Torque It Up, LLC and North American Tubular, LLC Joint Employers

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jun 10, 2015

16-CA-140455 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 10, 2015)

JD(ATL)–11–15
Midland, TX
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
TORQUE–IT–UP, LLC AND NORTH
AMERICAN TUBULAR, LLC,
JOINT EMPLOYERS AND/OR
SINGLE EMPLOYER
and CASE 16–CA–140455
MICHAEL STILES, an Individual
Jonathan M. Elifson, Esq.
and Bryan Dooley, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Jessica Brown Wilson, Esq.
and Michael Maslanka, Esq.
(Fisherbroyles, LLP), of Dallas, Texas,
for the Respondent.
BENCH DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
Statement of the Case
KELTNER W. LOCKE, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this case on May 6, 2014, in
Midland, Texas. After the parties rested, I heard oral argument, and on May 8, 2015, issued a
bench decision pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(10) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, setting
forth findings of fact and conclusions of law. In accordance with Section 102.45 of the Rules and
Regulations, I certify the accuracy of, and attach hereto as “Appendix A,” the portion of the
transcript containing this decision.1 The conclusions of law, remedy, order and notice provisions
are set forth below.

1 The bench decision appears in uncorrected form at pp. 214 through 224 of the transcript. The final version,
after correction of oral and transcriptional errors, is attached as, “Appendix A” to this certification.
JD(ATL)–11–15
2
FURTHER DISCUSSION
1. Single–integrated enterprise
The complaint alleges that Torque–It–Up and North American Tubular are joint employers, 5
and also alleges that they constitute a single–integrated business enterprise. At hearing, these two
limited liability companies stipulated that they were joint employers and I so find. However, they
did not admit the alleged single–employer status. Although it is a close question, I do not believe
that the present record would support such a conclusion.
10
Single employer status is characterized by the absence of an arm's–length relationship
among seemingly independent companies. In determining whether separate entities constitute a
single employer, the Board examines the following four factors: (1) common ownership or
financial control; (2) interrelation of operations; (3) common control of labor relations; and (4)
common management. Rogan Bros. Sanitation, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 61 (2015). All four factors 15
need not be present and no one factor is controlling, although the Board considers common control
of labor relations a “significant indication of single employer status.” Bolivar–Tees, Inc., 349
NLRB 720 (2007).
As to common ownership, an official of Respondent Torque–It–Up, Tracy Pesch (referred 20
to in the complaint and by witnesses as Trace Pesch) testified that his stepfather, David Bridges
2
,
owns Torque–It–Up and that his brother, David Bridges II, owns North American Tubular.
With respect to interrelation of operations, Pesch’s prehearing affidavit states, in part,
“Employees working for Torque–It–Up sometimes perform work for North American Tubular, and 25
employees for North American Tubular sometimes perform work for Torque–It–Up.” Employees
of both companies shared the same lodging, a house in Hobbs, New Mexico. Pesch’s affidavit
states that the “Company” rented this house for the employees’ use but the record does not reveal
what arrangements exist, if any, for Torque–It–Up and North American Tubular to split this rental
expense.30
The record does not establish that the two companies have a common labor policy. At the
least, it appears clear that employees of Torque–It–Up and North American Tubular received
somewhat different compensation for overtime and travel expenses. Indeed, when Charging Party
Stiles, employed by Torque–It–Up, discussed such compensation with employees of North 35
American Tubular, it fomented the discontent which led to Stiles’ discharge. In other respects, the
record reveals little about how the two companies formulate and apply labor policies.
As to the fourth factor, common management, the evidence focuses on the role played by
Pesch. employed by Torque–It–Up as its director of inspection services, quality assurance, safety,40
and training. Pesch reports directly to the owner, David Bridges, and described his duties as
follows: “I write, train, and enforce safety procedures, inspection procedures, and quality
assurance procedures.” That description would be consistent with a management position outside
the direct chain of command but it appears that Pesch may possess more line responsibilities than

2 In his prehearing affidavit, however, Pesch identified David Bridges as being his father, not his stepfather.
JD(ATL)–11–15
3
his title alone might suggest. Thus, Pesch made the decision to discharge Stiles. Moreover, he did
so after consulting with Torque–It–Up’s owner, David Bridges, whom he identified in his
testimony as his stepfather.3
Pesch’s brother, David Bridges II, owns North American Tubular. Because of the close 5
familial relationship, it may be likely that Pesch exercises considerable authority in that Company
as well as in Torque–It–Up, but the record does not establish the extent of such authority. The fact
that Pesch discharged Stiles, a Torque–It–Up employee, does not provide a sufficient basis to
conclude that Pesch possessed similar authority to terminate the employment of North American
Tubular employees.10
Pesch did refer to a director of operations, Tino Enriquez, but it is not clear whether
Enriquez performed that function for both of the Respondents or just for Torque–It–Up. Absent
further evidence concerning the management structure of both Respondents, any further
conclusions regarding common management, or the absence of it, would be speculative.15
In sum, the record does not rule out the possibility of a single–integrated enterprise and
some evidence clearly would weigh in favor of such a finding. However, the present record does
not suffice, in my view, to carry the Government’s burden of proof on this issue.
20
Complaint paragraph 2(C) alleges that Torque–It–Up and North American Tubular
constitute a single–integrated enterprise and complaint paragraph 2(D) alleges, in the alternative,
that the two companies are joint employers. Although I do not find the two to be a single–
integrated enterprise, I do conclude, based upon the Respondent’s stipulation at hearing, that they
are joint employers.25
2. Protected activity
In their answer, the two Respondents deny that Stiles was discharged for activity protected
by the Act and further deny that Stiles engaged in any such protected activity. To fall within the 30
Act’s protection, the conversation must satisfy two requirements. It must constitute “concerted
activity” and it also must be for the employees' “mutual aid and protection.” Summit Regional
Medical Center, 357 NLRB No. 134, slip op. at 3 (2011). However, the content of these standards
cannot be gleaned simply from the dictionary meanings of the words in these terms of art. Rather,
the Board's precedents define each of these two analytically distinct requirements. Fresh & Easy 35
Neighborhood Market, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 12 (2014).
