HDI Power & Controls, LLC d/b/a HDI Electrical Services, (2023)

• Date: 14 August 2023

JD-51-23

Screven, GA

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

DIVISION OF JUDGES

HDI POWER & CONTROLS, LLC d/b/a HDI

ELECTRICAL SERVICES

Case 12–CA–300277

and

EMORY J. CARELOCK, an Individual

Steve Barclay, Esq., for the General Counsel.

Michael Conner, Esq., for the Respondent.

Thomas W. Brown, Esq., for the Respondent.

DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

CHRISTAL J. KEY, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Waycross, Georgia,

on April 18 and 19, 2023. The complaint in this case issued on January 6, 2023, and an amendment

to the complaint issued on March 31, 2023. It alleges that on May 12 and 18, 2022, HDI Power

& Controls, LLC d/b/a HDI Electrical Services (Respondent) violated 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act

by discharging and then refusing to rehire Emory J. Carelock because he claimed that he and other

employees were entitled to travel pay,for their time to drive from Respondent’s facility to a jobsite,

under Respondent’s contract with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL–CIO,

Local Union 508 (the Union.) On January 20, 2023, and April 12, 2023, Respondent filed its

answer and first amended answer to the complaint. Respondent denied the essential allegations of

the complaint. After the conclusion of the trial, the parties filed briefs.

Based on the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and

after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following:

JD-51-23

2

FINDINGS OF FACT1

I.JURISDICTION

At all material times, Respondent has been a Georgia limited liability company with its

principal office and place of business located at 97 Church Street, Screven, Georgia (Respondents'

Screven facility), and a tool and supply yard located at 230 Doctortown Road, Jesup, Georgia 5

(Respondent's Jesup facility), and has been engaged in the business of providing electrical services

to residential, commercial, and industrial customers. In conducting its operations annually,

Respondent purchased and received at its facilities in the State of Georgia goods valued in excess

of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Georgia and from other enterprises located

within the State of Georgia, each of which other enterprises had received the goods directly from 10

points outside the State of Georgia.Respondent admits,and I find,that Respondent is an employer

engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.

Respondent admits,and I find, that at all material times,the Union has been a labor

organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 15

II.ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

A. Background

1. Respondent’s facilities, operations and supervisors

20

Respondent is an industrial electrical company serving commercial clients in Southern

Georgia, including papermills and chemical plants. (Tr. 18, 124, 125.) Its corporate office is in

Screven,Georgia and it has a working shop in Jesup, Georgia where it stores equipment and tools.

(Tr. 54.) Its business consists of two types of jobs. The first is a shop call where an electrician

comes into Respondent’s shop, picks up a service truck and then goes out into the field to perform 25

small electrical jobs and sometimes multiple jobs in a day (Tr. 23–25, 49–52.) The second type

of job is a larger job which is performed at a regular customer’s facility. On these larger jobs

material is delivered to the jobsite and electricians sometimes report directly to the jobsite rather

than to Respondent’s shop. However, on some larger jobs,electricians report to the shop to pick

up tools and materials and then proceed to the jobsite. (Tr. 26–28.) 30

Respondent has four full-time employees, owner and Vice President George Tommy

Reddish, Office Manager James Colon Reddish Jr., estimator James Tony Nipper and general

foreman Tyler Edwards (Tr. 125–126.) Respondent admits that these individuals are supervisors

and agents of Respondent. The remainder of Respondent’s work force is comprised of apprentice 35

and journeyman electricians who are referred out from the Union’s hiring hall.

1Although I have included several citations in this decision to highlight particular testimony or exhibits in the

evidentiary record, I emphasize that my findings and conclusions are not based solely on those specific citations, but

rather are based on my review and consideration of the entire record for this case.