Electrical Workers Local 429

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 2006

347 N.L.R.B. 513 (N.L.R.B. 2006)

ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 429
347 NLRB No. 46
513
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 429, and its agent Nashville Electrical
Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee and
Danny Page. Case 26–CB–4240
June 30, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND KIRSANOW
On April 15, 2003, Administrative Law Judge Keltner
W. Locke issued the attached bench decision. The Gen-
eral Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and
the Nashville Electrical Joint Apprenticeship Training
Committee (the JATC or the Committee) filed cross-
exceptions. The JATC and the International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local 429 (the Union) filed
answering briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
adopt the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions only
to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order.
The judge dismissed the complaint, which alleged vio-
lations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act based on
actions taken by the JATC against apprentice Daniel
Page because he was delinquent in his dues and because
of his antiunion views. Specifically, the JATC attempted
to require Page’s employer, Elec Tech, to acquiesce in an
attempt to rotate Page to another employer, a practice
generally viewed as disruptive and hence undesirable by
apprentices and their employers. The complaint also
challenged the JATC’s discipline of Page for his ostensi-
ble dishonesty towards, and failure to cooperate with, the
Committee with regard to this attempted rotation, for
which the JATC imposed a 6-month delay in Page’s
completion of his training and promotion to a higher sal-
ary level. The judge found that the JATC was not the
Union’s agent and therefore that the Union could not be
held liable for these actions. In addition, the judge found
that, even assuming agency, the JATC’s actions were
reasonable and “the record contain[ed] very little evi-
dence to suggest unlawful motivation.” As explained
below, we reverse the judge on both points, finding that

1 The General Counsel has excepted to some of the judge’s credibil-
ity findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an ad-
ministrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and,
except as otherwise discussed herein, find no basis for reversing his
findings.
the JATC acted as the Union’s agent and that its ac-
tions violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Union has a collective-bargaining agreement
with the Middle Tennessee Chapter of the National
Electrical Contractors Association, a multiemployer
association (the Employer Association). Under the
agreement, the Union and the Employer Association
created the JATC to oversee the training and hiring out
of apprentice electricians.2 Each party appoints an
equal number of representatives to the JATC. Program
Training Coordinator Elbert Carter participates in the
Committee’s regular meetings although he is not a
voting member.
The JATC formulates apprenticeship and training
standards that must be approved by the United States
Department of Labor, Bureau of Apprenticeship and
Training (BAT). Under the JATC standards, appren-
tices complete a minimum of 8000 hours of reasonably
continuous supervised on-the-job training as well as
200 hours of related classroom training. The JATC
may rotate apprentices from one participating em-
ployer to another to diversify their on-the-job training
experience. However, the record suggests that the
JATC did not rotate apprentices on a regular basis in
part because this practice was opposed by apprentices
and employers as disruptive to ongoing projects.3 Ap-
prentices need not join or pay dues or fees to the Un-
ion in order to work for employers participating in the
JATC program.
Charging Party Daniel Page was a participant in the
JATC program and a union member. He was disci-
plined for absenteeism and then discharged by two
separate electrical contractors to whom he was as-
signed for on-the-job training. As a result, the JATC
terminated him from the program in 1997. In mid-
2000 or 2001,4 however, Training Coordinator Carter
suggested that Page seek readmission to the program in
order to work for his father’s company, Elec Tech,
which had a collective–bargaining agreement with the

2 The apprenticeship program is funded by a local apprenticeship
and training trust fund, to which all participating employers contrib-
ute.
3 As a result of a BAT audit in 2001 that criticized the JATC pro-
gram for failing to have a systematic rotation policy, the JATC con-
sidered adoption of such a policy. However, because of opposition
from the Employer Association and the JATC’s successful proposal
of alternate changes to satisfy BAT standards, the policy was never
implemented.
4 There is some uncertainty as to exactly when Page was readmit-
ted to the apprenticeship program. We find it unnecessary to resolve
this conflicting testimony, however, as the timing of Page’s readmis-
sion has no bearing on the outcome of the case.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD514
Union that permitted it to employ only apprentices en-
rolled in the JATC program. The JATC readmitted Page,
and he began working for Elec Tech.
Page became delinquent in his payment of dues at
some point after his readmission to the JATC program.
In April or May 2001, Carter called Page into his office
and, in the presence of Union Representative and JATC
member Gerald Grant and Union Business Manager and
JATC member Jerry Lee, raised the subject of Page’s
dues delinquency.5 (Carter received regular updates re-
garding dues-delinquent apprentices from the Union and
pursued apprentices not in good standing by sending out
form letters and through personal conversations.) Carter
warned Page that if he failed to pay his dues, he would
lose the benefits of union membership. With his father’s
assistance, Page paid his dues through November 2001.
On July 8, 2002, Page’s dues payments were late by
over 6 months. Union Representative Mike Bearden
contacted Page’s father to discuss the situation. The next
day, Page attempted unsuccessfully to contact Bearden.
On July 10, the JATC called a special meeting at which
Training Director Carter proposed that Page should be
rotated to a different employer for on-the-job training to
ensure that he could work successfully in environments
other than his father’s shop. The Committee adopted the
proposal.6 On July 11, Carter sent letters to Page and to
Elec Tech informing them that Page was being removed
from his employment at Elec Tech. That same day, Page
spoke with Union Representative and JATC member
John Hooper and announced that he was no longer inter-
ested in being a member of the Union.7
The July 11 rotation letter instructed Page to report for
a drug screening and then contact Carter’s office to ob-
tain his reassignment. Page reported for drug screening
as instructed, but did not contact the office regarding his
new assignment. Instead, his father sent a letter to Carter
stating his disagreement with the rotation decision and
requesting a postponement pending further discussion.
Carter refused to grant a postponement, but indicated that

5 The judge places this conversation in 2002. However, the record
evidence suggests that the actual date was 2001.
