M. J. Electric, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 5, 1968

171 N.L.R.B. 1054 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
M. J. Electric, Inc. and Frederick E. Ojala. Case
30-CA-67 2
June 5, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 20, 1968, Trial Examiner Jerry B.
Stone issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not
engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint, and recommending that the complaint
be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the at-
tached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision and a supporting brief, and the
Respondent filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and sup-
porting brief, the Respondent's answering brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in its entirety.
' We note that the Trial Examiner's Decision inadvertently refers to the
failure of Weigand to seize on incidents in a local bar "as a basis for
discharging Weigand" when it is clear from the context that it should read
"as a basin for discharging Ocala "The Decision is hereby corrected in this
respect
The General Counsel excepts to the Trial Examiner 's credibility findings.
It is the Board 's established policy, however, not to overrule a Trial Ex-
aminer 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless, as is not the case
here , the preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect Standard Dr% {Nall Producvi, fn( , 91 NLRB 544,
cnfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A. 3)
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JERRY B. STONE, Trial Examiner : This proceeding
under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , was tried pursuant to
due notice on January 16, 1968 , at Iron Mountain,
Michigan.
The charge was filed on October 13, 1967. The
complaint in this matter was issued on November
20, 1967.
The issue in this case is whether or not since on
or about September 25, 1967 , Respondent has
refused and continues to refuse to rehire Frederick
E. Ojala because of his membership in, support of,
and activities on behalf of the Union and because
of his previous protected concerted activities.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to par-
ticipate in the proceeding, and the General Counsel
and Respondent filed briefs which have been con-
sidered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of witnesses , it is hereby found as fol-
lows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER'
M. J. Electric, Inc., the Respondent, is a
Michigan corporation. The Respondent maintains
its principal office at Iron Mountain, Michigan, and
at all times material herein has been engaged at
various locations throughout the United States, in-
cluding Houghton, Michigan, as an electrical con-
tractor for the building and construction industry.
During the past year ending on November 20,
1967, a representative period, Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business, performed ser-
vices valued in excess of $50,000 at places located
outside the State of Michigan, and during the same
period Respondent purchased and received goods
and materials in interstate commerce , valued in ex-
cess of $50,000, from sources located outside the
State of Michigan.
Based upon the foregoing and as conceded by the
Respondent, it is concluded and found that, at all
times material herein, Respondent is, and has been,
an "Employer" as defined in Section 2(2) of the
Act, engaged in "commerce" and in operations "af-
fecting commerce" as defined in Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act, respectively.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED2
Local Union No. 19, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, herein called the Union, is
now, and at all times material herein has been, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
The facts are based upon the pleadings.
The facts are based upon a stipulation of the parties.
171 NLRB No. 147
M.J. ELECTRIC, INC. 1055
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Events of 1963 and 1964 3
In April 1963 the Respondent was engaged in a
construction project known as "the math and
physics job" at Houghton, Michigan. This job was
located within the jurisdictional area of Local
Union No. 19, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers. The Respondent's collective-bar-
gaining agreement with Local 19 was in effect and
governed as to collective -bargaining terms and as to
securing of employees for hiring through the union
referral system.
Frederick E. Ojala, a member of Local 19, was
employed on "the math and physics job" from
April 29, 1963, to March 20, 1964. The Respon-
dent's general foreman on this job was John
Weiland and one of the foremen was Gordon Kus.
O,lala, after commencing employment on April
29, 1963, complained to Foreman Kus and fellow
union members about employees who were not
electrical workers doing work which he felt electri-
cal workers should do. Thus Ojala complained that
laborers were plugging cords of electrical lights into
fixtures. These cords were cords of electrical lights
made up by electrical workers. The cords were
plugged in at various outlets for use by laborers and
others while doing their basic work . Ojala's com-
plaint was that the physical act of plugging the cord
in the outlet should be electrical workers' work.
