Tradesmen International

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jul 29, 2003

12-CA-022630 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 29, 2003)

JD(ATL)—49—03
ORLANDO, FL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE

TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL, INC.

and CASE 12-CA-22630

SHEET METAL WORKERS’
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
LOCAL NO.15

Karen M. Thornton, Esq.,
for the General Counsel
Vincent T. Norwillo, Esq.,
for the Company.
George Bayer, Business Agent,
for the Union.1

BENCH DECISION

Statement of the Case

WILLIAM N. CATES, Administrative Law Judge. This case involves the
alleged wrongful refusal, on or about July 22, 2002, to hire and/or refer for work Timothy
D. Boggs. At the close of trial in Orlando, Florida, on July 8, 2003, and after hearing
closing arguments by counsel, I issued a Bench Decision pursuant to Section
102.35(a)(10) of the National Labor Relations Board’s (Board) Rules and Regulations
setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law.

For the reasons, specifically including credibility determinations, stated by me on
the record at the close of the trial, I found Tradesmen International, Inc. (Company) did
not refuse to hire and/or refer Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association Local No.
15 (Union) Organizer Boggs for employment on or about July 22, 2002. The credited
testimony and related evidence established the Company, on or about that date, hired
Union Organizer Boggs and referred him for employment with a contractor, Foley and
Associates, Inc., at the Fountains Condominiums in New Smyrna Beach, Florida. The
evidence established Organizer Boggs never at any time thereafter reported for work even
though he was given an exact date and location to report for work as well as a contact
person and telephone number at the work site. Boggs was subsequently terminated

1 Joseph Egan, Jr., Esq., entered a limited appearance for the Union on a Motion to Revoke a
Subpoena Duces Tecum

JD(ATL)—49—03

pursuant to the Company’s work rules for failing, after two days, to report for work. I
dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

I certify the accuracy of the portion of the transcript, as corrected,2 pages 292 to
312 containing my Bench Decision, and I attach a copy of that portion of the transcript,
as corrected, as “Appendix A.”
Conclusions of Law

The Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and has not violated the Act in any manner alleged in
the complaint.

ORDER3

The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

Dated, Washington, D.C.

William N. Cates
Associate Chief Judge

2 I have corrected the transcript pages containing my Bench Decision and the corrections are as reflected in
attached Appendix B.
3 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the 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.
2

JD(ATL)—49—03
ORLANDO, FL

This is my decision in Tradesmen International, Inc.,

JD(ATL)—49—03

herein Company, in Case 12-CA-22630.
First, I wish to thank Counsel for their presentation of
the evidence. If you think back over the trial, I asked few
questions in this proceeding. That is a good reflection on
Counsel, that they have developed the evidence in a manner that
is complete and from which I can make a decision.
May I also state that it has been a pleasure to be in
Orlando, Florida.
This is an Unfair Labor Practice case prosecuted by the
National Labor Relation Board’s, herein Board, General Counsel,
herein Government Counsel, acting through the Regional Director
for Region 12 of the Board following an investigation by Region
12’s staff.
The Regional Director for Region 12 of the Board issued a
Complaint and Notice of Hearing, herein Complaint, on February
27, 2003 against the Company based upon an Unfair Labor Practice
charge in Case 12-CA-22630 filed on November 15, 2002, by Sheet
Metal Workers' International Association, Local Number 15,
herein union, or Charging Party.
The specific contested Complaint allegations are that the
Company, on or about July 22, 2002, failed and refused to hire
and/or refer Timothy D. Boggs, herein Boggs, a qualified sheet
metal mechanic, for work because Boggs joined and assisted the
union and engaged in concerted activities and to discourage
employees from engaging in these activities. It is alleged the
4

JD(ATL)—49—03

Company’s actions, as I have just outlined, violate Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The Company, in its answer and at
trial, denies having violated the Act in any manner alleged in
the Complaint. Certain facts are admitted, stipulated or
undisputed. It is essential that certain of those facts, such
as jurisdictional information, be set forth at this point, which
I shall now do.
It is admitted that the Company is an Ohio corporation with
an office and place of business located in Orlando, Florida,
where it has been and is in the business of construction labor
leasing of skilled laborers. During the 12 months preceding the
issuance of the Complaint herein, a representative period, the
Company provided services valued in excess of $50,000 directly
to customers located outside the State of Florida and during
that same time period, purchased and received at its Orlando,
Florida facility, services or materials valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points located outside the State of
Florida. The evidence established, the parties admit and I find
the Company as an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
The parties admit and I find the union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The
parties admit and I find that Company General Manager Tom Craig,
herein General Manager Craig, and Company recruiter Steven A.
Vary, herein Company Recruiter Vary or Recruiter Vary are
5

