JON P. WESTRUM, D/B/A J. WESTRUM ELECTRIC AND JWE LLC, ALTER EGOS

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 13, 2017

365 NLRB No. 151 (N.L.R.B. 2017)

365 NLRB No. 151
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Jon P. Westrum d/b/a J. Westrum Electric and JWE
LLC and International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, Local 292. Case 18–CA–182656
December 13, 2017
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS MCFERRAN, KAPLAN, AND EMANUEL
On May 31, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Sharon
Levinson Steckler issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondents filed exceptions with supporting argument,
and the General Counsel filed an answering letter.
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 letter and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions,2 to

1 The Respondents have 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. In addition, some of the Respondents’
exceptions allege that the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions
demonstrate bias and prejudice. More specifically, the Respondents
argue that the judge displayed bias against them because after the Gen-
eral Counsel finished presenting his case, and again at the close of the
hearing, the judge encouraged the parties to discuss settling the matter.
However, the NLRB Division of Judges Bench Book instructs judges to
inquire about settlement at those times, and the judge stated at the be-
ginning of the hearing that she would inquire about settlement at those
times. By simply encouraging the parties to consider settlement, the
judge did not display bias against any party or create the impression
that she had prejudged the case. Additionally, the Respondents failed
to object during the hearing to the judge’s allegedly biased conduct.
Therefore, the Respondents did not timely raise their bias claim. See
Canal Electric Co., 245 NLRB 1090, 1090 fn. 2 (1979). In any event,
we have carefully examined the judge’s decision and the entire record,
and we are satisfied that the Respondents’ contentions are without
merit.
2 There are no exceptions to the judge’s findings that Respondent
JWE LLC is the alter ego of Respondent J. Westrum Electric, and that
JWE LLC and J. Westrum Electric are a single employer within the
meaning of the Act. Further, the Respondents do not except to the
judge’s substantive findings that they violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by
failing and refusing to recognize the Union, to apply the terms of their
collective-bargaining agreements with the Union, and to furnish the
Union with the information that it requested on August 12, 2016. In-
stead, the Respondents only argue that the Union’s initial unfair labor
practice charge was barred by the 10(b) statute of limitations. We
agree with the judge that the Union’s charge was timely. Jon Westrum
testified that, during a May 5, 2015 telephone call, he informed Union
Business Representative John Kripotos that he had dissolved J.
Westrum Electric and was now operating a new nonunion company.
We find that the judge reasonably declined to credit Westrum on this
amend the remedy, and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified and set forth in full below.3
AMENDED REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, we shall order them to
cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Because
the judge found that the Respondents and the Union had
an 8(f) collective-bargaining relationship, we shall order
the Respondents to recognize the Union as the limited
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of their
unit employees. See Allied Mechanical Services, 351
NLRB 79, 83 & fn. 18 (2007) (citing Willis Roof Con-
sulting, Inc., 349 NLRB No. 24, 2007 WL 324556, at
*3–4 (Jan. 31, 2007) (not reported in Board volumes)).
To the extent that any employees made personal con-
tributions to union funds that were accepted by the funds
in lieu of the Respondents’ delinquent contributions dur-
ing the period of the delinquency, the Respondents will
reimburse the employees, but the amount of such reim-
bursement will constitute a setoff to the amount that the
Respondents otherwise owe the funds. See, e.g., Oliva

point given his overall problems with credibility, lack of detail, and
testimonial inconsistencies, all of which are well documented in the
decision. We note that when recounting Westrum’s testimony about
that telephone call, the judge incorrectly stated that Kripotos, rather
than Westrum, placed the call. This error does not affect our decision.
We also agree that the Union did not have constructive knowledge that
the Respondents had repudiated the NECA Agreement. That Kripotos
learned by talking to electricians that Jon Westrum was using nonunion
labor on the Northtown Mall Hobby Lobby job outside the Union’s
jurisdiction hardly demonstrates that the Union had constructive
knowledge that the Respondents had repudiated the contract. Nor did
due diligence require Kripotos to research whether the Respondents did
work in the Union’s jurisdiction and verify onsite that they used union
labor. As the judge noted, there were over 200 signatory contractors to
the NECA Agreement, and the Union could not possibly monitor each
one. Lastly, the Respondents’ conduct was not so bald as to put the
Union on notice that they had repudiated the NECA Agreement. See
Neosho Construction Co., 305 NLRB 100, 101–103 (1991) (finding
that union did not have notice of employer’s intent to repudiate an 8(f)
agreement, despite employer performing 20 nonunion jobs in contract
area over 14 years).
3 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order in accordance
with our decision in J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB 11 (2010), and to
conform to the judge’s conclusions of law, the amended remedy, and
the Board’s standard remedial language. We shall substitute a new
notice to conform to the Order as modified.
In the Remedy, the judge ordered the Respondents to “mail the no-
tice to all employees who were employed on or after January 1, 2015,
but no longer are employed by [them].” However, the judge failed to
require notice mailing in the Order itself. Because the Respondents
have experienced a significant amount of employee turnover since
January 1, 2015, we shall include the judge’s notice-mailing remedy in
the Order. See, e.g., A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc., 361 NLRB 1487, 1487
(2014); Sommerville Construction Co., 327 NLRB 514, 514 fn. 2
(1999), enfd. 206 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2000).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
Supermarkets LLC, 363 NLRB No. 170, slip op. at 1 fn.
5 (2016).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondents, Jon P. Westrum d/b/a J. Westrum Electric
and JWE LLC, alter egos and a single employer, Anoka,
Minnesota, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 292 (Union) as
the limited exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of its unit employees during the term of the 2012–2015
collective-bargaining agreement and any successor
agreement in effect between the Union and J. Westrum
Electric.
(b) Refusing to apply the 2012–2015 collective-
bargaining agreement and any successor agreement be-
tween the Union and J. Westrum Electric.
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union, by
failing and refusing to provide the Union with requested
information that is necessary and relevant to its role as
the limited exclusive representative of the Respondents’
unit employees.
(d) In any like or related manner, interfering with, re-
straining, 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
effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act.
(a) Recognize the Union as the limited exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All employees employed by Respondents, including
Journeymen Wiremen, Apprentices, Cable Splicers,
Welders, Instrument Technician I, Instrument Techni-
cian II, Foremen, General Foremen and 2nd General
Foremen, in the geographic areas in Minnesota of all of
Hennepin, Carver and Scott Counties, all that part of
Anoka County containing the cities of Andover,
Anoka, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Fridley,
Hilltop, Ramsey and Spring Lake Park, all of Wright
County and that portion of Benton and Sherburne
Counties east of State Highway 25 to Highway 10 and
an imaginary line straight west to the Mississippi River;
excluding office clerical employees, guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(b) Abide by the current collective-bargaining agree-
ment between the National Electrical Contractors Asso-
ciation, Minneapolis Chapter, and the Union in effect
from May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2018, and apply the
terms and conditions of employment provided in the
agreement to the employees in the unit described above.
(c) Make whole unit employees for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits resulting from the Respondents’
failure to apply the 2012–2015 and 2015–2018 collec-
tive-bargaining agreements, plus interest, and pay all
contractually-required fringe benefit contributions not
previously paid and reimburse unit employees for any
losses or expenses arising from the Respondents’ failure
to make the required payments plus interest in accord-
ance with Board policy.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(e) Compensate the bargaining unit employees for the
adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum
backpay awards, and file with the Regional Director for
Region 18 within 21 days of the date the amount of
backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a
report allocating the backpay awards to the appropriate
calendar year(s) for each employee.
(f) Furnish the Union with the information it requested
in its August 12, 2016 letter.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
all of its facilities and job sites copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 18,
after being signed by the Respondents’ authorized repre-
sentative(s), shall be posted by the Respondents and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous plac-
es, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of
paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondents
customarily communicate with their employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ents to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. In addition, within 14
days after service by the Region, the Respondents shall
duplicate and mail, at their own expense, a copy of the

4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted and Mailed by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted and Mailed
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforc-
ing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.”
JON P. WESTRUM D/B/A WESTRUM ELECTRIC AND JWE LLC 3
signed notice to all former unit employees employed by
the Respondents at any time since January 1, 2015. If
the Respondents have gone out of business or closed the
facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondents
shall duplicate and mail, at their own expense, a copy of
the notice to all current employees and former employees
employed by the Respondents at any time since January
1, 2015.
(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 18 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondents have
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 13, 2017
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
______________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED AND MAILED 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 with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 292
(Union) as the limited exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit employees during the term of
the 2012–2015 collective-bargaining agreement and any
successor agreement in effect between the Union and J.
Westrum Electric.
WE WILL NOT refuse to apply the 2012–2015 collec-
tive-bargaining agreement and any successor agreement
with the Union.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the
Union by failing and refusing to furnish it with requested
information that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s
performance of its functions as the limited exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL recognize the Union as the limited exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of our employees in
the following appropriate unit:
All employees employed by Respondents, including
Journeymen Wiremen, Apprentices, Cable Splicers,
Welders, Instrument Technician I, Instrument Techni-
cian II, Foremen, General Foremen and 2nd General
Foremen, in the geographic areas in Minnesota of all of
Hennepin, Carver and Scott Counties, all that part of
Anoka County containing the cities of Andover,
Anoka, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Fridley,
Hilltop, Ramsey and Spring Lake Park, all of Wright
County and that portion of Benton and Sherburne
Counties east of State Highway 25 to Highway 10 and
an imaginary line straight west to the Mississippi River;
excluding office clerical employees, guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL abide by the current collective-bargaining
agreement between the National Electrical Contractors
Association, Minneapolis Chapter, and the Union in ef-
fect from May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2018, and ap-
ply the terms and conditions of employment provided in
the agreement to the employees in the unit described
above.
WE WILL make you whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of our failure to apply
the 2012–2015 and 2015–2018 collective-bargaining
agreements, plus interest, and WE WILL pay all contractu-
ally required fringe benefit contributions not previously
paid and reimburse you for any losses or expenses aris-
ing from our failure to make the required payments plus
interest in accordance with Board policy.
WE WILL compensate the bargaining unit employees
for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving
lump-sum backpay awards, and WE WILL file with the
Regional Director for Region 18 within 21 days of the
date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
or Board order, a report allocating the backpay awards to
the appropriate calendar year(s) for each employee.
WE WILL furnish the Union with the information it re-
quested in its August 12, 2016 letter.
JON P. WESTRUM D/B/A WESTRUM ELECTRIC
AND JWW LLC
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/18–CA–182656 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Re-
lations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
Florence I. Brammer, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Brian S. Carroll, Labor Relations Expert (hearing) and Cynthia
A. Sauter (on brief), for the Respondent.
Justin D. Cummins, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
SHARON LEVINSON STECKLER, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.
This case was tried in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on March 14
and 15, 2017. Charging Party International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 292 (Local 292) filed the charge on
August 23, 2016, and the General Counsel issued the complaint
on December 15, 2016.1
The complaint alleges that Jon P. Westrum first operated his
electrical contracting business as J. Westrum Electric (J.
Westrum), a sole proprietorship, and, subsequently as JWE,
LLC (JWE). The complaint contends that J. Westrum and
JWE, having almost the same management, business purposes,
operations, equipment, supervision, customers and ownership,
were alter egos and a single employer, designed to evade re-
sponsibilities pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act (the
Act). In June 2012, J. Westrum entered into a building and
construction industry’s multiemployer collective-bargaining
agreement with Local 292 and never notified Local 292 of any
intent not to be bound by the contract. The evidence reflects
that J. Westrum became JWE in 2015; neither of the electrical
contracting entities nor Jon P. Westrum himself notified the
IBEW of that change. When Local 292 discovered Jon P.
Westrum utilizing electricians on a job within its jurisdiction, it
filed a grievance to obtain proper recognition, back dues and
benefit payments. A labor-management committee, following
procedures in the collective-bargaining agreement, made a final