Around June 1963 Brey , Local 19 's business agent,
became tired of hearing Ojala complain and told
him so . Brey, who had been serving as job steward,
asked Ojala if he would like to be job steward.
Ojala replied that he would like to be job steward.
Brey, thereupon, appointed Ojala as job steward.'
Ojala credibly testified to the effect that he had
considered that enforcement of the work rules had
been lax . Ojala credibly testified to the effect that
in June 1963 he commenced straightening things
out. Ojala's total testimony was to the effect that he
was able to adjust all grievances without the necess-
ity of a written grievance during the period of time
June 1963 to March 20, 1964.
Specifically, Ojala testified to the effect that
around June 1963 the Ironworkers had been mov-
ing electric motors and that he insisted successfully
at that time that the Electricians hoist such motors.
As to specific incidents of grievance type discus-
sions, Ojala testified to four other events. Thus
Ojala credibly testified to the effect that one in-
cident occurred in September 1963. What occurred
is revealed by the following credited excerpts from
Ojala's testimony.
A. Yes. I called John Weigand aside. I was
the union representative on the job. He told
me with the help of the laborer to install con-
duit and I immediately told Mr. Weigand that
it was an electrician's job to install conduit and
I refused to have a laborer help me because we
had many electricians out of work at this time
and they were available for work. So, I refused
to work with the laborer. I waited there until
he sent another electrician to help me and
shortly thereafter the company did hire more
electricians to take care of the electricians'
work instead of trying to use laborers.
Ojala credibly testified to another incident which
occurred in October 1963. What occurred is
revealed by the following credited excerpts from
Ojala's testimony.
Q. All right, Mr. Ojala, I call your attention
to a certain day in October, 1963, did you
again have occasion to have a conversation
with Mr. John Weigand?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Where did this conversation take place?
A. It was on the second floor of the math
building . I was installing boxes for outlets.
Q. Who else, if anyone, was present when
you spoke to Mr. Weigand on this occasion?
A. I don't believe anybody else was present
at this time.
Q. All right. What do you recall saying to
Mr. Weigand at that time and what do you re-
call him saying to you?
A. Well, I just had finished putting in the
boxes on the second floor and I was checking it
over and Mr. Weigand came up to me and
said , "Well, it looks like you're done, you'd
better get up on the third floor and start in-
stalling boxes up there." I told him that I was
waiting for my foreman. I said, "If the foreman
is too busy working with the tools to supervise
his men ," I said I'd wait for him and he should
get him and have him relay the message that I
don't take orders from anybody but my im-
mediate foreman, it's against the contract. And
so, therefore, John Weigand proceeded to tell
me that the contract didn't mean a thing to his
company and as far as he was concerned that I
could take and wipe my ass with that contract.
Ojala credibly testified to another incident with
Weigand which occurred in December 1963. What
occurred is revealed by the following credited ex-
cerpts from Ojala's testimony.
A. Yes, it was just prior to the Christmas
party. I went into the office to ask him what
time we were going to knock off work as the
other trades were being let go at 2:30. I asked
him if it was going to be the same for us and
- fhe facts are based upon exhibits and the credited testimony of Ojala,
Brey , Brule , Kus, Weigand , and Lystelia.
The steward must be a member of the local union within the jurisdic-
tion where the job is being performed and must be appointed by the busi-
ness agent or business manager of the local union involved
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
we had a few words . I said, "John , I don't like
the way you've been operating here , you've
been continually breaking down our contract,
and I'm going to try to see to it that you don't
come into the area again ." And so he
proceeded to tell me that he will personally
then see to it that I never work in my home
area again for the M . J. Electric company.
Ojala credibly testified to the fact that on another
occasion , sometime between April 29, 1963, and
March 20, 1964, that he had a discussion with
General Foreman Weigand about Foreman Kus'
working with tools . What occurred is revealed by
the following credited excerpts of Ojala's
testimony.