From the testimony of various witnesses, two contrasting versions of the conversation
emerge. Because different witnesses heard different parts of the conversation, the crediting of one
version does not require discrediting the other. To the contrary, I find that during the course of the 40
discussion, Stiles both spoke with employees about wages and other working conditions and also,
as some witnesses testified, bragged that because of his training and experience, he would retain
his job even after other employees had been laid off.
Based on Stiles' credited testimony, I find that the conversation began around 5 or 6 p.m. 45

3 Pesch’s prehearing affidavit identified Bridges as his father.
JD(ATL)–11–15
4
on October 8, 2014, when he and another worker were in the kitchen area of the house which
Respondent had provided for their temporary lodging. Stiles identified the other employee, who
did not testify, as Josh Peterson, but other evidence indicates that this person's name was Josh
Peters. Here, I will refer to him as Peters.
5
Respondents Torque–It–Up and North American Tubular have admitted that they are joint
employers but the record suggests that any particular member of the work crew receives his pay
and benefits from one of these companies but not the other. The record also indicates that Torque–
It–Up employees received somewhat different pay and benefits from those received by North
American Tubular employees.10
Although Torque–It–Up had hired Stiles, North American Tubular employed Peters.
During their October 8, 2013 conversation, Peters described to Stiles various “small problems”
within North American Tubular. According to Stiles, another North American Tubular employee,
Roy Colvin, also was present. Stiles credibly testified:15
Q. What, specifically, did he say about the problems?
A. He had addressed that they didn't possess a 40–hour minimum work
week, as Torque–It–Up did, and that they had a different pay for their
travel pay than Torque–It–Up.20
Q. What response did you have?
A. I told him I didn't feel that was fair if they were both –the companies were
both doing the same jobs, then they should be allotted the same pay.
Crediting Stiles, I find that he showed Peters his timesheet and that the two of them 25
discussed overtime pay, travel pay, and the way the payroll department computed pay. Stiles
further testified that Peters then revealed that he and Colvin had sought work elsewhere and were
about to quit their jobs at North American Tubular:
Q. What happened next?30
A. He was –– Josh was definitely perturbed and then he said, well, we haven't
told anybody this yet, but they –– that day they had interviewed with
another company called Byrd
4
and had filled out paperwork for new hire
and did their little orientation and were actually quitting the next day to go
work for Byrd. They had just not informed Trace yet, because they needed 35
a place to stay for the night and didn't want to have to sleep in their truck.
The testimony of Roy Colvin generally corroborates that of Stiles. In a particularly salient
part, Colvin quoted Stiles as telling the employees “we should stand up for ourselves . . . try to get
what we could get . . .” Those words clearly urge group action by the employees. It is well–40
settled Board law that the activity of a single employee in enlisting the support of his fellow
employees for their mutual aid and protection is as much “concerted activity” as is ordinary group
activity. Cibao Meat Products, 338 NLRB 934 (2003).
45
4 Other evidence in the record indicates that “Byrd” referred to Mike Byrd Casing Crews, another employer of
oil field workers.
JD(ATL)–11–15
5
The concept of “mutual aid or protection” focuses on the goal of concerted activity;
chiefly, whether the employee or employees involved are seeking to “improve terms and
conditions of employment or otherwise improve their lot as employees. Fresh & Easy
Neighborhood Market, Inc., above, citing Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556, 565 (1978). Here,
the subjects discussed included compensation for overtime and travel and the administration of the 5
payroll system. Such matters clearly fall within the scope of terms and conditions of employment
and the employees’ discussion of them constituted protected activity.
In sum, I reject the Respondent’s defense that Stiles did not engage in any protected
activity. To the contrary, I conclude that Stiles, on October 8, 2014, engaged in the protected, 10
concerted activities alleged in complaint paragraph 6(A).
3. The appropriate analytical framework
The Board has established different frameworks for examining allegations of 8(a)(3) 15
discrimination, depending on the circumstances. When an employer discharges an employee
ostensibly for conduct unrelated to protected activity, the Board must determine whether an
unlawful consideration – the protected activity of the employee or other employees – entered into
the decisionmaking process and, if so, whether it affected the outcome of that process. In such
situations, the Board follows the framework articulated in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), 20
enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982) and its progeny.
In other cases, an employer's stated reason for discharging an employee concerns activity
which itself falls within the Act’s protection, or which is concurrent or intermingled with such
protected activity. For example, an employer may have discharged a striking employee for 25
asserted misconduct on a picket line. In such instances, a Wright Line analysis, focused on
determining whether antiunion animus affected the discharge decision and, if so, how much, is not
the right tool.
For example, in Beverly Health & Rehabilitation Services, 346 NLRB 1319 (2006), the 30
respondent suspended an employee for discussing a pending grievance. That discussion itself
constituted protected activity. The Board concluded that the Wright Line framework was
inapplicable:
It is clear that Spiess’ discussion of a pending grievance was a form of 35
Section 7 activity, and that she was suspended therefore. Thus, the appropriate
inquiry is whether Spiess’ use of profane language in the exchange with Myro
during that discussion removed her from the protection of the Act. See, e.g., Felix
Industries, 339 NLRB 195 (2003). To determine whether an employee who is
otherwise engaged in protected activity loses the protection of the Act due to 40
opprobrious conduct, the Board considers the following factors: (1) the place of
the discussion; (2) the subject matter of the discussion; (3) the nature of the
employee’s outburst; and (4) whether the outburst was, in any way, provoked by
an employer’s unfair labor practice. Atlantic Steel Co., 245 NLRB 814, 816
(1979).45
JD(ATL)–11–15
6
Because the Respondents’ asserted reason for discharging Stiles concerns his actions
during activity which the Act protects, I conclude that the lawfulness of the discharge should be
analyzed using the Atlantic Steel framework discussed above, rather than the Wright Line
framework.
