-12-92 Electrician journ. Electrician Electrician, conduit, pull wire, breaker panels;
JLG scissorlift; hydraulic benders, hammerdrill,
bandsaw
Galligan, Vincent M. 06-12-92 Welder Sheetmetal/welder Layout & fab. of metal, all phases of welding;
pipefitting, welding, TIG, MIG, stick cutting; read
blueprints
Gibson Jr., Samuel T. 10-16-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker; ironworker Welding, ironwork; construction
Giese, Chester R. 11-03-92 Millwright Millwright Millwright
Giese, Lloyd L. 11-05-92 Millwright Precision millwright Millwright, mechanic, farming & ranching
Greene, William 12-18-92 Ironworker
(strutural welder)
Structural welder Structural rigger/welder, foreman
Greer, Daryl L. 09-02-92 Operator-light Operator/heavy equip. Heavy equip. operator; pipefitting, structural iron
Grinnell, David 10-29-92 Pipefitter helper Truckdriver Construction
Hagendorfer, Charles 10-08-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter Pipefitter
Hall, Larry A. 09-21-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Boilermaker, iron, welding; certified to work live
nuclear plants
Hanks, Mike 09-20-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker; tubewelder;
pipewelder
Pipewelder, boilermaker/welder
Hardy, Bailey J. 11-09-92 Welder Pipewelder, fitter, sup.;
welding/fitter
Welder/fitter
Hare, Gayle Piping gen. foreman Pipefitter, welder
Harmon, Philip C. 09-28-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Tubewelder; construction, blueprint reading
Harris, David R. 10-08-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter Pipefitter
Hauck, Jay R. 09-16-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Iron & pipe rigger, crane operator
Heyd, Chad 05-26-92 Pipefitter helper Welder; pipefitter/welder;
Co-gen welding
Pip TBA welding
Heyd, Robert 06-21-92 Carpenter helper (blank) Welder III, die setting, machine equip., blueprints,
quality control
Hilliard, Vicky 01-18-93 Pipefitter helper Pipefitter helper Pipe, electrical, instrument card; welder helper,
carpenter helper, survey helper
Hinman, Henry F. 09-24-92 Boilermaker
helper
Boilermaker helper Boilermaker helper, fitter
Hooter, Charles 01-07-93 Pipewelder Pipewelder Welding
Howell, Leslie E. 10-28-92 Boilermaker
helper I
Boilermaker helper;
welder/helper
Welder; helping
Hrbek, Thomas G. 09-17-92 Carpenter Carpenter Furniture building, rough & finish carpentry, table
saw, chop saw
Hughes, James 08-14-92 Ironworker Structural-steel worker;
I.W. rigger
Boilermaker welder; cutout & replace skin casing
on boiler repair; rigger; fitter
Hunri, Paul R. 09-24-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Boilermaker welder fitter, equip. operator
Johnson, Brenton 10-23-92 Pipefitter helper Pipe helper Welding
Johnston, Gene 10-20-92 Structural welder Welding fab. pipe; welder Carpenter, metal work, fab., welding, truckdriver,
equip. operator
Jolly, Steve 05-27-92 Rodbuster-DST;
pipefitter helper
Carpenter; Rodbuster Carpenter
Jones, Anthony 10-13-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Rigging
Jones, Rockaford C. 07-27-92 Helper Construction Loader operator
Kaiserlain, Bruce 05-27-92 Welder-pipe Pipewelder Welder
Kaiserlain, Charles 05-27-92 Pipefitter jour-
neyman
Steam fitter Brick & stone mason, well driller
Kaiserlian, Daniel S. 5-27-92;
10-12-92
Pipefitter; jour-
neyman pipefitter
Co-gen const.; pipefitter Pipefitter, welding, carpentry
Kaufman, James 11-09-92 Pipefitter helper Rigger, fitter, carpenter
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD76
APPENDIX C (continued)
NAME DATEHIRED JOB TITLE APPLIED FOR EXPERIENCE
Kenney, Samuel
R.