Q. (By Mr. Taine) Where did you talk with
Mr. Weigand about Mr. Kus?
A. Well, it was on the job site.
Q. All right. When, if you can recall?
A. I don't exactly remember when.
Q. All right. Who else , if anyone, was
present , if you can recall?
A. Well, usually I talked to him alone.
Q. All right, and what do you recall saying
to Mr . Weigand and what do you recall him
saying to you?
A. Well, I told him that the foreman
shouldn 't be working with the tools when they
have so many men , and immediately after that
they appointed another foreman , Don Miles,
and that way after they cut down the crews
then they were allowed to work with the tools;
so, therefore , we had another foreman ap-
pointed on the job which made it fair for him
to work with the tools after this time, when I
spoke to him.
Q. When you say they weren 't allowed to,
what do you base that on? "Allowed to?"
A. Well, work with the tools . A foreman is
not allowed to work with the tools after he has
six men and the limit was exceeded while Mr.
Kus was working with the tools.
Q. And as a result of this conversation, what
occurred?
A. They had appointed another forman on
the job and split the crews up so that the
foremen were allowed to work with the tools.
Weigand credibly testified to two incidents in-
volving Ojala that occurred in 1964 before Ojala
was laid off. What occurred in those incidents is
revealed by the following credited excerpts from
Weigand 's testimony.
THE WITNESS : Yes. Before this incident at
the bar he threatened to take me outside if he
ever caught me away from the job and kick the
shit out of me, in his exact words.
Q. (By Mr. Stokes ) Do you remember about
when that conversation took place?
A. It was in the spring of '64 but before he
was laid off, because I left the job shortly after
he was laid off.
Q. Do you know where that conversation
took place?
A. At the job site.
0. Do you remember where at the job site?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Do you remember what you said to him,
if anything?
A. Well, I remember the threat but I never
paid that much attention to what he said,
because most of the time he was just trying to
get me riled , anyway , so I just let it go in one
ear and out the other . I don't recall anything
else outside of the threat.
THE WITNESS: Well, he walked in the
door of the bar. The bar was kind of a long,
rectangular bar running along with the street
and he came in on the far end opposite from
where I was, walked toward me, toward the
end of the bar. But there were men in between,
see, and then he started to pursue this argu-
ment or words that he had had with me previ-
ously about that he would like to take me out-
side and beat me up . One of the men of the
Local, and I don 't recall who it was, took him
to the side and talked to him and Fred then left
and nothing came of it.
0. (By Mr . Stokes) Did you ever go outside
with Mr . Ojala?
A. No, I stayed there and had a good time.
On jobs , such as the " math and physics" job,
there accumulate amounts of scrap copper wire. It
is clear that the Respondent and the employees un-
derstood that the employees were to be allowed to
take the accumulated scrap copper wire, burn the
same , sell the scrap copper , and either have a party
with the proceeds or split the proceeds among the
employees . The aforesaid scrap copper wire is
known as "rabbit."
There appears to be no formalized method in
selecting the person to have the scrap copper wire
burned and disposed of. It appears that Ojala took
the initiative in December 1963 or January 1964 in
handling the scrap copper wire. Kus told Ojala that
he (Kus ) would handle the matter since he (Kus)
lived closer to the scrap dealer . Ojala however told
Kus that he ( Ojala) would handle the scrap copper
wire disposition.
In December 1963 or January 1964 Ojala re-
ported back to the crewmembers (9 other than
himself ) that he had burned and sold the scrap
copper wire, that he had received $40 for the same,
that their share was $ 4 each , and that he wanted
$10 for burning and transporting the scrap copper
wire. The employees involved were of the opinion
that the value of the scrap copper wire was higher
than the amount that Ojala told them . Some of the
employees believed the amount of the sale should
have been in excess of $100. One of the employees,
Lystelia, told Ojala that he was displeased and that
M. J. ELECTRIC, INC
he wanted Ojala to bring in a receipt the next day
showing what he had received for the copper wire.
