Wye Electric, 61 (2006)

Extract

---

Wye Electric, 61 (2006)

Wye Electric Co., Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 480, AFL–CIO.

Wye Electric Co., Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 576, AFL–CIO.

Wye Electric Co., Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 446, AFL–CIO.

Wye Electric Co., Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union Nos. 446, 480, and 576, AFL–CIO. Cases 15–CA–11993, 15–CA–12013, 15–CA–12076–2, 15–CA–12094, 15–CA–12094–2, and 15–CA–12215

September 14, 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER

By Chairman Battista and Members Liebman and Schaumber

On July 7, 1995, Administrative Law Judge J. Pargen Robertson issued the attached decision in this proceeding. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions, a supporting brief, and an answering brief to the Respondent’s exceptions. The Respondent also filed an answering brief to the General Counsel’s cross-exceptions and a reply brief to the General Counsel’s answering brief.

On June 7, 2000, the Board remanded this proceeding to the judge. Thereafter, on September 29, 2000, the judge issued the attached supplemental decision. The General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions, supporting briefs, and answering briefs.

The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

The Board has considered the decision, supplemental decision, and the record in light of the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions, as modified below.

The judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by failing to hire Steve Barthel, Wayne Divine, Herbert Goudeau, Floyd Sandiford, Ronnie Fontana, Jerry Goudeau, Jerry Lambert, Joe Gallien, Mark Greer, and Sammy Yelverton. The judge also found that the Respondent failed to rehire Donald Phillips in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1). For the reasons set forth in the judge’s supplemental decision, we adopt the judge’s findings as to these applicants.2

For the reasons below, we reverse the judge’s findings that the Respondent unlawfully failed to hire Hugh Britt, Michael Butler, Jackie Kuykendal, and Eric Sumrall. We also reverse the judge’s finding that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) in failing to hire Charles Jewell.3 For the reasons set forth by the judge, we find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening and interrogating employees.4 We reverse, however, the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employee Robert Hill. We adopt the judge in all other respects for the reasons set forth in his decision.5

1. The Respondent is an electrical contractor based in West Monroe, Louisiana. Starting in September 1992, the Union began a “salting” campaign in which union applicants applied for work. Many of these applicants sought employment following the Respondent’s placement of newspaper ads in West Monroe and Jackson, Mississippi, seeking electricians. Hugh Britt applied for employment in West Monroe with a group of such applicants. The Respondent’s owner, Robert Young, later telephoned the other applicants who applied with Britt to discuss employment, but he did not call Britt. Young testified that he did not call Britt because there was a notation on Britt’s file indicating that Britt smelled of alcohol when he applied.

When Britt applied, he personally gave his application directly to the Respondent’s secretary, Gaye Heckford. The judge credited Heckford’s testimony that she could smell alcohol on Britt’s breath when he applied. As a result, she wrote the comment “smelled strongly of alcohol” on Britt’s application. Based on Heckford’s notation, Young did not followup on Britt’s application. The judge found that, in light of Heckford’s notation, Young reasonably believed that Britt had been drinking, but he credited the testimony of Britt and the other applicants that Britt, in fact, had not been drinking. On this basis, the judge found that the failure to hire Britt violated the Act.

We reverse. Assuming arguendo that the General Counsel met his initial burden under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 889 (1st Cir. 1981), we find that the Respondent met its rebuttal burden by demonstrating that it did not followup on Britt’s application because of a nondiscriminatory reason: its reasonabl...

See the full content of this document

---