Enterprise Masonry Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 2004

341 N.L.R.B. 442 (N.L.R.B. 2004)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 442
Enterprise Masonry Corp. and Laborers Local Union
199, Laborers International Union of North
America, AFL–CIO. Case 5–CA–30421
March 15, 2004
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND MEISBURG
On January 17, 2003, Administrative Law Judge Rich-
ard A. Scully issued the attached decision. The Respon-
dent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Enterprise Masonry Corp.,
Elsmere, Delaware, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall, take the action set forth in the Order.

Elicia Watts, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Robert D. Ardizzi, Esq., of Spring House, Pennsylvania, for the
Respondent.

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.
2 The Respondent contends that it informed the general contractor of
its intention to lay off laborers on February 20, 2002, before it learned
of the employees’ union activity. The record belies that contention.
The judge implicitly credited the testimony of Union Representative
Robert DeClementi that he spoke with some of the Respondents’ labor-
ers about the Union during jobsite visits in January. Foreman Ed Hardy
observed another jobsite meeting between DeClementi and the employ-
ees during their lunchbreak on February 20. The Respondent presented
no evidence showing that its alleged conversation with the general
contractor occurred prior to that break. In any event, the judge ex-
pressly rejected the “vague, self-serving testimony” of Hardy and Gene
Cannatelli, the Respondent’s vice president, concerning the need for a
layoff, and the judge ultimately found that the Respondent’s asserted
reasons for the layoff were pretextual. Chairman Battista notes that
there is no evidence that the Respondent was aware of the Union’s
jobsite visit in January. Accordingly, he does not rely upon that visit to
show knowledge.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD A. SCULLY, Administrative Law Judge. Upon a
charge filed on April 30, 2002, by Laborers Local 199, Labor-
ers International Union of North America, AFL–CIO (the Un-
ion), the Regional Director for Region 5, National Labor Rela-
tions Board (the Board), issued a complaint on June 28, 2002,
alleging that Enterprise Masonry Corp. (the Respondent) had
committed certain violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent filed
a timely answer denying that it had committed any violation of
the Act.
A hearing was held in Wilmington, Delaware, on October 21
and 22, 2002, at which the parties were given a full opportunity
to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to present other
evidence and argument. Briefs submitted on behalf of the Gen-
eral Counsel and the Respondent have been given due consid-
eration. Upon the entire record, and from my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all times material, the Respondent was a Delaware corpo-
ration with an office and place of business in Elsmere, Dela-
ware, engaged as a masonry contractor in the construction in-
dustry doing commercial construction. During the 12-month
period preceding June 28, 2002, in the conduct of its business
operations, the Respondent received at its Elsmere facility
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside
the State of Delaware. The Respondent admits, and I find, that
at all times material, it was an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent admits, and I find, that at all times material
the Union was a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Respondent is a masonry contractor operating in Dela-
ware and surrounding states. The project involved in this mat-
ter was the construction of the Smyrna Middle School (SMS) in
Smyrna, Delaware, which commenced in the latter part of 2001
and was completed in September 2002. The general contractor
on the project was Barkley, White, and Skanska and the Re-
spondent had a subcontract to provide all masonry work except
concrete. The Respondent’s bricklayers are unionized, but its
laborers are not.
During January 2002,1 Local 199 representative Robert De-
Clementi visited the SMS jobsite and talked with some of the
Respondent’s laborers about the Union. On the afternoon of
February 19, a group of laborers met with him at the Smyrna
Diner. They discussed union representation and union authori-
zation cards were passed out. On the following day, De-
Clementi went to the SMS jobsite and met with a group of la-
1 Hereinafter, all dates are in 2002.
341 NLRB No. 53
ENTERPRISE MASONRY CORP. 443
borers during their lunch period near a dumpster at the jobsite.
He passed out union T-shirts and stickers which some employ-
ees put on and he had a petition for employees to sign. This
meeting was observed by foreman Ed Hardy who was standing
by the Respondent’s trailer. After work that afternoon, De-
Clementi met with employees at a pizza restaurant, he dis-
cussed presenting the petition to the Respondent, and he asked
for volunteers to do so. On the following morning, De-
Clementi, another union organizer, and employees Thomas
Glennon and William Smith approached Hardy as he arrived at
the jobsite. Glennon handed the petition, which stated that the
undersigned employees wanted to be represented by the Union,
to Hardy and read it aloud to him. Hardy responded that it was
not his decision and that he would call Company Vice President
Eugene Cannatelli.
Cannatelli arrived at the jobsite at about 8:30 a.m. De-
Clementi showed him the petition and said that the employees
wanted to be represented. Cannatelli said that he could not