1 All dates occur in 2016 unless otherwise stated.
and binding determination that J. Westrum Electric was in vio-
lation of its contractual obligations; it ordered J. Westrum to
pay its employees and Local 292 monetary and fringe benefit
remedies. Based upon the arbitration award, Local 292 request-
ed information and allegedly never received the information.
The complaint contends that Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to recognize Local 292 and
failing to provide information. Respondent pled a number of
affirmative defenses, including that the charge was not timely
per Section 10(b) of the Act. Ultimately, I find that J. Westrum
and JWE are alter egos and these business entities have violated
the Act as alleged.
The parties filed timely briefs, which I have duly considered.
I therefore make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT2
I. JURISDICTION
Both J. Westrum Electric and JWE are electrical contracting
companies with their offices located at the same address in
Anoka, Minnesota. In conducting the business operations for
each entity, Respondent has purchased and received at its place
of business goods and services valued in excess of $50,000
from sources located outside the State of Minnesota for each of
the described entities.3 At all material times, J. Westrum Elec-
tric was an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act. Similarly, at all material times, JWE was an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
I also find that Local 292 is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

2 Although I have included citations to the record to highlight par-
ticular testimony or exhibits, my findings and conclusions are not based
solely on those specific record citations, but rather upon my review and
consideration of the entire record for this case. My findings of fact
encompass the credible testimony, evidence presented, and logical
inferences. The credibility analysis may rely upon a variety of factors,
including, but not limited to, the context of the witness testimony, the
weight of the respective evidence, established or admitted facts, inher-
ent probabilities, and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the
record as a whole. Double D Construction Group, 339 NLRB 303,
303–305 (2003); Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB 622, 623 (2001) (citing
Shen Automotive Dealership Group, 321 NLRB 586, 589 (1996)), enfd.
56 Fed.Appx. 516 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Credibility findings regarding any
witness are not likely to be an all-or-nothing determination and I may
believe that a witness testified credibly regarding one fact but not on
another. Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB at 622.
When a witness may reasonably be assumed to be favorably dis-
posed to the party, an adverse inference may be drawn regarding any
factual question on which the witness is likely to have knowledge.
International Automated Machines, 285 NLRB 1122, 1123 (1987),
enfd. 861 F.2d (6th Cir. 1988). This is particularly true where the wit-
ness is the Respondent’s agent. Roosevelt Memorial Medical Center,
348 NLRB 1016, 1022 (2006). Testimony from current employees
tend to be particularly reliable because it goes against their pecuniary
interests when testifying against their employer. Gold Standard Enter-
prises, 234 NLRB 618, 619 (1978); Georgia Rug Mill, 131 NLRB 1304
fn. 2 (1961); Gateway Transportation Co., 193 NLRB 47, 48 (1971);
Federal Stainless Sink Division, 197 NLRB 489, 491 (1972).
3 At hearing, Respondent stipulated to the commerce language.
JON P. WESTRUM D/B/A WESTRUM ELECTRIC AND JWE LLC 5
II. BACKGROUND
The National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) in
Minneapolis maintains a multiemployer collective-bargaining
agreement with Local 292 (NECA agreement). The latest
NECA agreement is effective from May 1, 2015, through April
30, 2018. (GC Exh. 4.) It includes a prehire agreement, which
requires a signatory contractor to obtain employees through the
IBEW hiring hall. A contractor relying on the NECA agree-
ment for employees submits firing benefit funds. Some con-
tractors may not perform work at all. The NECA Agreement
also permits a contractor to change its name, but the obligations
arising as a signatory to a Letter of Assent continue to bind the
newly named employer.
David Manderson (Manderson) is the executive director for
NECA’s Minneapolis chapter. Manderson performs labor rela-
tions duties and negotiating collective-bargaining agreements
for electrical contractors.
Both JWE and J. Westrum perform commercial and residen-
tial electrical work. (GC Exh. 39.) Respondent J. Westrum’s
owner, Jon Westrum, has worked as an electrician since age 15.
He became a union electrician about 2001. He is a master elec-
trician. A master electrician license is necessary for contracting
electrical work. He testified he currently works for JWE and
said JWE is actually nephew Alex Westrum’s company. (Tr.
34.)
After finishing a degree at University of Phoenix, Alex
Westrum allegedly is an electrical apprentice for his uncle, and
working with other journeymen hired by JWE. Although he
labeled himself as an independent contractor for J. Westrum,
Alex Westrum worked as the accountant/bookkeeper, begin-
ning in April 2013, and continued doing so for JWE. Before
JWE, he drew up the papers to change from the business form
from J. Westrum to JWE. His role at JWE, however, has sev-
eral versions. As the apprentice, he helped on remodeling pro-
jects. His JWE titles shift, depending on the document. At
times he is listed as the accountant/member, sometimes as prin-
cipal, and another as “VPO,” which may stand for vice presi-
dent of operations.
Local 292 is a chapter of the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW). Peter Lindahl (Lindahl) is the
current business manager for Local 292 and until 2014, was a
business representative. Lindahl recently was appointed to the
State Board of Electricity, with a term to begin in April 2017.
The business manager until 2014 was Rodger Kretman.
John Kripotos is a business representative for Local 292. He
serves as a field representative in the northern metropolitan area
and makes jobsite visits when possible. For jobsite visits,
Kripotos looks for construction projects, arrives unannounced
and, after checking with the general foreman or superintendent,
sees who is performing electrical work. Sometimes he is not
allowed access and he may not discover electrical work when a
project is small or of short duration.
III. J. WESTRUM ELECTRIC OPENS FOR BUSINESS AND, IN 2012,
SIGNS A LETTER OF ASSENT WITH LOCAL 292
The Minnesota Secretary of State records reflect that the
name J. Westrum was registered on January 30, 2008. (GC
Exh. 5.) Between 2008 and 2012, Jon Westrum filed additional
records with the State of Minnesota that he owned J. Westrum.4
Before that time, he was a master electrician but said he ob-
tained little work through the IBEW hiring hall.
Jon Westrum claimed Local 292 permitted union electricians
to perform side work, which to him meant working without
permission of the Union.5 He obtained his insurance and bond-
ing and, as side work, contracted with a building owner to wire
a space for Goodwill in 2012. While working on the project,
Kripotos, as a business representative, made a site visit and
found Jon Westrum performing nonunion “side” work. Kripo-
tos told Jon Westrum that he could be facing some fines, penal-
ties and/or other internal union punishment for performing
nonunion work. Kripotos told Jon Westrum that he could be-
come a signatory to the NECA Agreement by signing a Letter
of Assent. A Letter of Assent binds the signatory to the NECA
Agreement, which was negotiated between the IBEW and
NECA.6
On June 1, 2012, Jon Westrum, as J. Westrum, signed a Let-
ter of Assent with Local 292 at the union hall. By signing the
Letter of Assent, Jon Westrum agreed, on behalf of J. Westrum,
to be bound to NECA Agreement. The terms of the Letter of
Assent spell out that it remains in effect until terminated by the
undersigned employer (here, J. Westrum Electric) by giving
written notice to the Minneapolis NECA Chapter and Local 292
at least 150 days before the current anniversary date of the ap-
proved agreement.
The International IBEW office approved the agreement on
July 18, 2012. (GC Exh. 40.) On September 2, 2012, Jon
Westrum signed an authorization for representation and a dues-
checkoff authorization with Local 292. The dues-authorization
checkoff was renewable for 1-year periods and spelled out the
requirements for revocation. (GC Exh. 41.) Local 292 also
referred him through the hiring hall for work at J. Westrum.
(GC Exh. 41.)
When Jon Westrum signed the Letter of Assent, Business
Manager Kretman and Business Representative Kripotos were
present. Kripotos testified he was sitting in a chair and Kret-
man was sitting behind his desk. John Westrum claimed the
two were standing and told him that he could owe several thou-
sand dollars in fines. Jon Westrum maintained that the union
officials told him that he could dissolve his company and go
back to being just an electrician or a nonunion contractor.
Kretman stated that, during the meeting, normally the union
representatives followed a checklist about the Letter of Assent.
However, Kretman denied stated anything about dissolving or
dissolution of a company. Kripotos testified he primarily ob-
served the proceedings, but recalled Jon Westrum asked about
receiving a copy of the Letter of Assent and hiring hall proce-