6 Two union representatives, John Hooper and Gerald Grant, and one
Employer Association representative, Bert Noll, attended the meeting
and voted to approve the rotation proposal.
7 The judge found that the timing of the Committee’s decision to ro-
tate Page was suspicious in relation to Page’s announcement to Hooper
that he wished to resign his union membership. However, whereas the
judge found that Page’s conversation with Hooper occurred the same
day as the rotation meeting, the record establishes that the rotation
meeting actually occurred the day before Page’s resignation. Although
we correct the judge’s erroneous factual finding, we nevertheless agree
with the judge that the timing here is suspect, for reasons explained
below.
Page and his father could discuss the issue with the
Committee at its next meeting on July 24.
At the July 24 meeting, Page’s father and other Elec
Tech representatives explained their objection to the
rotation decision. The Committee voted unanimously
to rescind the rotation. When the Committee spoke
with Page at the meeting, however, he informed them
that he had contacted NLRB representative Stacey
Smith and BAT State Director Nat Brown and had
been advised that he was not required to respond to the
Committee’s questions. Carter ended the meeting and
contacted Smith and Brown, who both denied that they
had made the statements Page attributed to them. At a
meeting the following day, which Brown attended,
Page responded to the Committee’s questions.
Nevertheless, at a subsequent meeting on September
4, 2002, the Committee decided to discipline Page,
allegedly for failing to cooperate with and lying to the
Committee in the course of its consideration of the
rotation decision. As punishment, the Committee
voted to delay Page’s next scheduled pay increase and
his advancement to journeyman electrician status by 6
months. Shortly thereafter, the Committee disciplined
another apprentice, Robert Collier, for failing to con-
tact the office for an assignment and for lying, but is-
sued only a stern warning for his misconduct.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Agency Issue
The Union may not be held liable for the JATC’s ac-
tions against Page unless the JATC is found to be the
Union’s agent. The judge found that the JATC was
not the Union’s agent but cited no case law to support
his conclusion. In exceptions, the General Counsel
argues that this case is governed by the Board’s deci-
sion in Plumbers Local 375, 228 NLRB 1191, 1195
(1977), in which the Board found that a joint appren-
ticeship training committee was an agent of the union
and the employer who jointly created it through their
collective-bargaining agreement. See also Iron Work-
ers Local 15, 298 NLRB 445, 462–463 (1990), enf.
denied in part and remanded in part 929 F.2d 910 (2d
Cir. 1991). We agree with the General Counsel. As in
Plumbers Local 375 and Iron Workers Local 15, the
JATC in this case is created by and operated in accor-
dance with the parties’ collective-bargaining agree-
ment. The contract delegates to the JATC complete
authority for selecting and training apprentices as well
as assigning them work. Under the parties’ agreement,
the JATC is charged with “the training of apprentices,
journeymen, installers, technicians, and all others . . .”
according to “[t]he local apprenticeship standards . . .
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 429 515
in conformance with national guidelines, standards, and
polices,” and has “full authority for issuing all job-
training assignments and for transferring apprentices
from one employer to another,” with notification to the
Union of “all job training assignments.” In performing
these functions, aimed at creating a qualified pool of
electrical workers for the industry, the members of the
JATC are performing collective-bargaining duties. Iron
Workers Local 15, 298 NLRB at 462–463.
In its answering brief, the JATC argues that the case is
governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v.
Amax Coal Co., 453 U.S. 322 (1981). We disagree. In
Amax Coal, the Court held that employer-appointed trus-
tees of a jointly administered trust fund could not be
deemed collective-bargaining representatives of the em-
ployer for purposes of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act be-
cause that role was inconsistent with their fiduciary duty
to the trust beneficiaries. Although the JATC representa-
tives in this case also serve as trustees of the Apprentice-
ship and Training Trust Fund and may well act as fiduci-
aries in that capacity, the decisions at issue here involve
the training and discipline of apprentices, functions that
fall exclusively to the JATC. The Committee members’
role as fiduciaries in administering the Trust Fund does
not undercut their agency function in their capacity as
JATC members. See Asbestos Workers Local 27 (Mas-
ter Insulators), 263 NLRB 922, 922–923 (1982). In that
case, the Board held that the joint apprenticeship com-
mittee members were 8(b)(1)(B) representatives of the
employer. The Board distinguished these committee
members from the trustees of a fund, whose trustees owe
a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries of the fund. By con-
trast, the JATC has the responsibility of administering
contractual provisions on behalf of the employers and the
Union.
We conclude that the Committee acts as an agent of
the Union, and within the scope of its authority as de-
fined by the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement, in
administering the joint apprenticeship program.
B. Alleged Violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2)
Although the judge found that the Committee was not
the Union’s agent, he also concluded that the record did
not, in any case, support a finding that the Committee’s
attempt to rotate Page and its decision to discipline him
were unlawfully motivated. In so finding, however, the
judge failed to consider substantial record evidence from
which unlawful motive must be inferred. For the reasons
explained below, we conclude that a preponderance of
the evidence establishes that the Committee’s actions
were motivated by Page’s dues delinquency and his anti-
union views, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2).
Absent a valid union-security clause, a union vio-
lates Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by taking an action
that adversely affects an employee’s employment or by
causing or attempting to cause an employer to take
such action because the employee failed to pay his
union dues.8 Here, there is no union-security clause in
the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement. Thus, the
JATC’s attempt to require Elec Tech to rotate Page
and its imposition of a 6-month delay on Page’s com-
pletion of the apprenticeship program and his attain-
ment of the next salary level, if motivated by his dues
delinquency, would be unlawful.9 In addition, the
JATC acted because of Page’s expression of antiunion
views.