make that decision and had to talk to his partner. Later that
morning, Union Representatives DeClementi, Gurvis Miner,
and John Mancini met with Hardy, Cannatelli, and Company
President John Aull in the Respondent’s trailer at the jobsite.
DeClementi showed Aull a copy of the petition and said that a
majority of the employees wanted the Union to represent them.
After some discussion, Aull said that the job had already been
bid and that the Respondent would not recognize the Union.
On the afternoon of February 21, the Respondent laid off la-
borers John Holland, Thomas Glennon, Kyle Tucker, and Ty-
rone Sayles. It laid off laborer William Smith on the morning
of February 22. With the exception of Holland, all of these
employees had signed the petition that the Respondent received
on the morning of February 21, and had worn union t-shirts and
stickers while working at the SMS jobsite that day.
The complaint alleges that the four union supporters were
laid off because of their union activity in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The Respondent contends that the
layoff was necessitated by the fact that it had too many laborers
on the job at that point and that the layoff was planned and the
individuals to be laid off were chosen before it had any knowl-
edge of union activity on the part of its laborers.
Analysis and Conclusions
In cases where an employer’s motivation for a personnel ac-
tion is in issue, it must be analyzed in accordance with the test
outlined by the Board in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980),
enfd. 662 F. 2d 800 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989
(1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation Management
Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983). Under Wright Line, the General
Counsel must persuade the Board that animus toward protected
activity on the part of employees was a substantial or motivat-
ing factor in the employer’s decision. Once that has been done,
the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that it would
have taken the same action even in the absence of protected
activity on the employees’ part. Manno Electric, 321 NLRB
278, 280 fn. 12 (1996). The General Counsel’s initial burden is
met by proof of protected activity on the part of the employees,
employer knowledge of that activity, and employer animus
toward it. W. R. Case & Sons Cutlery Co., 307 NLRB 1457,
1463 (1992).
There is no dispute but that the alleged discriminates en-
gaged in protected activity by seeking representation by the
Union, by signing union authorization cards, by signing and
presenting a petition asking the employer to recognize the Un-
ion as their collective-bargaining representative, by wearing
union t-shirts and stickers on the SMS jobsite, and by meeting
with union representatives at the jobsite.
There is also no question but that the Respondent was aware
of the fact that its employees were engaging in this activity.
During the lunchbreak on February 20, several laborers met
openly with DeClementi at the SMS jobsite. On the morning of
February 21, it received the petition signed by 13 laborers
which stated that they wanted the Union to represent them. Of
the five laborers who were laid off that day or the next, four
had signed the petition. Throughout that day the Union main-
tained a picket line at the entrance to the SMS jobsite which
featured large inflatable rats. At least two of the alleged dis-
criminates, Glennon and Smith were at the picket line during
their lunchbreak. Glennon testified that Hardy drove by while
he was there and that they waved to each other.
Direct evidence of unlawful motivation is seldom available
and it may be established by circumstantial evidence and the
inferences drawn therefrom. E.g., Abbey Transportation Ser-
vices, 284 NLRB 698, 701 (1987); Pete’s Pic-Pac Supermar-
kets, 707 F.2d 236, 240 (6th Cir. 1983); Shattuck Denn Mining
Corp., 362 F. 2d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 1966). The timing of an
employer’s action can be persuasive evidence of its motivation.
Masland Industries, 311 NLRB 184, 197 (1993); Limestone
Apparel Corp., 255 NLRB 722, 736 (1981). Here, the layoffs
began within hours of the time the Respondent received the
petition from its laborers requesting recognition of the Union.
Moreover, four of the five laborers who were laid off had
signed the petition.2 Also, upon being presented with the de-
mand for recognition, the Respondent made it clear that the
SMS job had already been bid and that it would not pay a
higher wage rate. I find that the General Counsel has met the
prima facie burden imposed by Wright Line.
The Respondent contends that the layoff decision was made
before it had any knowledge of union activity on the part of the
laborers. It asserts that in February the masonry work had
reached a stage where the building was being “buttoned up,”
the exterior walls were up and the building was being enclosed
and heated so that the various trades could perform their work
inside. This meant the Respondent would be concentrating its
work force and would need fewer laborers to support the brick-
layers than when they had been spread throughout the project.
During the second week of February, Cannatelli decided that
there were too many laborers on the project and he told Hardy
to lay off six or seven of them. He left it to Hardy to select
those to be laid off. By Monday, February 18, Hardy had done
so, but they were permitted to work out the week. On Thurs-
day, Cannatelli came to the SMS site and Hardy gave him the
names of those he had selected. He called in the names to the

