Extract
Pioneer Electric of Monroe, 1192 (2001)
Pioneer Electric of Monroe, Inc. and Pioneer Electrical and Mechanical Contractor, Inc., a single employer and/or alter ego and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 446, AFL-CIO. Cases 15-CA-15190, 15- CA-15384, 15-CA-15685, and 15-CA-15736
April 30, 2001 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND HURTGEN On February 23, 2001, Administrative Law Judge Richard J. Linton issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.1 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Pioneer Electric of Monroe, Inc., and its alter ego, Pioneer Electric and Mechanical Contractor, Inc., a single employer, Monroe, Louisiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order.Sandra L. Hightower, Esq., for the General Counsel.Essex Lacy, Pres. (Pioneer), of Monroe, Louisiana, for the Respondent, Pioneer.John Hopkins, Bus. Mgr. (IBEW), of Monroe, Louisiana, for the Charging Party. 1 The Respondent does not except to any of the violations found by the judge or to his finding that Pioneer Electric of Monroe, Inc. (Pioneer 1) and Pioneer Electrical and Mechanical Contractor, Inc. (Pioneer 2) constitute both a single employer and alter egos. Rather, the Respondent excepts only to the judge's recommended remedy of reinstatement and backpay for six employees who were unlawfully laid off when Pioneer 1 closed on January 14, 2000. Specifically, the Respondent argues that these employees rejected offers of employment with Pioneer 2 on that date, so it should not be required again to extend offers of employment to them or to give them backpay. We disagree. Absent exceptions, it is now undisputed that the Respondent did not offer the discriminatees employment under the same contractual terms and conditions and with the continued collective-bargaining representation by the Union that they had while employed by Pioneer 1. The offers of employment were therefore part and parcel of the Respondent's unfair labor practices and cannot serve to toll the Respondent's remedial obligations. We therefore find that the traditional backpay and reinstatement remedy ordered by the judge was proper. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE RICHARD J. LINTON, Administrative Law Judge. This is an alter ego case in which it is alleged that Pioneer Electrical and Mechanical Contractor, Inc.1 (Pioneer 2) was created to escape the perceived burdens of the collective-bargaining agreement between Pioneer Electric of Monroe, Inc...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