5
4. The Respondents’ defense
The Respondents’ answer avers that “Mr. Stiles[’] employment was terminated for a
legitimate reason, unrelated to any protected rights under Section 7” and that “Even if Mr. Stiles
did engage in alleged protected activity, Torque–It–Up, LLC would have terminated his 10
employment because of the alternative legitimate business reasons.” During oral argument, the
Respondents’ attorney stated:
This is not a case about protected activity. And in fact, there is no
evidence in this record that the decision–maker at the time of termination had any 15
facts that Michael Stiles discussed wages. At the time of termination, the only
evidence that Mr. Tracy Pesch, who was the decision–maker, had was that
Michael Stiles, a six–foot–four, two–hundred–and–thirty–five–pound man, who
was loud, who was agitated, who was articulated, was causing a disruption in the
house.20
To the extent that “loud” and “agitated” and “articulated” imply that Stiles was menacing
or appeared to be out of control, the credited evidence simply does not support such a conclusion.
The tone of voice which Respondents’ characterized as “loud” and “agitated” could equally be
called “forceful” and “impassioned,” but applying adjectives does not resolve the issue of whether 25
Stiles engaged in misconduct.
The discharge notice, set forth in the bench decision, stated that Stiles had created a
distraction and a disruption and a “possible safety issue.” Additionally, in an affidavit, Pesch had
stated that Stiles had been discharged for creating an “unsafe work environment.” However, Pesch 30
admitted that, to his knowledge, Stiles had never threatened, touched, or hit anyone. Moreover, no
testimony by any witness indicates that Stiles was threatening or menacing, and I find that he was
not.
Certainly, Stiles did speak in an animated manner during this October 8, 2014 discussion. 35
Indeed, he gave the appearance of being upset, but so did other employees. Colvin credibly
described the mood as follows:
Q. Do you remember how Michael Stiles was behaving during the
conversation?40
A. Like I said, he was agitated, and well, he was –– yeah, he was talking
about –– Michael was talking about we should stand up for ourselves, you
know, try to get –– try to get what we could get, you know, like –– the
same thing Torque–It–Up got, we should try to get that, but ––
Q. And would you say he was more agitated than anyone else in the room? 45
JD(ATL)–11–15
7
A. Yes. Well, he got –– well, he got –– he was agitated, but I was agitated,
too, and Josh Peters was kind of agitated. It just kind of spread. I think
everybody got kind of –– got a little upset.
Following the Atlantic Steel framework, I first consider the place of the discussion. 5
Notwithstanding the statement in Pesch’s affidavit that Stiles had created an “unsafe work
environment,” this conversation did not take place at the workplace but rather in the house where
Stiles and other employees were lodging. Had Respondent paid for its employees' lodging at a
hotel, that payment would not convert the hotel into a “workplace.” Likewise, the fact that
Respondent had leased the house in which the employees ate and slept while off duty does not 10
convert the house into a “workplace.” Rather, I conclude that this off–duty discussion took place
in the functional equivalent of an employee's home. The first Atlantic Steel factor weighs in favor
of finding Stiles' conduct protected by the Act.
The second Atlantic Steel factor concerns the subject matter of the discussion. The 15
credited testimony establishes that Stiles was discussing the compensation he received as an
employee of Torque–It–Up with other employees, some of whom were employed by the joint
employer, North American Tubular. Clearly, such discussion constituted protected activity.
However, Stiles also made statements which offended some employees. They understood 20
him to brag that in the event of a layoff, he would remain employed after others were laid off
because of his past experience and education. It should be noted that a worker's vulnerability to
layoff is such a significant aspect of the employment relationship that collective–bargaining
agreements typically include provisions specifying the selection of employees for layoff and
recall. Clearly, when Stiles expressed an opinion about who would be laid off, his words related to 25
terms and conditions of employment and enjoyed the Act’s protection. The fact that some
employees felt annoyed or offended by Stiles’ statements does not reduce the protection afforded
by Section 7.
In that regard, let us assume briefly, for the sake of analysis, that Stiles’ statements 30
prompted some employees to resign their employment. Does the reason they reacted in that
fashion affect the statutory protection? No. It does not matter whether the employees who quit
did so because they were concerned about their job security or because Stiles’ words, suggesting
that he was more valuable to the Company than they were, offended them. Stiles’ comments about
the prospects for being laid off enjoyed the Act’s protection regardless of the listeners’ reactions.35
To forfeit the Act’s protection, an employee must engage in significant serious misconduct
during the course of the protected activities, but Stiles’ expression of an opinion about layoffs is
not misconduct at all. The second Atlantic Steel factor, concerning the subject matter of the
discussion, weighs in favor of finding Stiles’ conduct protected.40
The third and fourth Atlantic Steel factors concern “the nature of the employee’s outburst”
and “whether the outburst was, in any way, provoked by an employer’s unfair labor practice.”
However, Stiles did not engage in any outburst.
45
JD(ATL)–11–15
8
The Respondent does try to characterize Stiles’ words and actions as having the effect of an
outburst, being a “disruption” and a “distraction,” with an implication of intimidation. As noted
above, Respondent's oral argument referred to Stiles as “a six–foot–four, two–hundred–and–
thirty–five pound man, who was loud, who was agitated, who was articulated. . .causing a
disruption in the house . . .” However, for reasons stated above and in the bench decision, I 5
conclude that Stiles did not threaten or menace anyone, or even exceed the bounds of spirited
discourse.
Respondents’ broad–stroke, India ink attempt to depict Stiles as “The Hulk” simply fails to
convince. Indeed, Pesch’s own testimony does not establish even that other people had described 10
Stiles as out of control. Pesch received his information about Stiles’ behavior from Respondent’s
director of operations, Tino Enriquez, who did not testify. Pesch testified, in part, as follows:
Q. What specifically was said to you about [Stiles'] behavior at the time?
A. I was told that he was downstairs, creating a lot of mannerisms. His town515
was raised, probably a lot louder than it should have been.