2 The fifth laborer laid off, John Holland, was rehired by the Re-
spondent at the SMS job the following week.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 444
company’s bookkeeper and once the amount of their wages had
been determined, he wrote out checks and gave them to Hardy
to distribute.
The Respondent relies on the vague, self-serving testimony
of Cannatelli and Hardy to establish that the layoff was neces-
sary because there were too many laborers on the job and that it
had been decided upon prior to the time it learned of the labor-
ers’ interest in being represented by the Union. However, its
records concerning the manpower on the SMS job immediately
before and after the layoffs do not support that testimony. Ac-
cording to those records, during the week ending February 17,
the week Cannatelli allegedly told Hardy that six or seven la-
borers should be laid off, there were 23 laborers on the job (GC
Exh. 2f). The following week ending February 24, in which the
layoffs occurred, there were 27 laborers on the job (GC Exh.
2g). The next week, ending March 3, there were 24 (GC Exh.
2h), the week after that, ending March 10, there were 26 (GC
Exh. 2i) and the week ending March 17, there were 24 (GC
Exh. 2j). Equally important, the records indicate that the total
number of hours laborers worked did not diminish significantly
after the layoffs. During the week ending February 17, laborers
worked only 634 hours. The week ending February 24, labor-
ers worked a total of 914 hours, the week ending March 3, a
total of 864 hours, the week ending March 10, a total of 909.5
hours, and the week ending March 17, a total of 854.5 hours.
The fact that an employer lays off union supporters for alleged
economic reasons but then replaces them is clear evidence that
its asserted reason is pretextual. E.g., Bay Metal Cabinets, 302
NLRB 152, 173 (1991); Jumbo Produce, 294 NLRB 998, 1007
(1989).
Even more severely undercutting the Respondent’s claim
that there were too many laborers on the job and that the layoff
had been decided upon almost a week before it occurred is the
fact that, on Monday, February 18, Hardy hired laborer William
Smith, who had been coming to the SMS jobsite seeking em-
ployment almost daily for about 2 weeks. It would obviously
make little sense for Hardy to take on a new laborer if he had
just been told by his boss that there were too many on the job
and, particularly, if he had already selected a number to be laid
off a few days later.
The Respondent points to the fact that at a meeting on Feb-
ruary 20, Cannatelli told the general contractor’s project super-
intendent, Ralph Walker, that it was going to have a layoff of
laborers as evidence that it was planning to reduce the number
of laborers on the job before it learned of any union activity.
However, the testimony of Walker was that Cannatelli said that
he had laborers coming in from other jobs that were winding up
who would replace anyone who was laid off and that there
would be no reduction in the total number on the SMS job. As
Walker put it, “they were not going to cut back, and we did not
want them to cut back.” Cannatelli admitted telling Walker
this. “I said no, we’re laying [off] laborers, and I have people
coming from other jobs that it will probably be filling right
back up.”
The Respondent also contends that the fact that John Hol-
land, a laborer who had not signed the petition for recognition
or openly engaged in any union activity that week, was laid off
is proof of its lack of antiunion motivation. I do not agree.
First, it is not unknown for an employer to include nonsupport-
ers of a union in a layoff to mask its true intent. Here, all the
others who were laid off were open supporters of the Union.
Second, Holland was put back to work by Hardy the following
Monday. Holland did not testify and the Respondent’s expla-
nation, based on the uncorroborated testimony of Hardy, that
Holland came to Hardy and apologized for his poor work per-
formance and was put back to work, is not persuasive. The
purported reason for the layoff was that there were too many
laborers on the job, not Holland’s shortcomings as a worker.
Moreover, the union supporters who were laid off were not told
why they had been selected nor given any reason to believe
they could get their jobs back a few days later. In any event,
the fact that nonsupporters of a union are also included in a
layoff does not preclude a finding that it was unlawful. Vemco,
Inc., 304 NLRB 911, 913 (1991). Notwithstanding the fact that
Cannatelli allegedly told Hardy to lay off six or seven laborers,
in fact, since Holland was reinstated only four laborers were
actually laid off and all were supporters of the Union.
The way the Respondent handled the layoffs also belies its
claims that its laborers’ union activity had nothing to do with it.
According to Cannatelli, its usual practice is that when a la-
borer is told that he is laid off he is also told to return and pick
up his paycheck the following week. However, in this case, on
Thursday, after arriving at the SMS jobsite to meet with the
Union’s representatives, Cannatelli called the company book-
keeper, got the payroll figures, and wrote out paychecks which
were then given to the four laborers being laid off that day. He
admitted that he did things differently in this instance because
the presence of the Union caused him to be “afraid I was going
to have a problem and I wanted to make sure all my T’s were
crossed.” Yet, according to his testimony, he did not know that
any of those selected to be laid off were supporters of the Un-
ion. I did not believe him. I find it more likely that he feared a
“problem” because he knew that 80 percent of those being laid
off had signed the petition. He may also have wanted to avoid
having them come back to the jobsite a week later to pick up
their paychecks where they might have interacted with other
prounion employees. I find that the Respondent’s departure
from it usual layoff practice in response to the Union’s organiz-
ing campaign is additional evidence of its unlawful motivation.
JAMCO, 294 NLRB 896, 905 (1989).
There is no merit in the Respondent’s arguments that union
activity could not have been a factor in the decision to lay off
the laborers because they had been selected and their names
submitted to the timekeeper before the meeting with the union
representatives on February 21, or that Cannatelli did not look
at the names on the petition that DeClementi handed him at
their meeting. The fact is that, when Hardy first arrived at the
jobsite that morning, he was given the petition by union repre-
sentatives and laborers Glennon and Smith and it remained with
him throughout the morning. Glennon also read the petition to
Hardy. I find it difficult to believe that, after receiving a call
from Hardy to come to the jobsite to meet with the Union, Can-
natelli would not have looked at the petition (which was the
reason he was called) when he got there. In any event, it was
Hardy who selected the employees to be laid off and he had the
petition with the names of the union supporters in his posses-

