Donald Sullivan & Sons, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 18, 2001

333 N.L.R.B. 24 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 24
Donald Sullivan & Sons, LLC and John Ceraldi and
Brian Ostrowski. Cases 34–CA–8799–1 and 34–
CA–8799–2
January 18, 2001
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, HURTGEN, AND
WALSH
On October 6, 2000, Administrative Law Judge Mar-
garet M. Kern issued the attached bench decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting 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 brief and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Donald Sullivan & Sons,
LLC, Plantsville, Connecticut, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Order.
BENCH DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARGARET M. KERN, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried before me in Hartford, Connecticut, on Septem-
ber 18, 19, and 21, 2000. On October 19, 1999,1 a consolidated
complaint was issued based upon unfair labor practice charges
filed on April 7, and amended charges filed on August 27, by
John Ceraldi and Brian Ostrowski against Donald Sullivan &
Sons, LLC (Respondent). On January 26, 2000, Ceraldi and
Ostrowski requested conditional withdrawal of their charges on
which the consolidated complaint was based as a result of a
non-Board settlement they had reached with Respondent. Con-
ditioned upon Respondent’s full and continual performance
with the terms of the non-Board settlement, on January 31,
2000, the Regional Director for Region 34, issued an order
approving the withdrawal. Respondent failed to comply with
the terms of the non-Board settlement, specifically the payment
of an agreed-on backpay amount, thereby violating the terms of
the non-Board settlement agreement. On April 19, 2000, the
Regional Director revoked the conditional approval of the
withdrawal of the charges and reissued the consolidated com-
plaint.
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance 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.
1 All dates are in 1999 unless otherwise indicated.
It is alleged that on February 12, 1999, Respondent dis-
charged Ceraldi and Ostrowski because they had applied for
membership in the Union. Respondent defends this allegation
on the ground that the employees were not discharged but vol-
untarily quit. For the reasons set forth herein, I find Respondent
violated the Act as alleged.
At the conclusion of the hearing, I issued a bench decision
pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(10) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board’s Rules and Regulations. I certify that my decision
was accurately reproduced at pages 404 through 422 of the
transcript, attached as Appendix A.2
On the entire record, l issue the following recommended3
ORDER
The Respondent, Donald Sullivan & Sons, LLC, Plantsville,
Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employ-
ees because they join or apply to join a upon or otherwise sup-
port or engage in union activities.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer to John
Ceraldi and Brian Ostrowski full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
20 positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make John Ceraldi and Brian Ostrowski whole for any
loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the rem-
edy section of the decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from
its files any reference to the unlawful discharges of John Cer-
aldi and Brian Ostrowski, and within 3 days thereafter notify
them in writing that this has been done and that their discharges
will not be used against them in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make available
to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Or-
der.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
Plantsville, Connecticut facility copies of the attached notice
2 I have corrected the transcript by making physical inserts, cross-
outs and other obvious devices to conform to my intended words with-
out regard to what I may have actually said in the passages in question.
[Transcript corrections have been noted and corrected.]
3 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec.102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec.102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
333 NLRB No. 7
DONALD SULLIVAN & SONS, INC. 25
marked “Appendix B.”4 Copies of the notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 34, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and main-
tained 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 February 12, 1999.
(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 the
Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX A
404
JUDGE KERN: Good morning everyone. This is a con-
tinuation in the hearing in the matter of Donald Sullivan and
Sons, L.L.C., case numbers 34–CA–8799–1 and –2. Let the
record reflect that all counsel are present. I am prepared to
issue my decision in this matter.
This case was tried before me in Hartford, Connecticut on
September 18, 19 and 21, 2000. On October 19th, 1999, a con-
solidated complaint was issued based upon unfair labor practice
charges filed on April 7, and amended charges filed on August
27, by John Ceraldi and Brian Ostrowski against Donald Sulli-
van and Sons, L.L.C., herein called Respondent. All dates that
I refer to are in 1999 unless otherwise indicated.
On January 26, 2000, Ceraldi and Ostrowski requested con-
ditional withdrawal of their charges on which the consolidated
complaint was based as a result of a non-Board settlement they
had reached with Respondent. Conditioned upon Respondent’s
full and continual performance with the terms of the non-Board
settlement, on January 31, 2000, the Regional Director, Region
34, issued an order approving the withdrawal. Respondent
failed to comply with the terms of the non-Board settlement,
specifically the payment of an agreed-upon back pay amount,
thereby violating the terms of the non-Board settlement agree-
ment.