According to Pesch, another person who saw Stiles on this occasion, Harvey Ortiz,
described Stiles as “kind of animated in his movements, a little more than what he felt he should
have been.” However, the phrases “creating mannerisms” and being “kind of animated” do not 20
suggest someone who is menacing. If speaking in an animated way, with mannerisms, signaled
dangerous instability, the public might have cause to fear that vast numbers of politicians were
about to run amok.
In sum, all four Atlantic Steel factors support the conclusion that Stiles did not engage in 25
any misconduct and that he did not lose the Act’s protection. I so find. See Fresh & Easy
Neighborhood Market, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 12 (2014).
5. The Respondent;s motivation
30
Persuasive evidence indicates that Pesch made the decision to discharge Stiles not out of
any safety concern but because two other employees, Roy Colvin and Josh Peters, had decided to
quit after hearing what Stiles had to say, and because Pesch feared that two other employees who
heard Stiles might also resign.
35
From the record, it is not entirely clear whether Colvin and Peters went to another
company and applied for employment before or after their conversation with Stiles.
6
In any event,
they did not submit their resignations to Respondent until after talking with Stiles. Moreover,
Respondent’s manager Pesch learned about the resignations at the same time he learned about the
employees' conversation with Stiles.40
Respondent's director of operations, Tino Enriquez, phoned Pesch to inform him of the

5 The word “town” appears to be a mistranscription of “tone.”
6 Stiles, describing his October 8, 2014 conversation with Colvin and Peters, quoted Peters as saying that he
and Colvin had applied for work at a competing company, Byrd. However, Colvin’s testimony indicates that
he and Peters applied at Byrd after their conversation with Stiles.
JD(ATL)–11–15
9
resignations. According to Pesch, Enriquez “told me . . . that two individuals, Josh Peters and
Roy Colvin, had walked out, they had already gone, and two more individuals, Cody Carter and
Corry Pierce, were extremely upset, and getting ready to walk out, as well.” Pesch further
clarified that “walked out” meant that the employees had quit.
5
Pesch testified that all four of these individuals “were great employees, seasoned” and that
he did not want to lose them. Moreover, the Respondents are subcontractors performing
specialized services which have to be completed at a particular time in the construction of an oil
well, so they must be able to send workers to a drilling location on short notice. As Pesch put it,
“we keep a number of crews on call at all times, every day of the week, every month of the year . . 10
.” The resignations diminished the pool of workers who could be dispatched.
After conferring with the Respondent's owner, Pesch decided to discharge Stiles. From
Pesch’s testimony, I conclude that he considered Stiles responsible and discharged him to prevent
further resignations.15
Nonetheless, Pesch persisted in seeking to justify Stiles' discharge on the grounds that
Stiles' presence created some sort of potential safety problem. Thus, Pesch gave the following
testimony:
20
Q. Okay. Mr. Pesch, just so it's absolutely clear for all of us, why did you
terminate Mr. Stiles?
A. Because an uprising, a disruption, and proved to be a potential safety
concern within the work place.
25
As discussed above, the “disruption” did not take place at the workplace and Stiles did
nothing which reasonably would warrant a safety concern. However, Pesch also used the word
“uprising.”
The word “uprising” carries the connotation of people acting in concert. Already, Stiles 30
had demonstrated the potential to foment discontent by engaging in discussion which the Act
protects. I find that Respondent discharged him to prevent further protected activity of that kind.
Additionally, I conclude that Pesch evicted him from the company–provided lodging as a further
measure to prevent such discussion.
35
The fact that Pesch also sought to justify the discharge on safety grounds amounts to at
least a slight departure from candor which leaves me with less confidence in his testimony than
that given by Stiles. The testimony of these two witnesses conflicts with respect to one matter
which is the subject of complaint paragraph 6(B), and I resolve this conflict by crediting Stiles.
40
5. Complaint paragraph 6(B)
Complaint paragraph 6(B) alleges that about October 8, 2014, Respondent, by Pesch, told
employee Stiles not to discuss wages with coworkers. Stiles testified that Pesch gave this
instruction in a telephone call after Stiles had the conversation with Peters and Colvin. Although 45
Pesch admitted that he spoke with Stiles, he denied giving the instruction not to discuss wages.
JD(ATL)–11–15
10
Because I believe that Pesch was less than candid in characterizing Stiles’ presence as a
possible “safety issue,” I have more confidence in the reliability of Stiles’ testimony. Crediting
Stiles, I find that Pesch did tell Stiles not to discuss wages. In reaching this conclusion, I also note
that in a pretrial affidavit, Pesch admitted that he may have told Stiles and other employees that it 5
was not a good idea to discuss their pay.
A rule prohibiting employees from discussing their wages is unlawful. Radisson Plaza
Minneapolis, 307 NLRB 94 (1992). Accordingly, I recommend that the Board find that Pesch, by
instructing Stiles not to discuss his wages with other employees, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the 10
Act.
6. Liability of North American Tubular
The complaint alleges, in the alternative, that Respondents Torque–It–Up and North 15
American Tubular are joint employers and that they constitute a single–integrated enterprise. As
discussed above, I have concluded that the Government has not proven that the Respondents are a
single–integrated enterprise. However, based on their admission, I have found that they are joint
employers.
20
Stiles worked for Respondent Torque–It–Up. Pesch made the decision to discharge Stiles
after consulting with Torque–It–Up’s owner, David Bridges. The question arises as to whether
Pesch’s action may be imputed to both Respondents.
At the outset, it may be noted that joint employer relationships vary considerably. For 25
example, in Capitol EMI Music, Inc., 311 NLRB 997 (1993), one of the joint employers simply
supplied workers to the other employer but nothing more. The Board held that in such
circumstances, the nonacting joint employer (which supplied the employees) would be held liable
for an unlawful employee discharge only if the nonacting joint employer knew or should have
known that the discharge was unlawful and acquiesced in the violation by failing to protest or 30
resist it.