4 J Westrum, according to Jon Westrum, was formed about June
2012.
5 Jon Westrum repeatedly testified that “the union” permitted side
work. However, nothing in the NECA Agreement gives such permis-
sion and in fact expressly disallows side work. When pressed, he ad-
mitted that he heard talk among electricians, and never anything from
any Local 292 official. (Tr. 270–271.)
6 The Letter of Assent signed was a “Letter of Assent—A,” which
applied to “inside” electricians—those who work within buildings, as
opposed to “outside” electricians, who work outside of the building.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
dures. Once Jon Westrum signed the Letter of Assent, the Lo-
cal 292 officials said the fines were waived.
Jon Westrum maintained that he was coerced into signing the
Letter of Assent. He did not read it when he signed it. When
he received the approved Letter of Assent in the mail, he again
did not bother to read it and threw it into a file cabinet in his
home. In 2013, when Alex came to work for the company, he
maintained he never looked in the J. Westrum files to see what
was there, and claimed he had no idea about the Letter of As-
sent.
IV. JON WESTRUM AND ALEX WESTRUM CHANGE THE BUSINESS
FROM J. WESTRUM TO JWE
Jon Westrum annually filed his required bond with the state
to operate as an electrical contract, the last of which was filed
as J. Westrum on March 1, 2014. Workers’ compensation doc-
umentation in 2012, filed by Jon Westrum for J. Westrum, stat-
ed he employed no one. Jon Westrum d/b/a J. Westrum main-
tained its electrical contractor bond through March 1, 2016,
which the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry ap-
proved on March 28, 2014. (GC Exh. 13.) On December 10,
2014, Jon Westrum requested a tax identification number for J.
Westrum. (GC Exh. 15.)
By that time, nephew Alex Westrum was handling J.
Westrum’s bookkeeping, but Jon Westrum considered Alex
self-employed too.7 Jon Westrum initially testified that Alex
Westrum formed JWE to grow the business for Alex. Howev-
er, upon further questioning Jon Westrum admitted he told
Manderson he changed to JWE because he could not grow as a
union business.
On July 13, 2014, Jon Westrum as J. Westrum contracted
with a company to perform electrical contracting work. (GC.
Exh. 16.) However, he filed income tax only for himself with a
profit/loss statement on J. Westrum for the year 2014. (GC
Exh. 17.) However, J. Westrum requested a voluntary termina-
tion of its electrical contractor license effective June 17, 2014.
(GC Exh. 18.)
Jon Westrum testified that, about February 2015, J. Westrum
was dissolved so that JWE could be formed.8 In contrast, JWE
filed for LLC status with Minnesota on November 24, 2014.
Jon Westrum’s home address was listed the executive office
address and Alex Westrum, who filed the papers, identified
himself as the “manager.” (GC Exh. 22.) The Minnesota Sec-
retary of State issued a Certificate of Organization to JWE
LLC, dated November 24, 2014, approximately 2 to 3 months
before Jon Westrum identified the change. (GC Exh. 23.) The
JWE disclosure of business partners to the state, dated Novem-
ber 25, 2014, identified Jon Westrum as the owner and Alex
Westrum as “accountant/member.”9 This document again re-
flected the company’s office as Jon Westrum’s home address,
email address, and telephone numbers, the same used for J.

7 Jon Westrum denied that Alex Westrum was the accountant for J.
Westrum or JWE. (Tr. 59.)
8 Minnesota Secretary of State’s internet webpage, dated March 1,
2017, reflects that J. Westrum remains “active/in good standing” with a
renewal date of January 30, 2018. (GC Exh. 7.)
9 When asked whether he was a truly a member, Alex Westrum re-
peatedly testified that his status as a member was for tax purposes only.
Westrum. (GC Exh. 25.)
When shifting from J. Westrum to JWE, Jon Westrum con-
tinued to serve as the master electrician of record, with the
same master electrician number he held as licensed in Minneso-
ta. (GC Exh. 32.) It again listed the same address and email as
J. Westrum. (GC Exh. 26.) When applying for his electrical
contractor license as JWE, again the same address, email and
phone number for JWE were used. This time, Jon Westrum
was listed as “owner” and Alex Westrum as “Account-
ant/member.” (GC Exh. 30.) Filing the bond paperwork with
the State of Minnesota on December 22, 2014, Alex Westrum
listed himself as the principal but had no signature from Jon
Westrum. (GC Exhs. 31, 34.) When filing workers’ compen-
sation compliance with the State of Minnesota, Alex Westrum,
listing himself again as “Accountant/member,” included the
same master electrical contractor license number and home
address as J. Westrum. (GC Exh. 32.)
Jon and Alex Westrum have business cards for JWE. Jon
Westrum’s title is estimator and lists his home telephone num-
ber and address for the business. Alex’s card calls him the
office manager, but lists his own home address as the business
address.
The telephone number was listed upon Jon Westrum’s per-
sonal truck, which he previous used while working as J.
Westrum. When he switched to JWE, he still used the same
truck, with JWE and his contractor license number on the
truck.10 JWE’s application for bond, dated December 1, 2014,
also listed Alex Westrum as “Partner/Accountant” and Jon
Westrum as “Owner/President,” again with the same address,
phone number and email address as J. Westrum. It also listed
gross sales and net income for the previous 2 years. The reason
for the change only listed as the J. Westrum, but no other rea-
son. (GC Exh. 27.) When applying for the bond for JWE, he
stated that the company had been in business for 5 years; on the
date in 2014 of the application, only J. Westrum had been in
existence for 5 years, not JWE, which began operation in Janu-
ary 2015. In fact, both Jon and Alex Westrum signed the form,
which included the section for the reasons for the change as
“Jon Westrum d/b/a J. Westrum Electrical” with J. Westrum’s
surety number. (Tr. 383–384; GC Exh. 27.)
Alex Westrum apparently filed for a tax identification num-
ber, listing JWE LLC as an individual/sole proprietor or single-
member LLC. (GC Exh. 35.) JWE received a tax identifica-
tion number on January 31, 2015. (GC Exh. 24.) When filing
JWE’s taxes for 2015, the profit/loss Schedule C (line 30) de-
ducted expenses for the business use of the home, which was
listed as Jon Westrum’s home address. As with the JWE’s
initial application for the tax identification number, JWE filed
as the principal business of electrician and a sole proprietor-
ship. Cost of labor and materials and supplies each exceeded
$280,000. For 100 percent use in the business, it listed three
trucks from model years 2002, 2013, and 2014.11

10 Jon Westrum denied that anyone else except Alex used the truck
and initially testified the truck belonged to Alex Westrum.
11 Jon Westrum testified that these trucks were actually his “person-
al” trucks, which he owned for a significant length of time. The 2002
truck, he stated, was parked about 11 months of the year, but when he
JON P. WESTRUM D/B/A WESTRUM ELECTRIC AND JWE LLC 7
However, the Minnesota Secretary of State’s internet
webpage, dated March 1, 2017, reflect that J. Westrum remains
“active/in good standing” with a renewal date of January 30,
2018. The address remains Jon Westrum’s home address. (GC
Exh. 6.) A YouTube marketing testimonial, dated March 16,
2016, reflected that the company was called J. Westrum, had 10
employees, and had performed work within the Minneapolis-St.
Paul, Minnesota area, St. Cloud and in Wisconsin. (GC Exh.
20.)12 When Alex Westrum renewed the LLC in 2015, the
principal executive office address remained Jon Westrum’s
home address. (GC Exh. 37.)
According to the state website, J. Westrum obtained state
electrical work permits to perform electrical work through No-
vember 12, 2015. Eight of the permits for J. Westrum were
within Local 292’s jurisdiction and of those, five were for Jon
Westrum himself. JWE obtained permits as early as April 29,
2015 through January 2017. Of the seven JWE projects within
Local 292’s jurisdiction, only two were for Jon Westrum him-
self. (GC Exhs. 43, 44.)
Although electricians normally have their own hand tools
and cordless drills, some equipment was used at both J.
Westrum and JWE. These tools included a lift, some ladders,
and a gang box. The gang box, which is used to store tools for
the electricians, is moved around to contract locations and still
has a “J. Westrum sticker” on it. J. Westrum also had a lift,
which JWE also had. The same trucks were used at both enti-
ties. Respondent presented no bills of sale or documents show-
ing transfer from J. Westrum to JWE for these items.
The only person preparing bids for either entity was Jon
Westrum as Alex had no experience in the area. Jon Westrum,
when not preparing bids, also performed electrical work for
both entities. Alex only “prettied up” the bids. If a potential
customer asked if the company was unionized, the representa-
tion was made that this electrical subcontractor was nonunion.
(Tr. 407.) Alex Westrum, who hired all employees for both
entities, determined their wages and prepared the payroll.
Alex Westrum prepared a comparison of who worked for J.
Westrum versus JWE. (GC Exh. 39.) All persons who worked
for J. Westrum, with the exception of owner Jon Westrum,
were listed as independent contractors.13 Alex decided that
everyone was an independent contractor after consulting with
two people: an accountant and a general contractor, neither of
whom was familiar with the electrical trade. (Tr. 369–370.)
The J. Westrum list included Alex Westrum, who started in
April 2013. The list did not reflect that Alex was performing

