Paint america Services, Inc.,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 2009

353 N.L.R.B. 973 (N.L.R.B. 2009)

PAINT AMERICA SERVICES
353 NLRB No. 100
973
Paint America Services, Inc., SRS Group, Inc., Paint
America, Paint America, Inc., and Paint Amer-
ica of Michigan, Inc. and District Council 22, In-
ternational Union of Painters and Allied Trades,
AFL–CIO–CLC. Case 7–CA–47564
February 25, 2009
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBER SCHAUMBER
On September 29, 2008, Administrative Law Judge
John H. West issued the attached supplemental decision.
Respondent SRS Group, Inc. (SRS) and its affiliate Paint
America filed exceptions and a supporting brief.1
The National Labor Relations Board2 has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
brief 3 and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings,4 and conclusions5 and to adopt the recommended
Order as modified and set forth in full below.
(1) Single-employer status. We adopt the judge’s con-
clusion that the Respondents constitute a single employer
based on his application of the Board’s four-factor test,
under which the Board considers (1) interrelation of op-
erations, (2) common management, (3) centralized con-
trol of labor relations, and (4) common ownership or
financial control. See, e.g., RBE Electronics of S.D., 320

1 Although the exceptions and brief do not name these Respondents,
SRS President Salvatore Randazzo, who filed them, stated at the hear-
ing that he represented only these entities.
2 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act.
3 SRS has requested oral argument. The request is denied as the re-
cord, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the posi-
tions of the parties. We do not rely on the judge’s discussion of SRS’
brief, because it does not identify any substantive issues raised by SRS
and thus does not contribute to our decision.
4 SRS has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The
Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law
judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance 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 SRS’ exceptions imply that the judge’s rulings,
findings, and conclusions demonstrate bias and prejudice. On careful
review of the judge’s decision and the entire record, we are satisfied
that SRS’ contentions are without merit.
5 We find no merit in SRS’ argument that discriminatee George Lan-
caster received interim earnings in the form of unemployment compen-
sation. Unemployment compensation payments are not interim earn-
ings under Board law. NLRB v. Gullett Gin Co., 340 U.S. 361 (1951).
NLRB 80 (1995); Bolivar-Tees, Inc., 349 NLRB 720
(2007), enfd. 551 F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 2008). In discussing
the last factor, however, the judge noted that the Board
has also applied a single-factor test that considers only
the absence of an arm’s-length relationship among the
entities, citing Lebanite Corp., 346 NLRB 748, 748 fn. 5
(2006). Although single-employer status is generally
characterized by a lack of an arm’s-length relationship,
the Board has stated that this is not a separate test, but a
generalized description of the four-factor test. Shane
Steel Processing, Inc., 353 NLRB 522 (2008). Indeed,
the Board in Lebanite applied the traditional four-factor
test.
Similarly, relying on Silver Court Nursing Center, 313
NLRB 1141, 1142 (1994), the judge stated that the Board
will find single-employer status when one spouse exer-
cises control of key business decisions of a company
owned by the other spouse. In Silver Court, however,
the Board specifically found this evidence sufficient to
satisfy the factor of common ownership or financial con-
trol, not to establish single-employer status. In this case,
as in Silver Court, the Respondents are owned by
spouses, with one spouse exercising substantial control
over all of the entities. Therefore, we agree with the
judge that the record evidence demonstrates that the Re-
spondents share common ownership or financial control.6
(2) Due Process. SRS also asserts that it was denied
due process and a fair hearing. Specifically, SRS argues
that two union representatives who testified under the
General Counsel’s subpoena, as well as the Board agent
who testified about compliance calculations, were not
present to testify as part of SRS’ case following a 7-1/2-
week continuance. It further excepts to the judge’s de-
nial of its motions for a further continuance and for dis-
covery after the General Counsel furnished affidavits
from SRS’ president, Salvatore Randazzo, and his wife,
Jamile Randazzo, who is the president of Paint America
Services, Inc., Paint America, Inc., and Paint America of
Michigan, Inc. After a careful examination of the record,
we find that the judge complied with due process re-
quirements and afforded SRS a fair opportunity to pre-
sent its case. As the judge stated on the record, SRS had
an opportunity to and in fact did cross-examine the Gen-
eral Counsel’s witnesses, and it neither reserved its right
to recall the witnesses nor subpoenaed them to testify
after the continuance. We further find that the judge

6 In finding that the entities are a single employer, we do not rely on
the check for $5000 from Paint America/Paint America Services, Inc.
to SRS, because the General Counsel did not introduce it into evidence.
In addition, in agreeing with the judge that the record shows centralized
control of labor relations among the Respondents, we find it unneces-
sary to rely on the fringe benefit reports submitted to the Union.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD974
properly denied SRS’ motions. Salvatore Randazzo,
who served as SRS’ representative, acknowledged sign-
ing his affidavit. In addition, he offered no reason why
he could not have obtained and reviewed Jamile Ran-
dazzo’s affidavit before the hearing resumed.7
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified and orders that the Respondents, Paint America
Services, Inc., SRS Group, Inc., Paint America, Paint
America, Inc., and Paint America of Michigan, Inc., a
single employer, Saline, Michigan, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall make whole George Lan-
caster and the Union’s vacation fund by paying them
$26,029.20 and $4117.68, respectively, plus interest ac-
crued to the date of payment, as prescribed in New Hori-
zons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), minus
tax withholdings required by Federal and State laws.8

Eric S. Cockrell, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Salvatore Randazzo, for SRS Group, Inc.
Tommy Thomas, for the Charging Party.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
JOHN H. WEST, Administrative Law Judge. On September
30, 2004, the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) is-
sued a Decision and Order1 which ordered, as here pertinent,
Respondent Paint America Services, Inc. (PASI) to make whole

7 Member Schaumber agrees that the hearing satisfied due process
requirements. However, he notes that Salvatore Randazzo appeared
pro se for SRS and affiliate Paint America. In Member Schaumber’s
view, in such circumstances, the administrative law judge has a particu-
lar responsibility to conduct the hearing in a manner that maintains not
only the fact but the appearance of fairness. While judges may not
advocate on behalf of pro se litigants, which would erode the judge’s
neutral position at trial, they are not precluded from answering proce-
dural questions or explaining basic rights. See, e.g., Quality Asbestos
Removal, 310 NLRB 1214, 1215 (1993) (judge informed respondent’s
nonlawyer representative that she could ask to see statements of the
General Counsel’s witnesses at the conclusion of their testimony); see
generally NLRB Division of Judge’s Benchbook, Sec. 7-105. In the
instant case, the judge refused Salvatore Randazzo’s request for a clari-
fication of “interim earnings” and failed to fully explain why a seques-
tration order and the General Counsel’s subpoena did not guarantee the
availability of witnesses when the hearing resumed. The failure to
provide such information was unnecessary and does not serve to foster
public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the Board’s decision-
making.
8 The amounts specified in this Order represent the Respondents’
backpay obligation as of the Board’s most recent compliance specifica-
tion, which covers the period from Lancaster’s 2004 discharge through
the first quarter of 2007. As noted in the judge’s supplemental deci-
sion, the Respondents’ backpay obligation continues, because none of
the Respondents have offered Lancaster reinstatement.
1 Paint America Services, 343 NLRB No. 41 (2004) (not reported in
Board volumes). The Board granted General Counsel’s motion for
default judgment. While it is listed at the beginning of the volume, it is
not reported in the volume since it is a summary judgment decision.
discriminatee George Lancaster for any loss of earnings and
other benefits that he may have suffered as a result of his dis-
charge by the Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). On April 28,
2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
entered its judgment enforcing the Board’s Order.2
Since a controversy arose regarding the amount of backpay
and benefits due under the Order, the Regional Director for
Region 7 issued a compliance specification and notice of hear-
ing on December 20, 2006 (1) naming as Respondents not only
PASI, but also SRS Group, Inc. (SRS), Paint America (PA),
and Dutchman Waterproofing & Restoration, Inc. (Dutchman),
(2) alleging (a) that all four entities constitute a single em-
ployer, and (b) the amounts due under the Board’s Order, and
(3) notifying Respondents that they should file a timely answer
complying with the Board’s Rules and Regulations. The Re-
spondents described above in this paragraph filed an answer (1)
denying (a) that they constitute a single employer, (b) that they
had any obligation to contribute to the educational fund of Dis-
trict Council 22, International Union of Painters and Allied
Trades, AFL–CIO, CLC (the Union), and (c) the compliance
specification’s allegations regarding the amounts due, and (2)
claiming that Lancaster had not been the victim of unlawful
discrimination and asserted that it had not received any proof
that Lancaster had suffered any loss.
On May 14, 2007, the Regional Director for Region 7 issued
an amended compliance specification (1) naming as Respon-
dents PASI, SRS, PA, Paint America, Inc. (PAI), and Paint
America of Michigan, Inc. (PAMI), and (2) alleging (a) that all
five Respondents constitute a single employer, (b) Lancaster’s
interim earnings, and (c) the backpay due to Lancaster and to
the vacation fund through December 31, 2006.
SRS and PA filed an answer to the amended compliance
specification denying (a) that PASI, SRS, PA, PAI, and PAMI
constituted a single employer, (b) that the Union had a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with any Respondent during Lancas-
ter’s employment, and (c) that the remedy should include con-
tributions to a union vacation fund. By subsequent letters the
General Counsel informed (a) SRS and PA that their answer
and amended answer were deficient, and (b) PAMI, PAI, and
PASI that no answer had been received from them. PAMI, PAI,
and PASI never filed an answer to the amended compliance
specification.
On July 24, 2007, the General Counsel filed with the Board a
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Respondents
SRS and PA and a Motion for Partial Default Judgment and/or
Partial Summary Judgment against Respondents PASI, PAI,
and PAMI.
On August 6, 2007, the Board issued an order transferring
the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why
the General Counsel’s motions should not be granted. On Au-
gust 17, 2007, SRS filed an answer to Notice to Show Cause,
and subsequently the General Counsel filed an opposition to
SRS’s answer. PA, PAMI, PAI, and PASI did not respond to
the Notice to Show Cause.

2 No. 05-1241.
PAINT AMERICA SERVICES 975
On February 29, 2008, the Board issued a Supplemental De-
cision and Order.3 In it the Board pointed out, as here pertinent,
that the General Counsel, in both of his motions, seeks sum-
mary and/or default judgment on only those allegations in the
amended compliance specification to be admitted as true
against them, except for the single-employer allegation—as to
which the General Counsel does not seek judgment. The Board
concluded that it would grant the General Counsel’s alternative
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against PASI because
PASI’s answer to the original compliance specification fails to
satisfy the requirements of Section 102.56(b) and otherwise
fails to raise an issue warranting a hearing; that the General
Counsel’s amended compliance specification sets forth a for-
mula for calculating gross backpay; that PASI’s responses to
the corresponding allegations in the original compliance speci-
fication fail to deny those allegations with the specificity re-
quired by Section 102.56(b); that PASI’s answer fails to set
forth an alternative backpay formula, an alternative backpay
period, an alternative applicable wage rate, or an alternative
number of hours that Lancaster would have worked but for the
unlawful discrimination; that these are matters within the Re-
spondent’s knowledge, and PASI’s failure to furnish such alter-
native supporting figures and premises renders summary judg-
ment appropriate; that PASI may not relitigate the Board’s prior
finding that Lancaster was terminated during the term of a col-
lective-bargaining agreement; that the General Counsel’s Mo-
tion for Partial Summary Judgment against PASI is granted,
except to the extent that the issue of interim earnings is re-
manded, which issue was adequately raised by Respondents
SRS and PA; that resolution of the derivative liability on re-
mand will necessarily resolve the question of the adequacy of
the answer and amended answer of SRS and PA to the gross
backpay allegations of the amended compliance specification;
that if SRS and PA are not found to constitute a single em-
ployer together with PASI, then SRS and PA will not be liable
for backpay; that if, on the other hand, the General Counsel
proves that such a relationship exists, then SRS and PA will be
bound by the failure of PASI to file an adequate answer here;
that the answer of SRS and PA, which generally denies the
interim earnings allegations, timely placed into issue Lancas-
ter’s interim earnings because interim earnings are generally
not matters within the knowledge of a respondent and, there-
fore, a general denial is sufficient to defeat a motion for sum-
mary judgment; that the General Counsel’s Motion for Partial
Default Judgment against Respondents PAI and PAMI and his
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Respondent
PASI is granted, except to the extent that issues raised by SRS
and PA have been remanded for a hearing; and that PASI, PAI,
and PAMI are not permitted to participate in that hearing. The
Board ordered that the General Counsel’s Motion for (1) Partial
Default Judgment against Respondents Paint America, Inc. and
Paint America of Michigan, Inc., and (2) Partial Summary
Judgment against Respondent Paint America Services, Inc. is
granted, except to the extent that the issue of interim earnings is
remanded to be decided at a hearing; and that a hearing be held

