CRISDEL GROUP, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Aug 26, 2013

22-CA-077469 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 26, 2013)

JD(NY)–41–13
South Plainfield, NJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
CRISDEL GROUP, INC.
and Case No. 22-CA-077469
RAMON JOSEPH MORALES
Saulo Santiago, Esq.,
for the Acting General Counsel
Ronald L. Tobia, Esq. (Tobia & Sorger, LLC),
of Harrison, New Jersey, for the Respondent
Donald L. Sapir, Esq. (Sapir/Schragin LLP),
of White Plains, New York, for the Charging Party
DECISION
Statement of the Case
LAUREN ESPOSITO, Administrative Law Judge. Based upon a charge in Case 22-CA-
077649, filed on March 27, 2012 and amended on June 18, 2012, by Ramon Joseph Morales
(“Morales” or “Charging Party”), a complaint and notice of hearing issued on July 31, 2012. The
complaint alleges that Crisdel Group, Inc. (“Crisdel” or “Respondent”), violated Sections 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act by laying off Morales because he was no longer a member of International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local 825 (“Local 825” or “the Union”). Respondent filed an
answer denying the complaint’s material allegations. This case was tried before me on
September 25, 2012 and February 4, 2013, in Newark, New Jersey.
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
Respondent is a corporation and maintains an office and place of business in South
Plainfield, New Jersey, where it is engaged in heavy and highway construction and paving.
Respondent admits and I find that at all material times it has been an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Respondent admits and I
find that at all material times Local 825 has been a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Respondent’s Operations
Respondent has performed heavy and highway paving work for approximately 45 years
at locations such as the Newark Airport, the Brooklyn Bridge, and the George Washington
Bridge, and on roads such as the New Jersey Turnpike. According to Frank Criscola,
JD(NY)–41–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Respondent’s Chairman, during the last 8 years Respondent has also performed earthwork
such as excavation and drainage for these projects. Respondent currently employs
approximately 80 employees, about 20 of which are operators. For approximately 35 years,
Respondent has had a collective bargaining relationship with Local 825 covering the operators’
employment.
William Weaver has been Respondent’s Vice President of Construction for
approximately 15 years. Weaver is responsible for overseeing all Respondent’s current projects
and construction activities, and its project managers and superintendents report to him. William
Vaccaro is Respondent’s lead engineer, and is responsible for interacting with Local 825 to
obtain operators through the Union’s hiring hall, and ensuring that Respondent complies with
the Local 825 collective bargaining agreement.1 Each day, Weaver prepares a spreadsheet or
schedule describing the complete staffing necessary for the following day’s work on every job,
including the operators. The spreadsheet also identifies which operators are assigned to which
jobsite, whether additional operators will be necessary, and which, if any, operators will be laid
off. Using this spreadsheet, Vaccaro communicates the job assignments to operators, calls the
Local 825 referral hall for additional operators if necessary, and, if required, informs operators
that they are being laid off. Weaver and Vaccaro also communicate by phone, e-mail and text
message regarding staffing and equipment for the jobsites on a daily basis, sometimes 3 or 4
times per day. Vaccaro testified that he and Weaver sometimes discuss the work performance
of the operators, typically when there is some performance-related problem.2
As discussed above, Vaccaro contacts the Local 825 referral hall when additional
operators are needed for a jobsite. Vaccaro testified that when contacting the referral hall, he
asks for an operator competent to operate a specific piece of equipment, and sometimes
identifies specific experience, such as demolition work, that Respondent would prefer. He also
discusses whether the operator needs a TWIC or SWAC card, which is issued by the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey after a background check to permit access to the docks
and the airport, respectively. The Local 825 contract permits operators to run more than one
piece of equipment per day, and Criscola, Weaver and Vaccaro all testified that operators who
could run equipment necessary for both paving work and “dirt” or earth work were particularly
desirable.
Vaccaro testified that he typically informs operators when they are being laid off. The
Local 825 contract does not require that layoffs be implemented in reverse seniority order.
Vaccaro testified that when informing an operator that they are being laid off, he typically tells
them to put their name on the Union’s referral list. Vaccaro testified that when an operator
employed by Respondent has a problem with their continued membership in Local 825, he
suggests that the operator seek legal advice and tries to resolve the matter “before it goes any
further,” in that the majority of such situations involve non-payment of union dues.
B. Morales’ Dealings with Local 825
Morales testified that he first became involved with Local 825 while working for a
company called Lancaster Development in 2006. When he began working for Lancaster,
Morales was performing emergency service work near Binghamton, New York, including pipe

1 Vaccaro has also been a member of Local 825 for 28 years. He testified that he is familiar with the
Union’s officers, and attends Union meetings.
2 Criscola, Weaver, and Vaccaro testified for Respondent at the hearing, as did Lorraine Lenard,
Respondent’s Controller and Assistant EEO Officer. Criscola is Respondent’s designated EEO Officer.
JD(NY)–41–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
work, water drainage, sewer work, and creating slopes and grading for roads, for which he
operated a bulldozer.3 He was then transferred to a Lancaster jobsite at Drury Lane in
Newburgh, New York, where he ran an excavator (with metal tracks), a rubber tire excavator, a
front end loader, and a bulldozer.4 Morales testified that while working at Lancaster, he was
approached by Local 825 business agent Andrew Storno, who told him that he was a good
operator, and asked whether he would be willing to walk off the job for the benefit of the Union.
Morales responded that he was willing to leave the job if he would receive a Union book, and if
he would be put to work the next day on a job where the operators were Union-represented.
Storno said that he would call Morales later that day, and when he called he instructed Morales
to walk off the job. Morales walked off the job, and began working the next day for Jett
Industries, which had a collective bargaining agreement with Local 825, on a jobsite at Port
Jervis, New York.