started leaving that truck was not clear from his testimony. He then
testified that only one truck, a 2016 model, was his personal truck, after
he traded in his 2014 model truck. JWE made the payments, including
licensure and maintenance, on all trucks.
12 Both Jon and Alex Westrum testified that the marketing company
erred by calling the contractor “J Westrum” and went to great lengths to
show that they told the marketing company the contractor name was
“JWE.” However, the change did not take place until June 2016, after
Jon and Alex saw the video at the NECA-IBEW Labor-Management
Committee panel. (Tr. 373–376.)
13 Jon Westrum testified contradictorily that these people were inde-
pendent contractors and worked for Alex because he was “trying them
out.”
some work as an apprentice. None were considered supervi-
sors, according to Alex’s preparation. Nothing in the list iden-
tified who was a journeyman or apprentice for J. Westrum.
Lee Hegna, Joe Rudolph, and Rod Schmidt began working for
J. Westrum in July 2014. Joe Mahowad and James Roberts
began working for J. Westrum in March 2014.14 Lastly, Chris
Toonen joined J. Westrum in September 2014. All worked
through January 2015. Jon Westrum and Alex Westrum were
listed as supervisors. Jon Westrum received a member draw
and the remainder were paid hourly without benefits. (GC Exh.
39.)
All those listed with J. Westrum at the close of J. Westrum’s
business in December 2014 began employment with JWE in
January 2015. Jon and Alex Westrum are both listed as super-
visors. This time, Alex Westrum classified himself as the office
manager and “VPO”—vice president of operations. Jon
Westrum’s position was “senior estimator.” JWE called them
employees and paid them hourly, except for Jon Westrum, who
received a member draw. Instead of listing the workers as in-
dependent contractors, each of the remaining workers was giv-
en the title of apprentice or journeyman/foreman. Lee Hegna,
Joe Mahowald, James Roberts and Chris Toonen were listed as
apprentices. Hegna and Rudolph left employment in January
2016 and April 2015, respectively. John Hoffman began em-
ployment at JWE as an apprentice in June 2015 and continues
to work there. Jon Westrum’s son also worked as an apprentice
for the summer of 2015. The top rate of pay for an apprentice
was $20 per hour and the lowest $15 per hour, the same as J.
Westrum.
Joe Rudolph and Ron Schmidt began in January 2015 as
journeymen/foremen. Rudolph left employment with JWE in
April 2015. The rate of pay at J. Westrum for journeymen was
$30, which also was Rudolph’s pay at JWE. Cody
Swartzendruber began employment as a journeyman/supervisor
in April 2015. Swartzendruber and Schmidt made $31 per
hour. (GC Exh. 39.) At JWE, medical and dental benefits were
offered, which were not offered at J. Westrum because, as Alex
Westrum stated many times, the persons working for J.
Westrum were independent contractors and not employees.
(GC Exh. 39.)
Both J. Westrum and JWE performed commercial and resi-
dential electrical contracting work, which includes buildouts
and maintenance work. Alex Westrum prepared a list of elec-
trical projects for both entities but the list was incomplete.
Under examination, Alex Westrum admitted he omitted
maintenance contracts from the list because there were “too
many.” (GC Exh. 39.)15
In early May 2015, Local 292 Business Manager Kripotos
made a jobsite visit to the Northtown Mall Hobby Lobby and

14 The document lists the dates as “March 2015-January 2015,” ap-
parently a typographical error as any other interpretation exceeds the
dimensions of the space-time continuum.
15 On cross-examination, Alex Westrum testified that JWE entered
into over 20 subcontracts but failed to include maintenance work. He
further testified that the maintenance jobs were “way too many to
count,” “over a hundred.” (Tr. 363, 406.) This testimony demonstrates
some significant omissions from GC Exh. 39.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
spoke with the superintendent, who told him JWE was perform-
ing electrical work on the site. Kripotos asked whether he
could speak with the employees, which the superintendent per-
mitted. Afterwards, he continued his driving around. When he
returned to the office to complete his reports, he recalled seeing
at the Hobby Lobby site a gang box, a lockable box that holds
materials and tools, with a “J. Westrum” sticker. A few days
later, he checked Local 292’s data base that contains all em-
ployees and contractors. As a result, on May 5, 2015, he made
a telephone call to Jon Westrum and left a voice mail message
stating that he had non-union employees on the job. (R. Exh.
1.) Kripotos has no recollection of any return call from Jon
Westrum. Upon further checking, Kripotos discovered that the
Northtown Mall was within Local 110’s jurisdiction, for the St.
Paul, Minnesota area. He left a voice mail message for Brad
Malm, a Local 110 business representative but did not follow
up on the call.
According to Jon Westrum, Kripotos called him for a 12-
minute conversation. (R. Exh. 3.) Jon Westrum initially was
short on details, but was adamant that when Kripotos told him
he had nonunion workers on the site, he told Kripotos that he
started a new company, JWE, which was nonunion. Jon
Westrum claimed they talked about dissolving the company, as
was discussed when he signed the Letter of Assent. Jon
Westrum stated he never told Alex Westrum about his conver-
sation with Kripotos. Kripotos had no recollection of the con-
tents of the conversation.
V. LOCAL 292 DISCOVERS JWE OPERATING WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION AND JON WESTRUM DENIES ANY OBLIGATION TO THE
LETTER OF ASSENT
Local 292’s St. Cloud, Minnesota business representative,
Steven Ludwig (Ludwig) reports directly to Business Manager
Peter Lindahl. He attends Local 292’s business meetings on the
first Thursday of each month and reports what he has been
doing for the previous month. The business meeting is attend-
ed by the business manager, business representatives, local
president, and membership.
On the first Thursday of March 2016, March 3, Ludwig re-
ported at the meeting that he was on a jobsite where the em-
ployees of JWE, Jon Westrum Electric, wanted to organize with
Local 292. Business Manager Lindahl said that Jon Westrum
Electric was already a union company. Ludwig said that could
not be because the employees wanted “to become union.” Lin-
dahl insisted that it was a union company, with which Ludwig
disagreed again. Lindahl again said that it was union and they
left the topic until after the meeting.
After the meeting, Lindahl and Ludwig met. Ludwig began
to look into the matter and made a search for “Westrum” on the
Minnesota Department of Labor website: The search revealed
two entities, J. Westrum Electric and JWE. He then asked Joan
Hoppe, Local 292’s office manager, to search for a Letter of
Assent for J. Westrum Electric. Hoppe emailed him a copy of
J. Westrum’s Letter of Assent. Before these events, Ludwig
had never heard of either J. Westrum or JWE.
On about March 4, Lindahl also requested that another busi-
ness representative check permits for JWE. That search re-
turned a number of permits within Local 292’s jurisdiction for
both JWE and J. Westrum. Within a few days of receiving the
information about the search Lindahl telephoned Jon Westrum
and confronted him about operating a shop with nonunion
workers, which was a violation of his Letter of Assent. Jon
Westrum told him that, when he signed the Letter of Assent,
Kretman told him if he did not want to be a union contractor he
could change his name and just operate as a nonunion contrac-
tor. Lindahl did not cite the 150-day notice provision to Jon
Westrum but told him, “Jon, you signed the contract. You’ve
got to fulfill your obligation under the contract. And you are a
union contractor. And these employees, you’ve hired them in
violation of the contract.” Jon Westrum again claimed he said
he could just get out of the union by changing his name and
closing up shop, like Kretman said. Lindahl did not believe
that anyone in the union would make such a statement and then
told him that Local 292 would file a grievance. Jon Westrum
told him to do what he had to do. (Tr. 217–218.)
VI. LOCAL 292 FILES A GRIEVANCE, WHICH PROCEEDS TO A FINAL
AND BINDING DECISION FROM THE NECA-IBEW LABOR-
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
On March 11, Local 292 Business Manager Lindahl sent, by
certified mail, a grievance addressed to J. Westrum at the same
address of its operation. NECA Executive Director Manderson
was copied on the grievance. The grievance claimed J.
Westrum, also known as JWE, violated the collective-
bargaining agreement by performing electrical work without
using bargaining unit employees. The grievance alleged that
use of non-bargaining unit employees resulted in violations of
four collective-bargaining agreement provisions: Union securi-
ty; hiring procedures; the union as the exclusive source of em-
ployees; and, wages and fringe benefits. The NECA Agree-
ment provides a grievance procedure that culminates in a final
and binding decision made by the Labor-Management Coopera-
tive Committee (labor-management committee). NECA and
the IBEW each send four persons to hear a grievance.16 The
parties then debate whether the evidence was valid and issue a
final and binding decision.
Because Jon Westrum signed the Letter of Assent, NECA
represented J. Westrum at the grievance proceedings. Before
the arbitration, Manderson met with Jon Westrum to discuss the
grievance, the process and discuss NECA’s representation at
the labor-management meeting. Jon Westrum and Alex
Westrum were present at the labor-management meeting. Dur-
ing the meeting, held on June 13, Manderson made statements
to defend J. Westrum as the contractor. Jon Westrum testified
at the meeting that he closed J. Westrum on February 1, 2015
and shortly thereafter opened JWE because he wanted to be
able to compete better and could not do so while paying union
wages.17 JWE was located at the same address as J. Westrum--
-Jon Westrum’s personal address. Manderson also learned that
the entities had the same tools and equipment. During the la-

16 In this case, some persons were absent but the same number of
votes applied for each side.
17 Alex Westrum never spoke with Manderson. Jon Westrum also
testified that he was performing maintenance for a furniture store and
did not try to find work. He also was buying houses, which he remod-
eled and sold.
JON P. WESTRUM D/B/A WESTRUM ELECTRIC AND JWE LLC 9
bor-management meeting, Jon Westrum hesitantly admitted
that he changed the name “because I couldn’t grow as a union
contractor.” He made no mention of Alex Westrum as a reason
for the change in the entity. (Tr. 237.) Alex Westrum also
testified at that hearing that JWE was his company. (Tr. 380.)
On the same day as the meeting, June 13, the labor-
management committee issued its decision regarding the hear-
ing. It sent its decision to Jon Westrum, as Jon P. Westrum
d/b/a J. Westrum Electric and JWE LLC, by certified mail and
email. The committee found against Jon Westrum and both
entities. (GC Exh. 3.) Among its findings of fact were that the
business entities had:
 the same owner, manager and legally required mas-
ter electrician;
 the same business address, which was Jon
Westrum’s home address, and the same email ad-
dress;
 the same business telephone number;
 substantially the same corporate filings;
 substantially the same equipment, vehicles and
tools; and,
 substantially the same employees performing the
same work.18
In addition, the entities had not paid wages set forth in the
NECA Agreement, conveyed union dues or contributed to the
fringe benefit funds. The “unanimous” determination found the
entities violated the NECA Agreement and must cease and
desist from doing so. It further ordered a make whole remedy,
which included wages and fringe benefit contributions on be-
half of all employees. The decision also required the entities to
provide to Local 292, within 10 days of the decision, all time
and pay records from May 1, 2015, to present.
Neither J. Westrum nor JWE complied with the labor-
management committee’s decision, including providing infor-
mation to Local 292 by May 23, 2016.
VII. LOCAL 292 MAKES AN INFORMATION REQUEST
Business Manager Lindahl testified without contradiction
that, after the final and binding decision, Local 292 attempted
to work with the entities’ attorney(s) to obtain the information
required by the decision. Lindahl received nothing.
On August 12, approximately 2 months after the labor-
management committee rendered its decision, Local 292 Busi-
ness Manager Lindahl sent, by certified mail, email and regular
mail, to Jon Westrum d/b/a J. Westrum Electric and JWE LLC
an information request for four groups of information:
(1) A list of every person employed by Jon P Westrum,
d/b/a J. Westrum Electric and/or JWE LLC at any time
from May 1, 2015, to the present and, for each such per-
son, identification of his or her job classification;
(2) All time records from May 1, 2015 to the present
for Jon P Westrum d/b/a J. Westrum Electric and/or JWE