The Board applies the analytical framework laid out
in Wright Line10 to cases in which a union is alleged to
have discriminated against or attempted to cause an
employer to discriminate against an employee in viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. See, e.g.,
Oil Workers Local 3-495 (Hercules, Inc.), 314 NLRB
385, 385 (1994) (failing to file grievances); Town &
Country Supermarkets, 340 NLRB 1410, 1411 (2004)
(seeking suspension of dissident). Applying the
Wright Line analysis here, the General Counsel has the
initial burden to establish that the Respondents knew
about Page’s dues delinquency and antiunion views,
and that this information was a motivating factor in
their attempted rotation and ultimate disciplining of
Page. If the General Counsel meets this initial burden,
the burden shifts to the Respondents to rebut the find-
ing of unlawful motive by showing that they would
have made the same decisions even absent Page’s dues
delinquency and antiunionism. Wright Line, 251

8 Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) prohibit a labor organization or its
agents from “restrain[ing] or coerc[ing] employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in section 7” and from “caus[ing] or at-
tempt[ing] to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee
in violation of subsection a(3).” See Mailers Union Local No. 7
(Kansas City Star Co.), 262 NLRB 851, 854–855 (1982) (union that
refused member overtime assignments because of his dues delin-
quency violated 8(b)(1)(A) and (2)); Stage Employees IATSE Local
665 (Columbia Picture), 268 NLRB 570, 571 (1984) (union that
sought removal of a member from job for which he had been re-
quested by the employer due to his dues delinquency violated Sec.
8(b)(1)(A) and (2)), enfd. 751 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1984).
9 In the cases cited above, Stage Employees IATSE Local 665
(Columbia Picture), 268 NLRB at 571, and Mailers Union Local 7
(Kansas City Star Co.), 262 NLRB at 854–855, in which the Board
found actions taken by a union against a member for failure to pay
dues unlawful, the Board did not apply a Wright Line analysis (see
discussion infra). In those cases, there was direct, undisputed evi-
dence that the adverse actions were motivated by the affected mem-
bers’ dues delinquency, and there was no evidence of dual motive.
10 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, 399–403 (1983).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD516
NLRB at 1090–1091. However, if the evidence of
unlawful motive includes a showing that the Respon-
dents’ stated reasons for their actions were pretextual—
that is, false or not in fact relied upon—then the Respon-
dents fail by definition to rebut the finding of unlawful
motive. Limestone Apparel Corp., 255 NLRB 722, 722
(1981), enfd. 705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1982).
1. Attempted rotation
Although the judge did not explicitly conduct a Wright
Line analysis, he found that the General Counsel failed to
show that the Committee’s attempt to remove Page from
his employment at Elec Tech in order to rotate him was
unlawfully motivated. The judge concluded, largely on
the basis of unexplained credibility determinations, that
the Committee members “were not motivated at all by
Page’s nonpayment of union dues or by Page’s status as
a Union member or nonmember.” Thus, he credited the
Committee members’ testimony that dues had nothing to
do with their decisions and disregarded, as sarcastic, a
statement by Committee member Bert Noll during a
meeting that the rotation decision was about dues. The
judge also found that the Committee’s stated reason for
its action—to ensure that Page could work with other
employers—was legitimate, particularly given Page’s
history. Finally, the judge found inherently implausible
any inference that the Committee’s decision was in-
tended to coerce Page into paying his dues because the
Union refused to accept payment from Page’s father
when it contacted him about his son’s delinquency.11
Upon careful review of the record, we find that direct
and circumstantial evidence establishes that the Commit-
tee’s attempt to require Elec Tech to rotate Page was
unlawfully motivated and that the Committee has not
shown that it would have done so absent Page’s dues
delinquency and antiunionism. We rely in part on Em-
ployer Association Representative Noll’s admission,
which we find, contrary to the judge, was not sarcastic,
and which was not contemporaneously disavowed by any
union representative. In addition, we rely on the timing
of the attempted rotation and the evidence that the stated
reason for the action—the perceived need for Page to
demonstrate the ability to work for employers other than
his father—was a pretext. See, e.g., Techno Construc-
tion Corp., 333 NLRB 75 (2001); Dauman Pallet, Inc.,
314 NLRB 185, 185 (1994).
The judge did not explain his basis for accepting the
self-serving assertions of the Committee members on the

11 Contrary to the judge, we see nothing contradictory in the Union’s
refusal to take payment from Page’s father. It is undisputed that the
Union had a policy of requiring members whose dues were more than 6
months in arrears to write letters explaining their situation before being
permitted to restore their good standing.
ultimate issue, the Committee’s motivation in attempt-
ing to have Page transferred to a different employer.
Such self-serving declarations regarding motive are
certainly not conclusive. See Shattuck Denn Mining
Corp. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 1966).12
That is particularly true here, given several Committee
members’ admissions that Noll stated at a meeting that
the decision was “about dues.” According to Training
Coordinator Carter, who was present at the meeting
where the statement was made, Noll said that the rota-
tion decision was “about dues and other agreements
and understandings [Page] has broken.” Carter testi-
fied that, after being asked repeatedly by Page’s father
whether the rotation was about dues, “[Noll] blurted
out, ‘Hell yes, it’s about [dues].’” Although Noll testi-
fied that he did not recall precisely what he said, he
admitted that the atmosphere was tense and that he
probably had replied to Page’s father’s questioning.
None of the witnesses who observed Noll make the
comment described it as sarcastic.
In asserting that Page’s dues delinquency did not
motivate the JATC’s decisions, the Respondents argue,
inter alia, that there is no evidence that the Committee
knew of Page’s dues delinquency at the time of the
rotation attempt. But Union Business Agent and Rep-
resentative Gerald Grant, one of the three voting mem-
bers who decided to rotate Page at the July 9 meeting,
testified that he knew of Page’s dues delinquency at
the time. Noll was also a voting member, and although
he testified that he could not recall whether he knew,
his admission at a subsequent meeting that the rotation
was about dues establishes that he did know. Thus, we
conclude that a majority of the Committee members
who voted on Page’s rotation at the July 9 meeting
were aware of Page’s dues delinquency at that time.13
In addition, we conclude that Page’s hostility to the
Union was generally known, based on the unrebutted
testimony of Union Business Manager and Committee
member Jerry Lee that “Danny [Page] throughout his
career ha[d] been very active in expressing his views

12 The judge did not base his acceptance of the Committee mem-
bers’ assertions regarding their motivations on demeanor, an analysis
of the circumstances, or on any other apparent basis. Cf. J. N.
