Shell Electric, 839 (1998)

Docket Number:05-CA-25778

Shell Electric and International Brotherhood of Eelectrical Workers, Local Union 24. Cases 5- CA-25778 and 5-CA-26135

May 29, 1998



On November 19, 1997, Administrative Law Judge James L. Rose issued the attached decision. The General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an answering brief.

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 his recommended Order as modified below.1

In adopting the judge's dismissal of the 8(a)(3) allegations, we emphasize his finding that, even assuming that Daryl Martell, the Respondent's president, might be found to have had knowledge that the job applicants were members of the Union, the record does not contain substantial evidence of antiunion animus or that the refusal to hire the applicants was motivated by their union affiliation.2


The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Respondent, Shell Electric, Baltimore, Maryland, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified.

Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a).

''(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Baltimore, Maryland facility copies of the attached notice marked 'Appendix.'4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 5, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent 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 the Respondent to ensure 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 November 8, 1995.''

Steven L. Sokolow, Esq., for the General Counsel.

Joseph T. Mallon Jr., Esq., of Baltimore, Maryland, for the




JAMES L. ROSE, Administrative Law Judge. This matter was tried before me at Baltimore, Maryland, on August 20, 1997, on the General Counsel's complaint which alleged principally that the Respondent failed to hire, or consider for hiring, seven1 members of the Charging Party in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). It was also alleged that the Respondent committed several violations of Section 8(a)(1). The Respondent generally denied that it violated the Act.

On the record as a whole, including my observation of the witnesses, briefs, and arguments of counsel, I make the following



    The Respondent is a Maryland corporation engaged contracting commercial and residential electrical services, during the course of which business it annually receives at its Baltimore, Maryland facility goods, products, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Maryland and annually performs services valued in excess of $50,000 in States other than Maryland. I therefore conclude that the Respondent is an employer engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.


    International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 24 (the Union) is admitted to be, and I find is, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.


    1. The Facts

      The Respondent was organized in 1994 and began operations in January 1995. The Respondent's president is Daryl

      1 In accord with Excel Container, Inc., 325 NLRB No. 14 (Nov. 7, 1997), we shall change the date in par. 2(a) of the recommended Order from Nov. 19, 1997 (the date of the judge's recommended Order) to Nov. 8, 1995, the date of the first unfair labor practice.

      2 In finding that the Respondent showed no animus against the Union by failing to hire five applicants, the judge relied, inter alia, on the fact that the Respondent had hired a number of union members, including Brian Fults. In support of his finding that the Respondent was aware of applicant Fults' union membership, the judge relied on Fults' employment application. There is no such application in evidence; Fults testified that the Respondent's...

To continue reading