3 Paint America Services, 352 NLRB 185 (2008).
before an administrative law judge, which shall be limited to
the determination of derivative liability and interim earnings.
The remanded hearing was held in Detroit, Michigan, on
May 14, 15, and 16, 2008, and on July 8, 2008. On the entire
record, including my observation of the demeanor of the wit-
nesses, and after considering the briefs filed by counsel for the
General Counsel and Salvatore Randazzo,4 I make the follow-
ing
FINDINGS OF FACT
When called as a 611(c) witness by counsel for the General
Counsel, Salvatore Randazzo testified that he is president of
SRS; that he does not hold a position with any of the other
companies named at the top of the amended compliance speci-
fication; that General Counsel’s Exhibit 5 is an October 7, 1999
Michigan Certificate of Assumed Name which (a) indicates that
the true name of the corporation is SRS Group, Inc.; (b) assigns
the identification number of 142–92A; (c) indicates that the
assumed name under which the business is to be transacted is
Paint America; and (d) indicates that Sal Randazzo is the presi-
dent; that General Counsel’s Exhibit 6 is a Michigan Depart-
ment of Labor & Economic Profit Corporation Information
Update form which indicates that the resident agent name and
mailing address of the registered office for SRS Group, Inc.,
identification number 142-92A, is Sal Randazzo, 107 E. Ben-
nett, Saline, Michigan 48176, and which shows that he signed
the form as president, dated it “4/24/06,” and gave the tele-
phone number of 734–429–2366; that General Counsel’s Ex-
hibit 8 is his business card5; that General Counsel’s Exhibit 9 is
a check signed by his wife, Jamile Randazzo, made payable to
SRS Group but he could not recall receiving it;6 that General
Counsel’s Exhibits 10–15 are invoices from “Paint America (a
SRS Company), P.O. Box 456, Saline, MI 48176, Telephone
734–429–2366” to Dearborn Campus Support Serv.;7 that Gen-
eral Counsel’s Exhibit 16 is a 5-page request for quotation sent
to “Paint America of Michigan, Inc, Sal Randazzo, FAX # 734-
429-8184”; that the request is “misnamed and misaddressed on
its face, but it’s been corrected in the final page” (Tr. 78); and

4 Salvatore Randazzo requests a number of things in this pleading.
No need or justification has been shown for the granting of any of the
requests. Accordingly, all requests made by Salvatore Randazzo are
denied.
5 The card reads as follows:
Paint America
EXCELLENCE APPLIED
Since 1989
Sal Randazzo 107 E. Bennett
President Saline, Michigan 48176
sal@paint-america Phone: 734–429–2366
Fax: 734–429–8184
An SRS Group Co. Web: www.paint-america.com
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL COATING AND WALLCOVERING
6 The check for $5000 is drawn on the account of “Paint America, A
PAINT AMERICA SERVICES, INC. COMPANY, P.O. BOX 456,
SALINE, MI 48176” and it is dated “11-22-04”.
7 They are dated “02/28/07,” “02/28/07,” 2/28/07,” “03/13/07,”
03/13/07,” and “02/28/07,” respectively. Each one has an entry and a
charge for work performed by “Foreman Painter” Sal Randazzo or
“Foreman” Sal Randazzo.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD976
that the last page of General Counsel’s Exhibit 16 has hand-
writing which indicates a date of “6-24-05,” the supplier’s legal
name is “Paint America,” the name of the person signing is Sal
Randazzo, his title is president, the specified address for “Paint
America” is 107 E. Bennett, Saline, Michigan 48176, the e-mail
address is Salrandazzo@comcast.net, the phone number is 734–
429–2366, the toll-free fax number is 734–429–8184, and the
taxpayer identification number is 38–3484068.
General Counsel’s Exhibit 104 is a Notarized Discharge
of Lien which Salvatore Randazzo Signed as President
of Paint America on January 3, 2002
Robert Kennedy, who is business manager/secretary-
treasurer of Painter’s District Council 22, testified that he has
responsibility for the records of the Charging Party, he is the
keeper of the records that are kept in the normal course of busi-
ness; that General Counsel’s Exhibit 54 is the front and back
pages of a collective-bargaining agreement that was in effect
from June 1, 1992, through May 31, 1995; that, as indicated on
the second page, the employer involved is Paint America, Inc.,
its shop address is P.O. Box 456, Salina, Michigan 48176, its
business phone is 429-5190, its president is Jamile Randazzo,
her telephone number is 429-5190, and her address is 640 Hick-
ory Lane, Saline, Michigan 48176; that Jamile Randazzo signed
the agreement for the employer in two places and “Sal Ran-
dazzo J.R.” appears on a signature line;8 that General Counsel’s
Exhibit 55 is the front and back page of a collective-bargaining
agreement between Paint America of Michigan, Inc. and
Painter’s District Council 22 which was in effect from June 1,
1998, through May 31, 2003; that as indicated on the back page
of General Counsel’s Exhibit 55, the Employer involved is
Paint America of Michigan, Inc., its shop address is 640 Hick-
ory Lane, Saline, Michigan 48176, P.O. Box 456, Saline,
Michigan 48176, its business phone is 734-429-5190, its Presi-
dent is Jamile Randazzo, her telephone number is 734-429-
5190, her address is 640 Hickory Lane, Saline, Michigan
48176, and Jamile Randazzo signed the agreement for the em-
ployer indicating that her title was president; that he originally
met Sal and Jamile Randazzo between 1985 and 1990 and his
understanding at the time from the conversation that they had
was that Sal Randazzo was in charge of Paint America, he was
the owner of Paint America, and Jamile Randazzo was his wife;
and that he received the following letter (GC Exh. 56, on the
letterhead of “Paint America, EXCELLENCE APPLIED,
SINCE 1989:”
March 27, 2003 VIA Certified Mail

8 While “Sal Randazzo J.R.” appears on a signature line, it is not in-
dicated on that page of the agreement what his position was with Paint
America, Inc. Counsel for the General Counsel pointed out that the
issue of whether there was a contract in effect between Paint America
Services, Inc. and the Charging Party has already been litigated, and the
purpose of this exhibit goes to the single-employer issue. Sal Randazzo
requested that a comparison be made of this signature and his admitted
signature on GC Exh. 5. The union representative who signed the
agreement, Gene Leach, is no longer alive. The signature of Jamile
Randazzo and Sal Randazzo on GC Exh. 54 appear to be written by the
same person, and the signature of Sal Randazzo on that document does
not appear to be the same as on GC Exh. 5.
Robert Kennedy
. . . .
Re: Termination of Collective Bargaining Agreement
Dear Mr. Kennedy,
Please be advised that the current collective bargaining
agreement between Paint America of Michigan, Inc. and
the Painters and Allied Trades District Council No. 22 will
expire on May 31, 2003.
In accordance with that agreement we are hereby noti-
fying you that Paint America of Michigan, Inc. will with-
draw from that agreement at its date of termination. Paint
America of Michigan, Inc. will not be represented by any
3rd party employer association in collective bargaining,
with regards to any new agreement or extension of the
present agreement.
To reiterate, the present agreement between [P]aint
America of Michigan, Inc. and the International Union of
Painters and Allied Trades, AFL–CIO, District Council
No. 22 will cease on its expiration of May 31, 2003 and
will not be renewed.
Sincerely,
Jamile Randazzo
President
cc: Michigan Alliance of Union Painting Contractors, Inc.
National Labor Relations Board, Michigan Office
Steven Hilger, Atty.
Kennedy further testified that General Counsel’s Exhibit 57 is a
letter he received by fax (“Jun 06 03 12:23p SRS GROUP INC
734 429 8184” appears at the top of the letter) on the letterhead
of “Paint America, EXCELLENCE APPLIED, SINCE 1989”;9
and that the body of General Counsel’s Exhibit 57 reads as
follows:
NOTICE
June 6, 2003 VIA FAX: 586-552-4477
Robert Kennedy
. . . .
Re: Painters Union Failure to Bargain
Dear Mr. Kennedy,
Please be advised of the following.
1. The current collective bargaining agreement be-
tween Paint America of Michigan, Inc. (Paint America)
and the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades,
District Council No. 22 (Painters Union) has expired as of
May 31, 2003.
2. The Painters Union has made no attempt to bargain
with Paint America for a new contract.

9 The following appears in the lower-left hand corner of the letter
“P.O. Box 456, Saline, Michigan 48176, Phone: 734-429-5190, Fax:
734-429-8184, Web: www.paint-america.com.” This also appeared on
GC Exh. 56.
PAINT AMERICA SERVICES 977
3. The Painters Union has failed to enter into a new
collective bargaining agreement with any other employer
bargaining group representing the painting trade.
4. Paint America of Michigan, Inc. has agreed to ex-
tend the expired collective bargaining agreement until
June 30, 2003. (See attached letter)
5. Paint America is willing and ready to enter into ne-
gotiations with the Painters Union for a new agreement.
Due to the above facts Paint America of Michigan Inc.
is notifying you that we will hold the International Union
of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL–CIO District Council
22 (Painters Union), its employees, members and associ-
ates responsible for any and all damages as a result of any
type of disruption to or at projects where we are directly or
indirectly involved.
Paint America will hold the Painters Union financially
responsible for any and all damages suffered by us, or our
customers. Damages include all costs, attorney fees and
any other expenses or losses incurred as a result of unfair
or illegal practices by the Painters Union.
Paint America of Michigan, Inc. will consider addi-
tional extensions to the expired agreement provided that
the Painters Union will bargain with Paint America of
Michigan, Inc. in good faith.
Sincerely,
Jamile Randazzo
President
cc: National Labor Relations Board, Michigan Office
Congressman Nick Smith, 7th Congressional District
Steven Hilger, Atty.
The attached letter, page 2 of General Counsel’s Exhibit 57, has
the same letterhead, the same address, the same date, the same
fax number at the top, is signed by the same person, and has the
same “cc” as page 1 of General Counsel’s Exhibit 57. As here
pertinent, the body of the second page of General Counsel’s
Exhibit 57 reads as follows:
In order to show good faith Paint America of Michi-
gan, Inc. will extend the existing expired contract with the
Painters Union through June 30, 2003. This extension will
cover those projects that were not completed prior to the
expiration of the agreement that ended on May 31, 2003.
This extension does not bind Paint America of Michi-
gan Inc. or the Painters Union to any past, present, or fu-
ture agreements beyond the date of this extension.
Paint America of Michigan, Inc. will consider addi-
tional extensions to the expired agreement provided that
the Painters Union will bargain with Paint America of
Michigan, Inc. in good faith.
Further, Kennedy testified that General Counsel’s Exhibit 58 is
a letter he received by fax (“Jul 01 03 06:37p SRS GROUP
INC 734 429 8184” appears at the top of the fax). It is on the
same letterhead, with the same address as General Counsel’s
Exhibit 57. The body of the letter, which is handwritten, reads
as follows:
07–01–03
Dear Bob [Kennedy],
Thank you for extending our contract for thirty days.
(From May 31st to June 30, 2003)
Please Bob, send me the new contract to sign as soon
as you can. Meanwhile I am requesting from you to please
give me a second extension from July 1st, 2003 to July 31,
2003 so that we can keep working. Thank you for your at-
tention in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jamile Randazzo
General Counsel’s Exhibit 59 is, according to the testimony of
Kennedy, a card that the Charging Party keeps in a file, a re-
cord maintained in the normal course of the Charging Party’s
business operations, when a collective-bargaining agreement is
signed with an employer, which card gives the date of the
agreement, the name, address, and phone number of the com-
pany. Kennedy testified that the Company on General Coun-
sel’s Exhibit 59 is Paint America, 640 Hickory Lane, P.O. Box
456, Saline, Michigan 48176, telephone 734–429–5190, and the
“Owner, President, Partner” is Jamile Randazzo with a phone
number of 734–429–5190 and a fax number of 734–429–8184.
The card has a date at the top, namely “JULY 2, 2003.” Ken-
nedy testified that General Counsel’s Exhibit 60 consists of 3
pages, the first of which is a November 19, 2004 letter from
him to Paint America at 640 Hickory Lane, Saline, Michigan
48176 enclosing three contracts of the Painting articles of
agreement for signing, and requesting a $300 check for the
arbitration fund; that the second page is a certificate of liability
insurance, dated “12/07/04” which indicates that the insured is
Paint America Services, Inc., P.O. Box 456, Saline, Michigan
48176; and that the third page is a copy of a check of “PAINT
AMERICA, A PAINT AMERICA SERVICES INC.
COMPANY, P.O. BOX 456, SALINE, MI 48176,” dated “12-
06-04,” made payable to the Painters Arbitration Fund for $300
and signed by Jamile Randazzo. With respect to General Coun-
sel’s Exhibit 61, Kennedy testified that it is the front and back
page of a collective-bargaining agreement between the Charg-
ing Party and Paint America Services, Inc. effective June 1,
2004, through May 31, 2007; and that the business phone num-
ber of Paint America Services, Inc. is 734–429–5190, the office
address is 640 Hickory . . . [Lane], Saline, Michigan 48176,
Jamile Randazzo is designated as the “President, Partner,” her
telephone is 734–429–2193, and Jamile Randazzo signed the
agreement giving the title “President.” Kennedy testified that
General Counsel’s Exhibit 62 is a fringe benefit report that all
employers turn in monthly; that this one, which is dated Janu-
ary 30, 2004, is from a firm named Paint America of Michigan,
P.O. Box 456, Saline, Michigan 48176; that Jamile Randazzo
signed the report on the line designated “OWNER’S SIG-
NATURE”; that General Counsel’s Exhibits 63, 64, and 65 are
other fringe benefit reports, dated “02/27/04,” “03-26-04,” and
“April 30, 04,” respectively, from Paint America of Michigan,
P.O. Box 456, Saline, Michigan 48176, all of which are signed
by Jamile Randazzo on the line designated “OWNER’S
SIGNATURE”; that General Counsel’s Exhibits 66 and 67 are
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD978
print out fringe reports for May and June 2004, respectively,
and the June 2004 report has a fax number at the top, namely,
“Jul 16 04 09:13a SRS GROUP INC 734 429 8184”;10 that
General Counsel’s Exhibit 68 is a fringe report for the period
October 2004 through July 31, 2005, from Paint America Ser-
vices, P.O. Box 456, Salina, Michigan 48176 which is signed
by Jamile Randazzo on the line designated “OWNER’S
SIGNATURE”; and that General Counsel’s Exhibits 69–72 are
printout fringe reports collectively for July, August, and Sep-
tember 2004, for Paint America Services, Inc., all of which are
signed by Jamile Randazzo; and that Sal Randazzo used to be
in charge of the Washtenaw County Painting and Decorating
Contractors of America and he used to work on collective-
bargaining agreements with the District Council.
On cross-examination, Kennedy testified that Jamile Ran-
dazzo’s name appears in the “EMPLOYEES NAME IN FULL”
column of the fringe benefit report for “1-30-04,” “02-27-04,”
and “03-26-04” (GC Exhs. 62, 63, and 64), respectively, be-
cause she was paying for health insurance for her and her fam-
ily; and that the Painters Union insurance fund also provides
insurance for the signatory contractor and their family if they
pay the premium.
Thomas Trueman, who was a business agent/organizer for
the Charging Party, testified that General Counsel’s Exhibit 74
is the front and back pages of a contract between the Charging
Party and Paint America which (a) he signed, (b) Jamile Ran-
dazzo signed on “07-02-03” as president of Paint America (It is
noted that the box for “Corporation” is checked on the signa-
ture page.), (c) was an extension of the contract from June 1,
1998, through May 31, 2004, (d) has his July 2, 2003 handwrit-
ten notations of “extend” and “2004” after “May 31” on the
back page, and (e) has the company shop address as 640 Hick-
ory Lane, Saline, Michigan, P.O. Box 456, 48176, a business
phone of 734–429–5190, and a fax number of 734–429–8184;
that the 1-year extension of the collective-bargaining agreement
came about because on July 1, 2003, he received notification
from a union member that Paint America got the painting con-
tract on the law quad for the University of Michigan; that he
went to this jobsite and found painters working there for Paint
America; that since Sal Randazzo did not have a contract with
the Charging Party at the time and one was required to work
that job, he telephoned Sal Randazzo; that Sal Randazzo told
him to bring the contract out to the job and he, Sal Randazzo,
would sign the contract; that he met Sal Randazzo’s wife,
Jamile, at the jobsite and she signed the contract in his pres-
ence; that he was not sure if he asked Jamile Randazzo why she
was signing the contract instead of Sal Randazzo but he re-
called that she told him the day she signed this contract that she
was Sal Randazzo’s wife; that General Counsel’s Exhibit 75 is
a May 7, 2004 letter his secretary drafted and he sent to Mrs.
Randazzo of Paint America of Michigan advising her “that
George E. Lancaster . . . has been appointed Shop Steward for

