SPE Utility Contractors, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Dec 17, 2008

07-CA-050767 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 17, 2008)

JD–64–08
Port Huron, MI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SPE UTILITY CONTRACTORS, LLC
and Case 7-CA-50767
LINDA M. LEUCH, An Individual
Dynn Nick, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Kenneth M. Gonko, Esq. (The Danielson
Group, PC), of Chesterfield, Michigan, for
the Respondent.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
IRA SANDRON, Administrative Law Judge. The complaint, issued on January 31, 2008,
stems from unfair labor practice (ULP) charges that Linda M. Leuch, an individual, filed against
SPE Utility Contractors, LLC (Respondent or SPE), and alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by discharging her on
August 7, 2007.1 The Section 8(a)(4) allegation relates to previous charges filed against
Respondent by Local 339, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the Union), Leuch’s
bargaining representative. One of the allegations in the ensuing complaint was that her
December 20, 2006 layoff violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Leuch testified at the trial that
Judge Arthur J. Amchan conducted on August 8 and 9.2
Pursuant to notice, I conducted a trial in Detroit, Michigan, on April 30 –May 1, and
October 23, 2008, at which the parties had full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence.3 Respondent and the General Counsel filed
helpful posthearing brief that I have duly considered.
Issue
Was Respondent’s August 7 discharge of Leuch for not meeting with Respondent on
July 30 and August 6, to provide information concerning her billing and performance of other
duties, based on lawful considerations, or because of union activities and/or her status as a
potential recipient of backpay under the Act and as a witness at an NLRB trial?

1 All dates are in 2007, unless otherwise indicated.
2 In JD-67-02, issued on October 2, he found that her layoff violated Section 8(a)(5), on a
different basis than that alleged in the complaint (Jt. Exh. 1). The Board later reversed this
determination, in 352 NLRB No. 97 (2008) (Jt. Exh. 3).
3 The trial was postponed indefinitely on May 1, 2008, when the parties entered into a non-
Board settlement agreement. The settlement failed of achievement, and the hearing was
resumed and concluded on October 23, 2008.
JD–64–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
At the outset, I note that Respondent’s sole proffered basis for the discharge was her
failure to meet and provide information, not her conduct in any of the matters it wished to
discuss with her. 4
Witnesses and Credibility
On April 30, the General Counsel called David Postill, Respondent’s chief executive
officer (CEO) and majority stock holder, as an adverse witness under Section 611(c); Kurt
Satryb, Respondent’s former vice-president in charge of Florida operations; and Leuch.
On October 23, Respondent called Michael Moriarty, president, and Postill, whose
testimony was limited to what was said in his telephone conversation with Leuch in mid-August.
I note here that at the time I scheduled the resumed hearing for October 23, 2008, Postill had
plans to be out of town. In the interest of timely concluding the trial, I allowed him to testify
telephonically on October 23, 2008, over the General Counsel’s objections. I determined that
this would cause no prejudice to either the General Counsel or the Charging Party, inasmuch as
he had testified at length as a 611(c) witness on April 30, and I therefore previously had ample
opportunity to observe his demeanor.
Leuch appeared sincere and to answer questions readily and without hesitation, taking
into account that much of her testimony involved events that occurred in 2005 during and after
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (the hurricanes). She candidly conceded during portions of her
testimony that, in hindsight, she might have handled some of her communications with SPE
more tactfully.
Satryb also struck me as candid and as not making efforts to slant his testimony in favor
of one party or the other. Although he has contacted an attorney concerning possible legal
action against SPE for terminating him on July 31, allegedly for violating the no-competition
clause in his employment contract, he has continued to perform work for SPE under his own
business. Thus, he might naturally have countervailing reasons to testify for or against
Respondent. Reflecting his lack of bias in favor of Leuch was his testimony that he had
recommended she be discharged prior to her December 2006 layoff, based on what Postill
reported to him about her conduct, but that Postill decided to lay her off instead.
Moriarty admittedly had limited knowledge of Leuch’s performance; he testified that prior
to February, when he became president, Postill was always her direct supervisor. On one
matter, I find his testimony implausible, to wit, that at the time he issued Leuch the July 23 letter
(and, ergo, the August 2 letter), he did not know the specific date of the scheduled NLRB trial
(August 8) but merely knew that it was coming up.
Postill demonstrated notable defensiveness and unease during his testimony on April
30, and he also displayed defensiveness during his telephonic testimony on October 23. He
was often evasive, vague, and/or nonresponsive in his answers; he sometimes contradicted
himself; and portions of his testimony were not plausible. Following are examples of these
deficiencies in his testimony. Others will be addressed in the "Facts" section.
Postill was evasive and inconsistent on who made the decision to terminate Leuch.
Thus, he first testified that, “I played a role in that with my team,” then narrowed “management”
to Moriarty, and later testified, “I’m the CEO of the Company; ultimately I don’t care what