405
On April 19, 2000, the Regional Director revoked the condi-
tional approval of the withdrawal of the charges and reissued
the consolidated complaint.
On the entire record, I make the following findings of fact
and conclusions of law.

4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of the 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
Respondent admits and I find that it 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 the Plumbers and Pipefit-
ters Union, Local 777, herein called the Union, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Respondent is engaged as a plumbing contractor in the con-
struction industry performing residential and commercial con-
struction. Its principal place of business is located in Plants-
ville, Connecticut, herein called the facility. Three brothers,
Arthur, Martin and Barton Sullivan are the owners of this busi-
ness founded by their father 40 years ago. To avoid confusion,
I will refer to each brother by their first name. Arthur manages
the business and works primarily at the facility bidding on jobs,
preparing estimates and handling financial payroll and em-
ployee matters. Martin works on job sites as a plumber.
Respondent admits that Arthur and Martin are supervisors
and agents of Respondent within the meaning of the Act.
406
During the period of time relevant to this case, Respondent
employed approximately 18 journeymen plumbers and appren-
tices. According to Arthur, there has never been an organizing
effort and this case is the first time Respondent has ever been
confronted with employees who sought to join a union.
Ceraldi has 28 years experience as a journeyman plumber.
He was first employed by Respondent in July 1996. He re-
ported to Arthur and worked primarily on residential projects.
He was regularly assigned to the same pick-up truck which was
stocked with company-owned power tools and inventory. Cer-
aldi, as the other journeymen plumbers, provided his own hand
tools. He earned $20 an hour.
Ostrowski was first employed by Respondent in November
1996 as an apprentice. Approximately one and a half years
later, he got his plumber’s license and was promoted to the
position of journeyman plumber with a concomitant raise in
pay from $15 to $17 per hour. Ostrowski reported to Arthur,
Martin and Barton depending on the job he was assigned and he
worked primarily on commercial projects.
On Tuesday, January 26, Ceraldi, Ostrowski and a third em-
ployee, apprentice Matthew Pearsall, were working at the Lau-
rel Gardens job site in Orange, Connecticut. During a break,
they discussed the fact that work was getting slow and that
Arthur had cut their wages for time spent driving to and from
job sites. Ostrowski said that he heard the union might be
407
hiring to which Ceraldi said he might check it out. All three
men expressed an interest in contacting the union and they
agreed to meet the next day to go to the union hall. Other em-
ployees were also working at the Laurel Gardens job site that
day but none were in the immediate vicinity of this conversa-
tion.
On the morning of Wednesday, January 27, Ceraldi had a
doctor’s appointment. Following the appointment, he, Os-
trowski and Pearsall drove to the union hall where they met
with Tom Oberle who was then the union’s business agent.
Ceraldi and Ostrowski filled out applications for membership.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 26
Pearsall was told that he had to get in touch with the adminis-
trator of the apprentice program. Oberle told Ceraldi and Os-
trowski that there would not be any jobs coming up for at least
four to six weeks, or maybe longer, as it was wintertime and the
industry was slow. According to all four witnesses present
during this meeting, Oberle, Pearsall, Ceraldi and Ostrowski,
there was no suggestion or discussion of Ceraldi and Ostrowski
leaving their employment with Respondent.
On Thursday, January 28, Ceraldi reported for work and
found that his regularly assigned truck had been stripped of all
company-owned materials, such as power tools, fittings, pipes
and blueprints. Neither Ceraldi nor Ostrowski had ever wit-
nessed a truck being emptied of all of its contents during their
employment at Respondent. Ceraldi was not given a reason
why
408
his truck was emptied by anyone from management, nor did he
ask. He suspected it was because he had gone to the union and
he did not want a confrontation. Ceraldi and Ostrowski took
the truck and reported to the Laurel Gardens job site. Arthur
testified that the reason Ceraldi’s truck was stripped was be-
cause several months previous, Ceraldi had lost a company-
owned power tool. He had replaced the tool but then allegedly
told other employees that when he left Respondent’s employ he
was going to take the tool with him. Arthur testified that he
emptied the truck so as to ensure that Ceraldi did not misappro-
priate any of the company’s property. He did not offer an ex-
planation as to why he waited several months to take this pre-
cautionary measure.