10 The first one has what appear to be Jamile Randazzo’s initials
written on it. With respect to the second one, GC Exh. 67, if the em-
ployees listed thereon were not paid by SRS Group, Inc., Sal Randazzo
could have introduced payroll records to show that this was not the
case. He did not.
Paint America of Michigan effective May 7, 2004”; that on
May 10, 2004, he received a telephone call from Lancaster who
told him that he was let go from Paint America; that he tele-
phoned Sal Randazzo that day or the next day and asked him
why Lancaster was let go; that Sal Randazzo told him that Lan-
caster had to be employed with him for at least 15 days before
he could be made steward; that he told Sal Randazzo that Lan-
caster was not a new employee, he had been a past employee,
so he did not need to be employed for 15 days to be made stew-
ard; that during this conversation Sal Randazzo said that he did
not need a union steward, and he could do anything he pleased;
that during this conversation Sal Randazzo did not say that he
was not responsible for managing or supervising Lancaster and
he did not say that he was not affiliated with Paint America of
Michigan; that he knows the Paint America that Sal Randazzo
owns; that Paint America has been around for a while and when
he became business agent for the Charging Party Sal Randazzo
was the person that owned it and operated it; and that he is not
familiar with a company called SRS Group.
On cross-examination, Trueman testified that General Coun-
sel’s Exhibit 55 is a contract between the Charging Party and
Paint America of Michigan, Inc. effective from June 1, 1998,
through May 31, 2003; that on the front page of General Coun-
sel’s Exhibit 74 “Paint America” is typed on the line naming
the contracting party and on the back page “Paint America” is
handwritten on the line for the name of the Employer; that his
secretary typed the former and he wrote the latter; that he put
Paint America on General Counsel’s Exhibit 74 because as far
as he knew Sal Randazzo was Paint America; that he may have
told the secretary what to type on the contract; that he wrote
Paint America on the back sheet on the “Name of Employer”
and that is what his secretary used to typed up the remainder of
General Counsel’s Exhibit 74; that after Lancaster was termi-
nated he, Trueman, telephoned Sal Randazzo because he,
Trueman, viewed Sal Randazzo as the owner and operator of
Paint America; and that at the seminar for the Saline schools
Sal Randazzo introduced himself to him as the owner of Paint
America.
On redirect, Trueman testified that he did not have any in-
volvement in the preparation of the contract received as Gen-
eral Counsel’s Exhibit 55 and he did not sign that document;
and that with respect to the contract received as General Coun-
sel’s Exhibit 74, Jamile Randazzo did not voice any objection
to him before she signed the contract.
On recross, Trueman testified that General Counsel’s Exhibit
75 contains a copy of Lancaster’s steward’s card, the Employer
named thereon is Paint America of MI, and he, Trueman,
signed the card.
Tommy Thomas testified that when he became business
agent for District Council 22 in 2003 he met Sal Randazzo in
July 2003 at a job at the University of Michigan law quad in
Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Sal Randazzo handed him a business
card, General Counsel’s Exhibit 8, which reads as follows:
PAINT AMERICA SERVICES 979
Paint America
Excellence Applied
Since 1989
Sal Randazzo 107 E. Bennett
President Saline, Michigan 48176
sal@paint-america.com Phone: 734–429–2366
Fax: 734–429–8184
An SRS Group Co. Web: www.paint-america.com
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL COATING AND WALL-
COVERING
Thomas further testified that General Counsel’s Exhibit 59 is a
copy of a card which is maintained in a card file on the business
representative’s desk at the District Council and it is used for
correspondence with each individual signatory contractor. The
card is dated July 2, 2003, the name of the Employer is Paint
America, the business phone listed is 734–429–5190, the ad-
dress is 640 Hickory Lane, P.O. Box 456, Saline, Michigan
48176, the owner, president, partner listed is Jamile Randazzo,
her phone number is 734–429–5190, and her fax is 734–429–
8184.
Lancaster testified that he worked for Paint America from
June 1999, through May 10, 2004; that he was a painter fore-
man and a member of Local 514 since 1999, and he became a
member of Local 675 in August or September 2004; that he
was hired by Sal Randazzo after he was interviewed, at the
behest of Sal Randazzo, by Maurice, who was Sal Randazzo’s
head foreman; that he was laid off by Sal Randazzo during the
winter months, November through March, and then Sal Ran-
dazzo would telephone him and tell him to report back to work;
that he understood Sal Randazzo to be the owner of Paint
America because he always took directions from Sal Randazzo;
that at a point in time Sal Randazzo handed him a Nextel tele-
phone so that Sal Randazzo could communicate with him, and
he, Lancaster, started running jobs; that when he received the
Nextel phone Lead Foreman Maurice told him he was a fore-
man, “you got the phone, that means that you’re a foreman”
(Tr. 159); that from then on mainly he was the head on the jobs
that he ran and he only reported to Sal Randazzo; that the
equipment he used included paint brushes and rollers, poles for
the rollers, airless spray equipment, ladders, scaffolding (in-
cluding bakers and perrys which are on wheels and are smaller
than scaffolding), and sandblasters; that this equipment was
delivered by Sal Randazzo whenever the equipment was
needed; that every Friday Sal Randazzo would bring the pay-
checks to the jobsite; that Sal Randazzo would bring time and
material slips to the jobsite when they were needed; that any
time he did extra work he would fill out the time and material
slips, have the contractor on the site sign it, and he would return
it to Sal Randazzo;11 that the painters wore white painters pants
and Sal Randazzo delivered white Paint America shirts, which
had the red, white, and blue Paint America logo (see GC Exh.
40) on them, to the painters and Sal Randazzo liked to see the
painters wearing the shirts; that at one time Sal Randazzo may
have had some hats with the Paint America logo on them that

11 While he did not fill out the “Time & Material Ticket” received as
GC Exh. 40, Lancaster testified that this is the form he used.
he handed out; that he never took any direction in his daily
work activities from Jamile Randazzo, who is Sal Randazzo’s
wife; that once in a while when he telephoned the office to turn
in time or see where he was going to go Jamile Randazzo
would answer the telephone; that maybe a total of five or six
times throughout his employment with Paint America, Jamile
Randazzo delivered the paychecks to the jobsite; that once a
week he called in his hours to the office of Paint America and
most of the time Sal Randazzo answered the telephone; that
there was another gentlemen in the office who would answer
the telephone and take the painters time but he did not remem-
ber the person’s name; that Paint America had a 14– or 16–foot
white GMC box van which had the Paint America logo on it
with the words “wall-to-wall, coast-to-coast”; that Sal Ran-
dazzo used the box van to haul equipment, materials, and tools;
that he went to Paint America’s office which is located on Ben-
nett Street in Saline, Michigan, and which consisted of a house,
a mobile home trailer which was used as an office, and three
tool trailers; that he received Sal Randazzo’s business card
which indicates that Sal Randazzo was president of Paint
America which, according to the card, was “[a]n SRS Group
Co.”; that with respect to “[a]n SRS Group Co.” on the card,
Sal Randazzo told him that “sometimes the SRS Group would
win a contract, and if it was a union job, . . . the SRS Group
would subcontract the work to Paint America, which was a
union contractor” (Tr. 188); that General Counsel’s Exhibit 43
is his W-2 statement from “Paint America of Michigan Inc.,
640 Hickory Lane, Saline, MI 48176” for 2003; that during
2003 there was never a change with respect to who he reported
to on jobsites, his uniform did not change, the paperwork he
normally filled out in his daily work activities did not change,
he did not call any different phone numbers to reach the Ben-
nett Street office, he did not report to any different office, no
one other than Sal or Jamile Randazzo delivered his paycheck
to the jobsite during 2003, he did not report his time to anyone
else other than Sal Randazzo during 2003, and he did not use
any different equipment; that 640 Hickory Lane Saline, Michi-
gan, 48176 is Sal Randazzo’s home address, and he, Lancaster,
picked up a number of things there such as blueprints or paper-
work or attended a meeting there; and that he saw Jamile Ran-
dazzo at that location.
On cross-examination, Lancaster testified that to the extent
that he recalled Paint America of Michigan, Inc. was on his
paychecks; that Paint America changed banks several times
during his employment with the company; that a few times Sal
Randazzo had handwritten different checks, indicating that
there was something wrong with the bank account; that General
Counsel’s Exhibit 43, a W-2 showing wages of $9490.16,
represents about 10 weeks of work in 2003; that 90 percent of
the time he worked 8-hour days in 2003; that he did work for
the SRS Group and he has received a paychecks from the SRS
Group, Inc; that when he received a paycheck from SRS Group
he was under the impression that he was still working for Paint
America; and that Paint America of Michigan, Incorporated
was a union contractor when he worked for Paint America.
On redirect, Lancaster testified that he never took any direc-
tion from Jamile Randazzo; and that in 2003 he did not report
to anyone different than he reported to before 2003.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD980
On recross, Lancaster testified that from 1999 to 2003 he did
not take any direction to do anything from Jamile Randazzo.
With respect to his termination, Lancaster testified that the
last job he worked on for Paint America was at the dorm rooms
of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan; that he
started this job on May 5 or 6, 2004, at the direction of Sal
Randazzo; that Sal Randazzo took the painters to the jobsite
when the job started and Sal Randazzo introduced them to the
University of Michigan in-house painter who showed them the
rooms which needed to be painted with paint supplied by the
University; that he worked the job for 4 or 5 days; that the week
he went back to work for Paint America Local 514 Business
Agent Tommy Trueman asked him to be a union shop steward
because the Union had trouble with Paint America keeping up
in all their benefits and keeping track of their hours; that he
received his union shop steward card; that 2 days later, a Mon-
day night, Sal Randazzo telephoned him, saying that he, Sal
Randazzo, received paperwork from the Union indicating that
they had made Lancaster a shop steward for Paint America; and
that
. . . right away he told me that he didn’t need it, he didn’t want
it, there was nobody else that he knew of that had a shop
steward. He was too small of a business, and he just wouldn’t
have it.
. . . .
Well, I explained to Sal that I thought it was a good
thing that , you know, I knew in the past that there was
some friction between Paint America, Sal Randazzo, and
the union hall and District Council 22 and that I could be
the mediator and maybe, . . . it would help things out. And
he all—he just disagreed with me and—right away and
said no, he said maybe you should have called me before I
received this paperwork and no, and by the way I don’t
need you to go to work tomorrow. So then I proceeded to
ask him, well, there’s work there. You don’t need me, you
don’t want me, am I laid off? And he says I don’t know.
And I—and the conversation just went back and forth
from there . . . . Sal are you laying me [off]? I don’t know.
. . . .
. . . . And I kept asking him, well, do I call you tomorrow
morning? I don’t know. Do I need to call you tomorrow; am I
laid off, Sal? I don’t know. And that went on for a good
while, maybe four, five minutes. And then the conversation
ended that I wasn’t to work the next day. He would call me
when he needed me. And that’s how the conversation ended.
[Tr. 196, 197.]
Lancaster further testified that he was never recalled by Paint
America; that General Counsel’s Exhibit 44 is a payroll check
from “PAINT AMERICA, A PAINT AMERICA SERVICES
INC. COMPANY, PO BOX 456, SALINE, MI 48176,” dated
June 11, 2004, made payable to him and signed by Jamile Ran-
dazzo; that General Counsel’s Exhibit 45 is the paycheck stub
for General Counsel’s Exhibit 44, for pay period “06/06/04,”
both of which were mailed to him in June 2004; that he did not
know that he was working for a company called Paint America
Services Inc. Company; that before he received the June 11,
2004 paycheck nothing had changed with respect to who he
reported to on a daily basis, his uniform, the paperwork he
filled out in carrying out his daily activities, the telephone
number of the Bennett Street shop did not change, the office
location did not change, he did not use any different type of
equipment, and no one other than Sal or Jamile Randazzo de-
livered his paycheck to the jobsite; that General Counsel’s Ex-
hibit 46 is a payroll check made payable to him, signed by
Jamile Randazzo, dated “5/14/04,” with the name of the com-
pany handwritten in the upper left corner of the check, namely
“Paint America, P.O. Box 456, Saline, MI 48176, Ph. 734-429-
5190”; and that General Counsel’s Exhibit 47 is a paycheck
stub (described on the document as a payroll summary report)
for pay period “05/09/04.”12
General Counsel’s Exhibit 76 is a letter dated May 20, 2004,
from Union Business Representative Tommy Thomas to
“PAINT AMERICA and SRS GROUP, a Single Employer”
requesting specified information regarding employees and job-
sites within the Union’s jurisdiction because the Union was
concerned that the two corporations were alter egos or a single
employer and engaged in double breasting. Thomas testified
that as indicated by page two of General Counsel’s Exhibit 76,
he sent this letter to Paint America, 640 Hickory Lane, P.O.
Box 456, Saline, Michigan 48176; that Jamile Randazzo, who
is the wife of Sal Randazzo, signed the receipt for the letter;
that he forwarded this correspondence because he had been
approached by some of the Union’s members, George Lancas-
ter, Joezef Klimek, and Jac Kubicz, who told him that during
the week they would be painting for Paint America and receive
a Paint America check, and they would do weekend work for
SRS Group and they would either receive cash or a check with-
out a check stub; that the work was performed at the Henry
Ford apartments; that he went to that location on May 20, 2004;
that he was concerned that there was an attempt being made by
using two different companies to circumvent the Union and the
collective-bargaining contract; that he went to the Henry Ford
apartments on May 23 and 24, 2004, he saw Klimek and an-
other union member, Fred Petracaj, working there on the week-
end, and they told him that they have to work weekends for
either cash or straight time or they would be removed from
Paint America’s employ; that on Monday May 25, 2004, he
telephoned the number on the card file at the Union for Paint
America, namely 734–429–5190; that he requested to speak
with Sal Randazzo; that Sal Randazzo told him that Klimek and
Petracaj were working for SRS Group and not Paint America,13
SRS Group was not a signatory contractor and was not subject
to the collective-bargaining agreement, and his wife owned
Paint America; that later that same day he dialed the same tele-
phone number 734–429–5190 and asked to speak to Jamile
Randazzo; that Jamile Randazzo told him that Klimek and
Petracaj were working for her husband’s company and not hers,
they were working for her husband’s company on the weekends