Although Morales worked for firms under Local 825 contracts fairly steadily for the next
few years, he did not receive a union book. Morales testified that he spoke to several lead
engineers to attempt to obtain a union book, as well as to Storno and Local 825 business agent
John Woods. Morales testified that he repeatedly asked Storno and Woods about how and
when he would obtain his union book, but they told him that it was over their heads, and that he
should keep working. Finally, in 2008 the International Union of Operating Engineers appointed
a supervisor, named Dan DeGraw, to oversee Local 825. Morales complained to DeGraw that
he had been working under the Local 825 collective bargaining agreement for years, but had not
yet received his union book. DeGraw told Morales that Local 825 had been accepting members
but withholding registrant cards and union books, in order to retain certain fund contributions
that are remitted to the International Union of Operating Engineers once the members receive
their registrant cards or union books. Morales subsequently received a registrant card after
appearing before a meeting of the Union’s upgrade committee. However, Morales testified that
when he went to the Local 825 office in Middletown, New York, to pick up the paperwork
necessary to join the Union, Storno and Woods were present, and a heated argument ensued.
After obtaining his registrant card, Morales began questioning Woods and Storno about
upgrading to obtain a union book. Eventually, Morales spoke to Dave Bojack, the lead engineer
with Local 825 signatory Conti Enterprises and a member of the Local 825 upgrade committee.
Bojack told Morales that every 18 months a member became eligible for an upgrade. Morales
then pressed the matter repeatedly with Woods and Storno, emphasizing that he had done his
part by walking off the Lancaster job, and wanted his union book. Morales testified that Woods
and Storno told him on multiple occasions that he was not going to get his union book.5
The Local 825 referral system maintains records which describe the specific licenses,
permits, and pieces of equipment each operator has obtained or is competent to use.
Employees eligible to be referred by Local 825 first complete a work card listing the equipment
they are qualified to use, and are then tested on that equipment by the Union. If a particular
contractor feels that a referred employee is not in fact capable of using a particular piece of
equipment, they may complain to the Union, and the Union then tests the individual on the
equipment in question again. Morales has a CDL class A certification, forklift and hazmat

3 Grading work involves preparing a subbase for roadways by grading the ground, and then grading
the subbase to prepare for the application of blacktop.
4 Prior to working for Lancaster, Morales had done excavation work for several companies using the
same equipment.
5 At the time of the hearing in this matter, Woods was Acting President of Local 825, and Storno was
still employed by the Union. Neither Woods nor Storno testified at the hearing.
JD(NY)–41–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
certifications, OSHA 10 and 30 certifications, and a Port Authority underground utility
certification. Morales also has SWAC and TWIC cards, obtained at the direction of Respondent
for work at the Teterboro Airport and a jobsite at Global. Morales is qualified to run a paver
(used to lay down asphalt at a certain depth), a breakdown roller (which seals up the blacktop
after the paver), a finish roller (the last roller to smooth the blacktop), and a sweeper (for clean-
up). Morales is also qualified to run a backhoe and equipment associated with demolition, such
as attachments to an excavator and a skid steer. Morales is qualified to operate bulldozers and
related equipment such as a fine shaver used to grade subbase or slopes within under an inch,
some of the most difficult work that he performs. He is also qualified to operate excavators and
graders which set the subbase for a road before the paver lays down asphalt. Finally, Morales
is qualified to operate a dirt roller, used in road work, which compresses and seals up dirt so
that it is not affected by rain. These various certifications and capabilities are all described in
Local 825 referral hall records pertaining to Morales.
C. Respondent’s Employment and Lay Off of Morales
Morales began working for Respondent on March 28, 2011, after being referred by a
dispatcher at Local 825’s Springfield, New Jersey referral hall. The dispatcher told Morales that
Respondent was looking for a minority operator capable of running an excavator, a rubber tire
excavator, and a front end loader, with experience in demolition.6 Morales was initially sent to a
jobsite at Route 80, and worked there from March until May of 2011, operating an excavator, a
rubber tire excavator, a front end loader, and a backhoe. While working at this jobsite, Vaccaro
introduced himself, and told Morales that he was the contact person for all of the operators.
Morales testified that Vaccaro asked what other equipment he could operate, and Morales said
that he also did paving work. Vaccaro stated that Crisdel liked operators who could do paving
and blacktop, because they were more versatile.7 Morales testified that while at the Route 80
jobsite the supervisor, Jeff, told him he was a good operator, and Joe Lombardi, a 20-year
employee, informed Morales that he had told Weaver and Vaccaro that it would be a good idea
for the company to keep Morales on.
Morales testified that some time after he began working for Respondent, in the spring of
2011, he asked Vaccaro to look into the situation with Local 825, and see whether he could help
obtain his union book. According to Morales, Vaccaro told him a few weeks later that there was
something going on in the Local 825 office, and that Morales would have to take it up directly
with the Union, because it was over Vaccaro’s head. Several months later, Morales spoke to
Vaccaro about the upgrade to a union book again, and Vaccaro said that he would have to
speak with Bojack. Vaccaro later reported to Morales that a member was eligible for an
upgrade every 18 months, but that Morales would not receive one. Vaccaro confirmed that
Morales had spoken to him several times about upgrading from a registrant card to a full union
book. Vaccaro testified that he suggested that Morales speak to Bojack about the matter,
because Bojack was on the Union’s upgrade committee.
After the Route 80 job ended, Morales called Vaccaro to let him know that he had been
laid off, and Vaccaro immediately sent him to a jobsite widening the road at Exit 8 on the New

6 This is consistent with Vaccaro’s account of the specific work qualifications he communicated to the
Local 825 referral hall at the time that Morales was hired. Certain contracts for work funded by the
federal and New Jersey State governments require that the contractor employ minorities as a certain
percentage of the workforce on the project. Morales is Hispanic.
7 Vaccaro testified that he met Morales at the Route 80 jobsite, but did not provide any specific
description of their conversation.
JD(NY)–41–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
Jersey Turnpike. Morales was assigned to lay pipe for a sewer line off the exit between
residences and a pump station. Morales worked at this jobsite from May to late July 2011,
operating an excavator, a bulldozer, a loader, and a backhoe. Morales testified that
superintendent Bob Dee and foreman Bruce Kennel both told him that he was a good operator.