10-08-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter Pipe
Kibodeaux, Earl 10-16-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Ironworking & rigger
Kibodeaux, Rich-
ard
10-16-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker; reinforcing
metal worker
Construction, structural steel
King, William 09-03-92 Millwright Millwright Millwright, pipefitter
Kinney, Joseph 09-03-92 Boilermaker helper 1st class boilermaker
helper
Pipefitting/boilermaker
Kling, Philip 09-16-92 Millwright Welding, millwright
Knight, Homer
Phillip
01-04-93 Pipefitter helper I 1st class pipefitter helper Painting
Krauz, Adolph 08-12-92 Iron reinforcer Co-gen. Construction Rod tieing, blueprints, sheeting, rigging, structural
iron; ironworker, welding
Lackermayer,
Helmut
04-28-92 Carpenter Co-gen. construction Certified automechanic; diesel mechanic
Langston, Manuel 09-10-92 Carpenter (blank) Carpenter
Langston, Robert 10-14-92 Pipefitter helper II Pipefitter helper Pipefitter helper; insulator helper
Lazore, John 09-24-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker; ironwork Ironworker
Lensky, Bernard 01-13-93 Pipefitter helper Pipefitter helper I; Co-gen.
construction
Painter, laborer, roofing
Letts, Melvin 9-12-92;
02-08-93
Millwright helper;
MHI
Millwright Machinists, carpenter, mason, welder, maint.
Ludwig, Kim C. 04-21-92 Carpenter Carpenter; carpentry form
work, metal stubs, drywall
Carpentry, framing, finish, cement slabs, form wk.,
hanging drywall, metal studs, rodbuster, tierod
Macy, Gary 05-26-92 Carpenter Carpenter-millwright Reinforced concrete, forms, blueprint, welding, tying
rods, power tools, hand tools
Martines, Manuel
A.
08-19-92 Boilermaker Journeyman; ironwork Ironwork
McCosh, Brian 10-08-92 Millwright Construction mechanic Boiler operator, maint., mech.; gen. construction,
mechanical & construction
McGrew, Shawn 08-04-92 Ironworker-reinf. Masonry; ironworker Brick mason, carpenter, master mechanic; residential
builder
Medrano, Javier 12-09-92 Ironworker
Miller, Johnny 12-11-92 Boilermaker Co-gen. construction Rigging, boilermaker, pipe; crane operator
Moorefield, James 08-31-92 Boilermaker Boiler mechanic Boiler maintenance; journey boiler mechanic
Morgan, Everett 10-04-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Boilermaker; welder
Morgan, Jesse 08-18-92 Boilermaker Ironworker-structural Code welder, ironworker, foreman, boilermaker
Morris, Kirby 10-16-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Boilermaker; rigging, connector, fitter
Morrison, LeVeta 12-11-92 Pipefitter helper Construction Labor, rebar, kon; rodbuster, journ., labor foreman,
ironworker journ.; structural worker journeyman
Murray, Todd 06-22-92 Carpenter helper Carpenter helper; Co-gen Laborer, carpentry, millwright
O’Hara, Michael
J.
04-28-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter/welder Welder
O’Hara, Shawn 05-05-92 Electrical helper Elect. helper; Co-gen.
const.