12 Counsel for the General Counsel pointed out that the only purpose
of Lancaster’s testimony on this point “was to show the fact that Mr.
Sal Randazzo in fact discharged him.” Tr. 338.
13 GC Exh. 66 indicates that Jamile Randazzo initialed a report
showing that payments were made to the Painters Union Insurance
Fund for, among others, Klimek and Petracaj.
PAINT AMERICA SERVICES 981
and for her during the week, and she had no control over how
her husband did business; that this is the first time he realized
of this attempt to not pay fringe benefits for the Union’s mem-
bers; and that General Counsel’s Exhibit 77 is a handwritten
letter which reads as follows:
June 22, 2004
Dear Mr. Thomas,
In response to your letters dated May 20th, or & June
16th, 2004 and having limited English proficiency; it took
me days to translate your words and terms written in your
letters. I still don’t understand clearly what are you accus-
ing me of wrong doing!.
Mr. Thomas, for your information: I am the solely [sic]
owner of Paint America. I am the President of Paint Amer-
ica. Paint America is a Union Company. Paint America is
a minority owned Company. Paint America employs only
union painters. Today, Paint America pays it dues to the
Union. The Union’s auditor checks & audits Paint Amer-
ica’s payroll books every year. You are welcome to [sic]
any other information you need from me related to my
Company Paint America. Nevertheless, I can not offer you
any information about any other Company that is not mine
anyway.
Mr. Thomas, from your accusations and persecuting
attitude I might conclude that you have issues against hard
working minorities [sic] individuals like me. You must
have a lot of time in [sic] your hands to play detective!!.
Please do not waste any time in senseless accusations.
Next time you address a correspondence to me please do it
in Spanish. Espanol is my first language and the National
Labor Relations Board Agency informed me that I am inti-
tle [sic] to request a translator from your office that I can
understand clearly what you are accusing me of wrong do-
ing. Viva America! & Viva la Constitucion!
gracias,
Jamile Randazzo
As indicated by the printing at the top of both pages of the letter
it was faxed to Thomas. The printing at the top of the pages
reads “Jun 25 04 02:12a SRS GROUP INC 734–429–8184
. . . .” Thomas testified that he received this letter by fax on
June 25, 2004; that the fax number at the top of both pages of
the letter is for SRS Group and it happens to be the exact same
fax number for the signatory company Paint America, as indi-
cated on the card kept on file by the Union, General Counsel’s
Exhibit 59; and that he sent a letter to Paint America and SRS
Group on June 16, 2004, but he did not have a copy of the letter
since it has been misplaced or lost.
Jacek Kubicz testified that he worked for Paint America for
2 or 3 years, ending his employment with that Company in
2004; that at the time he was a member of Local 42 of the
Painters’ Union; that he got Paint America’s telephone from a
union sheet of contractors and he telephoned Paint America
looking for job; that the man he spoke to on the telephone, Sal
Randazzo, asked him some questions about his work experi-
ence and then told him to report to the Henry Ford Hospital
jobsite the next day and speak to Maurice, who was the super-
visor; that the next day he told Maurice that he was the new
person, and he had spoken with the owner of the Company who
sent him to report to the job; that Maurice was expecting him;
that he wore white pants and a T-shirt and there was no letter-
ing or insignia on the pants or shirt; that he worked with Lan-
caster; that he had some of his own tools and there were other
tools on the jobsite; that a couple of times he saw a truck with a
Paint America logo or insignia on it, reading in part “Coast to
Coast”; that the truck was used to carry equipment; that he
never saw Sal Randazzo drive that truck; that he went to Sal
Randazzo’s house on Bennett Street once for dinner; that Mau-
rice, Jamile, or Sal brought his paycheck to the jobsite; that
sometimes Lancaster, who was a foreman, delivered his pay-
check at the jobsite; that for about 1 year he painted on a job in
the West Hall at the University of Michigan; that General
Counsel’s Exhibit 73 looks like the paycheck he received every
week;14 that he left Paint America in August 2004 when the
painting that he was doing since May 2004 on the dorm rooms
at the University of was completed; that a couple of times
Jamile Randazzo telephoned him when he was on lay off and
she asked him if he wanted to work because they had some
work to be done; that he has heard of a company called SRS
Group, Inc., and he received a few paychecks from them while
he was employed by Paint America; and that during the time
that he received paychecks from SRS Group, Inc. and the time
when he received General Counsel’s Exhibit 73 nothing had
changed regarding (a) who he reported to, (b) who gave him his
paycheck, (c) the equipment that he used, or (d) the clothing
that he wore. On cross-examination, Kubicz testified that he did
not know who the owner of Paint America was.
Regarding his employment after he was terminated on May
10, 2004, by Sal Randazzo, Lancaster testified that he was un-
employed from May 10–28, 2004; that with respect to attempts
to secure alternative employment he contacted District Council
22 and had his name put on the out-of-work list; that he sent out
four or five resumes each week (GC Exh. 48), starting at the
top of the contractor’s list, which is handed out by the District
Council and has the names of every union contractor in the
District Council area, and working his way down; that when he
signed up for unemployment between May 10–28, 2004, he put
his resume on the website of the Michigan Works; that between
May 10–28, 2004, he telephoned several business agents,
namely Tommy Trueman, Tommy Thomas, and Frank Neeb,
and let them know that he was on the out-of-work list; that he
collected unemployment benefits between May 10–28, 2004;
that he was hired by Interior Exterior Specialists at the end of
May 2004; that General Counsel’s Exhibit 49 is his paycheck
stubs from Interior Exterior Specialists;15 that his starting wage
rate at Interior Exterior Specialists was $23.66, he received an
additional $2 an hour when he became a foreman for Interior
Exterior Specialists, he received $2.32 for every hour worked

14 The check is payable to Jacek Kubicz, 526 Meadow Cir., Wixom,
MI 48393 (all typed). It is dated “05/29/04” and the following appears
in the upper-left hand corner of the check: “PAINT AMERICA, A
PAINT AMERICA SERVICES INC. COMPANY, SALINE, MI
48176.” Jamile Randazzo signed the check.
15 Lancaster testified that he lost the first few stubs.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD982
which went into a vacation fund, and his benefits included re-
tirement and health insurance; that Interior Exterior Specialists
was supposed to pay a prevailing wage on the painting work
done on schools but in August 2004 Interior Exterior Special-
ists stopped paying all of his benefits; that Interior Exterior
Specialists advised him that it would not pay his benefits but
would pay him the prevailing wage rate; that when Interior
Exterior Specialists ceased paying him the prevailing wage rate
he filed a claim for it and when Interior Exterior Specialists
received the paperwork regarding the prevailing wage rate
claim he was advised on or about February 9, 2005, by the
owner of Interior Exterior Specialists that it did not have any
work for him; that he then collected unemployment; and that he
was unemployed from February 9, 2005, until the first part of
March 2005, and during this period he put his name on the out-
of-work list, sent out a few resumes, talked to his business
agent, and updated his resume on the Michigan Works website.
Thomas testified that when a member becomes unemployed
for whatever reason there were two things the member could
do, namely have their name placed on the Union’s out-of-work
list and get a list of the signatory contractors from the Union.
On March 16, 2005, Lancaster was hired by Boice Bird &
Sons, Inc. (Boice) out of Saginaw, Michigan. Lancaster testi-
fied that the Union telephoned him and asked him if he wanted
to go into industrial painting; that he accepted the job with
Boice; that General Counsel’s Exhibit 50 is the payroll check
stubs from Boice;16 and that Boice is out of Saginaw, which is
about 3 hours driving time from his home, and when it com-
pleted the job in his area in the end of May 2005 or the begin-
ning of June 2005, Boice had no more work for him in his area
but Boice told him that if it ever had more work in his area, it
would call him.
On cross-examination, Lancaster testified that during the ap-
proximately 2 weeks between leaving Interior Exterior Special-
ists and being hired by Boice he collected unemployment.
Lancaster testified that the day after being laid off by Boice
he was hired by Tye Painting, Inc. (Tye); that General Coun-
sel’s Exhibit 51 is the payroll pay stubs from Tye; that Tye is
located in Chelsea, Michigan, which is about a 1.5-hour drive
from his home; that his wage rate, $26.66, did not change while
he worked for Tye; and that when the job he was hired for was
completed in late July 2005, he was let go with the owner of
Tye, Danny Tye, telling him that he did not have any more
work for him.
According to his testimony, within a few days after leaving
Tye, the beginning of August 2005, he was hired by Woods
Construction, Inc. (Woods) in Sterling Heights, Michigan,
which is about a 1.25-hour drive from his home. Lancaster
testified that his wage rate, $23.66, did not change when he
started at Woods; that in addition he received vacation pay,
retirement and insurance; that he was made painter foreman
which pays 50 cents above scale; that General Counsel’s Ex-
hibit 52 is his check stubs from Woods; that he was still work-
ing at Woods at the time of the trial herein; that he did have
some periods of unemployment—no more than 2 weeks at a