Subsequently Morales received assignments to different jobsites directly from Weaver or
Vaccaro, without going back on the Local 825 out of work list. After the Exit 8 job, Morales was
put on a night paving crew, where he operated the breakdown, finish, or second roller until the
end of August 2011. The night paving crew worked on sections of Route 80 and Route 287,
and the New Jersey Turnpike. Morales testified that superintendent Juan and foreman Jerry
told him that he was a good roller operator during his work on the paving crew.
Morales was next sent to a road widening job at Florham Park, New Jersey, cutting back
the slopes at the side of the road and doing drainage, curbs, and fine grading. Morales was the
only operator on this project at the time, and ran a rubber tire excavator. Morales testified that
foreman Juan said that he operated the equipment well. Morales worked on the job for about a
month, when it was shut down to obtain necessary permits. He was next sent to a jobsite at
Giant Stadium, repairing a water line, and operated a backhoe and a rubber tire excavator at
that project for a couple of days. He was laid off of the Giant Stadium project after a couple of
days, and returned to the Local 825 out of work list. However, he informed the Union dispatcher
that he would rather wait for another job with Respondent than be sent out to a different
contractor, because Vaccaro had told him that Respondent would have more work coming up.
At the end of September 2011, Morales was sent to a job at the Teterboro Airport, where
he did pipe work until late November. On the weekends, he worked as part of a group milling
and paving the runways and taxiways; Morales operated the breakdown roller, compaction or
numbers roller, and the finish roller on this job. Morales was subsequently sent to a jobsite at
Exit 8 on the New Jersey Turnpike, where he ran a paver until December 2011. Morales was
then part of a paving crew at a job on the highway in Bayonne, and was sent in mid-December
2011 to a jobsite at PSE&G, where he ran a roller. He next went to a jobsite in Trenton for a
few days to do fine grading.
At that point, Respondent shut down its operations for the period from Christmas to New
Year’s. However, Morales attended Respondent’s Christmas party at a location in South
Plainfield. Morales testified that he had heard at the jobsites that Crisdel was bidding on a road
project on Route 78, so at the Christmas party he asked Weaver whether Crisdel had won the
bid. Weaver told Morales that Crisdel had gotten the Route 78 job, and that he expected to
send Morales there soon. Morales testified that he also asked Vaccaro about the Route 78 job
at the Christmas party. According to Morales, Vaccaro said that Crisdel had won the bid for the
job, and that Morales was the first person that he thought about to send there because of his
versatility. Vaccaro said that the Route 78 job would be beginning soon, but did not have an
exact date.8

8 Weaver testified that Respondent put in a bid for the Route 78 work in December 2011, and that
around the time of the Christmas party there was an indication that Crisdel would be awarded the contract
for the Route 78 job. However, Weaver could not recall speaking to Morales at the Christmas party.
Vaccaro also testified that he learned that Respondent had been awarded the contract for the Route 78
job around Christmas in 2011. Vaccaro testified that at some point Morales asked about the Route 78
job, and Vaccaro told him that the lead engineer from Ferreira Construction was handling operators on
the job.
JD(NY)–41–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
In January 2012, Morales was sent back to the Florham Park job, where Respondent
was finishing up a sewer line and continuing the road widening. During this period, Morales
operated a backhoe, did fine grading, and operated a dirt roller. Morales was the sole operator
on the job during this period.
On Friday, February 24, 2012,9 while still employed on the Florham Park job, Morales
received a letter dated February 22 from Local 825’s Examining Committee, stating that the
Committee had decided that Morales was no longer a member of the Union, and that Morales
would receive a reimbursement for dues paid through June 30.10 Morales testified that after he
received this letter on February 24, he called Vaccaro on Vaccaro’s cell phone at 4:30 p.m.,
because he was scheduled to work on Monday, February 26. According to Morales, he read
the letter to Vaccaro and asked him what he should do. Vaccaro said that he didn’t want to get
involved in the situation. Morales said he was scheduled to work the following Monday, and
Vaccaro directed him to come in to work, because he had not been informed by Local 825 of
Morales’ expulsion. Morales testified that on Sunday he sent Vaccaro a text message, asking
Vaccaro whether he had heard anything, and Vaccaro replied that he had not.11
Vaccaro confirmed that Morales called him a week or so prior to being laid off. Vaccaro
testified that Morales said he had received a letter from Local 825 stating that “his book had
been revoked or however they worded it,” and asked what he should do. Vaccaro testified that
he told Morales that he should seek legal assistance, because many times members received
letters regarding unpaid dues. Vaccaro told Morales that he did not intend to say anything
about the matter until he heard something further.
On Monday, February 27, Morales reported for work at the Florham Park jobsite, where
he was doing fine grading and generally preparing the project for blacktop. Morales testified
that early that week Vaccaro called him, and asked him whether he had heard anything about
his situation with the Union. Morales told Vaccaro that he was looking into it, because there
was no reason for the Union to expel him. Morales contacted friends who had been Local 825
members for some time, but was unable to obtain information as to why he was expelled.
Finally, Morales testified that on Thursday, March 1, he called Weaver to let him know that Local
825 had expelled him and see whether there was anything Weaver could do. According to
Morales, he described the letter from Local 825 expelling him, and asked Weaver if he could do
anything. Weaver said there was nothing he could do. Weaver then said that under
Respondent’s contract with Local 825 Morales had to be in good standing with the Union in
order to continue to work for the company. Weaver said that as a result, he would have to lay
Morales off. Weaver told Morales that Friday would be his last day on the job.
Vaccaro and Weaver testified that they did not discuss Morales’ expulsion from Local
825 prior to his layoff. Vaccaro and Weaver testified that they first discussed the matter during
the week after Morales’ layoff. Vaccaro testified that Weaver called him and asked him what
was going on with Morales, whether Morales was having some trouble, because Morales had
asked Weaver about becoming a superintendent. According to Vaccaro, he responded that
Morales had told him about a problem with Local 825, but that Morales was working on it.