Mig welder, pipefitter helper, fitter helper
Ortiz, Alex 12-28-92 Pipefitter/Scaffolds (blank) Insulation, scaff
Owen, Brian 09-24-92 Millwright helper Millwright helper; const. Operating farm equipment
Owen, Shannon 10-28-92 Pipefitter helper III Pipefitter helper Sales clerk, carpenters helper
Payton, Terry 09-16-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Boilermaker, welder
Pearson, James M. 12-16-92 Pipefitter Welder/picker operator Picker operator, pipewelder
Penix, Jimmy L. 12-16-92 Pipefitter Pipe
Perry, Kelly 06-18-92 Carpenter helper Rodbuster; Co-gen Carpenter, concrete rodbusting
Perry, Steven M. 09-24-92 Millwright Millwright; construction Millwright; boilermaker, ironworker
Pierson, Kerry L. 05-27-92 Carpenter Journeyman carpenter; Co-
gen construction
Com. blueprints, semitractor trailer; journeyman
carpenter
Poole, James 12-28-92 Millwright Pipefitter/millwright Pipe
Poole, Kenneth H. 10-13-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter Pipe, rigging, backhoe, crane
Poole, Michael E. 12-05-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter Pipefitter
Poole, Roger L. 12-09-92 Millwright Millwright Drywall, mechanic, pipefitter, welding-arc, cutting,
millwright
Porter, Gary V. 09-23-92 Millwright helper I Millwright helper or mill-
wright
Heavy equip., rigging, welding; lineman, cable splic-
ing, millwright, crane, front-end loader, pole digging
truck, fork truck
ZURN/N.E.P.C.O. 77
APPENDIX C (continued)
NAME DATEHIRED JOB TITLE APPLIED FOR EXPERIENCE
Powell, Albert E. 10-14-92 Pipefitter helper II Boilermaker helper Supervisor, electricians helper, running wire,
drilling, framing, connecting, splicing wire
Powell, James 09-08-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker; steelworker/
pipefitter
All relating to steel/heavy equip.; welder, heavy
equip. operator, pipefitter, fabricator
Premo, Daniel W. 06-22-92 Carpenter Carpenter; Co-gen Backhoe, dozer, front end loader operator; car-
penter
Price, Jerry Ed-
ward
08-14-92 Ironworker Struc-
tural
Ironworker/
structural
Welder/operator hydro; rigger, welder, fitter,
boilermaker
Pugh, Jeffrey M. 12-12-92 Boilermaker (blank) BM; PF, SW; TW; PW
Quibell, Gary T. 09-23-92 Millwright helper Any construction Helicopter mechanic; welder, layout, fab. iron;
Ironworker construction
Radle, Allen 05-15-92 Boilermaker helper Steam or pipefitter Steam pipefitter; mig welder, pipefitter
Rhone, Claude T. 09-08-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Welder
Roberts, Dalton 08-17-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker, welder, pipe-
fitter, ironworker
Welding, fitter, pipefitter, boilermaker
Roberts, Daniel 01-04-93 Pipefitter helper Laborer Painter, truckdriver
Robertson, Phillip 09-12-92 Carpenter Carpenter Construction; journeyman, concrete finisher
Roman, Efren 09-24-92 Iron reinforcer Rodbuster; Co-gen Carpenter helper
Rosie, Larry 6-12-92;
09-25-92
Welder; structural
welder
Welder Certified welder, boiler & pressure vessel
Rowan, Scott L. 10-22-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter/welder Welding
Rowan, Tito Iron reinforcer Road buster Welder
Rowell, David 09-02-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Iron & rigger; ironworker, boilermaker, piperig-
ger
Salem, John 01-13-92 Pipewelder Pipewelder Pipewelder
Scarbrough, Todd 09-17-92 Boilermaker helper Welder Foreman, welding, grinder, plumbing, installer
See, Roger 10-12-92 Boilermaker (blank) Crane operator, welder
Sessions, Ola B. 08-12-92 Iron structural Ironworker Ironworker, boilerman
Shepard, Patrick 02-01-93 Pipefitter helper II Pipefitter helper II Pipefitter helper
Simoneaux, An-
thony
09-22-92 Boilermaker helper
II
Welder helper/boilermaker
helper
Vechicle operator, maintenance & repair
Skidmore, Ken-
neth
09-02-92 Boilermaker Co-gen. Rodbuster, iron foreman, boilermaker
Smith, Greg 01-22-93 Pipefitter Pipefitter Pipefitter, helper I
Smith, John 10-08-92 Millwright Millwright Millwright; iron rigger, carpenter
Smith, Leslie 08-17-92 Boilermaker Ironworker Pipewelder, structural iron; operator, forklift, lull,
ironworker, welding
Smith, Samuel 10-08-92 Millwright Millwright Millwright; construction worker
Spivey, Robert 09-30-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker Iron/pipe/boilermaker, blue print reading; Pipefit-
ter
Spring, Germain 02-03-93 Pipefitter Welder fitter All around construction hand
Springs, German 02-03-93 Pipefitter (blank) Boilermaker, pipefitter, welder, foreman
St. Amour, Gary 09-12-92 Carpenter Co-gen construction/
carpenter; carpenter
Journeyman carpenter; foreman, layout; foreman
Stilwell, Larry 06-22-92 Carpenter helper Carpenter; Co-gen Payloader, backhoe, trackhoe, dozer, loader,
forklift, carpenter
Strzelecki, Paul 10-14-92 Structural welder Welding-Co-gen. Welding, pressure vessels; fitter, fabricator
Stuart, Jerry 12-30-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter Pipefitter
Sutter, Marc 11-11-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker/tube welder Boilermaker, tubewelder, pipewelder
Tarver, Ronald 11-09-92 Pipefitter helper I (blank) Rigger, roofing
Taylor, Louis
Greg
01-06-93 Pipewelder Pipewelder Pipe
Teasdale, Joe 08-31-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker; power plant
const.