16 As pointed out by Lancaster, for a period he received Saginaw
scale, which was $26.01.
stretch—because of a lack of work, mainly between the months
of November and February, while he worked for Woods; that
he did not try to find alternative employment during those peri-
ods when he was unemployed while working for Woods be-
cause his superintendent at Woods, Kevin Boden, told him that
he would be the first one called back to work when Woods had
work; that this happened every time; that he has not been of-
fered reinstatement by SRS Group, Inc., Paint America, Paint
America, Inc., or Paint America of Michigan, Inc.; that General
Counsel’s Exhibit 53 is a history of his payroll at Woods,
which was prepared by Woods’ payroll accountant; and that he
gave this Woods payroll history to the Regional Office of the
Board just a couple of days before he testified at the trial
herein.
William Erwin, who is a senior procurement agent for the
University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, testified that
General Counsel’s Exhibit 17 is a February 6, 2004, $25,000
for painting services purchase order (described as an award
document to the vendor for an article or product) of the Univer-
sity of Michigan which indicates that the vendor is Paint Amer-
ica of Michigan Incorporated, P.O. Box 456, Saline, Michigan
48176;17 that General Counsel’s Exhibit 19 is a March 23,
2004, $5848.40 purchase order of the University of Michigan
which indicates that the vendor is Paint America of Michigan
Incorporated, P.O. Box 456, Saline, Michigan 48176, and that
the job is to paint closets and remove closet doors; that General
Counsel’s Exhibit 20 is a March 24, 2004 $7270 purchase order
receipt of the University of Michigan which indicates that the
vendor is Paint America of Michigan Incorporated, P.O. Box
456, Saline, Michigan 48176; that General Counsel’s Exhibit
21 is a checklist, processing guideline, purchase or-
der/requisition, dated “3/24” of the University of Michigan;18
that General Counsel’s Exhibit 22 is a University of Michigan
transaction report dated March 25, 2004, of a faxed request for
a quote which was sent to “Paint America, ATTN: Sal Ran-
dazzo, FAX # 734–429–8184”; that General Counsel’s Exhibit
23 is a University of Michigan March 24, 2004 5-page request
for quotation which was sent to “Paint America, ATTN: Sal
Randazzo, FAX # 734–429–8184” and the last page of which
was filled out in handwriting specifying a date of “4/5/04,” a
supplier’s legal name of “Paint America,” a purported signature
of Sal Randazzo who also printed his name, a title was “GM,”
next to the printed name Sal Randazzo, an address of 107 E.
Bennett, Saline, MI 48176, an email address of Salran-
dazzo@comcast.net, a phone number of 734–429–2366, a fax
number of 734–429–8184, and a taxpayer identification number
of 38–3484068; that General Counsel’s Exhibit 24 is a March
26, 2004 e-mail which is kept in the normal course of business

17 GC Exh. 18 is a record kept in the normal course of business by
the University of Michigan. It is a memorandum indicating that Paint
America is one of two paint contractors the University wanted to bid on
a job.
18 The document has the following handwritten notations: “Paint
America, Sal (will be on vacation that week—will send someone else)”
and “429-5190 Paint America, 734–429–8184.”
PAINT AMERICA SERVICES 983
by the University of Michigan;19 that General Counsel’s Ex-
hibit 26 is an eight-page March 31, 2004 University of Michi-
gan request for quotation faxed to “Paint America, Sal, Fax#
734–429–8184”20 with the last page filled out in handwriting to
show (1) a date of “4/12/04,” (2) “Paint America” as the sup-
plier’s legal name, (3) an authorized signature of Jamile Ran-
dazzo, who according to the form has the title of president, (4)
an address of “640 Hickory/P.O. Box 456, Saline, MI 48176,”
(5) an e-mail address of “Salrandazzo@comcast.net,” and (6) a
telephone number of 734–429–5190; that General Counsel’s
Exhibit 27, which is a sign up sheet for those attending a walk
through on April 12, 2004, is signed by “Jamile R.” for “Paint
America” and a fax number of 1–734–429–8184 appears on the
form next to “Jamile R.”; that General Counsel’s Exhibit 28 is a
March 31, 2004 request for quotation from the University of
Michigan to Paint America, Sal, FAX # 734–429–8184 which
was sent back to the University with a cover sheet from Paint
America and with page 8 of the exhibit filled out in handwriting
to show (1) a date of “4/12/04,” (2) “Paint America” as the
supplier’s legal name, (3) an authorized signature of Jamile
Randazzo who according to the form has the title of president,
(4) an address of “640 Hickory/P.O. Box 456, Saline, MI
48176,” (5) an e-mail address of “Salrandazzo@comcast.net,”
and (6) a telephone number of 734–429–5190;21 that General
Counsel’s Exhibit 29 is a University of Michigan internal e-
mail dated April 28, 2004, referring to Paint America being the
lowest bidder on a $175,000 job; that General Counsel’s Ex-
hibit 30 is a University of Michigan, April 29, 2004, purchase
order to vendor “Paint America of Michigan Incorporated, P.O.
Box 456, Saline, MI 48176” for a job costing $8400; that Gen-
eral Counsel’s Exhibit 31 is a May 4, 2004 University of
Michigan internal e-mail indicating that a $7270 job was being
awarded to Paint America; that General Counsel’s Exhibit 32 is
a University of Michigan May 10, 2004 purchase order award
for vendor “Paint America of Michigan Incorporated, PO Box
456, Saline MI 48176” for a $175,000 job; that General Coun-
sel’s Exhibit 33 is a May 26, 2004 purchase order of the Uni-
versity of Michigan for vendor “Paint America of Michigan,
Incorporated, PO Box 456, Saline MI 48176” for painting the
Martha Cook building not to exceed $13,500;22 that General
Counsel’s Exhibit 34 is a University of Michigan internal e-
mail dated June 15, 2004, which indicates “[p]lease extend our
Paint America P.O. (3–412726) and add $25,000;23 that Gen-
eral Counsel’s Exhibit 35 is a University of Michigan purchase
order dated July 27, 2004, for vendor “Paint America of Michi-

19 The 1-page document is an internal e-mail which indicates, as here
pertinent, that “Sal from Paint America will be on vacation that week
however, he will have someone attend in his absence.”
20 It appears that the bid was faxed back to the University in that the
fax number of “SRS GROUP INC.” namely 734–429–8184, appears at
the top of each page. It is noted that the line for “TOLL FREE FAX
NUMBER:______________” on the last page of the form is left blank.
21 The FAX number at the top of the pages reads “Apr 12 04 03:53p
[and later times that day on 14 of the subsequent pages] SRS GROUP
INC. 734–429–8184 . . . .”
22 The word “CANCEL” appears on the right side of the order and
the “Extended Amt” and “Total PO Amount” is 0.00.
23 See GC Exh. 17 described above.
gan Incorporated, PO Box 456, Saline MI 48176” for a paint
job for $2950; that General Counsel’s Exhibit 36 is a Univer-
sity of Michigan July 27, 2004 purchase order for vendor Paint
America of Michigan Incorporated, PO Box 456, Saline, MI
48176” for a paint job for $3500; that General Counsel’s Ex-
hibit 37 is a University of Michigan July 27, 2004 purchase
order for vendor “Paint America of Michigan Incorporated, PO
Box 456, Saline, MI 48176” for a paint job for $250; that Gen-
eral Counsel’s Exhibit 38 is a University of Michigan July 28,
2004 purchase order for vendor Paint America of Michigan
Incorporated, PO Box 456, Saline, MI 48176” for a paint job
for $9000;24 and that General Counsel’s Exhibit 39 is a Univer-
sity of Michigan April 25, 2004 purchase order for vendor Paint
America of Michigan Incorporated, PO Box 456, Saline, MI
48176” for a paint job for $331,820.
Thomas testified that he went to the Michigan Department of
Labor & Economic Growth website and searched for Paint
America Services, Inc. on May 12, 2008. The results of his
search (GC Exh. 78), read as follows:
Searched for: PAINT AMERICA SERVICES, INC.
ID NUM: 16200D
Entity Name: PAINT AMERICA SERVICES, INC.
Type of Entity: Domestic Profit Corporation
Resident Agent: JAMILE RANDAZZO
Registered Office Address: 640 HICKORY LN
SALINE MI 48176
Mailing Address: MI
Formed Under Act Number(s):284-1972
Incorporation/Qualification Date: 12-16-2003
Jurisdiction of Origin: MICHIGAN
Number of Shares: 1,500
Year of the most Recent Annual Report:
Year of the Most Recent Report With Officers &
Directors:
Status: AUTOMATIC DISSOLUTION Date: 7-15-
2006
Further, Thomas testified that General Counsel’s Exhibit 79 is a
filing endorsement for the articles of incorporation for Paint
America Services, Inc. which is dated December 16, 2003, and
which includes the articles of incorporation which indicate that
the address of the registered office of this corporation is 640
Hickory Lane, Saline, Michigan 48176;25 that he went to the
Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth website
and searched for SRS Group, Inc. on May 12, 2008. The results
of his search (GC Exh. 7), read as follows:
Searched for: SRS GROUP, INC.
ID NUM: 14292D
Entity Name: SRS GROUP, INC.
Type of Entity: Domestic Profit Corporation
Resident Agent: SAL RANDAZZO
Registered Office Address: 107 E. BENNETT,
SALINE MI 48176

24 This purchase order also contains the following in the body of the
order: “PAINT AMERICA, PHONE 734–429–5190, 107 EAST
BENNETT STREET, SALINE, MI 48176.”
25 The resident agent named is Jamile Randazzo.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD984
Mailing Address: MI
Formed Under Act Number(s):284-1972
Incorporation/Qualification Date: 8-12-1999
Jurisdiction of Origin: MICHIGAN
Number of Shares: 60,000
Year of the most Recent Annual Report: 06
Year of the Most Recent Report With Officers &
Directors: 01
Status: ACTIVE Date: Present
Assumed Names Id NUM Creation Date Renew
Date Expiration Date
SRS AMERICA 14292A 10-13-1999 12-31-2004
PAINT AMERICA 14292A 10-13-1999 12-31-2004
DUTCHMAN CAULKING &
WATERPROOFING 14292A 10-13-1999 12-31-
2004
DECK RX 14292A 10-13-1999 12-31-
2004
Further, Thomas testified that General Counsel’s Exhibit 80,
which is dated 2004, is a document he printed off the Michigan
Department of Labor’s website; that the focus of his inquiry
was SRS GROUP, INC.,26 the resident agent listed on the
document is Sal Randazzo of 107 E. Bennett, Saline, Michigan
48176, the address of the registered office is the same, Sal Ran-
dazzo’s title is president, the document was signed on
“4/24/06,” and the phone number is 734–429–2366. Addition-
ally, Thomas testified that he went to the Michigan Department
of Labor & Economic Growth website and searched for Paint
America on May 12, 2008. The results of his search (GC Exh.
81), read as follows:
Searched for: PAINT AMERICA
ID NUM: 281683
Entity Name: PAINT AMERICA INC.
Type of Entity: Domestic Profit Corporation
Resident Agent: JAMILE RANDAZZO
Registered Office Address: 640 HICKORY LN
SALINE MI 48176
Mailing Address:
Formed Under Act Number(s):284–1972
Incorporation/Qualification Date: 3-29-1990
Jurisdiction of Origin: MICHIGAN
Number of Shares: 100,000
Year of the most Recent Annual Report: 92
Year of the Most Recent Report With Officers &
Directors:
Status: AUTOMATIC DISSOLUTIOIN
Date: 7-15-1995
Assumed Names Id NUM Creation Date Renew
Date Expiration Date
PAINT AMERICA 281683 8-2-1990 7-15-1995
Further, Thomas testified that he went to the Michigan Depart-
ment of Labor & Economic Growth website and searched for
Paint America on May 12, 2008. The results of his search (GC
Exh. 82), read as follows:

26 The identification number listed is 14292A.
Searched for: PAINT AMERICA
ID NUM: 14292D
Entity Name: SRS GROUP, INC.
Type of Entity: Domestic Profit Corporation
Resident Agent: SAL RANDAZZO
Registered Office Address: 107 E. BENNETT,
SALINE MI 48176
Mailing Address: MI
Formed Under Act Number(s):284–1972
Incorporation/Qualification Date: 8–12–1999
Jurisdiction of Origin: MICHIGAN
Number of Shares: 60,000
Year of the most Recent Annual Report: 06
Year of the Most Recent Report With Officers &
Directors: 01
Status: ACTIVE Date: Present
Assumed Names Id NUM Creation Date Renew
Date Expiration Date
SRS AMERICA 14292A 10-13-1999 12-31
2004
PAINT AMERICA 14292A 10-13-1999 12-31-2004
DUTCHMAN CAULKING &
WATERPROOFING 14292A 10-13-1999 12-31-
2004
DECK RX 14292A 10-13-1999 12-31-2004
Thomas testified he went to the Michigan Department of Labor
& Economic Growth website and searched for Paint America,
Inc. on May 12, 2008. The results of his search (GC Exh. 83),
read as follows:
Searched for: PAINT AMERICA, INC.
ID NUM: 281683
Entity Name: PAINT AMERICA, INC.
Type of Entity: Domestic Profit Corporation
Resident Agent: JAMILE RANDAZZO
Registered Office Address: 640 HICKORY LN,
SALINE MI 48176
Mailing Address:
Formed Under Act Number(s):284-1972
Incorporation/Qualification Date: 3-29-1990
Jurisdiction of Origin: MICHIGAN
Number of Shares: 100,000
Year of the most Recent Annual Report: 92
Year of the Most Recent Report With Officers &
Directors: 01
Status: AUTOMATIC DISSOLUTION Date: 7-15-
1995
PAINT AMERICA SERVICES 985
Assumed Names Id NUM Creation Date Renew
Date Expiration Date
PAINT AMERICA 281683 8-2-1990 7-15-1995
Thomas testified that General Counsel’s Exhibit 84 is a certifi-
cate of assumed name that he printed off the Michigan Depart-
ment of Commerce website; that Paint America, Inc. was the
subject of his search; that the true name given on the certificate
is Paint America, Inc.; that the location of the corporate regis-
tered office is 640 Hickory Lane, Saline, Michigan 48176; that
the assumed name under which the business is to be transacted
is Paint America; that Jamile Randazzo signed the certificate,
which is dated July 5, 1990, as president; that General Coun-
sel’s Exhibit 85 is the articles of incorporation for Paint Amer-
ica, Inc. which were filed March 29, 1990, with the Michigan
Department of Commerce, which document indicates that (a)
the address of the registered office is 640 Hickory Lane, Saline,
Michigan 48176, (b) the name of the resident at the registered
office is Jamile Randazzo, (c) the incorporators were Jamile
and Salvatore James Randazzo of the same address, and (d) the
document was signed by Jamile and Salvatore Randazzo as
incorporators; and that he went to the Michigan Department of
Labor & Economic Growth website and searched for Paint
America of Michigan, Inc. on May 12, 2008. The results of his
search (GC Exh. 86), read as follows:
Searched for: PAINT AMERICA OF MICHIGAN,
INC.
ID NUM: 14291D
Entity Name: PAINT AMERICA OF MICHIGAN,
INC.
Type of Entity: Domestic Profit Corporation
Resident Agent: JAMILE RANDAZZO
Registered Office Address: 640 HICKORY LN
SALINE MI 48176
Mailing Address: MI
Formed Under Act Number(s):284-1972
Incorporation/Qualification Date: 8-12-1999
Jurisdiction of Origin: MICHIGAN
Number of Shares: 60,000
Year of the most Recent Annual Report: 03
Year of the Most Recent Report With Officers &
Directors: 01
Status: DISSOLVED Date: 4-12-2005
Thomas testified that General Counsel’s Exhibit 87 is the arti-
cles of incorporation for Paint America of Michigan, Inc. that
he printed off the Michigan Department of Commerce website;
that the specified registered office address is 640 Hickory Lane,
Saline, Michigan 48176; that the name of the registered agent is
Jamile Randazzo of the same address; and that Jamile Ran-
dazzo signed the document.
Jay Greenhill, who is a Board field examiner who works on
compliance issues, testified that he drafted the involved
amended compliance specification (GC Exh. 1(j)); that General
Counsel’s Exhibit 49 is the pay stubs for Lancaster when he
worked for Interior/Exterior Specialists (Interior); that General
Counsel’s Exhibit 50 is the pay stubs for Lancaster when he
worked for Boice Bird & Sons, Inc. (Boice); that General
Counsel’s Exhibit 51 is the pay stubs for Lancaster when he
worked for Tye Painting, Inc. (Tye); that General Counsel’s
Exhibit 52 is the pay stubs for Lancaster when he worked for
Woods Construction, Inc. (Woods); that General Counsel’s
Exhibit 53 is a print out of Lancaster’s hours at Woods; that
General Counsel’s Exhibit 88 is a fax he received from Union
Representative Thomas pursuant to his request for a copy of the
union wage scale; that General Counsel’s Exhibit 89 is an
amendment to the amended compliance specification;27 that
Lancaster asserted that he worked for Paint America 40-hours-
per-week pretty regularly so without documentation from Paint
America he used the 40-hour-per week calculation; that Gen-
eral Counsel’s Exhibit 47 are the documents that Lancaster
provided from the time he worked for Paint America; that the
pay stubs from Interior, Boice, Tye, and Woods were used to
determine interim earnings for the involved backpay quarters;
that the amendments to schedules A and B, General Counsel’s
Exhibits 90 and 91, respectively, of the amended compliance
specification are based on the new records, General Counsel’s
Exhibits 51 and 52, he received from Lancaster; that he deter-
mined the revised interim earnings on schedule A by using
Lancaster’s pay stubs, and by taking the amount of hours that
Lancaster worked, and multiplying that figure by Lancaster’s
hourly wage rate; that schedule B is Lancaster’s union vacation
fund earnings and he determined the interim union vacation
funds earned by multiplying 40 hours a week by $2.32 per hour
for the backpay period up to August 1, 2004; that beginning
August 1, 2004, he began using the pay stubs Lancaster pro-
vided from Interior and he multiplied the hours worked by
$2.32 an hour; that starting about the pay period of November
21-27, 2004, Lancaster stopped earning union vacation fund
wages from Interior; that the amount for interim union vacation
Funds Earned for the 1st quarter of 2005 is $0 because Lancas-
ter stopped earning union vacation fund wages from Interior
and Boise (GC Exh. 50), also did not pay the union vacation
fund; that the interim union vacation funds earned is $320 for
the second quarter of 2005 because Lancaster started working
for Tye; that for the third quarter of 2005, he used the Tye and
Woods pay stubs; and that for the fourth quarter of 2005, all of
2006, and the first quarter of 2007 he used the Woods pay
stubs.28

27 This amendment alleges that Lancaster worked an irregular num-
ber of hours each week for Boice, Tye, and Woods during specified
periods at rate of $26.01, $26.66, and $24.16 per hour, respectively;
and that Lancaster also worked some hours for Boice at a rate higher
than $26.66.
28 Greenhill sponsored a number of exhibits, GC Exhs. 92–103,
which are unclaimed or refused certified, return receipt requested mail-
ings of the notice of hearing for the May 14, 2008 hearing to the fol-
lowing two addresses in Saline, Michigan 48176:
92 Paint America Services, Inc.
640 Hickory Lane
attn: Mrs. Jamile Randazzo, Pres.
93 Paint America of Michigan
640 Hickory Lane
attn: Mrs. Jamile Randazzo
94 Paint America, Inc.
640 Hickory Lane
attn: Mrs. Jamile Randazzo
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD986
On cross-examination, Greenhill testified that, other than
what Lancaster gave him (GC Exh. 47), he did not receive any
documentation from Paint America;29 and that Lancaster told
him that he worked an average of 40 hours a week at Paint
America.
Salvatore Randazzo testified that he resides at 640 Hickory
Lane, Saline, Michigan 48176, and his wife, Jamile Randazzo,

95 Paint America, Inc.
107 E. Bennett
attn: Mrs. Jamile Randazzo
96 SRS Group, Inc.
640 Hickory Lane
attn: Salvatore Randazzo, Pres.
97 Paint America
640 Hickory Lane
attn: Salvatore Randazzo, Pres.
98 Paint America Services, Inc.
640 Hickory Lane
attn: Mrs. Jamile Randazzo
99 Paint America of Michigan
640 Hickory Lane
attn: Mrs. Jamile Randazzo
100 Paint America, Inc.
640 Hickory Lane
attn: Mrs. Jamile Randazzo [not the same article as 94 above]
101 Paint America, Inc.
107 E. Bennett
attn: Mrs. Jamile Randazzo
102 SRS Group, Inc.
640 Hickory Lane
attn: Salvatore Randazzo, Pres. [not the same article as 96
above]
103 Paint America
640 Hickory Lane
attn: Salvatore Randazzo, Pres. [not the same article as 97
above]
The mailings collectively occurred between March 8 and May 1,
2008. Greenhill testified that the regular mail for GC Exhs. 92–103 was
not returned, except 98–101.
29 As here pertinent, counsel for the General Counsel’s subpoena
duces tecum B-571896, GC Exh. 4, sought from the custodian of re-
cords of Paint America:
28) Copies of documents that reflect the following information for . . .
George Lancaster . . . from January 1, 2004 to the present:
(a) the . . . hire date and classification . . .;
(b) the hours worked . . .; and
(c) wages and fringe benefits paid to . . . [Lancaster].
When called as a 611(c) witness by counsel for the General Counsel,
Sal Randazzo testified as follows regarding this paragraph of this sub-
poena:
Q. Number 28?
A. I can’t answer. I can’t answer a second set of questions
that are addressed to a separate entity other than to the SRS Group
Incorporated and its d/b/a’s; they’re one and the same. [Tr. 60.]
Earlier when testifying as a 611(c) witness regarding subpoena
duces tecum B-571894, GC Exh. 3, which was issued to the custodian
of records, SRS Group, Inc., Sal Randazzo testified as follows about
the exact same language in item 28 of that subpoena:
Q. Number 28?
A. I don’t have the A, B, and C, it’s not—there are no docu-
ments like that I know of, that I’m aware of.
Q. Are you saying they don’t exist?
A. I’m saying I’m not aware of any. [Tr. 42.]
also resides at that address; and that Jamile Randazzo has been
his spouse since at least January 1, 2004.
At one point Salvatore Randazzo made the following state-
ment:
JUDGE WEST: Is it your position that the Respondents
are not privy or were not privy to Mr. Lancaster’s earnings
with the Respondent’s before he was terminated? Is that
your position?
MR. RANDAZZO: That’s my position, your Honor. [Tr.
685.]
Analysis
As noted above, this proceeding was limited to a determina-
tion of derivative liability and interim earnings. Counsel for the
General Counsel on brief contends that he has met his burden
of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respon-
dents constitute a single employer; that the Board uses a four-
factor test to determine whether two or more businesses consti-
tute a single employer, namely (1) common management, (2)
interrelation of operation, (3) centralized control of labor rela-
tions, and (4) common ownership or financial control; that no
single factor is dispositive, nor must all factors be satisfied to
prove single-employer status, Bolivar-Tees, Inc., 349 NLRB
720 (2007); that the totality of the evidence in a particular case
is controlling, Dow Chemical Co., 326 NLRB 288 (1988); that
the Board does not vest all four factors with equal importance
and has placed emphasis on the third factor, namely centralized
control of labor relations, Mercy Hospital of Buffalo, 336
NLRB 1282 (2001); that the Board uses a single-factor test to
determine single-employer status, namely the presence or ab-
sence of an arm’s-length relationship amongst unrelated com-
panies, Lanier Corp., 346 NLRB 748 fn. 5 (2006); that the
Board will find a single-employer relationship where one
spouse exercises control over key business decisions of the
other spouse’s company, such as finances, Silver Court Nursing
Center, 313 NLRB 1141, 1142 (1994); that the common man-
agement and centralized control of labor relations factors in the
single employer analysis are satisfied here because Salvatore
Randazzo exercised dominant control over Respondents’
managerial duties and supervised Respondents’ employees on a
daily basis; that Respondents’ business operations were so in-
terrelated as to constitute a single-integrated enterprise because
PA, SRS, PAMI, and PASI held themselves out to the public as
a single enterprise; that the Board treats ownership of separate
companies owned by close family members as common owner-
ship where there is evidence that the companies have less than
an arm’s-length relationship and where there is evidence of
common management, centralized control of labor relations,
and an interrelationship of operations, Truck & Dock Services,
272 NLRB 592 fn. 2 (1984); that here Salvatore and Jamile
Randazzo have been married since at least the mid-to-late
1980s, they share a residence at 640 Hickory Lane, Saline, and
in 2004, the Board determined in the underlying unfair labor
practice decision that Jamile was “President” and Salvatore was
“Manager” of PASI; that Salvatore and Jamile shared “overall
control of critical matters at the policy level” on one another’s
companies to the extent that the common ownership is equiva-
lent to actual or common control, Emsing’s Supermarket, 284
PAINT AMERICA SERVICES 987
NLRB 302, 303 (1987); that Salvatore managed Respondents’
day-to-day operations, and he was the primary authority for the
conduct of their labor operations (counsel for the General
Counsel provides 22 record citations); that in the mid-to-late
1980s Salvatore cosigned a collective-bargaining agreement,
along with his wife; that about the summer of 2001, Salvatore
introduced himself to the Union as the owner of PA; that in
July 2003, Salvatore negotiated the signing of a collective-
bargaining agreement telling the Union that his wife would sign
the agreement, which she did the following day; that the Union
considered PA and PAMI one and the same company, and Re-
spondents presented no evidence that they attempted to correct
the Union’s belief; that the Board will find single-employer
status among companies owned by family members where they
hold themselves out to the public and there is evidence of
common management, centralized control of labor relations,
common ownership and financial control, and there is the shar-
ing of business facilities and public signage, Silver Court Nurs-
ing Center, supra; that Jamile signed checks to employees and
SRS blurring the lines between SRS, PA, and PASI because
they share the same post office box, namely P.O. Box 456,
Saline; that since the creation of SRS and PA in 1999,
Salvatore has distributed a business card to not only the Union
and employees, but to the public stating he is the president for
both PA and SRS companies; that Salvatore’s business card
(GC Exh. 8), lists the same fax number found on PA letterhead,
and lists the phone number and post office belonging to PAMI,
PASI, and PAI; that a single-employer relationship will be
found among companies where one spouse is a “dominant
force” in managing the business, respondents share the same
customers and business purpose, and there is “some” intermin-
gling of respondents’ employees, Carthage Sheet Metal Co.,
286 NLRB 1249, 1283 (1987); that Salvatore was the primary
supervisor of Respondent’s employees because he was solely
responsible for managing and directing their daily activities;
that employees’ contacts with Jamile were minimal and infre-
quent; that employees saw Salvatore as the owner of PA and
manager of PASI; that Salvatore hired Lancaster and Kubicz,
Salvatore instructed them at the jobsite either directly or indi-
rectly by Lancaster–who he appointed jobsite foreman,
Salvatore assigned Lancaster a tool box containing small hand
tools and issued him a uniform with the PA logo, Salvatore laid
off Lancaster when work was slow (after Lancaster laid off
Kubicz per Salvatore’s instructions), Salvatore recalled Lancas-
ter, Salvatore fired Lancaster on May 20, 2004,30 and Salvatore
alone explained to the Union why he discharged Lancaster; that
here there was extensive intermingling of employees among
PA, SRS, PAMI, and PASI; that Lancaster received paychecks
from PA, SRS, PAMI, and PASI, and Kubicz received pay-
checks from PA, PASI, and SRS; that when employees re-