ENTERPRISE MASONRY CORP. 445
sion long before he gave the names he had chosen to Can-
natelli. Hardy had also observed the meeting between the la-
borers and Union Representative DeClementi near the dumpster
at the SMS jobsite on February 20. Kyle Tucker, one of those
laid off, credibly testified that he had mentioned his interest in
the Union to Hardy during his break on February 20, and asked
for his advice, but Hardy just shrugged and walked away.
I also find that the Respondent has failed to establish that the
four union supporters would have been laid off even in the
absence of union activity on their part. Based on the testimony
of Hardy, it asserts that Kyle Tucker was selected for layoff
because of his poor work performance. Hardy testified that
another foreman, Barry Jones, actually selected Tucker. Ac-
cording to Hardy, a couple of weeks before the layoff Jones
mentioned to him that Tucker would “disappear sometimes,”
and that “every time he [Jones] looked around, he couldn’t find
him [Tucker].” As a result, Hardy spoke to Tucker and told
him “you just can’t disappear and stuff like that.” Tucker testi-
fied that, in January during his second week on the job, Hardy
had told him that Jones had seen Tucker standing around with
his hands in his pockets. Tucker said that it was a cold day,
that he did not have any gloves, and that at a time when all of
the bricklayers he was servicing had everything they needed, he
put his hands in his pockets for about 30 seconds. He said that
he went to Jones and apologized and Jones said that he under-
stood. Hardy claimed that when Tucker was laid off he told
Tucker that he had tried to warn him that he had to pull his own
weight and do things. However, Tucker credibly testified that
he had never been disciplined while on the SMS jobsite and
that a couple of times Hardy had actually complimented him on
his work and told him he was doing a good job. Tucker also
testified that at the time he was laid off Hardy gave him no
reason for his selection except that work was slowing down. I
found Tucker to be a believable witness and credit his detailed
descriptions of these incidents over Hardy’s vague, cryptic
account. Jones, whom Hardy claimed made the decision to lay
off Tucker, did not testify. Jones’ absence was not explained
and there is no reason to believe he is not favorably disposed
toward the Respondent. I infer that his testimony would not
have supported its position.
Hardy testified that he selected Glennon for layoff because
he was missing time, had “an attitude problem,” and did not get
along with anyone with whom he worked. However, there is
no evidence that he had ever discussed any of these alleged
concerns this with Glennon. Glennon had worked for the Re-
spondent at the Hyatt project in Cambridge, Maryland, from
November 2001 until January 2001 when he left to take another
job. He was rehired on the Hyatt job in September 2001 and
worked there until the beginning of January 2002, when he was
asked by his supervisor to go to the SMS job. Glennon admit-
ted that he had missed some days on the SMS job but testified
that he had never been told that was the reason for his being
laid off. It is noteworthy that the week of the layoff Glennon
was there every day in contrast to several other laborers that
Hardy admitted had missed time that week but were not laid
off. At the same time, Tyrone Sayles, who apparently had not
missed a single day of work since being hired on January 28,
was laid off. According to Hardy, Sayles was being used to
clean up because he didn’t catch on to the work as a mason
tender. Hardy first implied that Sayles had been doing clean up
work on the project that the Respondent wasn’t required to do.
However, when asked if once Sayles was laid off the Respon-
dent ceased cleaning up, his answer was: “There was always
someone cleaning up. I mean a job that size, there’s always
somebody cleaning up.” Apparently, Hardy was content to
have Sayles do the cleaning up until he expressed an interest in
representation by the Union. Thereafter, his employees had to
clean up after themselves.
The Respondent’s evidence concerning the reason for its de-
cision to lay off William Smith and when it was made is con-
fused and contradictory. Smith, who had previously worked for
the Respondent at other jobsites and had once voluntarily quit
its employ, was hired on Monday, February 18. He was hired
even though Cannatelli had purportedly already told Hardy that
he should select laborers to be laid off on Thursday, February
21. Smith was laid off on Friday, February 22. Hardy first
testified that on Friday morning he saw Smith standing around
on the jobsite. Hardy went to Smith and told him to “do some-
thing” even if he had to “kick a brick around.” When Smith did
not answer him, Hardy decided to lay him off. However, other
evidence establishes that the Respondent made the decision to