Ceazan Co., 246 NLRB 637, 638 fn. 6 (1979).
13 The third voting member was Union Business Agent and
Committee member John Hooper, who admitted that Page’s name
appeared on an end-of-the-month list in February 2002 of appren-
tices who were “in arrears”—i.e., 3 months behind in their dues—
with a notation that he would be “dropped” as of June 1, 2002.
However, Hooper also testified that Page’s name did not recur in
March and that Hooper would probably have assumed that Page had
paid up.
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 429 517
about the Union to the district office and to other people
and we were aware of his animosity.”
Moreover, the timing of the attempted rotation sup-
ports our view regarding the Committee’s motivation for
its conduct. Training Director Carter proposed and the
Committee approved Page’s rotation 2 days after
Bearden had attempted unsuccessfully to contact Page
about his dues delinquency. Although Carter stated that
he did not learn of Page’s dues delinquency until after
proposing the rotation, the evidence indicates that Carter
received regular updates from the Union regarding the
apprentices who were in arrears, and that he had previ-
ously spoken with Page about his dues. We find that the
timing strongly suggests that Page’s dues delinquency
motivated the attempted rotation.
In addition, we find that the Respondents’ assertion
that the Committee attempted to rotate Page as a neces-
sary part of his training is pretextual and supports our
finding of unlawful motive. There is no evidence that
the Committee imposed a systematic rotation policy; in
fact, BAT State Director Brown cited the lack of such a
policy when he audited the program shortly before
Page’s readmission.14 Moreover, Page was in the last 4
months of his apprenticeship program at the time of his
rotation. Brown testified that the purpose of rotation was
not served by rotating apprentices in the final months of
their training, and Carter admitted that he did not recall
the Committee ever rotating any other apprentice at that
stage of his training. Finally, Carter admitted that when
he suggested to Page’s father that Page reapply to the
apprenticeship programs, it was with the understanding,
in light of Page’s prior history, that he could meet his on-
the-job training requirements by working at his father’s
company. Under those circumstances, we find it implau-
sible that Carter would suddenly conclude that Page had
to demonstrate the ability to work with other contractors
before his training would be complete.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the General
Counsel has demonstrated that Page’s dues delinquency
and antiunionism were motivating factors in the Commit-
tee’s attempt to compel Elec Tech to agree to Page’s ro-
tation. And, because we have found that the stated rea-
son for the Committee’s attempted rotation of Page is
pretextual, we conclude that the Respondents have not
shown that they would have taken the same action absent
these factors. Limestone Apparel Corp., 255 NLRB at
722. Thus, they have failed to rebut the inference of

14 Carter testified that his proposal to rotate Page was unrelated to
the fact that the JATC was then considering adopting a rotation policy,
to take effect in September 2002, as a result of the BAT audit. The
policy was never actually implemented.
unlawful motive. Accordingly, we find that the at-
tempted rotation violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2).
2. Disciplining of Page
Although the Committee ultimately rescinded its at-
tempted rotation of Page, it thereafter disciplined
him—delaying his promotion to the next salary level
and his completion of his training by 6 months—as a
result of his conduct in opposing the rotation. The
judge concluded that the Committee did not act unlaw-
fully because its asserted justification for the discipline
(Page’s noncooperation with and dishonesty towards
the Committee) was reasonable, and there was no evi-
dence of unlawful motivation. On the contrary, we
find that the Committee’s prior unlawful rotation at-
tempt, which gave rise to Page’s discipline, and the
evidence that the Committee’s reasons for the disci-
pline were pretextual demonstrate that this action was
also unlawful.
As already stated, the Committee was well aware of
Page’s dues delinquency. In addition, it is undisputed
that Page’s hostility towards the Union, which dated
back to his dismissal from the apprenticeship program
in 1997, was generally known. By the Committee’s
unlawful attempt to rotate Page 2 days after the Union
contacted him about his unpaid dues, the Committee
demonstrated animus against him. On July 10, after
the attempted rotation, Page announced to Union Rep-
resentative Hooper that he was no longer interested in
union membership.
We conclude that the Respondents’ unlawful motive
is demonstrated not only by the evidence of hostility
towards Page but by the absence of record evidence to
support Respondents’ stated reason for the discipline.
The Respondents assert that Page’s alleged noncoop-
eration with the Committee and his dishonesty about
advice he had received from BAT State Director
Brown motivated the discipline. However, Carter ad-
mitted that Page did ultimately cooperate with the
Committee by answering its questions after Brown
denied telling Page that he could choose not to do so.
And although Page apparently misrepresented to the
Committee the advice he had received from Brown,
dishonesty that may have merited some discipline, the
Committee has not imposed such severe discipline in
other instances of dishonesty. The only other evidence
of an apprentice disciplined for lying shows that he
was given only a stern warning, in contrast with the 6-
month delay the Committee imposed on Page’s com-
pletion of the apprenticeship program and his ad-
vancement to the next salary level.
Based on the Committee’s prior unlawful attempt to
rotate Page and its more severe treatment of Page as
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD518
compared with another apprentice who lied, we conclude
that Page’s discipline was unlawfully motivated. More-
over, we find that because of the evidence that the Re-
spondents’ stated reasons for the discipline were pretex-
tual, the Respondents have not shown that they would
have taken the same action absent Page’s failure to pay
dues and his antiunion views. Limestone Apparel Corp.,
255 NLRB at 722. We conclude that the JATC’s actions
as the Union’s agent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2)
of the Act.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Substitute the following for paragraphs 3 through 5.