30 It is noted that the Board, in its above-described Supplemental De-
cision and Order herein, 352 NLRB 185, 187 (2008), indicates that
Lancaster was discharged on May 20, 2004. But both Lancaster and
Trueman indicate that Lancaster was terminated on May 10, 2004. And
the Board, in the decision in the underlying unfair labor practice pro-
ceeding at 343 NLRB No. 41, slip op. at 1 (2004) (not reported in
Board volumes), indicates that “[a]bout May 10, 2004 the Respondent
discharged . . . Lancaster.” GC Exh. 1(c).
ceived different paychecks from Respondents, nothing changed
about their management or supervision, work clothing, equip-
ment, or the persons handling payroll matters; that Respon-
dent’s management and supervision was so seamless that the
various Respondents were indistinguishable from one another;
that Respondents made no effort to distinguish themselves as
separate employers in that in 2001 Salvatore Randazzo told
Lancaster that when SRS won a contract involving union work,
it would subcontract the work to PA; that SRS and PA are not
separate entities as demonstrated by what Salvatore told the
Union when it inquired as to whether the collective-bargaining
agreement was circumvented by having union members Joezef
Klimek and Frederik Petracaj work for cash on weekends,
namely that SRS was not bound by the PA collective-
bargaining contract on the grounds that the employees were
working for SRS; that the intermingling of employees among
Respondents was further demonstrated by the fringe benefit
reports they submitted to the Union’s fringe benefit funds on
employees’ behalf in that (a) for January–May 2004, Jamile
submitted fringe benefit reports on behalf of PAMI naming
union members Klimek, Lancaster, and Kubiez, (b) for June
2004, SRS faxed a fringe benefit report naming Lancaster,
Kubiez, Klimek, and Petracaj, (c) that for July–September
2004, Jamile submitted fringe benefit reports on behalf of PASI
naming Kubiez, Klimek, and Petracaj; that PA was scheduled
to begin work at the University of Michigan on May 4, 2004,
and PAMI was already scheduled to be performing work there
when Lancaster was discharged on May 20, 2004; that Lancas-
ter’s final two checks show that he was employed by PA and
PASI; that in February 2007, Salvatore generated invoices on
behalf of SRS and PA to University of Michigan for the pay-
ment for painting services performed by Salvatore and union
member Petracaj; that the interrelationship of operations, cen-
tralized control of labor relations, and common ownership and
financial control factors in the single-employer analysis is satis-
fied here because Salvatore and Jamile Randazzo exercised
control over Respondents’ finances through the bidding process
and labor relations; that Salvatore exercised primary control
over the finances of not only SRS and PA, but PAMI, his
wife’s company; that Salvatore used fax machines belonging to
SRS, PA, and PAMI to fax bid quotations addressed to PAMI
from University of Michigan, exercised judgment in deciding
the wage rates he believed the proposed work would involve,
and returned the documents to University of Michigan, listing
the supplier’s name as PA; that PAMI shares the same post
office box with PA, SRS, PASI, and PAI; that PAMI shares the
same phone number with PA, SRS, PAI, and PASI; that Re-
spondents did not present any evidence that they attempted to
counter the hand-in-glove relationship among PA, SRS, and
PAMI from the perspective of University of Michigan; that
Jamile indirectly exercised limited management and control
over Respondents’ finances in that in April 2004, on behalf of
Salvatore, she returned job bid quotations and paint specifica-
tions to University of Michigan using the fax machine belong-
ing to SRS, she identified herself as PA’s president and refer-
enced the residential address she shares with Salvatore on the
documents, along with the post office box publicly listed as
also belonging to PAMI, PAI, and PASI; that Jamile partici-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD988
pated in a walk-through, which is a necessary part of the job bid
process, to review contractor specifications; that while the
Board gives less weight to the centralized control of labor rela-
tions factor when one of a number of entities have no employ-
ees, here there was intermingling of employees among PA,
SRS, PAMI, and PASI, and Salvatore supervised their daily
activities; that Jamile exercised control over critical labor rela-
tions matters in that in 1993, 1999, 2003, and 2004 she signed
collective-bargaining agreements with the Union as president of
PAI (also signed by Salvatore), PAMI, PA, and PASI, respec-
tively; that Jamile forwarded correspondence to the Union con-
cerning the PAMI and PA collective-bargaining agreements in
March, June, and July 2003, and the last two were sent from
SRS’s fax machine; that Jamile prepared and submitted fringe
benefit reports to the Union as part of Respondent’s payment of
employees’ fringe benefits; that in May 2004, when the Union
questioned her about whether union members employed by PA
were also working weekends without benefit of the union con-
tract, Jamile told the Union that the union members worked for
her husband’s company during the weekend and for her during
the week; that the absence of PAI employees does not mitigate
against a finding that PAI is a single employer together with
PA, SRS, PASI, and PAMI because the common management,
interrelation of operations, and common ownership and finan-
cial control factors are satisfied; that there is interrelationship of
operations because (a) PAI shares the same post office box with
PA, SRS, PAMI, and PASI; (b) PAI shares the Hickory Lane
address with Salvatore, Jamile, PA, SRS, PAMI, and PASI; (c)
PAI shares the same phone number with PA, PAMI, and PASI;
and (d) despite the apparent dissolution of PAI in 1995, PAI
and SRS use PA as an assumed name and as recently as May
2008, SRS was an active corporation that continues to use PA
as an assumed name; that counsel for the General Counsel has
met his burden of proving that Lancaster did not willfully fail to
find interim employment; that even though Lancaster did not
secure employment with Boice until 6 weeks after his layoff
from Interior/Exterior, November to March has been tradition-
ally a period of slow work; that subsequently Lancaster worked
for Woods on an ongoing basis except for periods of unem-
ployment from about November through February because of a
lack of work; that he did not seek interim employment during
his layoffs at Woods because he was promised and he was re-
called when work became available at Woods; that Respon-
dents did not present any evidence that there were substantially
equivalent jobs in Lancaster’s relevant geographic area during
his periods of unemployment since Respondents discharged
him; that Respondents did not present any evidence that Lan-
caster failed to exercise reasonable diligence in searching for
interim employment, and they have not recalled him to work;
that SRS and PA (a) presented only Salvatore as part of their
case-in-chief, and (b) did not present any evidence to contradict
the evidence presented by counsel for the General Counsel; that
Salvatore Randazzo was not credible in his testimony about his
failure to produce subpoenaed documents; that Salvatore re-
fused to provide any of the subpoenaed documents concerning
SRS and PA; that an adverse inference against SRS and PA is
warranted, namely that the subpoenaed documents concerning
the single-employer issue, if produced, would be unfavorable to
PA and SRS; and that counsel for the General Counsel’s re-
newed motion to strike the purported physician’s letter attached
to the petition to revoke filed by SRS should be granted since it
is unauthenticated, hearsay, and counsel for the General Coun-
sel was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the pur-
ported physician.
As noted above, Salvatore Randazzo filed a brief, which he
titled “THE Alleged RESPONDENT’S FINAL SUMMATION
AND CLOSING ARGUMENTS.” One of Salvatore Ran-
dazzo’s arguments reads as follows:
ARGUMENT No. 6
USA IS A BANKRUPT CORPORATION AND THE
IMPOSSIBILITY TO PROSECUTE THIS CASE IN ANY
CAPACITY OR WHY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
IS A BANKRUPT CORPORATION AND IN FACT AND
LAW IS TECHNICALLY A CIVILLY DEAD ENTITY
WITHOUT STANDING IN LAW TO SUE OR MAKE
COMPLAINT AGAINST ANYONE! [Unnumbered p. 25 in
the body of the brief; emphasis in original.]
The third page from the end of the Salvatore Randazzo’ plead-
ing, contains the following:
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS IS HEREIN
GIVEN TO ALL PARTIES, WHO HAVE DELIBERATELY
WITH MALICE AND FORTHOUGHT SOUGHT TO
INJURE ME, OR MY BUSINESS, OR MY FAMILY! TAKE
HEADE [sic] !! YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE SUED!!! [Em-
phasis in original.]
And the following appears on the tenth unnumbered page of the
brief:
VERY IMPORTANT NOTE HERE:
LOSS OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
It has also been well established that: When a judge knows
that he/she lacks jurisdiction, or acts in face of clearly valid
statutes expressly depriving him/her of jurisdiction, jurisdic-
tional immunity is lost. [Citation omitted.] . . . A judge must
be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and per-
son, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts.
[Citation omitted.] Generally, judges are immune from suit
for judicial acts within or in excess of their jurisdiction even if
those acts have been done maliciously or corruptly; the only
exception being for acts done in the clear absence of all juris-
diction. [Emphasis in original.]
No worthwhile purpose would be served here by summarizing
any other portion of this brief. Notwithstanding the fact that
Salvatore Randazzo was repeatedly told that the proceeding
was limited to derivative liability and interim earnings, he still,
on brief, attempts to address matters (a) he tried to relitigate,
and (b) which are beyond the scope of this proceeding.
In my opinion, Salvatore Randazzo is not credible. His an-
swers under oath to many of counsel for the General Counsel’s
questions regarding subpoenaed documents were obviously
outright lies. His conduct throughout the trial demonstrated that
he has a difficult time being truthful, even while under oath.
Salvatore Randazzo has been gaming the system. For the most
PAINT AMERICA SERVICES 989
part, he has refused to comply unless and until he had no
choice.
Counsel for the General Counsel’s renewed motion to strike
the purported doctor’s note attached to SRS’s petition to revoke
(see GC Exh. 2), is granted. No attempt was made to even
properly authenticate this hearsay letter.
Counsel for the General Counsel’s request for an adverse in-
ference is granted to the extent specified below. Salvatore Ran-
dazzo did not turn over any documents pursuant to counsel for
the General Counsel’s subpoena requests. As noted above, the
involved employees received payment from SRS Group, Inc.
and Paint America, inter alia. Salvatore Randazzo entered an
appearance at the trial herein for “SRS Group, Inc. that has a
d/b/a of Paint America.” (Tr. 20.) When called as a 611(c) wit-
ness by counsel for the General Counsel regarding the subpoe-
nas duces tecum served on the custodian of records of SRS
Group, Inc. and the custodian of records of Paint America,
General Counsel’s Exhibits 3 and 4, respectively, Salvatore
Randazzo did not deny the existence of many of the documents
sought. Rather, among other things he testified collectively that
(1) he did not know the whereabouts of the documents; (2) he
did not have the documents in his possession; (3) he did not
have the documents with him when he testified at the trial
herein; (4) he did not deny the existence of specified documents
but he did not have the documents in his possession because
that would require somebody going and locating those docu-
ments, and putting them together and making them available,
and he did not have anybody to do that; (5) he could not recall
the existence of specified documents; (6) he did not believe that
specified documents exist; (7) if the documents exist, he did not
recall seeing them and he did not know their whereabouts; (8)
he refused to answer questions about the documents sought;
and (9) he refused to answer on the basis that he did not have
any knowledge or assertedly it was directed to an entity that
was not SRS Group, Inc. and its d/b/a’s. To the extent that
Salvatore Randazzo did not specifically deny the existence of
the documents sought in the above-described subpoenas, the
adverse inference sought by counsel for the General Counsel is
granted, namely that the subpoenaed documents which
Salvatore Randazzo did not specifically deny the existence of
and which concern the single-employer issue, if produced,
would be unfavorable to SRS and PA. Compare RCC Fabrica-
tors, Inc., 352 NLRB 701 fns. 5 and 26 (2008). See also
McAllister Towing & Transportation Co., 341 NLRB 394, 396
(2004).
As noted above, the scope of this proceeding is limited to de-
termining derivative liability and interim earnings. With respect
to the former, the Board indicated as follows in Bolivar-Tees,
Inc., 349 NLRB 720, 720 (2007):
The hallmark of a single employer is the absence of an
arm’s-length relationship among seemingly independent
companies. RBE Electronics of S.D., 320 NLRB 80
(1995); Hydrolines, Inc., 305 NLRB 416, 417 (1991). The
Board looks at four factors in making a finding on this is-
sue: (1) interrelation of operations; (2) common manage-
ment; (3) centralized control of labor relations; and (4)
common ownership or financial control. Central Mack
Sales, 273 NLRB 1268, 1271–1272 (1984). While the
Board considers common control of labor relations a sig-
nificant indication of single-employer status, Beverly En-
terprises, 341 NLRB 296, 306 (2004), no single aspect is
controlling, and all four factors need not be present to find
single-employer status. Instead, the ultimate determination
turns on the totality of the evidence in a given case. Dow
Chemical Co., 326 NLRB 288, 288 (1998).
All of the four relevant criteria are met here: interrelation of
operations, common management, centralized control of labor
relations, and common ownership or financial control. In view
of the substantial interrelationship and the repeated lack of
arm’s-length dealings among the companies, single-employer
status exists between PASI, SRS, PA, PAI, and PAMI.
Interrelation of Operations
Respondents share the same customers, the same business
purpose, and there is intermingling of Respondents’ employees
among PA, SRS, PAMI, and PASI. Lancaster received pay-
checks from PA, SRS, PAMI, and PASI. His last two pay-
checks were from “Paint America, P.O. Box 456 . . .” dated
“5/14/04” and from “PAINT AMERICA, A PAINT AMERICA
SERVICES, INC. COMPANY, P.O. BOX 456 . . .” dated
“06/11/04.” As noted above, Paint America is an assumed name
of SRS Group, Inc. whose pPresident and sole owner (Tr. 56) is
Salvatore Randazzo. I do not believe that it was made clear on
this record on what basis Jamile Randazzo would be signing a
check for Paint America, which is an assumed name of SRS
Group, Inc. in that according to some of the documentation
introduced herein Paint America, meaning Paint America, Inc.,
was automatically dissolved in 1995. Paint America, as an as-
sumed name of SRS Group, Inc. still exists. Lancaster testified
that he did not even know that he was working for a company
named Paint America Services, Inc. Company. And Kubicz
received paychecks from SRS and from “PAINT AMERICA, A
PAINT AMERICA SERVICES, INC. COMPANY.” While
Lancaster and Kubicz received paychecks from the various
entities, nothing changed with respect to who the employees
reported to on a daily basis, what they wore, the equipment they
used, the location or telephone number of the business office,
or persons handling the involved payroll. Salvatore Randazzo
was the dominant force in managing Respondents. Employees
viewed Salvatore Randazzo as the owner of PA. A business
card received in evidence (GC Exh. 8) indicates that Sal Ran-
dazzo is president of Paint America, of 107 E. Bennett, Saline,
Michigan, “An SRS Group Co.” In a written quotation dated
“6-24-05” received as General Counsel’s Exhibit 16, Sal Ran-
dazzo signed as president of Paint America of 107 E. Bennett,
Saline, Michigan 48176. On January 3, 2002, Sal Randazzo
signed a notarized discharge of lien as president of Paint Amer-
ica (GC Exh. 104). When Kennedy, who is the business man-
ager/secretary-treasurer of Painter’s District Council 22, met
Salvatore and Jamile Randazzo between 1985 and 1990, his
understanding from the conversation was that Salvatore Ran-
dazzo was the owner in charge of Paint America and Jamile
was his wife. Trueman, who was a business agent/organizer for
the Charging Party, viewed Salvatore Randazzo as the owner
operator of Paint America, and he heard Salvatore Randazzo
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD990
introduce himself as the owner of Paint America at a seminar
they both attended. The collective-bargaining agreements
which cover the involved union members have been between
the Union and Paint America, Inc., P.O. Box 456, with Jamile
Randazzo signing as president (1992–1995); between the Union
and Paint America of Michigan, Inc., 640 Hickory Lane, with
Jamile Randazzo signing as president (1998–2003), and be-
tween the Union and Paint America with Jamile Randazzo sign-
ing as president (2003–May 31, 2004). With respect to the
2003–2004 contract, Salvatore Randazzo, when he was caught
working a union job without a union contract, told the union
representative that he would sign the collective-bargaining
agreement. When the collective-bargaining agreement was
presented for his signature at the jobsite, Jamile Randazzo
showed up and signed it. The collective-bargaining agreement
Jamile Randazzo signed on July 2, 2003, was between the Un-
ion and Paint America. It is noted, however, that while the em-
ployer is described as “Paint America,” the box in the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement describing the Employer as a “cor-
poration” is checked. Consequently, although the employer is
not specifically named as “Paint America, Inc.,” the fact that
the box is checked, in effect, amounts to the same thing. In any
event, (a) the Board has already found in the underlying pro-
ceeding that Lancaster was discharged during the term of a
collective-bargaining agreement between the parties that was
effective from June 1, 1998 (As noted above, the 1998-2003
agreement was with Paint America of Michigan, Inc. and it is
noted that the Board found that PASI discharged Lancaster
during the term of a collective-bargaining agreement between
the parties that was effective from June 1, 1998, to May 31,
2004), to May 31, 2004, and (b) this proceeding is limited to
the determination of derivative liability and interim earnings.
Consequently, that matter cannot be relitigated. Additionally, in
view of the fact that there was a collective-bargaining agree-
ment between the Union and a corporation named Paint Amer-
ica covering the involved employees, it could be argued that
Paint America Corporation or Incorporated (Inc.) did have em-
ployees up until May 31, 2004, even though PAI may have
been dissolved on paper sometime prior to this. (See GC Exhs.
80 and 83 which indicate, for Paint America, Inc.,
“AUTOMATIC DISSOLUTION Date: 7-15-1995.”) Respon-
dent’s letter indicating that it was terminating the second
above-described collective-bargaining agreement was written
on “Paint America, EXCELLENCE APPLIED, SINCE 1989”
letterhead. The subsequent letter of Paint America of Michigan,
Inc. accusing the Union of failure to bargain is also written on
“Paint America, EXCELLENCE APPLIED, SINCE 1989,”
P.O. Box 456 letterhead and it was faxed by the Respondents
on an “SRS GROUP, INC.” fax machine. As noted above, the
same approach was taken with other correspondence from Re-
spondents to the Union, namely the body of the correspondence
deals with Paint America of Michigan, Inc., the letterhead re-
fers to “Paint America, EXCELLENCE APPLIED, SINCE
1989,” P.O. Box 456, and the correspondence was transmitted
on a “SRS GROUP INC” fax machine. The 2004–2007 collec-
tive-bargaining agreement covering the involved employees is
between the Union and Paint America Services, Inc., 640 Hick-
ory Lane, with Jamile Randazzo signing as president. The sub-
sequent December 2004 required $300 check to the Union for
the arbitration fund is drawn on the account of “PAINT
AMERICA, A PAINT AMERICA SERVICES, INC.
COMPANY, P.O. BOX 456” and it is signed by Jamile Ran-
dazzo. With respect to the fringe benefit reports covering the
involved union members which are submitted by Respondents,
the ones for January, February, March, and April 2004 were
sent in by Paint America of Michigan, Inc. The one for May
and June 2004 has the fax number of “SRS GROUP, INC.” The
one for September 2004 is from Paint America Services, Inc.
And the one for July 2005 is from Paint America Services, P.O.
Box 456. The senior procurement agent for the University of
Michigan who testified at the trial herein sponsored a number
of 2004 business records, some of which referred to Paint
America of Michigan Incorporated, P.O. Box 456, others of
which refer to Paint America, and at least one of which was
signed by Salvatore Randazzo as “GM” of Paint America. The
SRS Group, Inc. fax machine was used to fax at least two of the
Paint America quotes back to the University of Michigan. In
the underlying unfair labor practice proceeding the Board found
that Salvatore Randazzo was the manager of PA and Jamile
Randazzo was the president of PA. As noted above, Salvatore
Randazzo is the president of SRS which has a certificate of
assumed name from Michigan under which business is to be
transacted as Paint America. Salvatore Randazzo told Lancaster
that when SRS won a contract involving union work, the work
would be subcontracted to PA. Salvatore Randazzo told the
Union that SRS was not bound by PA’s collective-bargaining
agreement when the involved employees worked for SRS. Un-
ion employees of Respondents were required to work on week-
ends for SRS as nonunion employees for cash or checks with-
out pay stubs (no contributions to the union fund) in order to
keep their union jobs with PA during the week. Notwithstand-
ing that Lancaster worked for Paint America under the involved
collective-bargaining agreement, and notwithstanding that
Salvatore Randazzo testified that he did not hold any position
with Respondents other than president of SRS Group, Inc.,
Salvatore Randazzo discharged Lancaster on May 20, 2004.
Then there is the matter of the November 22, 2004, $5000
check signed by Jamile Randazzo, drawn on the account of
“Paint America, A PAINT AMERICA SERVICES, INC.
COMPANY, P.O. BOX 456, SALINE, MI 48176” made pay-
able to SRS Group. Salvatore Randazzo claimed under oath
that he did not recall receiving it. As correctly pointed out by
counsel for the General Counsel on brief, at various times the
Respondents used the same street address, the same P.O. Box,
the same phone number, and the same fax machine. PASI,
SRS, PA, PAI, and PAMI hold themselves out to the public as a
single enterprise.
Common Management
As demonstrated by record evidence, Salvatore Randazzo is
the dominant force in managing Respondents. He is the one
who directs Respondents’ day-to-day business. He is the one
who directs employees. He is the one that the Union, the em-
ployees, and the University of Michigan view as the true opera-
tor of Respondents. In other words, those who deal with Re-
spondents look to Salvatore Randazzo as the operator of Re-
PAINT AMERICA SERVICES 991
spondents. Jamile Randazzo clearly plays a role in the opera-
tions of Respondents. She has signed documentation as presi-
dent of some of Respondents. She has signed correspondence.
She has submitted fringe benefit reports, and she has returned
bid quotations. (It has not been shown that anyone other than
Salvatore Randazzo was responsible for working up the bid
quotations.) Jamile Randazzo exercised limited management
over certain of Respondents. It is clear that Salvatore Randazzo
is the driving force behind Respondents. He hired the involved
employees, he told them what to do, he laid them off, he re-
called them, he discharged Lancaster, and he alone explained
the position of Respondents regarding Lancaster’s discharge. In
my opinion, as here pertinent, there is common management of
PASI, SRS, PA, PAI, and PAMI.
Centralized Control of Labor Relations
Salvatore Randazzo exercises dominant control over the la-
bor relations of the Respondents. As noted above, Salvatore
Randazzo was the one who discharged Lancaster and it was he
alone who spoke to the Union giving Respondents’ position
with respect to the discharge and what Salvatore Randazzo
believed that he could notwithstanding the presence of the Un-
ion. It was also Salvatore Randazzo who, when caught doing
union work in 2003 without a union collective-bargaining
agreement in place, agreed to sign a collective-bargaining con-
tract. As noted above, he sent his wife to the jobsite to sign the
contract. In a way, Salvatore Randazzo has been hoisted on his
own petard in that he created a situation with the numerous
entities with similar names so that even one of Respondents’
principals, Jamile Randazzo, apparently could not keep them
straight. While Jamile Randazzo has signed the collective-
bargaining agreements, Salvatore Randazzo has signed at least
one of the agreements.31 And while Jamile Randazzo has corre-
sponded with the Union regarding the collective-bargaining
agreements, and has submitted to the union fringe benefit re-
ports for various of the Respondents, she has used an SRS
Group, Inc. fax machine, which is her husband’s company, in
doing so. This raises additional questions in that on one of the
fringe benefit reports (GC Exh. 67), the only company name on
the document is SRS Group, Inc. So while that company may
not have had a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union
at the time, the approach taken by Respondents makes it appear
that the fringe benefit payments for June 2004 are being made
on behalf of SRS Group, Inc. In my opinion, counsel for the
General Counsel has shown by a preponderance of evidence
that in terms of this factor all of the Respondents constitute a
single employer.
Common Ownership or Financial Control
As pointed out by counsel for the General Counsel on brief,
the Board has used a single-factor test to determine single-
employer status, namely the presence or absence of an arm’s-
length relationship amongst unrelated companies, Lebanite
Corp., 346 NLRB 748 fn. 5 (2006), and the Board will find a
single-employer relationship where one spouse exercises con-
trol over key business decisions of the other spouse’s company,