9 All subsequent dates are in 2012 unless otherwise indicated.
10 There is no evidence that Morales was brought up on internal union charges, or that a hearing was
conducted by Local 825 prior to his expulsion. There is no evidence that Morales was delinquent in his
payment of dues to the Union.
11 Vaccaro testified that he had communicated with Morales by text message, but could not recall this
particular exchange.
JD(NY)–41–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
Weaver testified that Vaccaro called him the week after Morales’ layoff, and told him that
Morales was “having some issues” with Local 825. Weaver testified that he did not inquire as to
the specific nature of the issues between Morales and the Union. Weaver testified that this
conversation with Vaccaro took place prior to Morales’ inquiry about a superintendent position.
Morales testified that on Friday, March 2, while working at the Florham Park jobsite,
Vaccaro called him and told him that that would be his last day of work. Vaccaro told Morales
that he had done a good job, but because of the Union’s letter expelling him he could not
continue to work for the company. Vaccaro told Morales that if he straightened out the problem
with Local 825, he could return to work. Vaccaro testified that at some point in March, Weaver
told him that there was no more pipe or grading work at the Florham Park jobsite, and that the
job was slowing down. According to Vaccaro, Weaver asked whether he had any room for
additional operators on the New Jersey Turnpike job, and Vaccaro said that the job was down to
skeleton crews. Consequently, Vaccaro called Morales and told him that the Florham Park job
would be ending and there was no additional work for him. Vaccaro said that if something came
up, he would let Morales know.
D. Events After Morales’ Discharge
After his lay off, Morales remained in contact with the company, and had several
conversations with Vaccaro and Weaver. Morales testified that about two weeks after being laid
off he called Vaccaro and asked whether Vaccaro had heard anything from Local 825. Vaccaro
asked Morales how things were going, and Morales said that he had spoken to the NLRB and
was going to obtain legal counsel. Vaccaro told Morales to let him know if the situation with
Local 825 was resolved, and Vaccaro would then try to get him back to work. Morales testified
that a couple of weeks later he called Vaccaro again to see whether Vaccaro had heard
anything. Vaccaro said that he had not, and asked Morales what was going on. Morales said
that he had retained an attorney, Donald Sapir, Esq., and would hopefully be reinstated to the
Union soon. Vaccaro said that he wanted Morales to stay in touch, so that he could bring
Morales back when the situation with Local 825 was resolved. In addition, two or three weeks
after being laid off Morales called Weaver, and asked whether Respondent had any assistant
superintendent positions open, because Morales had experience in that job as well. Weaver
said that Crisdel didn’t have anything at that time, but that he would keep Morales in mind. He
asked Morales what was going on, and Morales said that he had contacted the NLRB and
retained counsel. Weaver told Morales to keep him informed, because he would like to have
Morales return to work at the company. Weaver generally confirmed Morales’ account of this
conversation.
In May 2012, Morales received his union book pursuant to a settlement reached
between Local 825 and the NLRB, Region 22, with the participation of Morales’ private attorney.
Morales subsequently placed his name on the Local 825 out of work list, and asked that his
name be held for Respondent for a couple of weeks. Under the Local 825 collective bargaining
agreement, a contractor has the right to recall a specific operator through the referral hall for up
to two years after that operator’s last employment with the contractor. Morales, however, was
not recalled to work with Respondent, even though Respondent asked for non-recall referrals
from the Local 825 referral hall during that period. Specifically, records from the Local 825
referral hall indicate that Respondent received two referred operators on May 30 (for black top,
dozers, excavators, and loaders), June 11 (for dozers and loaders), and June 15 (for dozers
and loaders).
JD(NY)–41–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
III. Analysis and Conclusion
A. Applicable Legal Standards and the Parties’ Contentions
Under Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, an employer may not discriminate with regard to the
hire, tenure, or any term or condition of employment in order to encourage or discourage
membership in a labor organization. In order to determine whether an adverse employment
action was effected for prohibited reasons, the Board applies the analysis articulated in Wright
Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S. 989
(1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation Mgmt. Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983). The Board has
held that the Wright Line analysis is generally appropriate in cases where the employer’s
motivation is at issue, including cases alleging that an employee was discharged in retaliation
for internal union activity. Nationsway Transport Service, 327 NLRB 1033, 1034 (1999).
To establish an unlawful discharge or lay off under Wright Line, the General Counsel
must first prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employee’s protected activities
were a substantial or motivating factor in the employer’s decision to take action against them.
Manno Electric, Inc., 321 NLRB 278, 280 (1996). The General Counsel makes a showing of
discriminatory motivation by proving the employee’s protected activity, employer knowledge of
that activity, and animus against the employee’s protected conduct. Naomi Knitting Plant, 328
NLRB 1279, 1281 (1999). Proof of an employer's motive can be based upon direct evidence or
can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, based on the record as a whole. Ronin
Shipbuilding, 330 NLRB 464 (2000); Robert Orr/Sysco Food Services, 343 NLRB 1183 (2004).
If the General Counsel is successful, the burden of persuasion then shifts to the
employer to show that it would have taken the same action even in the absence of the
employee’s protected activities. Wright Line, 251 NLRB at 1089; Septix Waste, Inc., 346 NLRB
494, 496 (2006); Williamette Industries, 341 NLRB 560, 563 (2004). Once the General Counsel
has met its initial burden under Wright Line, an employer does not satisfy its burden merely by
stating a legitimate reason for the action taken, but instead must persuade by a preponderance
of the credible evidence that it would have taken the same action in the absence of the
protected conduct. T&J Trucking Co., 316 NLRB 771 (1995); Manno Electric, Inc., 321 NLRB at
280 fn. 12 (1996).
