Extract
Richard Mellow Electrical Contractors Corp., 1112 (1999)
March 31, 1999
DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS FOX AND LIEBMAN DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. Contrary to the judge, we find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by requiring applicants for employment to disclose their union affiliation. It is undisputed that, on May 23, 1994,3 Union President Schrader and union members Kenehan and McIntyre applied for work at the Respondent's office. On entering the premises, they saw a round see-through sticker containing the word "union" with a diagonal slash over it affixed to the glass door leading to the main office.4 They requested, and received, applications along with a form asking them to state whether they were "currently affiliated with any local unions." All three filled out the applications and the union affiliation forms, on which they identified themselves as union members. The applicants requested and received copies of their applications, after which they left the premises. Although the Respondent was hiring electricians during this period of time, none of these individuals was offered employment. On May 24, the Respondent advised Schrader by letter that, although "in the past, it has always been our company policy to include with our employment applications; [sic] a sheet inquiring whether the applicant was affiliated with any unions or not," it would no longer request that information (emphasis added). On January 30, 1996, Administrative Law Judge George Aleman issued the attached decision. The General Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs, the Respondent filed an answering brief, and the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed reply briefs. 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,1 and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order.2 1 The General Counsel and the Charging Party have excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard 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. The judge discredited applicant Tom Skelly's uncontradicted testimony that, when he applied for a job with the Respondent on May 25, 1994, estimator Dembeski asked him if he was a union member and told him that the Respondent might have a job for him when Skelly stated falsely that he was not. Although we adopt the judge's credibility resolution in this regard, we disavow the judge's reliance on Skelly's having concealed his union membership during the application process as one of the grounds for discrediting his testimony. The Charging Party also asserts that the judge was biased against it. Thus, the Charging Party notes that the judge, inter alia, discredited virtually all of the General Counsel's witnesses even when their testimony was uncontradicted, while crediting virtually all of the testimony by the Respondent's witnesses, discredited witnesses called by the General Counsel based on minor inconsistencies in their testimony while not discrediting the Respondent's witnesses despite similar inconsistencies, and relied on the Respondent's attorney's experience to support his credibility while discrediting the Charging Party's attorney despite his similar experience in labor relations. We find no evidence of bias on the part of the judge. 2 The Charging Party has requested oral argument. The request is denied as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 3 Unless otherwise noted, all dates are in 1994. That same day, the Regional Director for Region 4 approved an informal settlement agreement in Case 4-CA- 22023, resolving allegations that the Respondent had engaged in the following unfair labor practices after the start of a union organizing campaign in 1993: coercively interrogating employees about their union activities; threats to reclassify employees as apprentices, close its shop and reopen under a new name with new employees; creating the impression of surveillance; promising bene-fits; announcing new benefits; and granting a wage in-crease to discourage employees from voting for union representation. The settlement agreement included a provision requiring the Respondent to recognize and bargain with the Union as the representative of its electricians. The judge dismissed the complaint allegatio...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