The present record indicates that the relationship between Torque–It–Up and North
American Tubular is quite different. Both companies provide similar services in the oil fields.
Pesch stated in his affidavit that employees “working for Torque–It–Up sometimes perform work 35
for North American Tubular, and employees for North American Tubular sometimes perform work
for Torque–It–Up.” Because of these factual differences, I do not believe Capitol EMI Music, Inc.
and its progeny to be controlling precedent here, but these cases do underscore the need to
examine the specific facts carefully rather than automatically equating, and perhaps conflating, the
concepts of joint employer and joint liability.40
As noted, Stiles worked for Torque–It–Up and the official who discharged him, Pesch,
worked for Torque–It–Up. At least at first glance, North American Tubular appears to have been
standing on the sidelines, as it were, when the discharge occurred. Even though Torque–It–Up has
a joint employer relationship with North American Tubular, is that relationship implicated here 45
and, if so, how?
JD(ATL)–11–15
11
In determining whether Pesch’s decision to discharge Stiles may be imputed to North
American Tubular, I first will consider whether the complaint has alleged that he is a supervisor
and agent of that Company. The complaint’s supervisory and agency allegations appear in its
paragraph 5, which states as follows:5
At all material times, Trace Pesch held the position of Respondent's Director of
Inspection Services, Quality Assurance, Safety and Training and has been a
supervisor of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and an
agent of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.10
Thus, although the complaint alleges Pesch to be a supervisor and agent of “the
Respondent,” it does not specify which Respondent. The use of the singular “Respondent” is
consistent with the complaint allegation that Torque–It–Up and North American Tubular are a
single–integrated enterprise, but a bit confusing in the context of the alternative allegation, that the 15
two entities are joint employers. In view of my conclusion that the Government has not proven
single–employer status, I must consider whether the complaint language alleging Pesch to be a
supervisor and agent of “the Respondent” also alleges that he is a supervisor and agent of each of
the Respondents.
20
The two Respondents filed a single answer which denied both the single–integrated–
enterprise allegation and the joint–employer allegations, although they later admitted joint–
employer status by stipulation at the hearing. With respect to the allegation in complaint
paragraph 5, the Respondents’ answer states as follows:
25
Respondents admit that Trace Pesch held the position of Director of Inspection
Services, Quality Assurance, Safety and Training for Torque–It–Up, LLC. Mr.
Pesch had authority to hire and fire employees. Otherwise, Respondents admit the
remaining allegations in paragraph 5.
30
The first two sentences thus admit only that Pesch is a supervisor and agent of Torque–It–
Up, but the final sentence admits, without qualification, "the remaining allegations." Although the
issue is not free from doubt, I conclude that, in the context of the Complaint as a whole, the
language which alleges Pesch to be an agent of “the Respondent” reasonably would be understood
to mean, and therefore effectively alleges, that Pesch is the agent of each of the Respondents. 35
Similarly, I conclude that the complaint language was sufficient to place the Respondents on
notice that the Government sought to prove that Pesch was an agent of North American Tubular,
and thereby afforded the Respondents the opportunity to deny and contest such a relationship.
Next, I consider whether Pesch was acting as an agent of North American Tubular, as well 40
as of Torque–It–Up, when he made and executed the decision to discharge Stiles. The record does
not establish what duties, if any, Pesch customarily performed for North American Tubular.
However, the evidence does indicate that when Pesch decided to discharge Stiles, he was
attempting to “benefit” North American Tubular as well as Torque–It–Up.
45
JD(ATL)–11–15
12
As noted, employees of Torque–It–Up received somewhat different compensation than
those of North American Tubular, and Stiles' October 8, 2014 conversation with other workers
concerned these differences. In particular, Stiles spoke with Roy Colvin and Josh Peters, both of
whom were employed by North American Tubular. After the discussion with Stiles, both Colvin
and Peters submitted their resignations. These resignations both surprised and alarmed Pesch.5
Pesch admitted that he also was concerned that two other employees, Corry Pierce and
Cody Carter, might resign. He testified that all four – Colvin, Peters, Pierce, and Carter – were
“great employees.” Pierce, like Colvin and Peters, worked for North American Tubular. Of the
four, only Carter was employed by Torque–It–Up.10
Therefore, I conclude that Pesch discharged Stiles in an attempt to prevent further
resignations from the workforce of North American Tubular and not just from the workforce of
Torque–It–Up. In taking this action, Pesch was acting in the interest, as he perceived it, of both
Respondents.15
Section 2(13) of the Act states that in determining whether any person is acting as an
“agent” of another person so as to make such other person responsible for his acts, the question of
whether the specific acts performed were actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be
controlling. 29 U.S.C. § 152(13). I conclude that Pesch was acting as an agent of North American 20
Tubular when he instructed Stiles not to discuss wages with other employees, when he discharged
Stiles, and when he evicted Stiles from company lodging. Further, I conclude that Torque–It–Up,
LLC and North American Tubular, LLC, are jointly and severally liable to remedy these unfair
labor practices.
25
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that they must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act, including posting the notice to employees attached hereto as 30
Appendix B. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or internet site, and/or other electronic
means, if the Respondents customarily communicate with their employees by such means. J.
Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB No. 9 (2010).
35
Additionally, Respondents must offer Stiles immediate and full reinstatement to his former
position or, if that position is no longer available, to a substantially equivalent position, and make
him whole, with interest, for all losses he suffered because of Respondents’ unlawful termination
of his employment. The make–whole relief shall be computed in accordance with F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 40
NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356
NLRB No. 8 (2010).
The Respondents also must (1) submit the appropriate documentation to the Social
Security Administration (SSA) so that when backpay is paid, it will be allocated to the appropriate 45
calendar quarters, and/or (2) reimburse the discriminatee(s) for any additional Federal and State
JD(ATL)–11–15
13
income taxes the discriminatee may owe as a consequence of receiving a lump–sum backpay
award in a calendar year other than the year in which the income would have been earned had the
Act not been violated. Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB No. 10 (2014).