On Monday, February 1st, when Ceraldi and Ostrowski ar-
rived to work, they found that Ceraldi’s regularly assigned
truck, the one that had been emptied the previous Thursday,
had already been taken out by another employee. He and Os-
trowski were assigned to another truck and they reported to the
Laurel Gardens job site. That same morning, according to the
testimony of Pearsall, he and employee John Trella were at the
facility getting ready to join Ceraldi and Ostrowski at the job
site. Arthur pulled them aside and told them to “Stay away
from those union boys. Fuck ’em. They’re going to be gone
anyway.” Arthur added that unions were no good. Following
this exchange, Pearsall and Trella reported to the job site and
Pearsall repeated Arthur’s statements to Ceraldi and Ostrowski
and warned
409
them that they were going to be fired.
At the end of the work day, Thursday, February 4, Ceraldi
returned to the facility and was standing by the first floor time
clock. According to Ceraldi, Barton approached him and asked
him if he had a problem. Ceraldi said no and asked if Barton
had a problem. Barton said he didn’t know what Ceraldi’s
problem was, but that Ceraldi was “dragging Brian down” with
him. At that point in the exchange, Ostrowski entered the area
and overhearing Barton’s statement told Barton, “don’t even go
there.” He told Barton that Ceraldi was not bringing him down.
Ceraldi punched out and left work as he did not want any fur-
ther confrontation. Barton did not testify.
On the morning of Friday, February 5, Ceraldi went to Ar-
thur’s office on the second floor and asked him which truck he
should take. According to Ceraldi, Arthur asked him what was
going on, to which Ceraldi responded that Arthur knew what
was going on. Arthur then stated in substance, “So, you’re
going to go into the union.” Ceraldi said all he did was fill out
an application. Arthur then asked Ceraldi why didn’t he just
leave. Ceraldi said he did not have another job. Arthur contin-
ued that Ceraldi was not doing Ostrowski any favors and that
he was hurting Ostrowski, because all he would be doing on a
union job is hang pipe on a lift. Arthur added that Ostrowski
should at least rough one house before he joined the union.
During the course of this exchange, Arthur and Ceraldi walked
410
down the stairs to the first floor, where Ostrowski was punch-
ing in. Arthur then accused both men of having taken a three-
hour lunch on a previous job in Hamden. Both denied taking
the extended lunch. The conversation ended and Ceraldi and
Ostrowski reported to the Laurel Gardens job site. Arthur in
his testimony denied that this conversation ever took place.
At the end of the workday on Friday, February 5, Ceraldi and
Ostrowski returned to the facility to pick up their pay checks.
When they arrived, they observed that the checks were not in
their time card slots, the usual place where pay checks are left.
They went upstairs to Arthur’s office where Arthur and others
were present. Arthur handed them their checks and told them
to wait downstairs because he wanted to talk to them. While
waiting for Arthur, Ceraldi saw that he had not been paid sick
pay for January 27. Ceraldi testified that when Arthur joined
them, he inquired about the sick pay. Arthur’s response was
that he was not going to pay Ceraldi sick pay when he knew
that was the day he went to the union hall. Ceraldi insisted that
he had in fact gone to see a doctor that day and that he had a
receipt attesting to that fact. Arthur told him to give the receipt
to Lynda, an office employee.
Arthur then said, Why don’t we stop arguing. Why don’t
you guys work one more week and then leave. Ceraldi said he
wanted a pink slip and Arthur said he doesn’t give out pink
slips. Ostrowski’s version of this conversation is similar to
Ceraldi’s
411
version. According to Ostrowski, when Arthur came down-
stairs he asked them, “What’s this about?” Ostrowski said,
“What’s what about?” Arthur said that they had joined the
union. Ostrowski said they had applied to the union. Arthur
then told them they should consider this their one week’s no-
tice. Ostrowski said he was not quitting, he didn’t even have a
job. Arthur’s version of this conversation is that at the end of
the day, Ceraldi and Ostrowski came to him, told him that they
had joined the union and that they quit. He responded that he
would consider this their one week’s notice.
Ceraldi and Ostrowski worked the following week at the
Laurel Gardens job site.
Friday, February 12, was the last day of work for Respon-
dent at this site and the job was over. At the end of the work-
day, Ceraldi and Ostrowski returned to the facility. According
DONALD SULLIVAN & SONS, INC. 27
to their testimony, Martin approached them and asked Ceraldi
for his pager, gas card and phone card. Martin told them that
they had given their notice. Both protested that they had not
given notice and both said they were not quitting. Martin’s
response was, “You joined the union, you’re done.”