“3. The Nashville Electrical Joint Apprenticeship
Training Committee (JATC) is a Federal tax-exempt
educational organization providing training to electrician
apprentices and is the Respondent Union’s agent as al-
leged in the complaint.
“4. The Respondent Union through its agent, the Re-
spondent JATC, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of
the Act by attempting to rotate apprentice Daniel Page to
a different employer.
“5. The Respondent Union through its agent, the Re-
spondent JATC, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of
the Act by imposing discipline on Page by delaying his
scheduled pay increase and his completion of his pro-
gram by 6 months.”
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents engaged in activi-
ties violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, we
shall order them to cease and desist and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Since the Respondents’ disciplining of Page by delay-
ing his promotion to the next pay level was discrimina-
tory and may have resulted in a loss of earnings, we shall
order the Respondent Union to make Page whole for any
loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against him, in the manner prescribed in
Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd.
444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), plus interest as set forth in
New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
Moreover, since the Respondents’ imposition of a 6-
month delay in Page’s completion of his training was
also discriminatory, we shall order the Respondent JATC
to restore Page to the status he would hold but for this
unlawful discipline.
ORDER
The Respondent, International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, Local 429, its agent the Nashville Electrical
Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee (JATC), Nash-
ville, Tennessee, and their officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Attempting to cause apprentices to be rotated
from their current employers in retaliation for their
union dues delinquency or antiunion views.
(b) Disciplining employees because of their union
dues delinquency or antiunion views.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or co-
ercing employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make whole Daniel Page for any and all loss of
earnings suffered by him as a result of the discrimina-
tion against him, in the manner set forth in the remedy
section of this decision.
(b) Restore Page to the status he would hold but for
his unlawful discipline.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, re-
move from their files any reference to the disciplining
of Daniel Page and, within 3 days thereafter, notify
him that this has been done and that the unlawful ac-
tion 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 al-
low for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable
place designated by the 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 due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post
at their Nashville, Tennessee locations copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix B.”15 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 26, after being signed by the Respondent Un-
ion and the Respondent JATC’s authorized representa-
tives, shall be posted by the Union and the JATC and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to apprentices
and members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondents to ensure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.

15 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.”
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 429 519
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps Respondents have taken to comply.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO MEMBERS AND APPRENTICES
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 vio-
lated 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 on your behalf
with your employer
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT attempt to cause the rotation of appren-
tices from their current employers in retaliation for their
union dues delinquency or their antiunion views.
WE WILL NOT discipline apprentices because of their
union dues delinquency or their antiunion views.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights listed
above.
WE WILL make Daniel Page whole, with interest, for
any loss of earnings resulting from his unlawful disci-
pline.
WE WILL restore Daniel Page to the status he would
hold in the apprenticeship training program but for his
unlawful discipline.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful discipline of Daniel Page, and WE WILL, within 3 days
thereafter, notify him in writing that this has been done
and that the unlawful actions will not be used against him
in any way.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC-
TRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 429 AND ITS AGENT
NASHVILLE ELECTRICAL JOINT APPRENTICESHIP
TRAINING COMMITTEE
Rosalind Eddins, Esq., for the General Counsel.
R. Jan Jennings, Esq. (Branstetter, Kilgore, Stranch and
Jennings), of Nashville, Tennessee, for the Respondent.
Martin J. Crane, Esq. (Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer and
Yelig), of Washington, D.C., for the Nashville Joint Ap-
prenticeship Training Committee.
BENCH DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
KELTNER W. LOCKE, Administrative Law Judge. I heard
this case on March 13 and 14, 2003, in Nashville, Tennessee.
After the parties rested, I heard oral argument on March 18,
2003. On March 19, 2003, I issued a bench decision pursu-
ant to Section 102.35(a)(1) of the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions, setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law.
In accordance with Section 102.45 of the Rules and Regula-
tions, I certify the accuracy of, and attach hereto as “Appen-
dix A,” the portion of the transcript containing this decision.1
The conclusions of law and Order are set forth below.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 429, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Respondent represents, for purposes of collective-
bargaining, employees of one or more employers which meet
the Board’s jurisdictional standards. Respondent is subject
to the Board’s jurisdiction in this case.
3. The Nashville Electrical Joint Apprenticeship Training
Committee (JATC) is a Federal tax exempt educational or-
ganization providing training to electrician apprentices, but is
not a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act and is not the Respondent’s agent, as had been
alleged in the complaint.
4. Because the JATC is neither a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act nor Respondent’s
agent, assertion of jurisdiction over JATC in this proceeding
is inappropriate.
5. Neither Respondent nor JATC violated the Act in any
manner alleged in the complaint.
[Recommended Order for dismissal omitted from publica-
tion.]

1 The bench decision appears in uncorrected form at pp. 601
through 616 of the transcript [omitted from publication]. The final
version, after correction of oral and transcriptional errors, is attached
as Appendix A to this Certification.
Additionally, I note and correct the following errors in the tran-
script and exhibits:
The transcript, at p. 2, inadvertently identified R. Jan Jennings,
Esq., as counsel for the Charging Party and Martin J. Crane, Esq.,
as counsel for Respondent. As shown in the caption above, Mr.
Jennings represented Respondent in this proceeding, and Mr. Crane
represented the Nashville Electrical Joint Apprenticeship Training
Committee.
Additionally, the court reporting service inadvertently labeled the
exhibits of the Joint Area Training Committee (JATC) as “Em-
ployer’s Exhibits.” In accordance with the parties’ practice during
the hearing, these documents should be referred to as “JATC Exhib-
its.” The documents labeled “Union Exhibits” by the court reporting
service are the Respondent’s Exhibits.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD520
APPENDIX A
This is a bench decision in the case of International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers Local 429 and Nashville Electrical
Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee (JATC) and Danny
Page, an Individual, Case 26–CB–4240. This decision is issued
pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(10) and Section 102.45 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations.