18 The Labor-Management Committee’s findings and determina-
tions provide historical context in this matter and are not relied upon as
ultimate findings of fact for this proceeding.
LLC, including without limitation all time cards and con-
temporaneously prepared work hour reports for each em-
ployee;
(3) All pay records from May 1, 2015, to the present
for Jon P Westrum, d/b/a J. Westrum Electric and/or JWE
LLC, including without limitation all payroll and wage re-
ports for each employee;
(4) All benefit records from May 1, 2015 to the present
for Jon P. Westrum d/b/a J. Westrum Electric and/or JWE
LLC, including without limitation all fringe benefit contri-
bution receipts and benefits reports for each employee.
The information request demanded compliance with the in-
formation request as make-whole relief pursuant to the arbitra-
tion award and the grievance for contract repudiation. (GC Exh.
42.) Notably, the May 1, 2015 date coincides with the begin-
ning of the term for the latest NECA Agreement.
Jon Westrum testified that some of the information was pro-
vided but he did not know what specifically was given to Local
292. He testified Alex and legal counsel knew what was pro-
vided. (Tr. 125–126.) Respondent presented no evidence to
support Jon Westrum’s claim that some information was pro-
vided to Local 292. Lindahl testified that Local 292 has yet to
receive any of the requested information.
VIII. ANALYSIS
In this portion of the decision, I first provide a detailed dis-
cussion regarding credibility. I next discuss the alter ego status
of the two business entities, the alleged repudiation and the
information request. Lastly, I deal with Respondent’s affirma-
tive defenses, including its claim that Section 10(b) requires
dismissal of the complaint.
A. Credibility
I credit little of the testimonies of Jon Westrum and Alex
Westrum. Each had internal conflicts within the testimony,
frequently disproven by documentation or further questioning
by General Counsel or Local 292. They also were externally
inconsistent with the testimonies of each other and other wit-
nesses.
For example, Jon Westrum initially testified that J. Westrum
began operations in 2012, yet the documentation he provided to
General Counsel pursuant to subpoenas showed he applied for
the name in 2008 and maintained state-required licensing as
early as 2010. When asked about the list of personnel prepared
by Alex, Jon Westrum first testified that the J. Westrum “inde-
pendent contractors” were Alex’s employees and Alex was
trying them out at J. Westrum to see if they would work at
JWE. (Tr. 138–139; GC Exh. 39.) Jon Westrum also shifted
his defenses about why JWE was formed. He first told Man-
derson that he could not grow as a union company and later
insisted the new company was for Alex’s benefit.
Jon Westrum also presented conflicting testimony about the
ownership of the trucks used for both J. Westrum and JWE. He
claimed they were his personal trucks, then shifted to only the
new 2016 truck was now his personal truck. As a result, I find
that the same trucks were used at J. Westrum and JWE.
Jon Westrum also testified that because the union hall did
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
not place him, he spent a good deal of time collecting unem-
ployment before he obtained the job at Goodwill in January
2012. (Tr. 266.) Whether he collected unemployment while
performing work is at issue. He stated that, when meeting with
Kretman and Kripotos about the Letter of Assent, they told him
he could receive fines in the range of several thousand dollars.
He testified he felt intimidated “because I’m running out of or I
had ran out of unemployment and there was a long distance to
be able to get back off of the bench.” Although he later denied
that he was receiving unemployment while working, he actually
delayed in answering that question. I attribute this delay to
finding a moment to think of an answer that would not have
been an admission he was receiving unemployment payments
while working, the proverbial Freudian slip. It is further con-
flicted by the original statement that he was running out of or
had ran out of unemployment. (Tr. 272.)
Jon Westrum also testified about a May 2015 12-minute
conversation in which he told Kripotos he switched to JWE and
was told he could do so when he signed the Letter of Assent.
Kripotos could not recall whether Jon Westrum returned his
call. I am persuaded that in May Jon Westrum did not make
these representations to Kripotos based upon Westrum’s prob-
lems with credibility and lack of detail. In contrast, Jon
Westrum did not testify to the March 2016 conversation with
Business Manager Lindahl, in which the record was clear that
Jon Westrum told Lindahl that he could just change his compa-
ny and be nonunion, which was the same content Jon Westrum
claimed he told Kripotos. I credit that Lindahl’s version, that
Jon Westrum had a conversation in 2016 with Lindahl about
the topic after Lindahl discovered JWE’s employees wanted to
organize and find that the only time Jon Westrum told Local
292 that he was no longer a union employer took place in
March 2016.
This story also flies in the face of Jon Westrum’s failure to
read the Letter of Assent, which spelled out his contractual
obligations should he wish to withdraw. Respondent’s position
is that Local 292 never gave Jon Westrum a copy of the NECA
agreement. However, nothing reflects that Westrum asked for a
copy either. He received notices of parties from Local 292,
which he admitted, but denied he received any other notifica-
tions. However, on cross-examination, he admitted that he
received a party invitation, which also included instructions on
how to check his benefits. He did not want to check his bene-
fits and never did so. (Tr. 300.) Denial of receipt of any other
substantive documents from Local 292, which was clearly
false, combined with his failure to read the documents, leads
me to believe that Jon Westrum had little intention of abiding
by his contractual obligations under the NECA Agreement and
the Letter of Assent.
Jon Westrum also contended Local 292 forced him to sign
the Letter of Assent and to become a contractor. The evidence,
however, shows he was already working as an electrical con-
tractor before Local 292 caught him performing nonunion work
in 2012. He also contradicted himself in that he said the union
permitted side work: The NECA Agreement does not permit
such work. Upon further examination, it turned out no union
official ever told him side work was permitted, but he only
heard gossip among electricians. Even then, other electricians
side work discussed was of the nature of perhaps wiring a
basement, not an entire store; Jon Westrum could see no dis-
tinction between the two.
Although both Alex and Jon Westrum attended the entire
hearing, they also contradicted each other. Jon Westrum con-
tended that he never asked for electricians from the union hall
because he never had any work for them to do; he was only
performing maintenance work. (Tr. 156.) In many cases, Jon
Westrum would testify something happened, and when asked
for further details, he would testify that he left those details to
Alex because he only had a head for electrical work but not the
business details. However, I credit their admissions against
interest. These admissions include Jon Westrum’s admission
that he never read the Letter of Assent and that the transition
from J. Westrum to JWE was seamless, and Alex Westrum’s
admission that he never looked in the files to determine what, if
any, were J. Westrum’s obligations before he formed JWE.
In response to the subpoena duces tecum, Alex Westrum
compiled the information contained in General Connsel’s Ex-
hibit 39: When pressed with further examination, he admitted
the document was missing significant information that he did
not bother to include. The summaries failed to report all jobs
both entities performed. Alex Westrum did not offer any rea-
sonable explanation for why did not include all the jobs on his
list except that it likely exceeded 100 maintenance jobs. I
therefore must find that J. Westrum and JWE were engaged in
more business than what was listed on the exhibit. I further
assess that failure to include these customers likely hid the
identities of customers who might be repeat customers.
Both Alex and Jon Westrum testified about the marketing
company that allegedly erred in calling JWE by the former
name, J. Westrum. Alex testified that he attempted to correct
the matter twice, in the spring or summer of 2015. The video
was not recorded, however, until November 2015. As Alex
testified that he and Jon Westrum did not hear again about the
error on the video until the labor-management committee pro-
ceedings in June 2016, the testimonies raise strong doubts
about the recording and efforts to change. First, JWE allegedly
was in existence at the time they were contacted for a testimo-
nial about the marketing company. Second, the timeline does
not match about requesting the marketing company make cor-
rections for the testimonial. (Tr. 377.) Further, if the marketing
company made mistakes twice in the testimonial and the tran-
script, one would reasonably believe that either Jon or Alex
would check before June 2016 to ensure the requested changes
were made.
Another credibility issue relates to JWE’s corporate form
and tax status. Alex Westrum insisted that he could report the
JWE taxes to the Internal Revenue Service as a single mem-
ber/owner and that representation is only “for tax purposes.”
He otherwise insisted that he and his uncle are both members of
the limited liability corporation known as JWE. This presenta-
tion is inconsistent with his representations to the State of Min-
nesota and this administrative proceeding.
Respondent attempted to put words into Business Mgr. Lin-
dahl’s mouth—that he knew or should have known about the
change and Lindahl’s testimony remained consistent through-
out cross-examination. Lindahl also demonstrated expertise
JON P. WESTRUM D/B/A WESTRUM ELECTRIC AND JWE LLC 11
regarding obligations of electrical contractors as a recent ap-
pointee to a State of Minnesota board. I therefore credit Lin-
dahl’s testimony in toto.
A. Alleged Alter Ego and Single Employer Relationship for J.
Westrum and JWE
1. Applicable law
The determination of whether J. Westrum and JWE are alter
egos drives the remainder of the issues in this case. In succes-
sorship situations, an employer might not be bound by a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, but not so with an alter ego, which
is the disguised continuance of the predecessor. J. Vallery
Electric Inc. v. NLRB, 337 F.3d 446, 450–451 (5th Cir. 2003),
enfg., 336 NLRB 1272 (2001).
Whether factually separate employers are alter egos is a fact-
intensive inquiry. The inquiry examines whether the two enti-
ties have “substantially identical” business purpose, manage-
ment, operation, equipment, customers, supervision, and own-
ership. Midwest Prcision Heating & Cooling, Inc., 341 NLRB
435, 439 (2004), affd. 408 F.3d 450 (8th Cir. 2005); In re Co-
fab, Inc., 322 NLRB 162, (1996), enfd. sub nom. NLRB v. DA
Clothing Co., 159 F.3d 1352 (3d Cir. 1998). Although not
required to make an alter ego determination, the Board consid-
ers whether the new entity was created “to evade another em-
ployer’s responsibilities under the Act.” Island Architectural
Woodwork, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 73, slip op. at 6–7 (2016),
citing Fugazy Continental Corp., 265 NLRB 1301, 1301–1302
(1982), enfd. 725 F.2d 1416 (D.C. Cir. 1984). The burden of
proof to establish alter egos remains with General Counsel.
Island Architectural, 364 NLRB No. 73, slip op. at 4.
2. J. Westrum and JWE are alter egos and a single employer19
a. The parties’ positions
Respondent, arguing that J. Westrum and JWE are not alter
egos, cites Deer Creek Electric, 362 NLRB No. 171 (2015). In
Deer Creek, the Board found two entities were not alter egos,
despite having substantially identical supervision and manage-
ment as other factors were missing. General Counsel contends
that these facts substantiate “one of those rare cases in which
virtually every primary indicia of alter ego/single employer
status is met . . .” and evidence further demonstrates that Re-
spondent took these actions to evade its statutory obligations.
(GC Br. at 31.)
b. “Substantially identical”
The business purpose of both entities is identical. J.
Westrum and JWE are electrical contractors, both of which
perform interior remodeling and new construction. Most of the
work performed from December 2014 to present appeared to be
retail stores, at least those Alex Westrum reported, and some
were continuations of the same projects. It appears no hiatus
took place between the alleged end of J. Westrum and the be-
ginning of JWE, and the transition was admittedly “seamless.”
A seamless transition supports finding an alter ego. Island

