Long Mechanical, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 2012

358 N.L.R.B. 892 (N.L.R.B. 2012)

892 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
358 NLRB No. 98
Long Mechanical, Inc. and Locals 98 and 636, United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, AFL–CIO. Cases
07–CA–052917, 07–CA–053146, and 07–CA–
053200
August 9, 2012
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS HAYES, GRIFFIN, AND BLOCK
The Acting General Counsel seeks default judgment in
this case pursuant to the terms of an informal settlement
agreement. Upon charges and amended charges filed by
Locals 98 and 636, United Association of Journeymen
and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Indus-
try of the United States and Canada, AFL–CIO (collec-
tively the Union) on May 10, June 18, September 9, Sep-
tember 16, October 5, and October 13, 2010, respective-
ly, the Acting General Counsel issued the consolidated
amended complaint on December 27, 2010, against Long
Mechanical, Inc., the Respondent. The consolidated
amended complaint alleged that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The Respondent filed
an answer.
Subsequently, the Respondent and the Union entered
into an informal settlement agreement, which was ap-
proved by the Regional Director for Region 7 on January
19, 2011.1 Pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement, the Respondent agreed, among other things,
to (1) reinstate employees Daniel Brady, Max Dietrich,
Ronald Garant, and Alan LaBar to the positions they
occupied prior to their recent layoff or discharge and at
their previous rates of pay and benefits; (2) place em-
ployees Tom Stark, Tony Ratcliffe, Tom Simchek, and
Michael Baran on a preferential recall list to be called to
their prior position or if they are not available, to sub-
stantially equivalent positions, at their previous rates of
pay and benefits prior to their recent layoffs; and (3) pro-
vide to the Union’s counsel for review on a biweekly
basis payroll records for all hourly employees, cost detail
reports, including posted and unposted details, for all
jobs on which work is being performed by the Respond-
ent, and a listing of all jobs on which bids have been
awarded in order to effectuate the Respondent’s compli-
ance with the provision of the settlement agreement re-
quiring them to place the above-mentioned employees
Stark, Ratcliffe, Simcheck, and Baran on a preferential
recall list and recall them in the order listed above. The
agreement also contained the following provision:

1 All subsequent dates are in 2011, unless otherwise indicated.
The Charged Party agrees that in case of non-
compliance with any of the terms of this Settlement
Agreement by the Charged Party, and after 14 days no-
tice from the Regional Director of the National Labor
Relations Board of such non-compliance without rem-
edy by the Charged Party, the Regional Director may
reissue the complaint in this matter. The General
Counsel may then file a motion for default judgment
with the Board on the allegations of the complaint. The
Charged Party understands and agrees that the allega-
tions of the reissued complaint may be deemed to be
true by the Board and its answer to such complaint
shall be considered withdrawn. The Charged Party al-
so waives the following: (a) filing of answer; (b) hear-
ing; (c) administrative law judge’s decisions; (d) filing
of exceptions and briefs; (e) oral argument before the
Board; (f) the making of findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law by the Board; and (g) all other proceedings
to which a party may be entitled under the Act or the
Board’s Rules and Regulations. On receipt of said mo-
tion for default judgment, the Board shall issue an order
requiring the Charged Party to show cause why said
motion of the General Counsel should not be granted.
The Board may then, without necessity of trial or any
other proceeding, find all allegations of the complaint
to be true and make findings of fact and conclusions of
law consistent with those allegations adverse to the
Charged Party, on all issues raised by the pleadings.
The Board may then issue an order providing a full
remedy for the violations found as is customary to rem-
edy such violations. The parties further agree that the
Board’s order and U.S. Court of Appeals judgment
may be entered thereon ex parte.

By letter dated May 19, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 7 advised the Respondent that it was not in compli-
ance with certain terms of the settlement agreement. The
letter urged the Respondent to take immediate action to
ensure compliance with the terms of the settlement
agreement within 14 days of the issuance of the letter,
including the provision of certain information and docu-
ments. The letter further stated that the Respondent’s
noncompliance may invoke the terms of the noncompli-
ance provision of the settlement agreement.2 By letter
dated June 7, the Regional Director once again requested
that the Respondent comply with certain provisions of
the settlement agreement by providing certain infor-
mation such as payroll records and information pertain-
ing to “Cost Detail Reports.” The letter advised the Re-