In sum, I recommend that the Board order a full make–whole remedy, with the monetary 5
amounts to be calculated in accordance with the Board’s established precedents. However, it
appears that the Government may wish to place in issue a portion of the formula customarily used
to compute the monetary liability and to litigate that issue at this stage in the unfair labor practice
proceeding.
10
Specifically, complaint paragraph 10 states that the General Counsel seeks, as part of the
remedy, “an order requiring that the Respondent reimburse Michael Stiles for all search–for–work
and work–related expenses regardless of whether Stiles received interim earnings in excess of
these expenses, or at all, during any given quarter, or during the overall backpay period.” This
complaint paragraph therefore concerns matters which, in the Board’s bifurcated hearing process, 15
come into focus during the compliance stage, after the issuance of a compliance specification
defining the matters potentially in dispute.
Thus, Section 102.55 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations provides that a compliance
specification “shall specifically and in detail show, for each employee, the backpay periods broken 20
down by calendar quarters, the specific figures and basis of computation of gross backpay and
interim earnings, the expenses for each quarter, the net backpay due, and any other pertinent
information.” Because no compliance specification has issued, I do not consider complaint
paragraph 10 to raise any issue ripe for litigation at this juncture, but instead will treat it as an
announcement of the Government’s desire to preserve the issue for resolution in the future.25
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondents, Torque–It–Up, LLC and North American Tubular, LLC, are joint
employers and each is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of 30
the Act.
2. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by instructing employee
Michael Stiles not to discuss his wages with other employees, by discharging him for discussing
wages, hours, and working conditions with other employees, and by evicting him from lodging it 35
had furnished him because he engaged in such protected activities.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
40
4. The Respondent did not engage in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint not specifically found herein.
JD(ATL)–11–15
14
On the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the entire record in this case, I issue
the following recommended7
ORDER
5
The Respondents, Torque–It–Up, LLC and North American Tubular, LLC, joint employers,
their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
10
(a) Directing their employees not to discuss wages, hours, and working
conditions with others.
(b) Discharging employees for discussing wages, hours, and working
conditions with other employees or engaging in other concerted activities for their mutual aid or 15
protection.
(c) Evicting employees from lodging furnished to employees because they
engaged in activities protected by the Act.
20
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their rights to self–organization, to form, join, or assist any labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all such activities.25
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to employee Michael Stiles to his
former position or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position and make 30
him whole, with interest, for all losses he suffered because of the unlawful discrimination against
him. The make–whole relief shall be computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987),
compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010).
Respondent shall furnish lodging to Stiles if it provides such lodging to other members of the work 35
crew to which he is assigned.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from its files any
reference to the unlawful discharge of Michael Stiles and, within 3 days thereafter, notify Stiles in
writing that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way.40
(c) Compensate the employee for any adverse tax consequences of receiving a
lump–sum backpay award, and file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating the

7 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, these findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board, and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(ATL)–11–15
15
backpay award to the appropriate calendar quarter for each employee.
(d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay 5
due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at their offices and places of business in Midland, Texas, and at all
other places where notices customarily are posted, copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix B.”
8
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, 10
after being signed by the Respondents' authorized representatives, shall be posted by the
Respondents immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees customarily are posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondents to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, noticed shall be distributed 15
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or internet site, and/or other electronic
means, if the Respondents customarily communicates with its employees by such means. J. Picini
Flooring, 356 NLRB No. 9 (2010). In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings,
either Respondent has gone out of business, that Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the 20
Respondent at any time since October 8, 2014.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this
Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
25
Dated Washington, D.C. June 10, 2015
30
____________________________
Keltner W. Locke
Administrative Law Judge
35

8 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words 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(ATL)–11–15
16
APPENDIX A
BENCH DECISION
This decision is issued pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(10) and Section 102.45 of the Board's 5
Rules and Regulations. The credited testimony establishes that Respondent unlawfully
terminated the employment of the Charging Party because he discussed wages and other terms and
conditions of employment with fellow employees.
Procedural History10
This case began on November 4, 2014, when Michael Stiles, the Charging Party, filed the
initial unfair labor practice charge. Thereafter, the Charging Party amended the charge twice on
January 30, 2015.
15
After an investigation, the Regional Director for Region 16 of the Board, issued a
Complaint and Notice of Hearing on February 26, 2015. In doing so, the Regional Director acted
for and with authority delegated by the Board's General Counsel. Both Respondents filed a single
answer and thereafter amended it.
20
On May 6, 2015, a hearing opened before me in Midland, Texas. On that date, both sides
rested after calling witnesses and introducing evidence. On May 7, 2015, counsel presented oral
argument. Today, May 8, 2015, I am issuing this bench decision.
Admitted Allegations25
In answering the complaint, and by stipulation during the hearing, the Respondents
admitted certain allegations. Based on those admissions, I find that General Counsel has proven
that the unfair labor practice charge was filed, amended and served as alleged. Further, I find that
the Respondents, Torque–It–Up, LLC, and North American Tubular, LLC, are joint employers 30
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act, and that it is
appropriate for the Board to assert jurisdiction in this matter.
Further, I find that Trace Pesch was, at all times material to this matter, the Director of
Inspection Services, Quality Assurance, Safety and Training for Respondent Torque–It–Up, LLC, 35
possessed the authority to hire and discharge employees, and was a supervisor and agent of
Respondent Torque–It–Up, LLC, within the meaning of Sections 2(11) and 2(13) of the Act,
respectively.
Background Facts40
Both Respondents are contractors in the oil drilling industry and provide similar services.