19 The test for single employer is virtually identical to the alter ego,
without the unlawful motive. Vallery Electric, 336 NLRB at 1276,
citing Advance Electric, 268 NLRB 1001, 1004 (1984).
Architectural, 364 NLRB No. 73, slip op. at 4.
The employees hired by JWE in January 2015 were the iden-
tical “independent contractors” used by J. Westrum in Decem-
ber 2014. Both entities used the same person to contract and
the same master electrican, Jon Westrum.
Common management is also present. This factor exists
when one company owner does not have relevant experience
and relies upon the other owner to prepare contract bids, hire
workers and supervise them in the field. Deer Creek Electric,
362 NLRB No. 171 (2015). Jon Westrum and Alex Westrum
made up the management team of both J. Westrum and JWE.
Alex was instrumental in making a “seemless” shift from one
business form to the other. In this case, Jon Westrum prepared
the contract bids and, as a master electrician, was ultimately
responsible for supervision. Common management is therefore
established. Id.
Ownership too is substantially identical. Jon Westrum is
owner of both J. Westrum and JWE. Alex only denies he is a
member of JWE when it involves tax status. In all other as-
pects, he presents himself as a member of the limited liability
corporation. As ownership is within the same family and the
other factors show everything else substantially the same, “sub-
stantially identical ownership is established.” Cofab, 322
NLRB at 163–164.
Because Alex relies upon a single owner for tax status, I find
that J. Westrum and JWE actually have one owner: Jon
Westrum. Fugazy International, 265 NLRB 1301 (1982).
Even if this would not be the case, because the two family
members possibly share ownership in JWE, substantially iden-
tical ownership would be established as well. Cofab, 3232
NLRB at 163–164.
Substantial control concentrates upon the financial arrange-
ments, particularly when the entities have not kept an arm’s
length relationship. Island Architectural, 364 NLRB No. 73,
slip op. at 5–6. Alex Westrum controlled J. Westrum’s financ-
es as early as 2013, when he began his bookkeeping duties. He
continued in this role after the shift to JWE. The shift in
equipment, particularly the trucks, created a benefit to JWE as
it did not pay for the equipment but listed it on its taxes. The
continued use of Jon Westrum’s home as the business location
also continued a tax benefit, previously conferred on Jon
Westrum himself, upon JWE. Marketing the business, particu-
larly as shown in the YouTube video, demonstrates that not
only J. Westrum was not gone, but JWE accrued additional
benefits by using the marketing video, regardless of which
name was on it.
Deer Creek Electric, as cited by Respondent, is distinguisha-
ble. Much of the equipment used in the second entity was ini-
tially gifted but later turned to a sale. The second entity’s own-
er never worked for the first company, plus there was no evi-
dence of improper motive or financial control. See Island Ar-
chitectural, 364 NLRB No. 73, slip op. at 7, fn. 16. In compar-
ison, not only has J. Westrum and JWE continued same owner-
ship and management, it also had the same employees, man-
agement, control, business purpose and customers.
c. Unlawful motive
Although the Board does not require a finding of unlawful
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
motive, that conclusion is unavoidable here. Jon Westrum
made statements that he established JWE and left J. Westrum
behind because he could not survive as a union contractor. I do
not credit that he established JWE so that Alex would have
something in the future or that it was all Alex’s idea.
These statements also support finding the entities as alter
egos: JWE was created so that Jon and Alex Westrum could
evade their collective-bargaining responsibilities established by
the Letter of Assent and the Act itself. Cofab, 322 NLRB at
164. “[T]he business had responsibilities under the Act which
its owners cannot with impunity reject simply because they
want.” Midwest Precision Heating & Cooling, 341 NLRB at
439. Also see William N. Taylor, Inc., 288 NLRB 1049, 1050
(1988).
d. Conclusion for alter ego
J. Westrum and JWE had common ownership, business pur-
pose, employees, financial arrangements, equipment, customers
and control. In addition, unlawful motive is present. Because
these factors are present, the two entities are alter egos.20
C. Alleged Repudiation of Collective-Bargaining Relationship
with IBEW
1. Applicable law
When an alter ego relationship exists between two entities,
the collective-bargaining agreement that was binding upon the
first entity is also binding upon the second entity. Vallow, 335
NLRB at 24. The collective-bargaining relationship under
Section 8(f) of the Act confers bargaining authority upon a
multi-employer association, such as NECA, for all matters in
the bargaining relationship. Gary’s Electrical Service Co., 326
NLRB 1136 (1998).
A signatory’s untimely notification to a union of its with-
drawal and failure to maintain the terms of the collective-
bargaining agreement constitutes a repudiation of the collec-
tive-bargaining relationship. Gary’s Electric Service, 326
NLRB at 1136; R. L. Reisinger Co., 312 NLRB 915, 917
(1993), enfd. 43 F.3d 1472 (6th Cir. 1994).
In John Deklewa & Sons, 282 N.L.R.B. 1375, 1387 (1987),
enforced sub nom. International Association of Bridge, Struc-
tural & Ornamental Workers, Local 3 v. NLRB, 843 F.2d 770
(3d Cir.1988) ( “Deklewa ”), the Board held that a § 8(f)
agreement confers a limited § 9(a) representative status on a
union signatory and that an employer signatory commits an
unfair labor practice under §§ 8(a)(1) and (a)(5) by unilateral-
ly repudiating the agreement while it is in force.4 A few years
later in NLRB v. Bufco Corp., 899 F.2d 608, 611 (7th Cir.
1990), this court approved the Deklewa rule in enforcing an
order of the Board that, applying Deklewa, found an employer
had committed an unfair labor practice under §§ 8(a)(1) and
(a)(5) by repudiating its § 8(f) pre-hire agreements with a un-
ion.
Sheehy Enterprizes, Inc. v. NLRB, 602 F.3d 839, 843 (7th Cir.
2010).