31 Whether he signed for himself or he had his wife sign for him is of
little consequence.
such as finances, Silver Court Nursing Center, 313 NLRB
1141, 1142 (1994). Also as pointed out by counsel for the Gen-
eral Counsel on brief, the Board treats ownership of separate
companies owned by close family members as common owner-
ship where there is evidence that the companies have less than
an arm’s-length relationship and where there is evidence of
common management, centralized control of labor relations,
and an interrelationship of operations, Truck & Dock Services,
272 NLRB 592 fn. 2 (1984). All of these have been found
above. Additionally, there is the matter of the November 22,
2004, $5000 check signed by Jamile Randazzo, drawn on the
account of “Paint America, A PAINT AMERICA SERVICES,
INC. COMPANY, P.O. BOX 456, SALINE, MI 48176” made
payable to SRS Group. As noted above, Salvatore Randazzo
claimed under oath that he did not recall receiving it. Jamile
Randazzo was not called as a witness by the Respondents to
explain this check that she signed and made out to her hus-
band’s company.32 Additionally, Salvatore Randazzo was the
only one who entered an appearance at the trial and testified for
one of the Respondents (As noted above, Salvatore Randazzo
limited his appearance.), in the matter I have before me. Conse-
quently, it was not shown that anyone other than Salvatore
Randazzo made the decision on who would testify about this
financial matter. This is a direct transfer of funds from one of
the Respondents to another Respondent. If Respondents are
unwilling to explain this transfer of funds, it cannot be found
that the transfer was an arm’s-length transaction. In view of the
above and in view of the financial control that Salvatore Ran-
dazzo has over the Respondents, I believe that counsel for the
General Counsel has shown by a preponderance of evidence
that in terms of this factor, in addition to the other factors de-
scribed above, all of the Respondents constitute a single em-
ployer.
With respect to interim employment, while it took Lancaster
from May 10 to 28, 2004, to find employment with Inte-
rior/Exterior Specialists after he was discharged by Salvatore
Randazzo, Lancaster exercised diligence in looking for em-
ployment in that during this period he contacted District Coun-
cil 22 and had his name put on the out-of-work list, he sent out
four or five resumes each week (GC Exh. 48), starting at the
top of the contractor’s list, which is handed out by the District
Council (It has the names of every union contractor in the Dis-
trict Council area.), and working his way down, he signed up
for unemployment between May 10-28, 2004, he put his re-
sume on the website of the Michigan Works, he telephoned
several business agents, namely Tommy Trueman, Tommy
Thomas, and Frank Neeb, and let them know that he was on the
out-of-work list, and he collected unemployment benefits be-
tween May 10–28, 2004. When he was without work between
February 9 and March 16, 2005, Lancaster collected unem-
ployment, put his name on the out-of-work list, sent out a few
resumes, talked to his business agent, and updated his resume
on the Michigan Works website. As pointed out by counsel for
the General Counsel on brief, November to March is tradition-
ally a slow period for the involved work. Again Lancaster was

32 I do not believe that the prohibition in fn. 6 of the Board’s deci-
sion in 352 NLRB 185 (2008), would have precluded this.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD992
diligent in looking for employment and when the Union tele-
phoned him with a job with Boice he took it on March 16,
2005. Going from Boice to Tye, Lancaster was only out of
work for 1 day. Going from Tye to Woods Lancaster was only
out of work for about 7 days. And although he had short peri-
ods of unemployment while he worked for Woods, they oc-
curred during traditionally slow periods and Wood’s superin-
tendent kept his word and recalled Lancaster first when work
started coming in again. Lancaster did not willfully fail to find
interim employment.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]