2 According to an attachment to the Acting General Counsel’s mo-
tions, on May 26, 2011, the Respondent responded that it would do its
best to comply, although this letter is not in the record.
LONG MECHANICAL, INC. 893
spondent that failing to comply by close of business on
June 21 would likely result in the reissuance of the con-
solidated amended complaint and possibly the filing of a
motion for default judgment. The Respondent did not
reply.
Accordingly, on October 7, the Regional Director reis-
sued the consolidated amended complaint. On October
10, the Acting General Counsel filed a Motion for De-
fault Judgment with the Board. On December 20, the
Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the
Board and Notice to Show Cause why the motion should
not be granted.3 The Respondent filed a response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
In its response to the Notice to Show Cause, the Re-
spondent incorporated by reference the arguments pro-
vided in its October 28 opposition and December 2 reply
which generally denied breaching the settlement agree-
ment. The Respondent failed to respond to any of the six
specific allegations that it had breached the settlement
agreement set forth in the Acting General Counsel’s mo-
tion and has not come forward with anything specifically
supporting its general denial that it has breached the set-
tlement agreement. Therefore, we find that the Respond-
ent’s general denial fails to raise any material issues of
fact warranting a hearing. Accordingly, we grant the
Acting General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment.
Consequently, pursuant to the noncompliance provisions
of the settlement agreement set forth above, we find that
all of the allegations in the reissued consolidated amend-
ed complaint are true.4
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times the Respondent, a corporation,
with an office and showroom in Northville, Michigan

3 On October 28, before the Board could issue a Notice to Show
Cause, the Respondent filed a Statement in Opposition to the Acting
General Counsel’s motion. On November 23, the Acting General
Counsel filed a response to the Respondent’s opposition. On Decem-
ber 2, the Respondent filed a reply. Sec. 102.24(b) of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations and the noncompliance provision of the parties’
settlement agreement provided that the Board, in these circumstances,
issue a Notice to Show Cause.
4 See U-Bee, Ltd., 315 NLRB 667 (1994). The Respondent also ar-
gues that the Charging Parties cannot attempt to use the allegations
underlying a second settlement agreement to enter a default judgment
against it. However, the second settlement agreement, referred to by
the Respondent, pertained to settling three subsequent unfair labor
practice cases completely separate from this case and are not relevant to
this determination.

(Respondent’s business office), has been engaged in the
building and construction business as a mechanical con-
tractor.
During the fiscal year ending April 30, 2010, the Re-
spondent, in conducting its business operations described
above, delivered gross revenues in excess of $5 million
and provided services valued in excess of $50,000 to the
Hampton Inn and a Veterans Administration hospital,
enterprises in Michigan that are directly engaged in inter-
state commerce.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act, and that Locals 98 and 636, United Asso-
ciation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Cana-
da, AFL–CIO are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times the following individuals held the
positions set forth opposite their respective names and
have been supervisors of the Respondent within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act:
James Long - Co-Owner and President
Allison Long - Co-Owner and Secretary-Treasurer
Ron Tini - Vice-President and Project Manager
Dave Dixon - Controller
Steve Hocking – Estimator and Project Manager
Doug Wojay - Service Manager
Paul McKendry - Warehouse Manager
William Guenther - Supervisor