Ceraldi denies that he ever resigned or quit his employment
despite Arthur’s invitations to him to leave. He testified that he
had a mortgage and car payments to keep up and that he would
never have left a good-paying job when he did not
412
have immediate employment elsewhere. Ostrowski similarly
testified that he has a house and two children to support and
that he would not quit a job before he had another one. It was
not until approximately nine weeks later, in late April, that
Oberle called Ceraldi and Ostrowski and told them that he had
jobs for them. During that nine-week period, Ceraldi and Os-
trowski received unemployment compensation. Respondent
contested the granting of unemployment benefits to them by
asserting that they had not been discharged but had quit. The
referee for the State of Connecticut resolved this issue in favor
of both Ceraldi and Ostrowski which determinations were up-
held on appeal.
During the course of their employment, neither Ceraldi nor
Ostrowski had ever been disciplined or reprimanded for any
reason.
That concludes the factual recitation.
Resolution of the factual issues in this case turns largely on
credibility. Witnesses for the General Counsel and Respondent
presented irreconcilable versions of the same events. Without
hesitation, I credit the testimony of the General Counsel’s wit-
nesses over Respondent’s witnesses.
I discredit Martin Sullivan’s testimony as he contradicted
himself on critical matters. In his first version of his conversa-
tion with Ceraldi and Ostrowski on February 12, Martin testi-
fied that after he took Ceraldi’s keys, phone and gas
413
cards, both Ceraldi and Ostrowski told him that they were ex-
pecting to report for work on Monday. Martin explained in his
testimony, “Well, it seemed funny to me that they were un-
quitting, so I thought it kind of odd, but I knew that was their
last day.” When pressed as to what made him think they were
“un-quitting” Martin testified it was because they looked sur-
prised. When pressed further on what they said, beyond look-
ing surprised, he testified that they didn’t say anything. His
fourth version was that Ostrowski mumbled something which
he could not hear.
Martin testified that some time after February 12, he told Ar-
thur that both Ceraldi and Ostrowski had denied to him that
they were quitting. Later on in his testimony, however, Martin
backtracked and said, these were not his exact words. He then
backtracked even further and said that he never made such a
statement to Arthur. Martin’s testimony on this point directly
contradicts the testimony of his brother, Arthur. Arthur testi-
fied that Martin did in fact make such a statement to him.
Martin testified that it was common knowledge in the shop
in the weeks leading up to February 12 that Ceraldi and Os-
trowski had applied to join the union. He further testified that
Matt Pearsall and John Trella specifically told
414
him that they had applied to the union and that they told him
this prior to February 5. Arthur, on the other hand, testified that
the first time he knew anything about a union was on February
5 when Ceraldi and Ostrowski told him that they had joined the
union and were quitting.
It is inconceivable to me that Martin learned of Ceraldi and
Ostrowski’s union activities days before February 5, but never
shared this information with his brother.
I finally note that Martin was frequently unresponsive to
questions posed to him on cross-examination.
For all of these reasons, I discredit Martin Sullivan’s testi-
mony.
I also discredit the testimony of Arthur Sullivan. He denied
any knowledge of Ceraldi and Ostrowski’s union activities
prior to February 5. As already noted, Martin was aware of
their union activities prior to February 5 and I conclude that
Martin did in fact share that information with Arthur. This
finding is supported by the fact that in a written statement given
to Unemployment three weeks after Ceraldi and Ostrowski’s
discharge, Arthur stated that he approached Ceraldi on Febru-
ary 5 to ask him about rumors he had heard that he was joining
a union.
It is not in dispute that after Ceraldi and Ostrowski were dis-
charged Respondent had enough work to hire replacements.
Under cross-examination Arthur admitted that his brother,
415
Martin, told him that Ceraldi and Ostrowski had denied quit-
ting. Arthur was then asked why then, if he had enough work,
did he not recall them back to work. His response was that
Ceraldi and Ostrowski were unhappy employees who had
alienated themselves from management as well as their fellow
employees and he was fearful that they would sabotage work
being performed.
The flaw in Arthur’s reasoning is that if I were to accept his
testimony, I would have to find that Ceraldi and Ostrowski quit
on February 5. If that were the case, it is illogical, given Ar-
thur’s sabotage theory, that he would have allowed them to
continue working for another week. As Arthur testified, once
an employee quits, he quits and “the window is broken.” If, in
fact, Ceraldi and Ostrowski quit on February 5, it is clear that
Arthur would not have allowed them to remain employed an
additional week. The fact is that they did not quit on February
5, or on any other day and Arthur’s testimony to the contrary is
not credible.