20 Additionally, because the test is the same, the factors support
finding that JWE and J. Westrum are single employers.
2. Respondent Unlawfully Repudiated, in Violation of
Section 8(a)(5)
The NECA Agreement is a lawful 8(f) pre-hire agreement
for the construction industry. Even when Jon Westrum was the
only employee, the NECA Agreement continued to renew it-
self. R. L. Reisinger Co., 312 NLRB 915, 917 (1993). The
NECA Agreement in effect when Westrum signed expired on
April 30, 2015.
By signing the Letter of Assent, Respondent bound himself
to the NECA Agreement and delegated his bargaining authority
to NECA as his bargaining agent. William N. Taylor, 288
NLRB at 1050. As the evidence demonstrates that Respond-
ents never effectively repudiated their relationships with NECA
and Local 292, the alter egos have violated Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act. Id.
The Letter of Assent provided a 150-day window in which
Respondent could have extricated himself from the obligations
of the NECA Agreement and the Letter of Assent. The most
recent NECA Agreement was effective on May 1, 2015, but
Respondent took no action as required in the Letter of Assent to
withdraw at any time. Instead, Jon Westrum shifted his busi-
ness from J. Westrum to JWE without notification to Local 292
of the name change, much less his intent to operate as a non-
union company. He finally informed Local 292 of the changes
only after he was confronted by Lindahl in March 2016, over a
year after the new agreement was in effect. By that time, the
window for withdrawal from the agreement had long passed.
The contention that Jon Westrum was coerced into signing
the Letter of Assent does not excuse his obligations. He had an
opportunity to read the Letter of Assent when presented to him
initially. He also had further opportunities to read the Letter of
Assent when he received it in the mail. He instead threw it into
a file cabinet and claimed ignorance. The terms were spelled
out in plain language. I reject the implication that either alter
ego business was excused from the terms of the Letter of As-
sent and the NECA Agreement because Jon Westrum claimed
coercion. See generally Sheehy Enterprizes, Inc., 353 NLRB
803 (2009), reaffd. after remand, 355 NLRB 478 (2010), enfd.
431 Fed.Appx. 488 (7th Cir. 2011).
D. Information Request Allegation
1. Applicable law
An employer has an obligation to provide information that is
necessary and relevant for the bargaining representative to car-
ry out its duties. Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301,
303 (1979); NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435–
436 (1967). Information requests pertaining to terms and condi-
tions of bargaining unit employees are “presumptively rele-
vant,” and the employer must provide the requested infor-
mation. Disneyland Park, 350 NLRB 1256, 1257 (2007); U.S.
Information Services, 341 NLRB 988 (2004).
The Board reviews relevance under a liberal, discovery-type
standard and whether the information would have some bearing
or use to the union in carrying out its statutory responsibilities.
Public Service Co. of New Mexico, 360 NLRB 573, 574
(2014), citing Sands Hotel & Casino, 324 NLRB 1101, 1109,
(1997), enfd. 172 F.3d 57 (9th Cir. 1999). The information
may be necessary for the union to assess whether to exercise its
JON P. WESTRUM D/B/A WESTRUM ELECTRIC AND JWE LLC 13
representative function, such as advancing negotiations and
policing an agreement. NLRB v. Whitesell Corp., 638 F.3d 883,
894–895 (8th Cir. 2011), enfg. 355 NLRB 635 (2010), affg.
352 NLRB 1196 (2008); Public Service Co. of New Mexico,
360 NLRB 573 (2014). The fact that a union may obtain infor-
mation by other means or from another source does not alter or
diminish the obligation of an employer to furnish relevant in-
formation. Holyoke Water Power Co., 273 NLRB 1369, 1373
(1985). “Like a flat refusal to bargain, ‘[t]he refusal of an em-
ployer to provide a bargaining agent with information relevant
to the Union's task of representing its constituency is a per se
violation of the Act’ without regard to the employer's subjec-
tive good or bad faith.” Piggly Wiggly Midwest, LLC, 357
NLRB 2344, 2355 (2012), quoting Brooklyn Union Gas Co.,
220 NLRB 189, 191 (1975); Procter & Gamble Mfg., Co., 237
NLRB 747, 751 (1978), enfd. 603 F.2d 1310 (8th Cir. 1979).
The duty to furnish information also requires a reasonable
good-faith effort to respond to the request as promptly as cir-
cumstances allow. Presumptively relevant information must be
produced within a reasonable period unless the employer estab-
lished legitimate affirmative defenses to production of the in-
formation. Metta Electric, 349 NLRB 1088 (2007); Postal Ser-
vice, 332 NLRB 635 (2000).
2. Respondent Violated Section 8(a)(5) by Failing to
Provide Information
Lindahl testified, without evidentiary contradiction, that Lo-
cal 292 never received the information requested from J.
Westrum and/or JWE, as requested on August 12, 2016. The
information request covered the period from May 1, 2015, until
present. The requested information included: Names of em-
ployees; time cards and work hour reports; and pay and benefit
records. Respondent presented no defenses why it was not
produced, but denies in the answer that the information is nec-
essary and relevant.
As an 8(f) signatory with an ineffective withdrawal, the alter
egos had an obligation to provide necessary and relevant infor-
mation to Local 292. Gary’s Electrical Service, 326 NLRB at
1136. All of the requested information is presumptively rele-
vant. CVS, 364 NLRB No. 122, slip op. at 1 (2016) (work
schedules, pay rates, benefits including insurance, pension and
401(k)); Pontiac Nursing Home, LLC, 344 NLRB No. 31
(2005) (not reported in Board volumes) (name, pay rate, over-
time, shift differentials, health plan cost and other benefit in-
formation); Republic Die & Tool Co., 343 NLRB 683, 686
(2004) (wages, pensions, medical benefits); U.S. Information
Services, 341 NLRB at 988 (salaries, wages, overtime);
LaGloria Oil & Gas Co., 338 NLRB 858 (2003) (employee
names, addresses, phone numbers); Smith & Wollensky, 316
NLRB 217, 218–219 (1995) (sign-in sheets); Radisson Plaza
Minneapolis, 307 NLRB 94 (1992), enfd. 987 F.2d 1376 (8th
Cir. 1993) (names, addresses, wages). By failing to provide
presumptively relevant information, Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) of the Act.
E. Respondent’s Affirmative Defenses
Respondent primarily discussed that the charge was untimely
because Local 292 did not make an additional investigation into
JWE in 2015. It also pled other defenses. None of the defenses
change the outcome of this case.
1. Respondent maintains the charge was not timely
per Section 10(b)
The charge was filed August 23, 2016. Respondent contends
that the charge was not timely because Local 292 knew or
should have that JWE was operating as a non-union entity in
2015, not in March 2016. According to Respondent, Local 292
did not file the charge within the 6-month statute of limitations
provided by Section 10(b) of the Act; because the charge was
untimely, the complaint must be dismissed.
Section 10(b)21 requires filing the initial charge in a matter
within a 6-month statute of limitations, and failure to do so bars
any subsequent complaint. Masonic Temple Assn. of Detroit,
364 NLRB No. 150, slip op. at 1 fn. 1 (2016); Positive Electri-
cal Enterprises, Inc., 345 NLRB 915, 918. A 10(b) allegation
is not jurisdictional, but instead is considered an affirmative
defense. Federal Management Co., 264 NLRB 107 (1982).
The party alleging this affirmative defense has the burden of
proof, which is met when the party demonstrates that the filing
party had actual or constructive knowledge of the unfair labor
practice. Broadway Volkswagen, 342 NLRB 1244, 1246
(2004).
The 6-month statute of limitations begins to run when a party
has “clear and unequivocal notice of the violation,” not when “a
party sends conflicting signals or otherwise engages in ambigu-
ous conduct.” Id., citing CAB Associates, 340 NLRB 1391,
1392 (2003). Also see: Minteq Intl, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 63
(2016), rev. denied 855 F.3d 329 (D.C. Cir. 2017). In a case
involving repudiation, the specific repudiation provides the
“clear and unequivocal” evidence of when the statute of limita-
tions begins to run. Vallow Floor Coverings, Inc., 335 NLRB
20 (2001). Also see: Positive Electrical Enterprises, 345
NLRB at 919; Industrial Power, 321 NLRB 816 (1996).
Respondent’s primary argument is that Local 292 knew or
should have known about the existence of JWE by Kripotos’s
May 2015 visit to Northtown. Respondent contends that, alt-
hough Northtown Mall was not within Local 292’s jurisdiction,
it should have done the research to discover what Jon Westrum,
J. Westrum and JWE were doing within Local 292’s jurisdic-
tion. Respondent asked Kripotos several questions about en-
forcement of the NECA Agreement. Kripotos was not aware of
whether staff checked to ensure J. Westrum was compliant with
union security or dues checkoff. If delinquent, the treasurer
would also check, but Kripotos did not know if the checks were
ever performed. Kripotos did not know whether Westrum opt-
ed out of benefits when he signed the Letter of Assent. General
Counsel, citing three separate cases, argues Local 292’s alleged
inaction or failure to discover the entities’ non-work did not
constitute notice of repudiation before the 6-month statute of
limitation. (GC Br. at 11.)
Respondent cites A&L Underground, 302 NLRB 467 (1991).
The facts in this case demonstrates that the union had actual
notice of the repudiation when the employer failed to return an
executed copy of a contractual agreement in December 1986.
The employer sent a letter to the union that it repudiated any