lay off Smith on Thursday, as it did the others. The Respon-
dent’s bookkeeper, Tammy Day, testified that Smith was one of
the names she was given on Thursday morning by Cannatelli
when he called to get the net pay amounts for those being laid
off that day. However, she was unable to find his tax forms
which she needed to compute the amount of his net pay. Smith
credibly testified that during his lunch period on Thursday he
had walked the picket line wearing a sign and was observed by
Hardy. After lunch on Thursday, Hardy came up to him while
he was working and said that he had been watching Smith
standing around and that he needed to do something and should
“kick a brick.” Smith denied that he had not been working
before this occurred. At that point, whether Smith was working
or not didn’t really matter because the decision to lay him off
had already been made. It appears that Hardy was simply pro-
viding a spurious, after-the fact excuse for Smith’s layoff.
I find that the Respondent has not established that these lay-
offs were necessitated by legitimate business reasons and that
its proffered reasons for the layoffs are pretexts. I also find that
it has not established that Glennon, Smith, Sayles, or Tucker
would have been laid off in the absence of union activity on the
part of its laborers. Accordingly, I find that each of the layoffs
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Enterprise Masonry Corp. is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by discriminatorily laying off and discharging employees
Thomas Glennon, Kyle Tucker, and Tyrone Sayles on February
21, 2002, and William Smith on February 22, 2002, and by
failing to recall them.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 446
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having discriminatorily laid-off and dis-
charged employees, Thomas Glennon, Kyle Tucker, Tyrone
Sayles, and William Smith, it must offer them reinstatement
and make them whole for any loss of earnings and other bene-
fits, computed on a quarterly basis from date of discharge to
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).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended3
ORDER
The Respondent, Enterprise Masonry Corp., Elsmere, Dela-
ware, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Laying off, discharging, or otherwise discriminating
against any employee for supporting Laborers Local 199, La-
borers International Union of North America, AFL–CIO, or any
other labor organization.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
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 Thomas
Glennon, Kyle Tucker, Tyrone Sayles, and William Smith 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 en-
joyed.
(b) Make Thomas Glennon, Kyle Tucker, Tyrone Sayles, and
William Smith whole for any loss of earnings and other bene-
fits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in
the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from
its files any reference to the unlawful discharges, and within 3
days thereafter notify the employees in writing that this has
been done and that the discharges will not be used against them
in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment re-

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.
cords, 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 its fa-
cility in Elsmere, Delaware, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 5, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceed-
ings, 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 21, 2002.
(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
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO

Form, join, or assist any union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.

WE WILL NOT lay off, discharge, or otherwise discriminate
against any of you for supporting Laborers Local 199, Laborers
International Union of North America, AFL–CIO, or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order,
offer Thomas Glennon, Kyle Tucker, Tyrone Sayles, and Wil-
liam Smith full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those
4 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 Na-
tional 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.”

ENTERPRISE MASONRY CORP. 447
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Thomas Glennon, Kyle Tucker, Tyrone
Sayles, and William Smith whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits resulting from their discharge, less any net in-
terim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order,
remove from our files any reference to the unlawful discharges
of Thomas Glennon, Kyle Tucker, Tyrone Sayles, and William
Smith and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify each of
them in writing that this has been done and that the discharges
will not be used against them in any way.
ENTERPRISE MASONRY CORP.