Finally, Arthur conceded under cross-examination that there
was an “incompatibility” between an employee belonging to a
union and working in his non-union shop. For all these reasons
I discredit the testimony of Arthur Sullivan.
I credit the testimony of Ceraldi and Ostrowski. Both wit-
nesses testified in a straightforward manner and their testimony
was not only internally consistent but consistent with each
other. Moreover, their testimony was logical and
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 28
416
consistent with the overall evidence in this case.
I found Matthew Pearsall to be a particularly credible wit-
ness. Pearsall continued to be employed with Respondent until
July 1999, six months after these events. He left Respondent’s
employ on good terms and I consider him to be an objective
believable witness.
Finally, the testimony of Oberle was consistent with the
other witnesses and not contradicted by any of Respondent’s
witnesses.
In all cases alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(3), or viola-
tions of 8(a)(1) turning on employer motivation, the General
Counsel is required, in the first instance, to make a prima facie
showing sufficient to support the inference that protected con-
duct was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision. Once
this is established, the employer has the burden to demonstrate
that the same action would have taken place even in the ab-
sence of the protected conduct. Wright Line a Division of
Wright Line, Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enforced 622 F.2d
899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved
in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393
(1983).
The General Counsel has presented a strong prima facie
case. On January 27, Ceraldi and Ostrowski applied for mem-
ber-
417
ship in the union. By all accounts of those present at that meet-
ing, they were told by the business agent that it would be at
least four to six weeks, maybe longer, before a job would be
available through the union. Ceraldi and Ostrowski credibly
testified that each had significant financial obligations and I
find their argument that they would never quit one job before
having another job persuasive.
Both Martin and Arthur testified that as many as four or five
different employees told them that Ceraldi and Ostrowski were
disgruntled employees who were openly stating that they were
going to quit. None of these witnesses testified to substantiate
this hearsay claim.
Ceraldi and Ostrowski were good employees who had each
worked approximately three years for Respondent without inci-
dent. Neither had ever been disciplined or reprimanded for any
reason. The day after they applied to the union, Ceraldi’s truck
was stripped of tools. Respondent’s proffered reason for this
was that months before, an employee told Arthur that Ceraldi
had threatened to take a power tool which Arthur considered
company property and Arthur wanted to ensure the safety of his
equipment. Even if true, Arthur did not act on this threat for
several months and only acted on it the morning after Ceraldi
and Ostrowski applied to the union.
Five days after they went to the union, Arthur Sullivan

418
reassigned the truck that Ceraldi had been driving for at least a
year and a half. That same morning, Arthur told Pearsall and
Trella to “stay away from those union boys, they’re going to be
gone anyway.” Pearsall promptly reported these words to Cer-
aldi and Ostrowski and told them that Arthur was going to fire
them. Eight days after they went to the union, Barton Sullivan,
one of the owners, told Ceraldi that he was dragging Brian
down with him.
Nine days after they went to the union, on the morning of
February 5, Arthur told Ceraldi that he was aware that he was
going to go with the union. Ceraldi pointed out that he had
only filed an application. Arthur asked Ceraldi to leave the
company, to quit. Ceraldi indicated that he would not quit be-
cause he didn’t have another job. Arthur reiterated Barton’s
earlier comment that Ceraldi was hurting Ostrowski.
At the end of the workday on February 5, Arthur told Ceraldi
that he was not going to pay him sick pay for January 27, be-
cause he knew that was the day Ceraldi had joined the union.
He suggested to Ceraldi and Ostrowski that they work one
more week and, again, asked them to quit. They did not quit.
Ostrowski unequivocally stated that he was not quitting be-
cause he didn’t have another job.
On February 12, Martin Sullivan relieved Ceraldi of the
company’s possessions and told both Ceraldi and Ostrowski
that they had given their notice. They immediately protested
that
419
they had never given notice and that they were not quitting.
Martin’s response was, “You joined the union, you’re done.”