The Complaint in this case alleges that Respondent laid off Morales in retaliation for his
expulsion from Local 825. However, at the hearing General Counsel adduced significant
evidence during its direct case regarding Morales’ internal union activities, and argues in his
Post-Hearing Brief that the Morales was laid off in retaliation for his those activities, which
culminated in his expulsion.12 Thus, General Counsel argues that the evidence establishes a
prima facie case that Morales was laid off in retaliation for his internal union activities, ultimately
resulting in his expulsion. General Counsel further argues that the preponderance of the
evidence does not substantiate Respondent’s assertion that it laid off Morales for legitimate,
non-discriminatory reasons.
Respondent does not argue that Morales’ internal union activity was not protected or that
the Wright Line analysis is otherwise inappropriate. Respondent contends that General
Counsel has not established a prima facie case under the Wright Line standard, because there

12 While General Counsel argues in his Post-Hearing Brief that Respondent laid off Morales in order
to “appease the Union,” Local 825 is not a party to this case, there are no allegations against the Union,
and, as discussed below, Respondent does not contend that it laid Morales off at the Union’s behest.
JD(NY)–41–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
is no evidence that its personnel were aware of Morales’ expulsion from the Union at the time of
the layoff, and no evidence of animus.13 Respondent further contends that the preponderance
of the credible evidence establishes that it legitimately laid Morales off because work at the
Florham Park jobsite where he was employed was ending, and Crisdel had no other work that
he was competent to perform.
B. General Counsel Has Established a Prima Facie Case
I find that the record evidence establishes a prima facie case that Morales was laid off
because of his expulsion following internal union activity. The evidence establishes that
Morales engaged in internal union activity, and that Respondent had knowledge of this activity
and Morales’ expulsion from Local 825 at the time that Morales was laid off. In addition, there is
evidence sufficient to generate an inference that Respondent laid off Morales because Morales
had been expelled from the Union.
The evidence establishes that Morales engaged in a lengthy course of internal union
activity in order to obtain a union registrant card and full union book. It is well-settled that
although activity such as Morales’ does not constitute “classic ‘union activities,’” internal union
member activities opposing the union’s policies and practices constitute protected activity under
Section 7. Nationsway Transport Service, 327 NLRB at 1034; see also Wenner Ford Tractor
Rentals, 315 NLRB 964 (1994) (discriminatee opposed incumbent union officials in earlier
internal union election); Combustion Engineering, 272 NLRB 957, 960-961, 963-966 (1984)
(discriminatee disputed union business manager’s position regarding application of contractual
overtime and expense reimbursement provisions). The Board’s Decision in Nationsway
Transport Service is instructive in this regard. In that case, the Board applied the Wright Line
analysis and concluded that the employer unlawfully discharged the discriminatee pursuant to
the union’s request. Nationsway Transport Service, 327 NLRB at 1033-1034. The parties had
established a practice under the collective bargaining agreement that the first employee arriving
at a newly opened terminal was entitled to the first position on the seniority list, and would
perform shop steward duties as the union’s “spokesman” at the job site. Id. at 1034. The Board
found that the discriminatee arrived at the job and signed in first, despite an agreement made by
the union to have its President’s son-in-law sign in first and act as spokesman; as a result, the
discriminatee’s conduct was vehemently opposed by the union. Id. at 1034, 1038. The Board
thus determined that when it discharged the discriminatee, the employer violated Sections
8(a)(1) and (3) by discriminating regarding the hire, tenure, or terms and conditions of its
employees’ employment, in order to encourage union membership. Id. at 1034.
In this context, Morales’ expulsion and internal union activities are sufficient to warrant
the application of the Wright Line standard, which is appropriate when employer motivation and
possible retaliation for protected activity is in question. Morales testified without contradiction
that beginning in 2006, when he walked off a job at the behest of Local 825 business agent
Andrew Storno, he had been struggling with the Union to obtain his union book. I credit

13 Proviso B to Section 8(a)(3) prohibits an employer from “justify[ing] any discrimination against an
employee for non-membership in a labor organization” if the employer has “reasonable grounds” to
believe that an employee’s union membership was denied or terminated for reasons other than the
employee’s failure to remit required dues and initiation fees. See, e.g., Palmer House Hilton, 353 NLRB
851, 852 (2009) (2 member Board), 356 NLRB No. 2 (2010). Respondent contends here that Weaver,
who made the determination to lay off Morales, was not aware of Morales’ expulsion from Local 825 at
that time. Respondent does not argue that it discharged Morales at Local 825’s request, or had
reasonable grounds to believe that the Union had expelled him for non-payment of dues.
JD(NY)–41–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
Morales’ account of his subsequent exchanges with Storno and business agent John Woods
regarding the issue, at least one of which became quite heated, while working jobs covered by
the Local 825 collective bargaining agreement. I further credit Morales’ testimony that he spoke
with the supervisor eventually appointed by the International Union of Operating Engineers to
oversee the Local, and was informed that Local 825 had been withholding member registrant
cards and union books in order to retain for itself fund contributions which would otherwise have
been remitted to the International. Likewise, I credit Morales’ description of his ensuing efforts
to obtain an upgrade from a registrant card to a full union book, including his testimony
regarding discussions with Storno, Woods, and Dave Bojack of the Local 825 upgrade
committee. Finally, I credit Morales’ uncontradicted testimony that Storno and Woods
repeatedly told him that he was not going to receive a union book. Pursuant to the Board’s
decision in Nationsway Transport Service and the cases cited therein, I find that Morales’
lengthy series of efforts in this regard constituted protected internal union activity, and that the
application of the Wright Line analysis is appropriate.
The evidence also establishes that, contrary to Respondent’s contention, Weaver and
Vaccaro, the managers directly involved in Morales’ layoff, were aware of his expulsion from
Local 825 by letter of February 22, and of his internal union activities. Vaccaro basically
corroborated Morales’ testimony that they had discussed Morales’ ongoing attempts to obtain
an upgrade to a union book, and that Morales informed him on February 24 that he had been
expelled from the Union. However, I also credit Morales’ testimony that he called Weaver on
March 1 and informed him that he had been expelled from Local 825. I further credit Morales’
testimony that Weaver told him during this conversation that Respondent’s contract with Local
825 required that Morales remain in good standing with the Union in order to continue to work,
and that Weaver would have to lay Morales off as a result.