Ojala in effect told Lystelia that it was none of his
business and that he had no standing to request a
receipt. Lystelia argued that he, as one of the crew
to share in the proceeds, had a right to be in-
terested in the matter. Ojala refused to produce a
receipt for Lystelia, and until the date of the hear-
ing in this matter he had never produced a receipt
for the crewmembers relative to the sale of the
scrap copper.
The crewmembers then asked Foreman Kus to
telephone the scrap dealer to ascertain what Ojala
had been paid for the scrap copper. Kus telephoned
the scrap dealer and was told by the scrap dealer
that he had paid Ojala around $60. Kus related this
information to the crewmembers.
It is clear that the crewmembers were unhappy
about the amount of money that Ojala had
produced for the sale of the copper. The next day
James Brey, the business agent of the Local, spoke
to Ojala about the matter. What transpired is
revealed by the following credited excerpts of
Brey's testimony:
A. Our main headquarters at that time was
down in the switch room and right off the
switch room was a little room called the bat-
tery room and I said to Fred, "Come on, step
inside." The reason I asked that is there was
other members there and I thought it was
proper that I should take him out of the room,
which I did. I really told Fred in no uncertain
terms that, and he'll have to sit there and verify
it, I says "I appointed you steward to represent
the men." I says, "I stick my neck out to make
a man steward." I says, "You turned around
and shoved it up that far and broke it off."
Now, I says, "Those men out there have no
respect for you," I says, "and you know they
haven't." But , I says, "You're still representing
them. How low can we go?" I says, and he
knows I was teed off that morning, and right
now thinking of it I get teed off the same way
because of what happened then, I don't think it
was right.
Q. (By Mr. Stokes) Do you remember Mr.
Ojala saying anything to you?
A. Well, he had comments. Like I say, I got
steamed up. I guess he told me that he had
talked to the fellows about taking a little bit
over and above the average cut of $4 per per-
son. I says, "I don't think that is the main thing
or the main issue at the present time." I said,
"The main issue is you were asked to bring in a
statement ." I says, "Every man out there that's
1057
a member and a participant in this rabbit is en-
titled to see the statement of how much money
you got and how much rabbit was sold." I
myself as the Business Manager and a member
of the job was entitled to the same benefit,
which I didn 't see the statement , either.
On March 20, 1964, Ojala and several other
crewmembers were laid off because of a normal
slowdown of work when Respondent no longer
needed employees . There is no issue and it is clear
that the layoff was neither discriminatory nor
disciplinary in nature.
In September 1964 the Respondent was engaged
in work at a job known as the "Two Rivers" job in
Two Rivers , Wisconsin . It appears that the Respon-
dent was having difficulty in securing enough em-
ployees for this job . Although the job was outside
the jurisdictional area of Local 19, the Respondent
asked Brey , business agent of Local 19, if there
were any men in his local who might like to work
there . The Respondent indicated that it would like
to have them sent to this job. Brey told Ojala about
the job and that it would last for a week or two.
Ojala reported to the job and worked from Sep-
tember 8 to 18, 1964, when he quit.
The "Two Rivers " job was located some 250
miles from Ojala 's home . Ojala was classified as an
inside wireman electrician-journeyman electri-
cian-by Local 19. On the "Two Rivers" job Ojala
was used primarily as an outside lineman and paid
lineman 's rate of $4 . 06 an hour rather than the
higher rate of pay for a wireman.
Ojala filed a claim for unemployment pay after
September 18, 1964. There is no issue that Ojala's
"quit" was justified. After hearings in which
reasons were given for Ojala's quit, the ultimate
decision of a referee of the Michigan Employment
Security Commission issued on December 1 l ,
1964. The decision was to the effect that Ojala was
not disqualified for benefits based on his separation
of September 18, 1964.