Boilermaker, pipefitter, rigger
Turnbough, Don-
ald
05-14-92 Operator Operator; Co-gen. Heavy equip. operator, pickers, crane, dozer,
backhoe, forklift
Turnbough, Larry 04-30-92 Electrician Electrician/Equip. operator Equipment operator
Turner, Jim 10-12-92 Pipefitter Pipefitter Plumbers, fitters; pipe foreman, pipe gen. fore-
man
Tyson, Charles 10-30-92 Pipewelder Pipewelder Welding; carpenter, pipewelder, structural weld-
ing, ironworker, millwright
Unzucta, Andres 12-09-92 Ironworker Road buster Road buster
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD78
APPENDIX C (continued)
NAME DATEHIRED JOB TITLE APPLIED FOR EXPERIENCE
VanMeter, Joe 08-14-92 Ironworker Ironworker Boiler & pipe; hanging iron & erection, boiler
foreman, ironworker-structural
Vaugh, James 01-13-93 Pipefitter helper I First class helper Truckdriver, pipefiter helper
Walker, James 10-19-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker; construction
boilermaker
Boilermaker; welder, pipefitter
Walls, Jeff 09-03-92 Boilermaker helper Boilermaker helper Grinder
Walls, Jody 09-03-92 Boilermaker Pipefitter, rigger
Waslowicz, Ken 09-16-92 Carpenter Carpentry; carpentry &
cement
Carpenter, cement; carpentry foreman, maint.
Wilcox, Donald 09-24-92 Ironworker Ironworker Heavy equip.; welder, ironworker; certified
welder, foreman
Williams, Robert 08-19-92 Boilermaker Boilermaker helper I Welding, forklift operator; rig moving, repair
drilling rigs, welder/pipeline, pile driver
Wiltshire, Mark 09-30-92 Millwright helper (blank) Maintenance helper, brazer
Wood, James 09-16-92 Boilermaker Ironworker Boilermaker/ironworker; equip. oper., fitter,
welder
Woodard, James 08-31-92 Boilermaker Co-gen. Rigger, welder, operator; boilermaker; pipefitter
Woodhead,
Daniel
05-27-92 Carpenter journ. Carpenter; Co-gen. Dozer, loader, backhoe, truck & trailer, bobcat,
slip former; certified in electronics; carpenter,
form setting, electrician helper, foreman
Woolsey, Doyne 06-12-92 Welder Pipe, welding, instrumen-
tal; welder; pipefitter;
boilermaker welder
Pipefitter, supervising on pipe & welding; in-
strument install.; stick, heli-arc welding; boiler-
maker
Woolsey, Everett 05-27-92 Pipefitter journ. Pipefitter/welder; boiler-
maker; Co-gen. plant
Pipefitter, boilermaker, certified welder SMAW,
GMAW, TIG, MIG; superintendent, gen. fore-
man, layout, installation of piping
Young, Thomas
E.
01-13-93 Pipefitter helper I Electrician/welder Class 3 electrician license, lift truckdriver, PC
programming, apprenticeship
Zamord, David 12-09-92 Ironworker (blank) Rod buster