4 See Tr. 33, 279.
JD–64–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
[Moriarty]—what decision [Moriarty] made. I agreed with it and supported it.”5
To give context to what follows, four subjects were cited in the discharge letter: (1)
Leuch billed Florida Power and Light (FPL) for her labor during a week she was off work and
paid by SPE; (2) while reconciling FPL records, she paid both office staff and temporary
services for 16-hour shifts, although she had no authority to do so; (3) she continued to use
Vonage service paid by SPE; and (4) in reconciling FPL and Entergy accounts, it appeared that
she made significant payments to subcontractors beyond the pay-when-due clause of their
contracts. Significantly, all of the cited FPL issues and the Vonage service matter arose in 2005
from post-hurricane work that SPE performed for FPL in southern States.
Postill’s testimony about SPE’s attempts to resolve its billing disputes with FPL
stemming from hurricane-related work in 2005 was evasive to the point where it was practically
incomprehensible.6 His explanation of why he did not request more information from Leuch
until July was wholly unbelievable. Thus, when asked if he was aware of all of the specific
billing issues with FPL in May (which amounted to millions of dollars), he replied, “Some were
mentioned to me. I don’t know if I had the documentation because at that point I was just rolling
up my hand and getting involved in it.”7 Yet, he also testified that Leuch worked on reconciling
the billing differences with FPL prior to her layoff in December 2006. I cannot find plausible that,
as CEO and majority owner of a small company, he was still so unknowledgeable about such a
major problem with a large customer.
To best illustrate why I have found Postill an unreliable witness, I will use his testimony
regarding Leuch’s allegedly paying office staff and temporary service workers for 16-hour shifts,
without authorization. He testified this occurred probably as far back as 2004. He asserted that
he did not ask Leuch for more information until July, because, “I did research based on a rumor
I heard prior to [seeing documents in 2007], and I looked at it and it was confirmed. Once it was
confirmed, I wanted to bring her in and ask her and see what the reasoning was.”8
Aside from vagueness, such testimony is at odds with his admission that he knew she
was paying herself and his mother (then the only other office employee) for 16-hour shifts at the
time of occurrence. He also stated in his affidavit that “[w]hen I talked to Leuch about this issue,
she acknowledged that she paid the employees outside of the rate,” even though he had not
authorized it, and it was his decision to make.”9 Moreover, he averred in the affidavit that he
had talked to her about paying temporaries and office staff with the same overtime provisions as
provided to union members, and that she acknowledged doing this. Finally, an e-mail dated
June 24, 2005, from Postill to FPL10 shows his knowledge of the issue at that time.
I also find incredulous his testimony that despite his knowledge of Leuch’s alleged
malfeasance in 2004 and 2005, she continued “running” his office until her layoff in December
2006.11