In doing so, I find that Morales was a more credible witness regarding these events,
whose testimony overall was more reliable than that of Weaver or Vaccaro. Morales’ testimony
regarding his conversations with Vaccaro and Weaver on March 1 was straightforward and
consistent. Weaver’s testimony, by contrast, was vague and contradicted both his previous
affidavit and telephone records in the most significant respects. Weaver initially testified on
direct examination that he had two conversations with Morales regarding his employment
status. Weaver claimed that the first took place in the days before Morales’ layoff, after Vaccaro
had informed Morales that he would no longer be working for Respondent but before Morales’
employment actually ended (Tr. 241). Weaver said that during this conversation, initiated by
Morales, Morales said that Vaccaro had laid him off, and asked if there was a chance of his
returning to work. Weaver claimed that he told Morales that the Florham Park job was coming
to an end, but Morales might be called back if Respondent had sufficient work and needed
additional employees (Tr. 241). Weaver contended that during the second conversation, a few
weeks later, Morales raised the possibility of becoming a superintendent, and only then
revealed that he “had some issues with Local 825 that he was trying to rectify” (Tr. 242).
Weaver repeatedly maintained that he was never aware that Morales had been expelled by
Local 825 (Tr. 242, 245-246).
Weaver’s affidavit and pertinent telephone records, however, establish that his testimony
regarding his conversations with Morales was utterly unreliable. For example, in Weaver’s
affidavit, sworn to about a month after Morales’ layoff, he contended that both of his
conversations with Morales took place after Morales stopped working, and not before, thus flatly
contradicting his testimony on direct examination (Tr. 262-264). Furthermore, in his affidavit,
Weaver admitted that during the first of these conversations, Morales said that he had been
expelled from Local 825, again baldly contradicting his direct testimony (Tr. 264-266). Weaver’s
contention in his affidavit that his conversations with Morales took place only after Morales’
JD(NY)–41–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
layoff was also contravened by Weaver and Morales’ telephone records, which indicate that
Weaver and Morales spoke on March 1, before Morales’ layoff, and then again on March 16,
two weeks later (Tr. 268-271; G.C. Ex. 10, 16). It would not be unreasonable to conclude that
Weaver deliberately attempted to tailor the account he provided in his direct testimony to
ameliorate the admissions contained in his affidavit. Regardless, the completely contradictory
testimony and documentary evidence involving the critical events and issues of fact in the case
compels the conclusion that Weaver cannot be credited as a witness, and that his testimony is
not probative.
Vaccaro’s testimony was similarly unenlightening. Vaccaro initially contended that he
could not recall when Weaver directed him to lay Morales off, only to remember that their
conversation took place on March 1 after being confronted with his affidavit to that effect (Tr.
325, 346-348). Vaccaro was also less than forthcoming with details regarding his conversation
informing Morales of the layoff, such that the specifics had to be extracted gradually during the
course of his cross-examination (Tr. 346, 347-350, 362). Vaccaro repeatedly disparaged his
own recollection of these events, asserting that he was “bad with timeline,” and eventually
attempted to cast doubt upon the veracity of the statements in his affidavit by contending that
“things got late and I was getting a little confused” (Tr. 327, 374-375). It should also be noted
that Weaver and Vaccaro presented conflicting accounts of their first discussion of Morales’
“union issues” after his layoff; while Weaver claimed that this conversation took place “probably
the beginning” of the week following the layoff, Vaccaro contended that it occurred after Morales
had inquired as to a superintendent position, at least 2 weeks later (Tr. 243, 327-328). For all of
the foregoing reasons, I do not credit Vaccaro’s testimony that he did not discuss Morales’
expulsion from Local 825 with Weaver until after Morales had been laid off.
Finally, Weaver and Vaccaro’s assertion that Weaver was unaware of Morales’
expulsion from Local 825 prior to his layoff is improbable given their own accounts of their work
responsibilities and interactions. The evidence establishes that each day Weaver prepares a
schedule, consisting of a spreadsheet, setting out the complete staff, including the operators,
necessary for the following day’s work. This schedule identifies the operators assigned to each
jobsite, indicating whether additional operators will be necessary and which operators, if any,
will be laid off. Vaccaro uses this schedule to communicate job assignments and layoffs to the
operators, and contacts the Local 825 referral hall for additional operators as needed. Weaver
and Vaccaro both testified that they communicate every day, as often as 3-4 times per day, and
both stated that they discussed issues involving operators with one another, including issues
involving an operator’s continued membership in Local 825 (Tr. 24, 248-249, 272, 328-330).
Given this evidentiary context, it is simply not plausible that Vaccaro would have neglected to
tell Weaver that an operator who had worked steadily for Respondent until that point had been
expelled from Local 825.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I find that Respondent was aware of Morales’ protected
internal union activity, and of his expulsion from Local 825, at the time of his layoff. I further
credit Morales’ testimony that when he called Weaver on March 1 and informed Weaver that he
had been expelled from the Union, Weaver responded that Crisdel’s contract with Local 825
required that Morales remain in good standing with the Union in order to continue to work, and
that Weaver would have to lay Morales off.14

14 Respondent argues that Morales should not be credited because he had filed and settled an unfair
labor practice charge against Local 825 prior to filing the instant charge against Respondent. Morales’
exercising his right to file charges against the Union and Respondent is immaterial to his credibility.
While Respondent further argues that Morales fatally undermined his credibility by informing Lorraine
Continued
JD(NY)–41–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
The record also contains indicia of animus sufficient to support a prima facie case. The
evidence establishes that Morales was laid off within a week after his expulsion from the Union,
and the day after his March 1 conversation informing Weaver that he had been expelled. Such
timing has been considered suspicious by the Board in the context of the Wright Line analysis.