The Complaint alleges that the Nashville Joint Apprentice-
ship Training Committee, which I will call the “JATC,” is an
agent of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local
429, which I will call the “Union.” It further alleges that the
Union caused the JATC to discriminate against an apprentice,
Danny Page, whom I will call “Page” or the “Charging Party,”
because Page had failed to pay union dues. Because credible
evidence does not support these allegations, I recommend that
the Complaint be dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
The General Counsel has established that the Charging Party
filed and served the charge as alleged in the Complaint. I so
find.
The government also has established that the Union is a la-
bor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act,
and I so find. Based upon the parties’ stipulation at hearing, I
also find that the government has established that this matter
falls within the Board’s statutory jurisdiction and meets the
Board’s discretionary standards for the assertion of jurisdiction.
JATC’s Status
The Union represents journeyman and apprentice electricians
employed by a number of contractors in the construction indus-
try in middle Tennessee. These construction contractors en-
gage in collective bargaining with the Union through their mul-
tiemployer association, the Middle Tennessee Chapter of the
National Electrical Contractors Association, which I will call
the “Employer Association.”
The parties to this collective-bargaining process have estab-
lished by agreement an Apprenticeship and Training Trust
Fund, to be used solely to select and train apprentices to be
journeyman electricians. The employers’ contributions, in
amounts specified in their collective-bargaining agreement with
the Union, pay for the trust fund.
A board of trustees manages the trust fund. The Employer
Association appoints four board members and the Union ap-
points an equal number. Should the board split evenly in decid-
ing a question, they may refer the issue to an umpire appointed
by the Employer Association and the Union.
The board of trustees must comply with the Employee Re-
tirement Income Security Act of 1974, known as “ERISA.”
Further, because the trust enjoys tax exempt status under Sec-
tion 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, it is subject to the
restrictions applicable to such tax exempt organizations.
Although the board of trustees has responsibility for the trust
fund, the creation and operation of the training program itself
falls to another body, the Joint Apprenticeship Training Com-
mittee, or JATC. The collective-bargaining agreement between
the Employer Association and the Union created the JATC.
The Employer Association appoints four of the eight JATC
members and the Union appoints the other four.
From time to time, the JATC formulates written appren-
ticeship and training standards for its program. It submits
them to the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Apprenticeship and Training for review. Periodically, the
Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training will conduct an audit
to be sure that the program follows these standards and com-
plies with applicable laws and regulations. A Department of
Labor official also offers the JATC informal guidance in
operating the apprenticeship program.
As already noted, the Complaint in this case alleges that
the JATC acted as the Union’s agent when it took certain
actions against apprentice Page. The General Counsel bears
the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that such a relationship exists.
Neither the trust agreement itself nor any other document
in the record establishes such an agency relationship. Al-
though the Union appoints four members of the eight-person
board of trustees, it has no right to control the actions of
these members in their capacity as trustees. Similarly, al-
though the Union appoints four of the eight JATC members,
the record fails to establish that it had any authority to dictate
how they would vote as Committee members. Were the right
of appointment the same as the right of control, then the
federal judiciary itself would not be independent, which is
hardly the case.
The documents creating the trust and the JATC clearly
contemplate that the apprenticeship program be administered
independently, and nothing in these documents confers au-
thority on the administrators to act as agents for the Union.
Having concluded that nothing on paper creates an agency
relationship, I will look now to how the JATC operates in
practice.
The record does not disclose that the Union, or any Union
representative, sought to influence the JATC in making deci-
sions about Apprentice Page. Similarly, the record fails to
establish that the officials who made these decisions were
influenced by the Union or by their own personal opinions
about the desirability of union membership. Crediting their
testimony, which I conclude is reliable, I find that they were
not.
In sum, I find that the JATC was not the Union’s agent at
any material time. Therefore, I conclude that no statutory
basis exists in this case for the assertion of jurisdiction over
the JATC.
What Happened to Page
Apprentices in the JATC’s program receive both class-
room instruction and on-the-job training. To progress in the
program, an apprentice must attend classes. The JATC may
impose discipline on apprentices who fail to do so.
In 1995, Daniel Page was an apprentice who received such
discipline. Specifically, the JATC’s training director, Elbert
Carter, sent Page a December 22, 1995 letter stating as fol-
lows:
At the JATC trustees committee meeting on Thursday, De-
cember 21, 1995, the trustees’ decision regarding your 4
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 429 521
absences from class was that you are to be placed on 3 months
probation and that your next pay raise is to be delayed 3
months from the date of your next expected pay raise.
For on-the-job training, the JATC assigns each apprentice to
a particular electrical contractor. The contractor evaluates the
apprentice’s work and sends the evaluation to the JATC.
In early February 1997, Apprentice Page was working for
Amprite Electric. This employer discharged Page and sent the
JATC an evaluation stating that Page had refused to wear the
employer’s identification badge. After the JATC considered
this matter, its training director sent page a March 26, 1997
letter which stated as follows:
At the committee meeting of February 27, 1997, the decision
made concerning your recent firing from Amprite Electric
was that you be sent back to work and that you be placed on
probation until the start of the next school year of 1997–1998
and that your next pay raise is delayed 3 months from the date
of the next scheduled pay raise. The committee also decided
that if problems continue on the job or at school, then you are
subject to dismissal from this program.
The JATC then sent Page to work for another electrical con-
tractor. On October 9, 1997, Page’s employer, Butcher–United
Electric, discharged him. The JATC then terminated Page’s
apprenticeship. Page requested reconsideration but, at a Janu-
ary 8, 1998 meeting, the JATC decided not to reinstate him.