5 Tr. 49, 51.
6 See Tr. 80, et seq.
7 Tr. 92.
8 Tr. 65.
9 See Tr. 67.
10 GC Exh. 15.
11 Tr. 95 – 96.
JD–64–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
Postill’s telephonic testimony, in which he was asked solely about a telephone
conversation with Leuch in mid-August was also unconvincing (Leuch had testified, in sum, that
he called her on August 16 and said he was sorry about her termination, but SPE lawyers had
instructed him to terminate her to limit liability). Vague and evasive, he professed absolutely no
recollection of anything specific that she said, although he testified that the conversation
occurred after her mother’s funeral (and, therefore, after her termination). I find this totally
unbelievable, especially when he repeated over and over again that when he called her to
express condolences, she “went off” on matters unrelated to her mother’s death. The following,
during his cross-examination, reflects both the defects in his testimony concerning the phone
call and his marked defensiveness:
When she picked up the phone, immediately she started going off. Was she going off
because she’s mad at me, she’s mad at the company? I don’t know. I didn’t put a lot of
faith in it, even listen to it much because that wasn’t the nature of my call. And we’re
talking about Linda. She could have been going off because she lost the Lotto. I don’t
know. I don’t remember.12
I highly doubt that she would have vented anger against him or SPE because she lost the Lotto
or because he called to offer condolences. The only plausible explanation is that she expressed
wrath at her termination, which had occurred a little over a week earlier.
In this regard, as amply reflected by Leuch’s testimony and that of other witnesses
(including Postill), documents of record, and my observations of Leuch during her testimony,
Leuch is a forceful individual who does not mince words. I find it wholly implausible that, even if
he did not raise the subject of her very recent discharge, she would not have done so sua
sponte.
For the above reasons, I credit Leuch and Satryb where their testimony diverged from
that of Postill and Moriarty.
Facts
Based on the entire record, including witness testimony, documents, stipulations, and
uncontested findings of fact in Judge Amchan’s previous decision, I find the following facts.
Respondent, a Michigan corporation with a permanent office and facility in Port Huron,
Michigan (the office), is engaged in the construction, maintenance, and repair of high-voltage
electrical lines for utility companies and some commercial customers. Jurisdiction has been
admitted, and I so find. SPE performs work nationally and obtains its field employees from
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers hiring halls. During hurricane or storm work,
there may be 400 – 500 such employees; at other times, the number averages 80 – 120.
I take administrative notice that Hurricane Katrina made landfall in southeast Louisiana
on August 29, 2005, and that Hurricane Rita made landfall near the Louisiana – Texas border
on September 24, 2005.
SPE began operations in 2001 under four partners, including Postill and Satryb. Later,
Satryb sold his ownership interest to Postill, who at some point became the majority owner.

12 Tr. 382.
JD–64–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
Satryb hired Leuch as office manager in September 2003. From the start, she handled
accounts receivable and prepared billings for different power companies for which Respondent
performed work, and she continued doing so throughout her employment and until her layoff on
December 20, 2006. Leuch was technically “demoted” in mid-October 2005 from office
manager to accounts receivable, as a result of her out-of-state work following Hurricane Katrina.
However, her duties in the office did not change, and she continued to perform them with the
same degree of independence.
Following the 2005 hurricanes, SPE performed extensive work for FPL, in the repair of
overhead power lines to restore power to residential customers. Leuch spent a total of about 8
weeks in SPE’s temporary office locations in Florida; Jackson, Mississippi; and New Orleans.
During this period, SPE employed up to 450 employees in southern States, and Satryb
supervised all of the general foremen, linemen, groundmen, truckdrivers, and a temporary
secretary. This work ended in late 2006.
On August 14, 2006, the Union was certified as the collective-bargaining representative
of Respondent’s clerical employees. A series of negotiations was held from October 2006
through March, but no agreement was reached.
Leuch was the alternate steward until December 20, 2006, when she and two other unit
employees were laid off. Between August 7, 2006, and April 27, the Union filed the charges
and amended charges that culminated in the hearing on August 8 and 9. As noted, one of the
allegations in the complaint was that her layoff violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. It was not
alleged as a Section 8(a)(3) violation.
By letter of January 4, Leuch requested a copy of her personnel file, pursuant to state
law and, after an exchange of correspondence, she met in late January with Thomas D’Luge,
SPE’s attorney, and reviewed documents that Respondent advised her were available.13
In May, representatives of SPE, including Postill and Satryb, met with FPL executives at
FPL’s offices in West Palm Beach, Florida, to try to work out their billing disagreements. At the
time this occurred, reconciliation efforts between the two companies had already gone on for a
full year, or since mid-2006.14
On June 27, Regional Director Stephen Glasser issued an order rescheduling the trial
from June 27 to August 8.15
I credit Satryb’s unrebutted testimony as follows. In July, he had a conversation with
Postill in the parking lot. When they were discussing the office employees’ effort to decertify the
Union, Postill brought up Leuch and stated that, as directed by SPE’s lawyers, “[H]e probably
would have to fire her because it would stop the backpay.” 16