After three years of unblemished service, Ceraldi and Os-
trowski were fired two weeks and two days after they applied
for union membership. Such timing between the exercise of
protected conduct in relation to a discharge is strong evidence
of an unlawful motive for the termination. Grand Central
Partnership, 327 NLRB No. 172 [966] (1999) ; Trader Horn of
New Jersey, Inc., 316 NLRB 194, 198 (1995). Indeed, timing
alone can be sufficient to establish that anti-union animus was a
motivating factor in a disciplinary decision. Sawyer of Napa,
Inc., 300 NLRB 131, 150 (1990).
In addition to the proximity of their discharges in relation to
their union activity, Pearsall’s credible testimony establishes
that Ceraldi and Ostrowski’s union activities were the express
reason for their discharge. Arthur told Pearsall in no uncertain
terms that the Laurel Gardens job was going to be their last job.
He also Pearsall to stay away from “those union boys.” Martin
Sullivan’s words to Ceraldi and Ostrowski on February 12 fully
summarizes Respondent’s motivation in this case: “You joined
the union, you’re done.”
Thus I find that the General Counsel presented a strong
prima facie case. I will now consider Respondent’s defenses.
First, Respondent claims that Ceraldi and Ostrowski quit
their employment. I find that this claim is against the weight
420
of the credible evidence for the reasons already set forth.
Second, Respondent argues that in the absence of the words,
“you’re fired, you’re terminated,” that a finding of discharge
cannot be made. I disagree.
In MDI Commercial Services, 325 NLRB 53 (1997), the
Board set forth the standard that is to be applied under these
circumstances:
DONALD SULLIVAN & SONS, INC. 29
The test for determining “whether [an employer’s] state-
ments constitute an unlawful discharge depends on whether
they would reasonably lead the employees to believe that they
had been discharged” and “the fact of discharge does not de-
pend on the use of formal words of firing. It is sufficient if the
words or actions of the employer would logically lead a prudent
person to believe his tenure had been terminated.”
There is no question that Ceraldi and Ostrowski perceived
themselves to be terminated and that perception is rooted firmly
in the facts of this case.
The morning after they joined the union, Ceraldi’s truck was
emptied of company property. On February 1st, the truck was
reassigned. That same day, Arthur told Pearsall to stay away
from those union boys. They’re going to be gone anyway.
Pearsall, who I consider to be the most objective of all the wit-
nesses who testified, perceived Arthur’s statements as an indi-
cation that he was going to terminate Ceraldi and Ostrowski
and he told them that.
421
On February 4, Barton told Ceraldi that he was “dragging
Brian down with him.” On the morning of February 5, Arthur
asked Ceraldi why he didn’t just leave. Later that afternoon, on
February 5, Arthur again asked both employees, Why don’t you
guys work one more week and then leave. Finally, on February
12, when Martin relieved Ceraldi of his company-owned pos-
session, he told Ceraldi and Ostrowski, “You joined the union,
you’re done.”
Any reasonable person under these circumstances would
conclude that they were being discharged.
Finally, Respondent argues that the findings of the Unem-
ployment Board are not controlling in this case. I agree. I have
drawn no inference for or against any party to these proceed-
ings based upon the findings of the State of Connecticut in
connection with the unemployment proceedings.
I have considered Respondent’s remaining arguments and
find them to be without merit.
Based upon all the evidence in this case, I find that by dis-
charging Ceraldi and Ostrowski on February 12, 1999, Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
The following are the conclusions of law.
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act and, has engaged in un-
fair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
422
2. The union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act on
February 12, 1999, by discharging John Ceraldi and Brian Os-
trowski.
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
Respondent, having discriminatorily discharged John Ceraldi
and Brian Ostrowski, must offer to them reinstatement and
make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits,
computed on a quarterly basis from the date of discharge to the
date of proper offer of reinstatement, less any net interim earn-
ings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), plus interest as computed in New Horizons for the Re-
tarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
That concludes my decision in this case. It will be followed
up by a written recommended order and notice.
The hearing is closed. Off the record.
(Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned.)
APPENDIX B
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
the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and
abide by this notice.

WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against
employees because they join or apply to join Plumbers and
Pipefitters Union, Local 777 or any other Union, or otherwise
support or engage in union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
to John Ceraldi and Brian Ostrowski full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make John Ceraldi and Brian Ostrowski whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from their
discharges, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Or-
der, remove from our files any reference to the unlawful dis-
charge of John Ceraldi and Brian Ostrowski, and WE WILL,
within 3 days thereafter, notify them in writing that this has
been done and that their discharges will not be used against
them in any way.

DONALD SULLIVAN & SONS, LLC