These services begin after a hole has been drilled in the ground for an oil well, and consist of
lining the hole with casing which serves, in effect, as a pipe through which the oil flows to the
surface. Modern drilling techniques often result in the hole descending straight down for a while 45
and then bending to run in a direction almost parallel to the surface, so the installation of the
JD(ATL)–11–15
17
casing presents a challenge, particularly when the hole can extend for more than a thousand feet.
This work takes Respondents’ employees to different locations as new wells are drilled in
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and other places. Typically, these employees do not live close to
the jobsites and their homes may be hundreds of miles away. The Respondents provide temporary 5
lodging, relatively close to the jobsite, for the employees who will be working at that site.
The Respondents have leased a large house in Hobbs, New Mexico. It includes four
bedrooms, three bathrooms, a kitchen and common areas the employees may use when not on
duty. Typically, an employee will stay in this house for a 3–week stint while working at a jobsite.10
Thus, the employees working on a particular oil field project are in close contact with one
another, both on and off duty, for several weeks at a time, a situation in which human beings easily
can begin to get on one another's nerves. Moreover, the job duties, involving the threading of the
casing into the long hole, require close teamwork. Charging Party Stiles, a former Marine and 15
veteran of the war in Iraq, described the working conditions as similar to a “deployment.” In other
words, the heavy, stressful work and the close proximity create a kind of crucible in which
employees easily can become irritated and vexed.
The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices20
The witnesses present two starkly different versions of events, and I must choose which
testimony to believe. That is especially difficult because the two principal witnesses, Charging
Party Stiles and Director of Inspection Services Pesch, both appeared to be quite credible
witnesses. Casual observations of their demeanor while testifying afford little, if any clue as to 25
which testimony more accurately reflects what happened. This decision relies heavily on the
testimony of neutral witnesses who have no stake in the outcome.
The events in dispute took place at the house in Hobbs, New Mexico, on October 8, 2014.
About 3 weeks earlier, Respondent Torque–It–Up had hired Stiles and had assigned him to a 30
jobsite for what amounted to on–the–job training. During this period, Stiles was lodging, along
with other crew members, at the house.
Stiles testified that on October 8, 2014, while at the house, he was talking with some other
employees about wage rates when he received a call from Pesch, who told him not to discuss 35
wages with other employees, and Stiles said he would not. According to Stiles, after the call, he
engaged in further discussions with other employees about other working conditions. It may be
noted that although employees of Torque–It–Up and North American Tubular sometimes worked
together at the same jobsite, all of their terms and conditions of employment were not identical.
Stiles testified that Pesch then called him again and discharged him for discussing wages 40
notwithstanding Pesch’s prior instruction not to do so.
Pesch’s testimony, and his pretrial affidavit, which is in evidence, differ markedly.
According to Pesch, late in the afternoon on October 8, 2014, he received a telephone call from
one of the workers staying at the house.45
JD(ATL)–11–15
18
In Pesch's affidavit, which is consistent with his testimony at the hearing, he gave the
following description of what the caller had reported: “The caller said Stiles came in using certain
mannerisms, tones, voices, body behavior, shouting, and pounding on tables. The caller said that,
out of the blue, Stiles started saying things like ‘You guys are on your way out,’ 'They need me a
lot more than I need you,’ ‘I am untouchable,’ those kinds of statements.”5
After receiving this call, Pesch discussed the matter in phone calls with two workers, Corry
Pierce and Harvey Ortiz. He described them as being upset and threatening to quit. Pesch stated
in his affidavit that Pierce and Carter “had left the house and were getting ready to walk away if
Stiles stayed. Two employees of North American Tubular quit after the conversation with Stiles. I 10
believe their names are Josh Peters and Roy Colvin. I did not talk to Peters or Colvin about why
they had quit.”
Pesch decided to discharge Stiles. He testified that he notified Stiles of this decision on
October 9, and also told him to leave the house. In a termination notice Pesch prepared 2 days 15
later, Pesch stated as follows (capitalization as in original):
STILES CREATED AND CAUSED A DISTRACTION AND DISRUPTION
WITHIN THE WORKPLACE EFFECTING [sic] OTHER COMPANY
EMPLOYEES. THIS CREATED A POSSIBLE SAFETY ISSUE WITH 20
EMPLOYEES. STILES WAS INFORMED TO LEAVE THE PREMISES. NO
ISSUED EQUIPMENT WAS TURNED IN FROM STILES. PAYROLL
DEDUCTIONS WILL APPLY (SEE ATTACHED EQUIPMENT FORM(S).
STILES IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REHIRE.
25
Pesch admitted on the witness stand that, to his knowledge, Stiles had never threatened or
touched any employee.
In deciding which testimony to credit, I note that both Stiles and Pesch have an interest in
the outcome of this proceeding. The testimony of neutral witnesses is particularly important. 30
There were a number of such witnesses, workers who were employed by one of the Respondents
at the time, but who are no longer employees. On October 8, 2014, they were lodging at the house
in Hobbs, New Mexico, and heard at least part of what Stiles said.
Corry Pierce testified that Stiles was “mouthing off,” saying that he had college degrees 35
and military experience and that he would be the last person laid off. This statement annoyed
Pierce, who had several years experience compared to Stiles’ 3 weeks of experience. Irritated,
Pierce walked outside.
Pierce compared Stiles’ words to “poking a bear with a stick.” However, I do not gather 40
from Pierce’s testimony that he or others feared for their safety. It is true, as the Respondent
argues, that Stiles is 6 feet 4 inches tall, does body building as a hobby, and is a former Marine.
However, the tenor of Pierce’s testimony, and that of other witnesses, is not that they were afraid
of Stiles but rather that they felt insulted by his assertion that his college degree and Marine Corps
experience made him superior to them and would result in his retaining his job after they were laid 45
off. More than once during his testimony, Pierce described Stiles as “acting like he’s better than
JD(ATL)–11–15
19
everybody else,” and Pierce's irritation was visible when he gave that testimony.