13 GC Exhs. 2 – 7. Such conduct does not come under the parameters of protected
concerted activity. See Tradewaste Incineration, 336 NLRB 902, 906 fn. 8 (2001)
14 Credited testimony of Satryb, which was not necessarily contradicted by Postill, who was
very vague and evasive about the reconciliation process.
15 GC Exh. 8.
16 Tr. 116; see also Tr. 118.
JD–64–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
Moriarty, by certified letter of July 23 to Leuch, stated:17
Since your layoff in December 2006, SPE has been working on reconciling its
accounting records . . . .
In conjunction with these reconciliations, we have become aware of certain acts or
omissions not in conformity with SPE’s practices.
We are seeking any input that you may have regarding these inconsistencies and
request that you appear at SPE’s office this Monday, July 30, 3007 at 9 Am [sic] . . . .
This meeting is time sensitive as we are in the process of negotiating settlement with
FPL and Afton Power. If you are unable to assist SPE in these matters, we shall
proceed to finalize these matters without your input.
Moriarty testified that at the time he prepared and sent the letter, he had no intention of
discharging Leuch; rather, his purpose was to get further information from her.
Leuch telefaxed a response on July 30, stating that the letter had arrived when she was
attending to the needs of her mother’s death and subsequent funeral, and that she could not
appear on Monday morning “due to a previous appointment regarding the upcoming trial.”18
In a letter to Leuch of August 2,19 Moriarty essentially repeated verbatim what he had
stated in his July 23 letter, and he requested that she appear for the same purpose on August 6
at 12:30 p.m. Again, Moriarty asserted that at the time he prepared and sent the letter, he had
no intention of discharging her.
Leuch responded by a telefax of August 6,20 wherein she raised issues concerning
whether SPE had properly paid benefits and compensation to her and other employees. As to
the requested meeting on August 6, she replied, “I will be unable to appear at SPE’s office due
to a previous appointment regarding the upcoming trial.”
The following day, August 7, Moriarty sent her, by certified mail, a discharge letter.21 He
reiterated that SPE had sought her input to “matters that arose after your layoff,” generally
relating to FPL work. He set out and discussed four areas of her alleged misconduct
(specifically addressed in the next section). He concluded by stating that SPE considered these
allegations substantiated because she had not provided a sufficient reason for her actions.
Leuch appeared and testified at the NLRB trial on August 8 and 9. By faxed letter of
August 14, she denied, in rather colorful language, Moriarty’s allegations against her.22
On the evening of August 16, Postill called Leuch at home. He quoted portions of her
August 14 letter and said he was sorry but that his lawyers made him write the July 23 and

17 GC Exh. 9.
18 GC Exh. 12.
19 GC Exh. 13.
20 GC Exh.14. She inadvertently referred to his August 2 letter as “August 4.”
21 GC Exh. 15.
22 GC Exh. 17.
JD–64–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
August 2 letters because of the August 8 trial.23
Respondent’s Position
I reiterate that Respondent’s sole basis for discharging Leuch was her failure to come in
and discuss the issues raised in Moriarty’s July 23 and August 2 letters, not the underlying
alleged acts of misconduct. Therefore, I will focus primarily on when they occurred and when
Postill first had knowledge.
1. Leuch billed FPL for her labor during a week she was off and paid by SPE.
Postill testified that FPL representatives complained in 2007 that Leuch had improperly
billed FPL for office work she performed at the temporary office(s).
However, Postill also testified that he had knowledge of this issue as far back as 2005
and that Leuch was working on the matter prior to her layoff, but that he waited until “we had all
our ducks in a row” before making the request that she meet to discuss it.24 He offered no
explanation of why this took 2 years.
I credit Leuch’s testimony that Postill knew and approved all of her billing of her hours to
FPL.
2. Leuch paid both office staff and temporary services for 16-hour shifts, without
authorization.
Because, as described earlier, Postill’s testimony on this was unreliable, I credit Leuch’s
testimony that she never authorized employees to work without his approval.
3. Leuch set up a Vonage account that provided free Internet use at her residence and
continued to use it after her layoff, at SPE expense.
When SPE had a temporary office (in a trailer) in Jackson, Mississippi, it ordered
Vonage phone service. Leuch used a company credit card, which Postill had her cancel in
November 2005, when the temporary office was closed. She received a new company credit
card, which was canceled around the time of her layoff in December 2006.
Respondent’s contends that Vonage has continued to bill it for the services and offered
Respondent’s Exhibit 7 as evidence. In part, it shows items billed to Postill’s credit card in
January, including a charge for Vonage. Both the documents and Postill’s testimony reflect that
one of the problems in stopping service was that Leuch’s password was needed, but
Respondent offered no evidence that Postill or anyone else from SPE ever asked her for it.
Moreover, the temporary office was closed back in 2005. I cannot, therefore, find credible
Postill’s assertion that he needed to meet with her to talk on the matter in July.
I credit Leuch’s testimony that she did not take the Vonage equipment with her and has
never used it for free Internet service.