See, e.g., Robert Orr/Sysco Food Services, 343 NLRB 1183, 1193 (2004) (timing of discharge
which occurred two weeks after testimony in a Board proceeding suspect); Air Flow Equipment,
Inc., 340 NLRB 415, 419 (2003) (discharge which occurred “within a few weeks of Respondent’s
learning that he was a leading union organizer” suspect). I have also found that Weaver
specifically attributed the layoff to Morales’ expulsion during their conversation on March 1. I
credit as well Morales’ testimony that Vaccaro told him that he could not continue working for
Crisdel because he had been expelled, but could return to work if he resolved the problem with
Local 825. Such statements are highly probative of unlawful motivation. Nationsway Transport
Service, 327 NLRB at 1040, 1045 (terminal manager’s statement that employee would not be
returned to work until he “straightened out [his] problems with the union” evinces unlawful
motivation); Quality Mechanical, 307 NLRB 64, 66 (1992).
For all of the foregoing reasons, I find that General Counsel has established a prima
facie case that Morales was laid off in retaliation for his expulsion from Local 825.
C. Respondent Has Not Established That It Laid Off Morales For Legitimate Reasons
Respondent contends that Morales was laid off because there was no additional work
that he was capable of performing at the Florham Park jobsite, and because it had no work for
him at any other job. I find that the preponderance of the credible evidence does not
substantiate these assertions.
I find that the evidence overall establishes that Morales was a valuable employee by
Respondent’s standards. Morales had experience in both “dirt” or earth work, such as
excavation, and in paving work. During his employment with Respondent, in addition to
performing dirt work, Morales worked on a paving crew at jobsites at Route 80, Route 287, and
the New Jersey Turnpike (operating beakdown, finish, and second rollers), at the Teterboro
Airport, at a highway in Bayonne (operating breakdown, compaction/numbers and finish rollers),
and at PSE&G (operating a roller). Weaver and Vaccaro both testified that Morales was
capable of performing both earth work and paving work, and that operators with that sort of
versatility were particularly desirable (Tr. 257-258, 309-310, 331-334).15 They also testified that
Respondent makes an effort to retain good operators, like Morales. There is no evidence that
Morales was disciplined, or that there were any problems with his work whatsoever during his
year of employment.
Furthermore, the evidence establishes that work at the Florham Park jobsite was not
complete at the time of Morales’ layoff, as Weaver and Vaccaro contended. Although Weaver
and Vaccaro both testified that the Florham Park job was ending at the time of Vaccaro’s layoff
_________________________
Lenard that he had no issue with Respondent after filing NLRB charges, the testimony indicates that
Morales and Lenard were discussing issues of discrimination involving protected classifications under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes, as Lenard is Respondent’s assistant EEO
officer. In addition, Morales cannot be expected to exhibit an attorney’s understanding of the substantive
and procedural law involving labor and employment issues.
15 Weaver also testified that some of the employees on Respondent’s regular paving crews were not
capable of operating dirt machines.
JD(NY)–41–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
(Tr. 294-295, 351), in fact the job continued into April, according to Respondent’s payroll
records (G.C. Ex. 11, p. 348, 369, 38616). Weaver also contended that there was only milling
and paving work left on the Florham Park job at the time of Morales’ layoff, and Vaccaro testified
that Weaver communicated this to him as well (Tr. 294-295, 367). However, Respondent’s
payroll records indicate that dirt or earth work, such as storm drainage, excavation and resoiling,
was performed at the Florham Park jobsite during the weeks after Morales’ layoff (G.C. Ex. 11,
p. 292-293, 308, 334).
In fact, the documentary evidence establishes that on March 1 and 2, immediately prior
to his layoff, Morales was performing paving, as opposed to dirt work (Tr. 84-85; G.C. Ex. 11, p.
273). Respondent’s payroll records establish that the week after Morales’ layoff operator Gino
Trois began working at the Florham Park jobsite, performing the same paving work that Morales
had performed immediately prior to his layoff (Tr. 86; G.C. Ex. 11, p. 273, 292). Trois continued
working at the Florham Park jobsite, performing paving, milling, and dirt work, until April 6 (G.C.
Ex. 11, p. 306, 348), and Respondent’s payroll records establish that employees Mark Bennett,
Richard Fazio, Eric Marple, Jeff McGorvin, Mark Simon, Robert Spiroto, and Michael Terranova
performed paving and dirt work which Morales was capable of handling during the month after
Morales’ layoff (G.C. Ex. 11, p. 292, 295, 300, 303, 306, 308, 318, 327, 331, 344). Indeed,
Weaver admitted that he transferred operators from other jobs to the Florham Park jobsite, even
to run the specific machine Morales had been operating at the time of his layoff (Tr. 295-296).
As a result, the evidence establishes that Morales was immediately replaced at Florham Park by
another operator who performed exactly the same paving work, contravening Respondent’s
contention that there was no additional work for Morales at the Florham Park jobsite at the time
of his layoff. The evidence that Morales was performing paving work at Florham Park during his
last two days of work there also undermines Respondent’s assertion that Morales was not
capable of performing what was purportedly the only remaining work at the Florham Park jobsite
at the time of his layoff.
Furthermore, Respondent’s argument, articulated by Weaver, that Morales was replaced
by other more senior operators is not supported by the evidence overall (Tr. 296-297, 303).
Although the Local 825 collective bargaining agreement apparently does not require that
seniority order be taken into consideration in cases of layoff and recall, Weaver and Criscola
testified that Respondent had a general practice of doing so. This contention, however, is
belied in the case of Morales by documentary evidence. In particular, Respondent’s seniority
list establishes that 3 of the operators who worked at the Florham Park jobsite after Morales’
layoff – Jeff McGorvin, Robert Spirito and Michael Terranova – had the same or less seniority
than did Morales, whose seniority date is April 18, 2011 (Tr. 303; G.C. Ex. 17).17 Respondent
provided no explanation as to why these employees were selected to work at the Florham park
jobsite instead of Morales given his equal or greater seniority. As a result, Respondent’s claim
that it selected Morales for layoff due to his low seniority is not supported by the record,
indicating that its asserted reasons for the layoff are pretextual.