1. About May 5, 2010, the Respondent, by its agent
James Long, at the Respondent’s business office:
(a) threatened employees that the Respondent will not
employ union members or adherents;
(b) threatened employees that the Respondent will no
longer employ them if they continue to organize on be-
half of the Union;
(c) advised employees that they quit their employment
with the Respondent by supporting a labor union;
(d) informed employees that they must leave the Re-
spondent's employ if they wish to join a labor union;
(e) characterized employees' support of the Union as
disloyalty to and abandonment of the Respondent.
2. About May or June 2010, and late August 2010, the
Respondent, by its agent Ron Tini, at its business office,
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 894
informed employees that the Respondent did not call
them back to work because of employees' activities in
support of the Union.
3. On or about August 23, 2010, the Respondent, by its
agent James Long, during a staff meeting at Respondent's
business office:
(a) announced that employees Max Dietrich and
Ronald Garant had violated work rules by obtaining in-
terim employment and abandoned their employment
with the Respondent;
(b) announced if employees Max Dietrich and Ronald
Garant show up to vote during the representation elec-
tion in Case 07–RC–023367 that they would be pre-
vented from doing so by the federal government;
(c) threatened employees that the Respondent would
fight to maintain a union free status, and he would not
stand by and watch what was happening.
4. On or about August 23, 2010, the Respondent, by
its agent William Guenther, during a staff meeting at the
Respondent’s business office, threatened employees by
suggesting they terminate their employment with the
Respondent if they wanted to join a union.
5. On or about September 2, 2010, the Respondent, by
its agent Ron Tini, at the Respondent's business office,
coercively interrogated employees as to how they were
going to vote in the representation election to be con-
ducted in Case 07–RC–023367.
6. On or about September 2, 2010, the Respondent, by
its agent William Guenther, at the Respondent's business
office, coercively interrogated employees as to whether
they were going to vote in the representation election to
be conducted in Case 07–RC–023367.
7. On or about September 2, 2010, the Respondent by
its agent Dave Dixon, at the Respondent's business of-
fice, engaged in surveillance of employees as they con-
gregated with the Union’s officials.
8. On or about September 2, 2010, the Respondent, by
its agent James Long, at the Respondent's business of-
fice, interfered with employees by attempting to call a
meeting with them as they were preparing to vote in the
representation election in Case 07–RC–023367.
9. On or about September 2, 2010, the Respondent, by
its agents James Long, Steve Hocking, Allison Long,
Ron Tini, Dave Dixon, and Doug Wojay, at the Re-
spondent's business office, interfered with employees by
stationing themselves in close proximity to employees as
they were waiting in line to vote during the representa-
tion election in Case 07–RC–023367.
10. On or about September 2, 2010, the Responded by
its agent Ron Tini, at the Respondent's business office,
interfered with employees as they were waiting in line to
vote during the representation election by telling them
that it should not have come to this and asking them if
they thought the grass was greener on the other side.
11. About May 5, 2010, the Respondent discharged its
employees Max Dietrich, Ronald Garant, Alan LaBar,
Tony Ratcliffe, Thomas Stark, Chad Neuer, Daniel
Brady, and Jonathan Brenneman.
12. About May 5, 2010, approximately 30 minutes af-
ter discharging the employees named in paragraph 11,
the Respondent rescinded but did not cure the said dis-
charges.
13. About May 7, 2010, the Respondent laid off its
employees Max Dietrich and Ronald Garant, and since
then has refused to recall them.
14. In or about early August 2010, the Respondent
discharged its employees Max Dietrich and Ronald Gar-
ant.
15. About July 20, 2010, the Respondent sent an em-
ployee to training for medical gas certification as a bene-
fit in order to discourage employees from engaging in
activities in support of the Union.
16. From about May 7 to about May 24, 2010, and
again on October 1, 2010, the Respondent laid off its
employee Tony Ratcliffe.
17. From about May 7 to about May 26, 2010, and
again on October 6, 2011, the Respondent laid off its
employee Alan LaBar.
18. From about June 1 to about June 23, 2010, and
again on September 9, 2010, the Respondent laid off its
employee Thomas Stark.
19. On or about September 20, 2010, the Respondent
laid off its employee Daniel Brady.
20. The Respondent failed and refused to recall from
layoff the following employees:
(a) from about May 7 to about May 24, 2010, and from
October 1, 2010, to the present, employee Tony
Ratcliffe;
(b) from about May 7 to about May 26, 2010, and from
October 6, 2010 to the present, employee Alan LaBar;
(c) from about June 1 to about June 23, 2010, and from
September 9, 2010 to the present, employee Thomas
Stark;
(d) since about September 20, 2010, employee Daniel
Brady;
(e) since about August 2010, employees Thomas Sim-
check and Michael Baran.
The Respondent engaged in the conduct described in
paragraphs 11 through 20 because the named employees
assisted and supported the Union and engaged in other
protected concerted activities, and to discourage employ-
ees from engaging in these activities.
LONG MECHANICAL, INC. 895
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By the conduct described in paragraphs 1 through
10, the Respondent has been interfering with, restraining,
and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By the conduct described in paragraphs 11 through
20, the Respondent has been discriminating in regard to
the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment
of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in a
labor organization, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.
3. The described unfair labor practices of the Respond-
ent affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) by terminating Max Dietrich and Ronald Garant,
by laying off and failing to recall from layoff Tony
Ratcliffe, Alan LaBar, Thomas Stark, and Daniel Brady,
and by failing to recall from layoff Thomas Simcheck,
and Michael Baran, we shall order the Respondent to
make these employees whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of the Respondent’s
unlawful actions against them.
In this regard, we find that the backpay due these em-
ployees should not be limited to the amount specified in
the settlement agreement.5 As set forth above, the set-
tlement agreement provided that, in the event of non-
compliance, the Board could “issue an Order providing a
full remedy for the violations found as is customary to
remedy such violations.” Thus, under this language, it is
appropriate to provide the “customary” remedies, includ-
ing reinstatement, full backpay and benefits, expunge-
ment of the Respondent's personnel records, and notice
posting.6
The additional backpay due the employees shall be
computed as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon to be computed
at the rate prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded,
283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed

5 As noted above, there is no indication in the motion that the Re-
spondent has failed to pay the sums set forth in the settlement agree-
ment covering backpay. To the extent that the Respondent has paid
these sums, the Respondent will be credited with any amount already
paid.
6 See L. J. Logistics, Inc., 339 NLRB 729, 730–731 (2003).
in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8
(2010). However, because we shall order the Respond-
ent to provide the customary remedy of full backpay, the
applicable backpay period will commence on the date of
the unlawful acts of discrimination, with any amounts
already paid to be deducted from the Respondent’s back-
pay liability.
We shall also order the Respondent to offer Max Die-
trich and Ronald Garant full reinstatement and to recall
Alan LaBar, Tony Ratcliffe, Thomas Stark, Daniel
Brady, Thomas Simcheck, and Michael Baran to their
former jobs, or, if those jobs no longer exist, to a sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to their
seniority or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed.
Further, the Respondent shall be required to remove
from its files and records all references to the unlawful
discharges of Max Dietrich, Ronald Garant, Alan LaBar,
Tony Ratcliffe, Thomas Stark, Chad Neuer, Daniel
Brady, and Jonathan Brenneman, and the unlawful
layoffs of Alan LaBar, Tony Ratcliffe, Thomas Stark,
and Daniel Brady, and notify them in writing that this
has been done and that the unlawful references will not
be used against them in any way.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Long Mechanical, Inc., Northville, Michi-
gan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees because of their support of or activity on be-
half of Locals 98 and 636, United Association of Jour-
neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fit-
ting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL–
CIO, or any other union.
(b) Threatening employees with lack of employment or
termination if they are union members or adherents or
continue to organize on behalf of the Union or any other
labor organization.
(c) Telling employees that they quit their employment
with the Respondent by supporting a labor union; in-
forming employees that they must leave the Respond-
ent’s employ if they wish to join a labor union; and char-
acterizing employees’ support of the Union as being dis-
loyal or abandoning their employment.
(d) Telling employees that the Respondent did not call
them back to work because of their activities in support
of the Union or any other labor organization.
(e) Announcing to employees that certain employees
violated the Respondent’s work rules by obtaining inter-
im employment thereby abandoning their employment,
and that the Federal Government will prevent them from
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 896
voting during a scheduled National Labor Relations
Board representation election.
(f) Threatening employees that the Respondent will
fight to maintain a union-free status and will not stand by
and watch what was happening.
(g) Threatening employees by suggesting they termi-
nate their employment with the Respondent if they want
to join a union.
(h) Coercively interrogating employees as to whether
or how they are going to vote in a National Labor Rela-
tions Board representation election.
(i) Engaging in surveillance of employees’ union activ-
ities.
(j) Interfering with employees’ right to vote in a Na-
tional Labor Relations Board representation election by
attempting to call a meeting with them as they were pre-
paring to vote.
(k) Interfering with employees’ right to vote in a Na-
tional Labor Relations Board representation election by
stationing supervisors and agents in close proximity to
employees as they are waiting in line to vote.
(l) Threatening or interfering with employees as they
are waiting in line to vote in a National Labor Relations
Board representation election by telling them that it
should not have come to this and asking them if they
thought the grass was greener on the other side.
(m) Laying off or discharging any employee because
of his/her support of the Union or any other labor organi-
zation.
(n) Providing benefits to employees in order to dis-
courage them from engaging in activities in support of
the Union or any other labor organization.
(o) Refusing to recall any laid-off employee because of
his/her support of the Union or any other labor organiza-
tion.
(p) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, rein-
state Max Dietrich and Ronald Garant, and recall Alan
LaBar, Tony Ratcliffe, Thomas Stark, Daniel Brady,
Thomas Simcheck, and Michael Baran fully and imme-
diately to their respective jobs, or, if those jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employ-
ment, in either case at the wages and with the full sen-
iority and benefits to which the Respondent's policies and
practices entitle them.
(b) Make Max Dietrich, Ronald Garant, Alan LaBar,
Tony Ratcliffe, Thomas Stark, Daniel Brady, Thomas
Simcheck, and Michael Baran whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrim-
ination against them, in the manner set forth in the reme-
dy section of this decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from all of the Respondent's files and records all refer-
ences to the May 5, 2010 discharges of Max Dietrich,
Ronald Garant, Alan LaBar, Tony Ratcliffe, Thomas
Stark, Chad Neuer, Daniel Brady, and Jonathan Bren-
neman, and within 3 days thereafter notify them in writ-
ing that this has been done and that the unlawful dis-
charges will not be held against them in any way.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from all of the Respondent's files and records all refer-
ences to the layoffs of Alan LaBar, Tony Ratcliffe,
Thomas Stark, and Daniel Brady, and within 3 days
thereafter notify them in writing that this has been done
and that the unlawful layoffs will not be held against
them in any way.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Northville, Michigan, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”7 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted.8 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 Respondent custom-
arily communicates with its employees by such means.9
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone
out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since May 5, 2010.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-