23 Tr. 341; see also Tr. 340.
24 Tr. 60.
JD–64–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
4. Leuch made significant payments to subcontractors beyond the pay-when-paid
clauses in their contracts with SPE.
Postill testified that during the reconciliation process with FPL—on the dates of which he
was conveniently vague—he became aware that she prepaid subcontractors ahead of what
they were due under the pay-when-paid clause of their contracts; i.e., before SPE was itself
paid for the job. He testified that such instances were raised to him in 2005 and 2006 but that
he was not aware of the scope of the problem (millions of dollars) “until I actually rolled my
hands up and got involved.”25 He also testified that there were issues with “every
subcontractor” she paid.26 I note Satryb’s testimony that when representatives of FPL and SPE
met in May to reconcile their billing differences, reconciliation attempts had already gone on for
a full year (or back to mid-2006).
I credit Leuch’s testimony that she made payments to subcontractors under Postill’s
direction.
In sum, I discredit Postill’s highly implausible claims of ignorance of the scope of Leuch’s
alleged malfeasance until months after her December 2006 layoff, as well as his testimony that
she continued to “run” his office after he already knew of major defects in her performance.
Analysis
The framework for analyzing alleged violations of Section 8(a)(3) is Wright Line. 251
NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert, denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982). Under
Wright Line, the General Counsel must make a prima facie showing sufficient to support an
inference that the employee’s protected conduct motivated an employer’s adverse action. The
General Counsel must show, either by direct or circumstantial evidence, that the employee
engaged in protected conduct, the employer knew or suspected the employee engaged in such
conduct, the employer harbored animus, and the employer took action because of this animus.
Leuch was an alternate union steward, certainly protected activity. However, apart from
her testimony as a witness at the August 8 and 9 trial, conduct that comes under Section
8(a)(4), the record is devoid of evidence of what she did in that role, or otherwise in the way of
union activities. There is no direct evidence of animus against her because she served as an
alternate steward, nor can such be implied. Thus, Satryb recommended that Leuch be
discharged in December 2006, but Postill instead lawfully laid her off, along with other office
employees. Credited testimony of Satryb and Leuch reflects that the discharge was directly
connected to her involvement in NLRB proceedings, not to any severable union activities. I
therefore conclude that the General Counsel has not established a prima facie case of unlawful
termination under Section 8(a)(3).
A Wright Line approach is also used for analyzing alleged violations of Section 8(a)(4) of
the Act, and the remedy is the same. Newcor Bay City Division, 351 NLRB No. 54 fn. 4 (2007);
All Pro Vending, Inc., 350 NLRB 503, 515 (2007).
Section 8(a)(4) prohibits adverse action against an employee “who has filed charges or
given testimony.” The provision is broadly construed in order “to prevent the Board’s channels
of information from being dried up by employer intimidation of prospective complainants and