In August 2001, Page reapplied for admission to the appren-
ticeship program. He did so because he wanted to work for a
company operated by his father, Larry Page. That company,
Elec-Tech Electric, had a collective-bargaining agreement with
the Union and could only employ apprentices who were en-
rolled in the JATC program. The JATC allowed Page to return
to the apprenticeship program and he began working for Elec–
Tech.
Section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act allows a
state to enact a law prohibiting collective-bargaining agree-
ments which require union membership as a condition of em-
ployment. Tennessee has such a law and apprentices do not
have to belong to the Union to work for employers in the JATC
program.
When Page returned to the apprenticeship program, at first
he did not pay union dues. He had not been happy with the
Union, believing it should have done more to prevent his termi-
nation from the apprenticeship program in 1997. According to
Page, in January 2002, one of the Union’s business agents
stopped Page on his way to class and said, “you need to get
your dues straightened out.” Page answered, “I know” and the
business agent, Gerald Grant, did not say anything else at that
time.
In April or May 2002, while Page was on his way to class,
the JATC’s training director called him into an office. Also
present were the Union’s business manager, Lindsay Lee (also
known as Jerry Lee), and a business agent, Gerald Grant. They
raised the subject of Page’s nonpayment of dues and told him
that if he didn’t pay the dues, he would give up the benefits
associated with union membership.
Page testified Lee and Grant also told him that if he did not
pay the dues, he would be “rotated” to another employer. In
other words, if Page failed to pay the dues the JATC would
withdraw him from employment with Elec-Tech and assign
him to work for another contractor. Lee and Grant deny
making such a threat. For reasons discussed later in this
decision, I do not conclude that Page’s testimony is reliable
and I do not credit it. Therefore, I find that Grant and Lee
did not threaten to rotate Page’s work assignment if he failed
to pay his dues.
After this meeting, Page went on to class and the JATC
training director, Elbert Carter, went with him. Carter told
Page that he did not have to be a union member to work at
Elec-Tech, but Carter encouraged Page to belong. Page de-
cided to join the Union. His father paid Page’s union dues
for the first four months, and Page paid the union dues for an
additional three months.
On July 8, 2002, Daniel Page received a call from his fa-
ther, who reported that he had been contacted by a Union
official named Mike Bearden concerning Page’s union dues.
The next day, Page contacted the Union and spoke with the
one union official available at that time. Page told the offi-
cial about his dissatisfaction with the Union. Page also ex-
plained that he had religious objections to union membership
and announced that he was resigning his membership. This
union officer, John Hooper, referred Page to the business
manager, Jerry Lee.
On July 9, 2002, three members of the JATC attended a
specially called committee meeting. The minutes of that
meeting identify two of them, John Hooper and Gerald
Grant, as “FOR I.B.E.W.” and the other, Bert Noll, as “FOR
N.E.C.A.,” the contractors’ association. The JATC training
director, Elbert Carter, also was present. The minutes of that
meeting state, in part:
The director brought up Danny Page as a possible rotation
candidate at this time as he has had a problem stabilizing in
an unprotected environment in the past. The director sug-
gested a rotation from his father’s shop to assure this com-
mittee that Danny can work at other places without con-
flict. A motion was made and approved to rotate Danny to
another contractor.
On July 11, 2002, the JATC’s training director, Elbert
Carter, sent a fax to Page’s employer, announcing that he
was removing Page from employment at Elec-Tech effective
July 19, 2002. The letter explained that “Danny [Page] is
being rotated to another job assignment.”
Also on July 11, 2002, Carter sent a certified letter to
Daniel Page notifying him that the JATC was removing him
from employment at Elec-Tech as of July 19, 2002, that he
should report to a specified medical center for a drug screen
and that “Once the negative drug test results are reported to
our office, we will reassign you to another contractor.”
The record suggests that the JATC routinely requires ap-
prentices to undergo a drug test before being assigned to
work. The General Counsel does not contend that requiring
Page to take such a drug test violated the Act.
The record suggests that in general, employers participat-
ing in the apprenticeship program opposed the rotation of
apprentices because of the disruptions such rotations caused
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD522
to their work force. Page’s employer was no exception. Elec-
Tech sent Carter a July 17, 2002 reply protesting Page’s reas-
signment. “Removal of a properly trained apprentice with es-
tablished customer relationships,” they wrote, did not seem to
be a proper method of getting a grip on the problems besetting
the industry.
On July 18, 2002, JATC Training Director Carter sent Elec-
Tech a reply. Carter wrote, in part, that he was “sorry to inform
you that I can not delay Danny’s rotation from your organiza-
tion.” The letter then described how Page could appeal the
decision and suggested that Page should “request in writing to
appear before this committee at their next meeting on July 24,
2002.”
Meanwhile, Page’s father went to the Union hall to pay his
son’s dues. However, Union official Gerald Grant told him that
Daniel Page would have to write a letter to the Union explain-
ing why he was behind in his payment of dues.
Although Carter’s July 18 letter to Elec-Tech had suggested
that Daniel Page submit a written request to appear before the
JATC on February 24, it appears that Page would not have to
do so. Instead, Carter notified Page by July 19 letter that the
Committee wanted Page to appear on July 24.
On July 24, the JATC heard from both the father, Larry
Page, and the son, Daniel Page. The minutes of that meeting
report that after the father spoke, presumably opposing the
rotation of his son, the Committee voted twice. The first time,
the Committee split 4 to 4, leaving unaffected the decision to
rotate Page. The Committee then voted again and unanimously
decided to rescind the rotation, resulting in Page remaining
assigned to work at Elec-Tech.
Although the JATC minutes are not entirely clear on the se-
quence of events, it appears that Daniel Page appeared before
the Committee after his father did and after the Committee
voted to rescind the rotation. The minutes describe Daniel
Page’s appearance in one paragraph, which states as follows:
Danny Page appeared before the committee at 3:20 p.m. He
informed the committed [sic] that the National Labor Rela-
tions Board was reviewing the committee action as to rotation
of him for Elec-Tech. The committee was informed that he
was instructed by the NLRB’s Stacy Smith not to talk to this
committee in regard to anything.