21 Also see: Board Rule §102.14, Service of charge.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
further agreements. The union waited until August 24, 1987, to
file a charge, or 8 months after the union had knowledge that
the employer was not continuing its bargaining relationship.
Because the union had actual notice of repudiation over 8
months before the charge was filed, the Board rejected a “con-
tinuing violation” theory and found the charge was not timely
filed. Id. at 467–468.
A&L Underground was differentiated in Vallow Floor Cov-
erings, Inc., 335 NLRB 20 (2001). Respondent’s version of
facts also relies upon Jon Westrum’s alleged May 2015 conver-
sation with Kripotos, which I discredited. Because I do not
credit Jon Westrum’s claim he told Kripotos in May 2015 about
the alleged dissolution of J. Westrum, I find that Local 292 did
not have clear and unequivocal notice that J. Westrum or JWE
repudiated its Letter of Assent and contractual obligations in
May 2015. Finding an employer working outside of the un-
ion’s jurisdiction only shows the Westrum entities were not
abiding by a collective-bargaining agreement.
What Kripotos found in May 2015 was a contract violation,
to which A&L Underground spoke. Vallow, supra, at 20–21.
Respondent’s failure to pay into funds are breaches of the col-
lective-bargaining agreement, and “each successive breach
constitutes a separate unfair labor practice unrelated to previous
breaches.” Vallow, 335 NLRB at 20. Also see Masonic Tem-
ple, 364 NLRB No. 150, slip op. at 1 fn. 1 and at 6–7 (statute of
limitations began to run only when employer clearly stated it
would no longer bargain or recognize). Respondent was a
small contractor and one of many signatory contractors to the
Minneapolis NECA Agreement. It made it impossible for Lo-
cal 292 to monitor each contractor’s activities. Positive Elec-
trical Enterprises, 345 NLRB at 920.
Therefore, Vallow controls the discussion. Until March
2016, Local 292 did not have clear notice of the repudiation,
which was delivered by telephone to Local 292 from Jon
Westrum himself. Because Jon Westrum gave sufficient notice
in March 2016, the August 23, 2016 charge was well within the
6-month statute of limitations. Section 10(b) does not dictate
dismissal of the complaint.
2. Respondent’s additional affirmative defenses
Respondent’s brief failed to address any other affirmative
defenses pled in its answer. These pled defenses included Sec-
tion 8(c) protection, legitimate business justification and de
minimis impact. To clean up a frequently used phrase, Re-
spondent pled these affirmative defenses, threw them against
the wall, and waited to see if they stuck. Nothing has stuck.
I find no relevance for Section 8(c) protection as the com-
plaint contained no alleged violations of speech. Even if Re-
spondent presented a legitimate business reason for changing
from a proprietorship to a limited liability corporation, it does
not mean that Respondent is relieved of its bargaining duties as
an alter ego. Michael’s Painting, Inc., 337 NLRB 860 (2002),
enfd. 85 Fed.Appx. 614 (9th Cir. 2004). Regarding the defense
that Respondent’s actions were de minimis, that contention is
incorrect. Respondent’s unlawful actions hurt the employees,
who should have been in the bargaining unit: They had no
bargaining power and were deprived of the benefits of the col-
lective-bargaining agreement. See generally Island Architec-
tural, 364 NLRB No. 73, slip op. at 6–7. These effects, arising
from Respondent’s unlawful conduct, are not de minimis.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents Jon P. Westrum d/b/a J. Westrum and JWE,
LLC constitute an employer engaged in commerce, and in op-
erations affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
292, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. At all material times, IBEW Local 292 has been the lim-
ited exclusive representative of all employees in the collective-
bargaining unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
4. Respondent Jon Westrum d/b/a J. Westrum Electric is the
alter ego of Respondent JWE, LLC.
5. Since January 1, 2015, Respondent failed and refused to
recognize IBEW Local 292 as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the unit employees.
6. Since January 1, 2015, by refusing to apply the terms of its
collective-bargaining agreement with IBEW Local 292 to all
unit employees, including payment to them of contractual wag-
es and payment on their behalf of fringe benefit contributions,
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
7. Since August 2016, Respondent has committed unfair la-
bor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by refusing to bargain collectively with the Union by
failing and refusing to furnish it with requested information that
is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its
function as the collective-bargaining representative of Re-
spondent’s unit employees.
8. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Jon P. Westrum d/b/a J.
Westrum Electric and JWE, LLC, alter egos and a single em-
ployer, has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it
must be ordered to cease and desist from doing so and to take
certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policy of
the Act.
In order to remedy the 8(a)(5) and (1) repudiation violation,
Respondent must give full force and effects to the terms and
conditions of employment provided in the collective-bargaining
agreement from May 1, 2012, through April 30, 2015 and any
successor agreement between Local 292 and J. Westrum for all
bargaining-unit employees, including JWE employees in cov-
ered classifications, that is, employees performing electrical
work in the bargaining unit described below. Respondent shall
bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the bargaining unit.
Respondent also shall make whole unit employees by, inter
alia, making all delinquent contributions to the fringe benefit
funds set forth in the collective-bargaining agreement that have
not been made since January 1, 2015, including any additional
amounts due the funds in accordance with Merryweather Opti-
cal Co., 240 NLRB 1213, 1216 fn. 7 (1979). Also see Positive
JON P. WESTRUM D/B/A WESTRUM ELECTRIC AND JWE LLC 15
Electrical Enterprises, supra; Vallow Floor, 335 NLRB at 21.22
Respondent also shall be required to reimburse the unit em-
ployees for any expenses ensuing from the failure to make the
required benefit fund contributions, as set forth in Kraft Plumb-
ing & Heating, 252 NLRB 891 fn. 2 (1980), enfd. mem. 661
F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1981). Such amounts shall be computed in
the manner set forth in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682
(1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest at the
rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987),
compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical
Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). In accordance with Don Chavas,
LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB 101 (2014), the
Respondent shall compensate the employees for the adverse
tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump sum backpay
awards, and, in accordance with AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc.,
363 NLRB No. 143 (2016), the Respondent shall, within 21
days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed either by
agreement or Board order, file with the Regional Director for
Region 18 a report allocating backpay to the appropriate calen-
dar year for each employee. The Regional Director will then
assume responsibility for transmission of the report to the So-
cial Security Administration at the appropriate time and in the
appropriate manner.
Respondent shall post an appropriate informational notice, as
described in the attached “Appendix.” This notice shall be
posted in the Employer's facility or wherever the notices to
employees are regularly posted for 60 days without anything
covering it up or defacing its contents. In addition to physical
posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electroni-
cally, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customar-
ily communicates with its employees by such means. In the
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, Respond-
ent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, 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 January 1, 2015. When the notice is issued to the Em-
ployer, it shall sign it or otherwise notify Region 18 of the
Board what action it will take with respect to this decision.
Respondent must also post the notice to employees, attached as
“Appendix,” at any jobsite currently in progress within the
geographical jurisdiction of the applicable agreement and at its
place of business in Anoka, Minnesota. R. L. Reisinger Co.,
312 NLRB at 918. In addition, Respondent will mail the notice
to all employees who were employed on or after January 1,
2015, but no longer are employed by it.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended23

22 Moeller Bros. Body Ship, Inc., 306 NLRB 191–193 (1992), is not
on point. That case had no allegation of repudiation as the employer
paid union wages pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement, but
failed to pay fringe benefits into the fund. The administrative law
judge found, and the Board agreed, that the union did not exercise due
diligence over a period of years. My reasoning is further explained in
the discussion about Sec. 10(b).
23 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
ORDER
Respondent, Jon P. Westrum d/b/a J. Westrum and JWE,
LLC, alter egos and a single employer, Anoka, Minnesota, its
officers, agents, successors and assign shall
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize the International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers Local 292 (Local 292) as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees
in the bargaining unit at its J. Westrum and JWE facilities in the
following appropriate unit by refusing to apply the 2012–2015
collective-bargaining agreement and any successor agreement
in effect between Local 292 and J. Westrum to employees in
JWE:
All employees employed by Respondents, including Jour-
neymen Wiremen, Apprentices, Cable Splicers, Welders, In-
strument Technician I, Instrument Technician II, Foremen,
General Foremen and 2nd General Foremen, in the geographic
areas in Minnesota of all of Hennepin, Carver and Scott
Counties, all that part of Anoka County containing the cities
of Andover, Anoka, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Fridley,
Hilltop, Ramsey and Spring Lake Park, all of Wright County
and that portion of Benton and Sherburne Counties east of
State Highway 25 to Highway 10 and an imaginary line
straight west to the Mississippi River; excluding office cleri-
cal employees, guards and supervisor as defined in the Act.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 292, by fail-
ing and refusing to provide Local 292 with requested infor-
mation that is necessary and relevant to its role as the exclusive
representative of Respondent’s unit employees;
(c) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed to them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to effec-
tuate the purposes and policies of the Act.
(a) Honor and abide by the terms and conditions of its exe-
cuted contract with the Union since June 2012;
(b) For the period beginning January 1, 2015, make whole its
employees in the bargaining unit, for losses suffered as a result
of its failure to adhere to the NECA Agreement and the Letter
of Assent and reimburse them for any expenses ensuing from
its failure to make required contributions to the benefit funds;
and make whole the benefit trust funds for losses suffered in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(c) 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 designed by the Board or
its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records,
time records and timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records if stored in electronic form, necessary to ana-
lyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Compensate the bargaining unit employees for the ad-
verse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay
awards, and file with the Regional Director for Region 18 with-

mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes due under the terms of this Order.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD16
in 21 days of the d ate the amount of backpay is fixed, either by
agreement or Board order, a report allocating the backpay
awards to the appropriate calendar year for each employee.
(e) Furnish IBEW Local 292 with the information it request-
ed in its August 12, 2016 letter.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at all of
its facilities and jobsites copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix.”24
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director for Region 18 a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to
the steps that Respondent has taken to comply.
(h) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed
insofar as it alleged violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 31, 2017
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED AND MAILED 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 no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and pro-
tection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively and in
good faith with the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 292 (Union) as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of employees in the following unit:
All employees employed by Respondents, including Jour-
neymen Wiremen, Apprentices, Cable Splicers, Welders, In-
strument Technician I, Instrument Technician II, Foremen,
General Foremen and 2nd General Foremen, in the geograph-
ic areas in Minnesota of all of Hennepin, Carver and Scott
Counties, all that part of Anoka County containing the cities
of Andover, Anoka, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Fridley,
Hilltop, Ramsey and Spring Lake Park, all of Wright County
and that portion of Benton and Sherburne Counties east of
State Highway 25 to Highway 10 and an imaginary line
straight west to the Mississippi River; excluding office cleri-
cal employees, guards and supervisor as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT repudiate or refuse to adhere to the collective-
bargaining agreement that we entered into with the Union.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the Union
by failing and refusing to furnish it with requested information

24 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.”
that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its
functions as the collective-bargaining representative of our unit
employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL, on request, bargain in good faith with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our em-
ployees concerning terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL rescind the actions taken that constituted repudia-
tion of the collective-bargaining agreements.
WE WILL abide by the current collective-bargaining agree-
ment between NECA and the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, in effect from May 1, 2015, through April
30, 2018, and restore wages, fringe benefit contributions, and
other working conditions for the Unit and make Unit employees
whole for the losses in pay or benefits, including payments to
various fringe benefit funds, with interest computed in accord-
ance with Board policy.
WE WILL make whole our unit employees by making all de-
linquent benefit fund contributions that have not been made in
accordance with the collective-bargaining agreement in effect
from 2012 to 2015, and any subsequent agreements.
WE WILL make whole our unit employees by reimbursing
them, with interest, for any expenses that they may have in-
curred that resulted from our failure to make required benefit
fund payments in accordance with the collective-bargaining
agreement in effect from 2012 to 2015, and any subsequent
agreements.
WE WILL make whole employees hired by alter ego JWE,
LLC for losses incurred as a result of our failure to provide
contractual wage rates, benefits, or any other contractual terms
and conditions in accordance with the collective-bargaining
agreement in effect from 2012 to 2015, and any subsequent
agreements.
WE WILL compensate the bargaining unit employees for the
adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum back-
pay awards, and WE WILL file with the Regional Director for
Region 18 within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is
fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating
the backpay awards to the appropriate calendar years.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor-
mation requested by the Union on August12, 2016.
JON WESTRUM D/B/A J. WESTRUM ELECTRIC AND JWE
LLC
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/18–CA–182656 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273–1940.
JON P. WESTRUM D/B/A WESTRUM ELECTRIC AND JWE LLC 17