Although an earlier determination by the
aforesaid commission had been adverse to Ojala
and Ojala had appealed the same, it is clear that the
Respondent in no way opposed Ojala's receipt of
unemployment benefits.
Around September 29, 1964, Ojala was referred
by Local 19 to the "math and physics" job at
Houghton , Michigan . Ojala reported to Gordon
Kus. Kus told Ojala he could not hire him.
Events of 1966
In May 1966 Ojala was referred by Local 19 to
the "Huss Paper Mill job" in Ontonagon, Michigan.
Ojala reported to Gordon Kus, who was general
foreman on the job. Kus took Ojala's referral slip,
told Ojala that he hoped that he hadn't quit his job,
It is not clear whether Kus was a foreman or a general foreman at this
time. It is clear that he was representing the Respondent with respect to
whether Ojala would be hired or not.
1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
told Ojala that he could not hire him, wrote refused
on the referral slip and signed his name, G. Kits, on
the place indicated for "Employer Signature." Kus
told Ojala that he had orders from the M. J. Elec-
tric, Inc., office in Iron Mountain, Michigan, not to
hire him.I
B. Events of 1967
The Alleged Illegal Refusal To Hire
On September 25, 1967, Ojala was referred by
Local 19 to the " High Rise" job in Houghton,
Michigan . Ojala reported to Gordon Kus, who was
the general foreman on the job . Kus told Ojala that
he had orders from the office not to hire him, that
he had to refuse him, and Kus marked on the refer-
ral slip " not acceptable " at the place indicated for
a signature by the employer and signed G. Kus.'
C. Motivation
Refusal To Hire-September 25, 1967
The issue in the case is whether or not Respon-
dent was discriminatorily motivated, within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, in
its refusal to hire Ojala on September 25, 1967.
In addition to the facts previously set forth, it is
noted that the evidence overwhelmingly reveals
that the Respondent has operated as a business for
a number of years with amiable management-
union relations. Excepting for the alleged dis-
criminatory incident herein, there is no evidence
that the Respondent has ever acted in a discrimina-
tory manner, within the meaning of the Act, toward
its employees or prospective employees. Excepting
for the remarks made by General Foreman
Weigand to Ojala in October and December 1963,
there is no evidence that the Respondent, by any of
its supervisors or agents, ever made remarks of a
threatening nature concerning an employee's union
or concerted activities.
In addition to the foregoing, President Brule and
Kus both testified in a frank, forthright, and truthful
manner concerning the reasons for Respondent's
refusal to hire Ojala on September 25, 1967.
A determination of motivation in this case
requires a composite evaluation of all of the facts
and the testimony of Brule and Kus thereto. Con-
s The facts are based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Ojala
and Kus . Kus testified that he merely said , " Fred , I still can 't accept you."
The facts are clear that shortly before May 1966 Kus had discussed with
the office the question of hiring or not hiring Olala. Considering this and
the logical consistency of all the facts, I find Ojala 's testimony to be more
complete and discredit and reject any inference that the less detailed
testimony of Kus reveals that he did not refer to orders from the home of-
fice.
' Kus testified that he merely told Ojala that he was not acceptable and
that he did not tell Ojala that he would like to have him Ojala testified to
the effect that Kus stated that he would like to have him as an employee.
Both witnesses on this point appeared to be trying to testify truthfully.
sidering all of the facts and the testimony of Brule
and Kus, I am convinced that the preponderance of
the facts and the demeanor and testimony of Brule
and Kus require a crediting of Brule's and Kus'
testimony as to the reason for the refusal to hire
Ojala on September 25, 1967.