The JATC decided to conduct a special meeting the next day.
Pursuant to the Committee’s request, Daniel Page attended this
meeting. In 1997, when the JATC considered the possible
dismissal of Page from the apprenticeship program, he had tape
recorded some of his interactions with the Committee. So, at
the July 25, 2002 meeting, Committee members asked Page if
he was taping them. He said he was not.
Page told the Committee, in essence, that he had been ad-
vised by the NLRB attorney, Stacy Smith, and the state director
of the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training, Nathaniel
Brown, that he, Page, did not have to answer the Committee’s
questions. The JATC training director then called Brown, who
denied making such a statement to Page. When the JATC in-
vestigated this matter further, Page did not cooperate.
At a JATC meeting on September 4, 2002, the Committee
decided to discipline Page. Training Director Carter notified
Page by September 6, 2002 letter, which stated as follows:
At the Nashville Electrical J.A.T.C. meeting on September
4, 2002, the Members/Trustees found that you did not
comply with the letter dated July 11, 2002 (see attached).
You also misinformed the Members/Trustees as to what
was said by the B.A.T. involving this matter. The Nash-
ville Electrical J.A.T.C. has been given authority by [sic]
over the school and all related training issues. This author-
ity has been given to this J.A.T.C. by the IBEW–NECA
contractual agreement and the U.S. Department of La-
bor/Bureau of Apprenticeship Training.
The Members/Trustees are going to delay your next sched-
uled pay increase six (6) months and you will be on proba-
tion for the duration of this program. Any infraction of the
policies or standards during this time will result in dis-
missal.
The government contends that in taking this disciplinary
action, as well as in deciding to rotate Page to work for an-
other employer, the JATC acted as the Union’s agent. As
already discussed, I conclude that the JATC had neither the
actual nor apparent authority to act as an agent for the Union.
Therefore, I recommend dismissal of the Complaint on that
basis.
Additionally, I find that in taking these actions, the Com-
mittee members were not motivated at all by Page’s non-
payment of union dues or by Page’s status as a union mem-
ber or nonmember. This conclusion flows from the resolu-
tion of issues regarding the credibility of the witnesses.
The Tennessee State Director of the Bureau of Appren-
ticeship and Training, Nathaniel Brown, testified that he
never told Page that Page did not have to answer the JATC’s
questions. For several reasons, I credit Brown. He is a fed-
eral official, employed by the United States Department of
Labor, testifying in a federal administrative proceeding. As a
government official, he had no interest in the outcome of this
proceeding. For these reasons, I am quite inclined to believe
he told the truth. Moreover, based on my observations of the
witnesses, I conclude that Brown’s testimony is reliable.
My conclusion that Brown told the truth leads inexorably
to the conclusion that when Daniel Page appeared before the
Committee, he did not. Therefore, I do not credit Page’s
testimony to the extent it conflicts with that of other wit-
nesses.
Additionally, when Page’s father tried to pay his son’s
Union dues, the Union would not accept the money. It
wanted an explanation from the son. It is difficult to believe
that the Union was putting pressure on the JATC to coerce
Page into paying the union dues, or to penalize him for refus-
ing to pay, when the Union itself would not accept the
money.
Members of the JATC, as well as its training director, may
well have harbored animosity towards Page because of the
way he acted in 1997 when the Committee discharged him
from the apprenticeship program. In addition to tape re-
cording the meetings, Page threatened to have Training Di-
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 429 523
rector Carter fired. However, the record does not establish that
Page engendered animosity by engaging in any activities pro-
tected by the National Labor Relations Act.
Moreover, the JATC had a legitimate reason for wishing to
transfer Page. During his previous apprenticeship, two em-
ployers had fired him. One of them reported to the JATC that it
discharged Page because he would not wear an ID badge. Re-
ceiving this information, the Committee had some reason to
doubt Page’s maturity.
When Page returned to the apprenticeship program, he
worked only for his father’s company, where such immaturity
might be overlooked. Considering the patterns of employment
in the construction industry, where the Union refers workers to
many different employers for projects of relatively short dura-
tion, the JATC had a very legitimate reason to be concerned
that Page could work maturely with any contractor, not just his
father’s company.
For these reasons, the JATC’s decision to rotate Page was
reasonable. Similarly, the JATC’s decision to discipline Page
for lying to the Committee is quite understandable, particularly
considering that Page attributed untrue statements to a public
official. I find that these lawful reasons, not a concern about
payment of Union dues, motivated the JATC.
The record contains very little evidence to suggest unlawful
motivation. At one meeting, a Committee member, Bert Noll,
did make an offhand comment that “this is about union dues.”
However, I conclude that he made this comment sarcasti-
cally, in response to Page’s perseveration on the topic of
union dues, a matter of no concern to the Committee.
The timing of the Committee’s action also raises some
question. However, timing alone, unsupported by other evi-
dence, can lead to the fallacy of logic described by the Latin
phrase post hoc ergo propter hoc. There is a difference be-
tween sequence and consequence. Although suspicious tim-
ing alone may sometimes support a conclusion of unlawful
motivation, particularly in the absence of some other, plausi-
ble explanation for an action, here, the JATC’s asserted rea-
sons, which are lawful, are quite plausible.
Concluding that the JATC acted without unlawful motiva-
tion, I recommend that the Complaint be dismissed.
When the transcript of this proceeding has been prepared,
I will issue a Certification which attaches as an appendix the
portion of the transcript reporting this bench decision. This
Certification also will include provisions relating to the Find-
ings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. When that
Certification is served upon the parties, the time period for
filing an appeal will begin to run.
Thank you for the great professionalism and courtesy
shown by all counsel during this proceeding. The hearing is
closed.