Pierce testified that he did not hear Stiles make any threats. He did refer to Stiles’
“demeanor” but did not describe it as threatening or intimidating. Rather, I infer that Pierce
considered Stiles unpleasant, perhaps haughty.5
Respondent introduced into evidence an affidavit given by an employee, Cody Carter, to a
Board investigator. Carter did not testify at the hearing, but his affidavit corroborates Pierce’s
testimony. Carter stated in his affidavit that he was in the living room and four or five men were
in the kitchen talking. Their conversation became loud. One of them called to Carter to come in 10
and listen. Carter further stated:
When I went in, Stiles was talking about how he had some kind of degree that had
him set up in the company, and that the Employer was going to lay off or fire
everyone in the company before him, and that he knew this for a fact This is the 15
only thing I heard from Stiles. This made me mad, so Corry and I both walked
out to the front yard. We were both mad because Stiles was saying some stupid
shit. I was in the kitchen for less than five minutes. About five minutes later Josh
Peters came out with his relief hand, his first name is Roy, and they were really
hot. I'm pretty sure they quit right after that. I don't think they told me why they 20
quit. I'm pretty sure they were mad at Stiles because of what he was saying,
because it was starting to get a little heated when I went in there but I don't know
for sure. They said they were going to talk to the manager at Mike Byrd Casing
Crews. Nobody was violent or aggressive during the conversation in the house, it
was just words.25
Another witness no longer employed by Respondent, Derek Herndon, gave testimony
corroborating Carter. Herndon described Stiles as wanting to be “the man,” that is, lording it over
the others and claiming that he would be retained when the others were laid off. However,
Herndon’s testimony does not establish that Stiles acted in a threatening manner or otherwise 30
evoked fear, as contrasted to irritation and anger.
On the other hand, another witness to the discussion, Roy Colvin, testified that Stiles was
somewhat loud but that other people were loud, too. Colvin did not testify that Stiles said
anything about his college degree or experience but instead indicated that the discussion 35
concerned wages and terms of employment. Colvin became angry but it appears that it was not at
Stiles but rather concerned his wages and other terms of employment. Colvin had been in touch
with another employer, then quit his job after listening to this discussion. Considering Colvin’s
lack of interest in the outcome of this proceeding and after observing his demeanor as a witness, I
credit his testimony.40
Further, I conclude that the differences in the testimony arise because each witness only
heard part of the conversation. Based on the credited testimony of these neutral witnesses, I find
that Stiles did make remarks claiming that he would be retained when the others were laid off and
referring to his academic and military credentials. However, I also find that Stiles discussed 45
wages and other terms and conditions of employment and that this discussion precipitated Colvin’s
JD(ATL)–11–15
20
decision to quit.
No evidence establishes that Stiles acted in a threatening manner and I find that he did not.
Additionally, I conclude that the action which got Pesch’ attention, and resulted in the decision to
discharge Stiles, was Colvin’s decision to quit after hearing Stiles discuss wages. Pesch might 5
very well have had some concern about the cohesiveness of the team, but it seems likely that
employees quitting after hearing Stiles constituted the event triggering the discharge.
Because the Act protects employee discussion of wages and other terms and conditions of
employment, I conclude that Stiles was discharged for protected activity. Therefore, a Wright Line10
analysis is not appropriate.
Rather, the appropriate analytical framework entails determining whether Stiles engaged,
during the course of that protected activity, in misconduct sufficiently egregious to remove the
protection of the Act. I conclude he did not.15
Stiles did not threaten anyone, but rather irritated his coworkers by claiming superior
credentials which would protect him from a layoff. Acting boorish may harm team cohesiveness,
but it does not constitute egregious misconduct. Moreover, Stiles was not the only person
speaking in a loud voice. I do not believe that these oil field workers, sometimes referred to in the 20
testimony as “roughnecks,” always carry on conversation in whispers.
It may be noted that were I following a Wright Line analysis, I would give little weight to
the Respondent’s implied claim that it had concerns about Stiles being threatening and
intimidating. It disserves the country's combat veterans to jump to such a conclusion and I would 25
reach it only upon evidence more substantial and convincing than present here.
In sum, I conclude that Respondent discharged Stiles, and evicted him from company–
owned lodging, because Stiles discussed wages, hours, and working conditions with other
employees. Both the discharge and the eviction violated the Act, as alleged in the complaint.30
When the transcript of this proceeding has been prepared, I will issue a certification which
attaches as an appendix the portion of the transcript reporting this bench decision. This
certification also will include provisions relating to the findings of fact, conclusions of law,
remedy, order and notice. When that certification is served upon the parties, the time period for 35
filing an appeal will begin to run.
Throughout the hearing, all counsel impressed me with their civility and professionalism,
which I truly appreciate.
40
The hearing is closed.
JD(ATL)–11–15
APPENDIX B
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 abide by 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 prohibit employees from discussing their wages, hours, or other terms and
conditions of employment with others.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discipline any employee for discussing wages, hours or
other terms and conditions of employment, or for engaging in concerted activities with other
employees for their mutual aid and protection.
WE WILL NOT evict from company–provided lodging any employee because that person has
discussed wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment with others or has engaged
in union or other protected, concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Michael Stiles immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or, if his
former position is no longer available, to a substantially equivalent position, furnish to him the
same lodging which we provide to other employees on his work crew, and WE WILL make him
whole, with interest, for all losses he suffered because of our unlawful discrimination against him.
WE WILL, within 14 days of the Board's Order, remove from our files any reference to the
unlawful discharge of Michael Stiles and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify him that the
discharge will not be used against him in any way.
TORQUE–IT–UP, LLC and NORTH
AMERICAN TUBULAR, LLC, JOINT
EMPLOYER AND/OR SINGLE EMPLOYER
(Respondent)
Dated: ___________________ By: _____________________________________________
(Representative) (Title)
JD(ATL)–11–15
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: ww.nlrb.gov.
819 Taylor Street, Room 8A24, Fort Worth, TX 76102–6178
(817) 978–2921 Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/16–CA–140455 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
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
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (713)209–4885