Considering all of the facts and in connection
therewith the credited testimony of Brule and Kus
as to the reason for the refusal to hire Ojala on Sep-
tember 25, 1967, 1 am convinced that Weigand's
remarks to Ojala in October 1963, about what
Ojala could do with the contract, was one of tem-
porary anger and not persuasive evidence of lasting
motivation. I am convinced that Weigand was angry
to find an employee who had finished a job and
who had to have the foreman specifically instruct
him to go on to the next job. I am also convinced
that Weigand's remarks to Ojala in December 1963
to the effect that he would see to it that Ojala
would not work in his home area was also one of
temporary anger and not persuasive evidence of
lasting motivation. It is easy to understand
Weigand's anger since Ojala had just threatened
that he would try to keep the Respondent from
getting jobs in the same local area.
Were Weigand's remarks other than that of tem-
porary anger and in fact that of persuasive evidence
of lasting discriminatory motivation, I am con-
vinced that when Ojala, in early 1964, threatened
to take him outside and beat him up, both on the
job and at a local bar, that Weigand would have
seized upon such incidents as a basis for discharg-
ing Weigand. That Weigand did not do so convinces
me that Weigand's remarks in October and
December 1963 were remarks made in temporary
anger and were not remarks which, considered with
all other facts, constituted evidence of lasting dis-
criminatory motivation on the part of the Respon-
dent.
Brule credibly testified to the effect that top
management 's motivation with respect to the
refusal to hire Ojala on September 25, 1967, was
based upon nondiscriminatory reasons . Thus Brule
credibly testified that top management had had re-
ports concerning Ojala's work on the 1963-64
"math and physics" job, that such reports were to
the effect that Ojala was not up to the Respondent's
standards of accomplishment or skill as a jour-
neyman, and that such reports were to the effect
that Ojala was not well liked by his fellow em-
From all of the evidence I am convinced that Kus , in fact , did not want to
employ Ojala. Kus appeared to me to be the type of person who would not
have been greatly concerned over whether Ojala knew that he did or did
not want Ojala as an employee . Considering the logical consistency of all of
the evidence , I am convinced that Ojala construed Kus' remarks about or-
ders from the office not to hire Ojala as being in effect an indication that
Kus would like to.. On the other hand, I am convinced that the logical con-
sistency of the evidence militates for belief that Kus would indicate to Ojala
that he had orders from the office not to hire him. I am persuaded that Kus
did not specifically tell Ojala that he would like to hire him . I credit the
testimony of the witnesses accordingly.
M J. ELECTRIC, INC. 1059
ployees. Brule credibly testified to the effect that
the Respondent gave great weight to the desires of
the general foreman on the job, and that General
Foreman Kus did not want to hire Ojala on Sep-
tember 25, 1967."
Kus credibly testified to the effect that based
upon his observation of Ojala at work in 1963 and
1964 he did not consider that Ojala could operate
on work by himself and did not reveal the exercise
of initiative in work, and that in such respect Ojala
lacked an attitude of initiativeness. Kus credibly
testified to the effect that his part in the decision to
refuse to hire Ojala on September 25, 1967, was
based upon his observation and beliefs set forth
above" and upon the fact that he did not want to
hire Ojala because he felt that Ojala had in effect
stolen from the crewmembers with respect to his
handling the proceeds from the sale of the scrap
copper in January 1964.
Considering all of the facts and the foregoing, I
conclude and find that the facts reveal that the
Respondent refused to hire Ojala on September 25,
1967, because of nondiscriminatory reasons within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and ( I ) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. M. J. Electric, Inc., the Respondent, is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local Union No. 19, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not, as alleged, violated
Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint in this
matter be dismissed in its entirety.
' Brute credibly testified to the effect that reports as to Ojala 's work in
1963 or 1964 were of such a nature that the Respondent would not fire him
but on the other hand that such reports were of such a nature that the
Respondent would not have rehired him for such work . Brute credibly
testified to the effect , and the facts otherwise reveal, that the job for which
Ojala was hired in September 1964 at Two Rivers was less demanding in
skill.
' Although Ojala may very well have had the skills and abilities to
perform the work, I am convinced that Kus' testimony as to his observa-
tion of Ojala's work and his beliefs thereon are credible.
353-177 0 - 72 - 68