I further find that the record does not substantiate Respondent’s assertion that there was
no work for Morales at any other Crisdel job site at the time of his layoff. The testimony of
Respondent’s witnesses regarding the Route 78 job, which began on March 15, was
contradictory and unreliable. For example, Criscola testified that because the lead engineer on

16 Page numbers refer to Bates stamp numbers appearing in the upper right hand corner of General
Counsel Exhibit 11.
17 According to Respondent’s seniority list, McGorvin, Spirito, and Terranova’s seniority dates are
September 12, 2011, April 27, 2011, and April 18, 2011, respectively (G.C. Ex. 17).
JD(NY)–41–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
the Route 78 job was employed by Ferreira Construction, and not Crisdel, Weaver and Vaccaro
were unable to place Crisdel employees on the job without Ferreira’s consent (Tr. 191, 198-
199). However, Weaver testified that Ferreira’s lead engineer discussed with him, “what guys
we were going to put on the job and if there was a need for outside help,” indicating that
Respondent had a more significant level of hiring authority (Tr. 240). Indeed, Vaccaro testified
that the spreadsheets specifying the employees and job assignments for the Route 78 job were
prepared by Weaver, not by the lead engineer for Ferreira (Tr. 356-357). In addition,
Respondent’s payroll records establish that other employees, at least 4 of whom had equal or
less “seniority” than Morales, performed work at other job sites which Morales was competent to
perform during March and April (G.C. Ex. 11, p. 284, 298, 307, 349, 355, 366, 367, 373, 389,
390).18 The evidence also establishes that during the period of time that Respondent contends
that it had no work for Morales at any other jobsite, an operator named Antonio Afonso was
rehired to perform both dirt and paving work (Tr. 305-306; G.C. Ex. 11, p. 349, 366; G.C. Ex.
18). Subsequently, in late May and June after Morales had received his union book,
Respondent obtained newly referred employees from the Local 825 hiring hall, instead of
recalling Morales (G.C. Ex. 13). All of this evidence casts doubt upon Respondent’s contention
that it laid Morales off because there was no additional work available for him at its other job
sites.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the evidence does not substantiate Respondent’s
contention that it legitimately laid off Morales because work at the Florham Park jobsite was
ending, and there was no other work available which Morales could perform. As a result, I find
that Respondent’s asserted reasons for Morales’ layoff are pretextual, and that Morales was laid
off because, as Weaver and Vaccaro stated, he was expelled from Local 825. By laying off
Morales in retaliation for his expulsion, Respondent violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Respondent, Crisdel Group, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 825 is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By laying off Ramon Joseph Morales on March , 2012, because of his expulsion from
Local 825, Respondent violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
4. The above-described unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The Remedy
Having found that Respondent has violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the Act’s purposes.
Having found that Respondent violated the Act by discharging Ramon Joseph Morales,
Respondent shall be ordered to reinstate Morales to his former or substantially equivalent

18 These 4 employees are Tracey Anzano (hire date April 18, 2011), Kevin Franks (hire date March
10, 2012), Nikki Glabb (hired ate May 4, 2011), and Howard Lynch (hire date April 18, 2011) (G.C. Ex.
17).
JD(NY)–41–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
position, dismissing, if necessary, any employees hired subsequently, without prejudice to
Morales’ seniority or other rights and privileges Morales previously enjoyed. Respondent shall
further be ordered to make Morales whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a
result of its unlawful conduct, as prescribed in F.W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with
interest as set forth in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded
daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010), enf. denied on
other grounds, 647 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Respondent shall file a report with the Social
Security Administration allocating backpay to the appropriate calendar quarters, and shall
compensate Morales for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-
sum backpay awards covering periods longer than one year. Latino Express, Inc., 359 NLRB
No. 44 (2012). Finally, Respondent shall be ordered to post a notice informing its employees of
its obligations herein.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, I
issue the following recommended19
ORDER
Respondent Crisdel Group, Inc., Plainfield, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging employees because of their expulsion from Local 825, International
Union of Operating Engineers.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer immediate and full reinstatement to
Ramon Joseph Morales to his former position or, if such position no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to Morales’ seniority or to other rights and
privileges Morales previously enjoyed.
(b) Make whole with interest Ramon Joseph Morales for any lost wages he may have
suffered as a result of Respondent’s unlawful discrimination against him, in the manner set forth
in the Remedy section of this decision.
(c) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, remove from all files any reference to the
discharge of Ramon Joseph Morales on March 2, 2012, and within 3 days thereafter, notify
Morales in writing that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used against him in
any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the

19 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(NY)–41–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay, if any, due under the terms of
this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at the facility at Plainfield, New
Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”20 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being signed by 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. In
addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as
by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site and/or other electronic means if Respondent
customarily communicates with its employees by such means. 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 March 1, 2012.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated: Washington, DC August 26, 2013
___________________________________
Lauren Esposito
Administrative Law Judge

20 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice
reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
JD(NY)–41–13
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against you because you have been
expelled from Local 825, International Union of Operating Engineers, thereby encouraging
membership in a labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL within 14 days of the date of the Board’s Order, offer Ramon Joseph Morales full
reinstatement to his former position, or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Ramon Joseph Morales whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of his discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest compounded
daily.
WE WILL file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay due to Ramon
Joseph Morales to the appropriate calendar quarters.
WE WILL compensate Ramon Joseph Morales for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of
receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering periods longer than one year.
JD(NY)–41–13
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any
reference to the unlawful discharge of Ramon Joseph Morales, and within 3 days thereafter,
notify Morales in writing that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used against
him in any way.
CRISDEL GROUP, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
20 Washington Place, 5th Floor
Newark, New Jersey 07102-3110
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
973-645-2100.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 973-645-3784.