7 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.”
8 Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Region may
provide notices in more than one language as deemed appropriate by
the Regional Director.
9 For the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in J. Picini Floor-
ing, 356 NLRB 11 (2010), Member Hayes would not require electronic
distribution of the notice.
LONG MECHANICAL, INC. 897
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we 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 discharge or otherwise discriminate
against employees because of their support of or activity
on behalf of Local 98 or 636, United Association of
Journey men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe
Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL–
CIO (the Union), or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we will not
employ union members or adherents or threaten them
with termination if they continue to organize on behalf of
the Union or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that they quit their
employment with us by supporting a labor union; inform
employees that they must leave our employ if they wish
to join a labor union; or characterize employees’ support
of the Union as being disloyal or abandoning their em-
ployment.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that we did not call
them back to work because of their activities in support
of the Union or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT announce to our employees that certain
employees violated our work rules by obtaining interim
employment thereby abandoning their employment, and
that the Federal Government will prevent them from vot-
ing during a scheduled National Labor Relations Board
representation election.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we will
fight to maintain a union-free status and will not stand by
and watch what was happening.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees by suggesting
they terminate their employment with us if they want to
join a union.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees as
to whether or how they are going to vote in a National
Labor Relations Board representation election.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of our employ-
ees’ union activities.
WE WILL NOT interfere with our employees’ right to
vote in a National Labor Relations Board representation
election by attempting to call a meeting with them as
they are preparing to vote.
WE WILL NOT interfere with our employees’ right to
vote in a National Labor Relations Board representation
election by stationing our supervisors and agents in close
proximity to employees as they are waiting in line to
vote.
WE WILL NOT threaten or interfere with our employees
as they are waiting in line to vote in a National Labor
Relations Board representation election by telling them
that it should not have come to this and asking them if
they thought the grass was greener on the other side.
WE WILL NOT lay off or discharge any employee be-
cause of his/her support of the Union or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT provide benefits to our employees in or-
der to discourage them from engaging in activities in
support of the Union or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recall any laid-off employee
because of his/her support of the Union or any other la-
bor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the rights listed above.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, reinstate Max Dietrich and Ronald Garant, and
recall Alan LaBar, Tony Ratcliffe, Thomas Stark, Daniel
Brady, Thomas Simcheck, and Michael Baran fully and
immediately to their respective jobs, or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of em-
ployment, in either case at the wages and with the full
seniority and benefits to which our policies and practices
entitle them.
WE WILL make Max Dietrich, Ronald Garant, Alan
LaBar, Tony Ratcliffe, Thomas Stark, Daniel Brady,
Thomas Simcheck, and Michael Baran whole for any
loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of
the discrimination against them, with interest. WE WILL,
within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, re-
move from our files and records all references to the May
5, 2010 discharges of Max Dietrich, Ronald Garant, Alan
LaBar, Tony Ratcliffe, Thomas Stark, Chad Neuer, Dan-
iel Brady, and Jonathan Brenneman, and within 3 days
thereafter notify them in writing that this has been done
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 898
and that the unlawful discharges will not be held against
them in any way.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files and records all references
to the layoffs of Max Dietrich and Ronald Garant, Alan
LaBar, Tony Ratcliffe, Thomas Stark, and Daniel Brady,
and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter notify them in
writing that this has been done and that the unlawful
layoffs will not be held against them in any way.

LONG MECHANICAL, INC.