25 Tr. 74.
26 Id.
JD–64–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
witnesses.’” NLRB v. Scrivener, 405 U.S. 117, 122 (1972), quoting John Hancock Mutual Life
Insurance v. NLRB, 191 F.2d 483, 485 (D.C. Cir. 1951). See also Nash v. Florida Industrial
Commission, 389 U.S. 235, 238 (1967); Metro Networks, Inc., 336 NLRB 63, 66 (2001).
Thus, its protection extends to employees such as Leuch on whose behalf charges were
filed (Climatrol, Inc., 329 NLRB 946 (1999)), and to employees who plan to testify at NLRB
trials. Lamar Advertising of Hartford, 343 NLRB 261 (2004). In any event, Leuch’s activity of
providing information to NLRB investigators of ULP’s was conduct that brought her under the
provision’s coverage. See Local 39, Operating Engineers, 346 NLRB 336 (2006); Metro
Networks, above at 63.
The element of knowledge is easily met. Leuch was named in the earlier complaint and
alleged therein to have been laid off in violation of Section 8(a)(5). Further, she specifically
mentioned her upcoming role as a witness at the NLRB trial in her July 30 and August 6
telefaxes. Animus is demonstrated by Satryb’s testimony that in late July, Postill stated that he
probably would have to discharge Leuch to stop backpay, and Leuch’s testimony that on August
16, Postill stated that SPE’s attorneys had directed that Leuch be terminated because of the
August 8 (NLRB) trial.27 Respondent discharged her by letter of August 7. Therefore, I
conclude that the General Counsel has satisfied all of the elements necessary to establish a
prima facie case of unlawful termination under Section 8(a)(4).
Under Wright Line, if the General Counsel establishes a prima facie case of unlawful
conduct, it meets its initial burden to persuade, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
protected activity was a motivating factor in the employer’s action. The burden of persuasion
then shifts to the employer to show that it would have taken the same adverse action even in
the absence of such activity. NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393,
399−403 (1983); Kamtech, Inc. v. NLRB, 314 F.3d 800, 811 (6th Cir. 2002); SFO Good-Nite Inn,
LLC, 352 NLRB No. 42, slip op. at 2 (2008); Serrano Painting, 332 NLRB 1363, 1366 (2000).
If the employer’s proffered defenses are found a pretext, i.e., the reasons given for the
employer’s actions are either false or not in fact relied on, the employer fails by definition to
show that it would have taken the same action for those reasons, and there is no need to
perform the second part of the Wright Line analysis. SFO Good-Nite Inn, LLC, supra. On the
other hand, further analysis is required if the defense is one of “dual motivation,” i.e., the
employer defends that, even if an invalid reason might have played some part in the employer’s
motivation, the employer would have taken the same action against the employee for
permissible reasons. Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc. v. NLRB, 411 F.3d 212, 223 (D.C.
Cir. 2005).
I conclude that Respondent’s defense was a pretext, based on the following.
Statements that Postill made to Leuch and Satryb demonstrate that the real reason for her
discharge related to her being a subject of charges that were to be litigated at an upcoming
NLRB trial, more specifically, to limit her backpay in the event that her layoff was found unlawful
under the Act. The timing of her discharge was also very suspicious. In this regard, almost all
of the major issues that Respondent contends required further information from Leuch occurred
during the 2005 hurricanes or before, management admittedly had knowledge of the existence
of at least most of them by 2006 and before Leuch was laid off in December 2006, and Postill

27 The discharge of an employee to curtail her backpay remedy in the event that her layoff is
found unlawful by the Board constitutes a form of retaliation that punishes her for pursuing her
right to seek redress under the Act, and clearly violates Sec. 8(a)(4).
JD–64–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
even discussed at least some of them with her prior to her layoff. Respondent offered no good
explanation of why, suddenly right before the scheduled NLRB hearing, it was so urgent to have
Leuch come in to provide information and/or explanations. Nor did Respondent explain why it
offered her no alternative dates and times but, in each of its requests, presented her with only
one specific meeting time. In both of her replies, Leuch stated that she could not make the
proposed date and time because of trial preparation for the August 8 hearing.
Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(4) and (1) by discharging
Leuch on August 7, 2007, because of her status as a potential recipient of backpay under the
Act and as a witness in support of charges that the Union had filed against it.
Postill’s statement to Leuch about her being discharged to limit her financial remedy
under the Act constituted an independent 8(a)(1) violation, in my view, but it was not alleged in
the complaint and, in any event, is essentially encompassed in the subject of the discharge
itself.
Remedy
Because I have found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
find that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since the Board determined that Leuch’s prior layoff was not unlawful, reinstatement and
backpay remedies are not germane.
ORDER
The Respondent, SPE Utility Contractors, LLC, Port Huron, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise disciplining employees because they are potential
recipients of backpay under the National Labor Relations Act and/or are witnesses scheduled to
testify in unfair labor practice trials, or because they otherwise participate in National Labor
Relations Board proceedings.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its files any
references to the August 7, 2007 discharge of Linda Leuch and, within 3 days thereafter, notify
her in writing that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used in any way against
her in the event of a recall.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility at Port Huron, Michigan,
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix A.”28 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by

28 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words
Continued
JD–64–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
the Regional Director for Region 7 after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
August 7, 2007.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region
7 a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 17, 2008.
__________________
Ira Sandron
Administrative Law Judge
_________________________
in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read
“Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.”
JD–64–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discipline you because you are potential
recipients of backpay under the National Labor Relations Act and/or are witnesses scheduled to
testify in unfair labor practice trials, or otherwise participate in National Labor Relations Board
proceedings.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of your rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as set forth at the
top of this notice.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the unlawful discharge of Linda Leuch,
and WE WILL within 3 days thereafter notify her in writing that this has been done and that the
discharge will not be used against her in any way in the event of a recall.
SPE UTILITY CONTRACTORS, LLC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
477 Michigan Avenue, Federal Building, Room 300
Detroit, Michigan 48226-2569
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
313-226-3200.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
JD–64–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 313-226-3244.