JD(ATL)—49—03

supervisors and agents of the Company within the meaning of
Section 2(11) and 2(13) of the Act.
The contested testimony in this case is primarily between
the testimony of Boggs and Company Recruiter Vary. I shall set
forth the highlights of both witnesses testimony and then I will
proceed to make credibility determinations, speak to the
credited facts that I rely on and then apply those facts as I
have found to be the accurate ones to the applicable law.
Boggs testified he is a union sheet metal worker with
approximately nine years work experience. Boggs stated he has
completed three years of college and a four-year apprentice
program with the union. Boggs is a union member and was an
employee of the union herein from September 8, 2001 until
February 28, 2003. While employed by the union as an organizer,
he ran all organizing programs for the union. During his tenure
as a union organizer, he brought one new employer into the
organized ranks.
During the summer of 2002, the Company ran various
advertisements in the Orlando Sentinel, a newspaper serving
greater Orlando, Florida and surrounding area, for skilled
workers. One such advertisement ran on approximately July 2,
2002 in which the Company sought duct mechanics with three years
of experience that also possessed a driver’s license and had
transportation available to them. The advertisement provided a
telephone number for those interested.
6

JD(ATL)—49—03

Boggs testified that on July 18, 2002 he saw the Company’s
advertisement for duct mechanics and telephoned the number
provided. Boggs testified the number turned out to be a fax
number so he prepared a short resume which he sent to the
union’s Tampa office for them to fax to the Company.
Boggs assumed his resume was faxed by the Tampa office of the
union to the Company, although he stated he had no proof
thereof. Boggs said he did not send the fax from his assigned
union office because the union’s name appeared on any fax sent
from his office. The fax Boggs asserts was sent is dated July
19, 2002 and reads as follows: “I am responding to the ad in
Thursday’s Orlando Sentinel hiring duct mechanics with a $200
sign-on bonus. I have ten years of experience in the sheet
metal industry. Currently, I am self-employed. I have
experience in all aspects of sheet metal and looking to secure
long-term employment with an established contractor. I would
like the opportunity to put in an application. I have tried to
call the number posted in the ad and all I get is a fax machine.
So I am faxing this in response. You can reach me at (407) 948-
0026 at any time. Thank you for your time. Tim Boggs.”
Boggs testified he received a telephone call from a Company
representative named Henry who advised him some long-term
work was available at a Disney World location for a
contractor named Ferran.
Boggs went to the Company’s office on July 22 wearing a
7

JD(ATL)—49—03

union hat, shirt and union emblems. A Company secretary gave
him an application to fill out, which he did. Boggs stated he
had left a previous job in September 2001, with Lapin Sheet
Metal Company to become a union organizer. Boggs also listed on
his application certain other references to the union. After
about 30 minutes, Company Recruiter Vary took Boggs to Vary’s
office, according to Boggs. On his employment application,
Boggs provided the union’s number as his home number and the
union’s address as his home address. Boggs asserts the cell
phone number he provided on his application was his personal
cell phone.
Boggs testified he was given a written but no verbal test.
According to Boggs, Company Recruiter Vary told him he would
look over his application and test and would telephone him.
According to Boggs, he did not fill out any papers such as W-2
forms, safety orientation certificates, time or attendance cards
and specifically testified he was not offered a job on July 22,
2002.
Boggs testified that after he left the Company’s office on
July 22, 2002 he telephoned his union office and learned, at
that time, that sheet metal worker Tom Vaughn had just been laid
off from a job that morning. Boggs testified he obtained
Vaughn’s telephone number and instructed Vaughn to call the
Company about a job as a duct mechanic. Boggs stated he spoke
again later with Vaughn and Vaughn told him that he, Vaughn, had
8

JD(ATL)—49—03

an appointment with the Company for an interview at 4:00 p.m.
that afternoon. Boggs said he learned thereafter that Vaughn
had been hired that day for the Disney World opening with
contractor Ferran. Boggs stated Vaughn was not going to be
able, however, to take the job because he, Vaughn, had a family
emergency in New York. Vaughn made no mention of any union
sympathies on his employment application.
Boggs testified he telephoned the Company to check on his
application on July 23, 2002 and was told by Vary that he was
still waiting to hear from the contractor. Boggs testified
Company Recruiter Vary telephoned him on July 23, 2002 to
ascertain if he, Boggs, could do duct board work. Boggs said he
could, that a duct mechanic could do both metal and fiber board
ventilation work. According to Boggs, Company Recruiter Vary
told him there would be a job in New Smyrna Beach, Florida if
Boggs was not opposed to travel. Boggs testified he told Vary,
if that’s all the Company had, he would take it. Boggs
testified he was told to show up at the Company on July 24, 2002
at 8:00 a.m. to do an employee orientation packet containing
various job-related paper forms. Boggs testified he showed up
at 8:00 a.m. where he executed a W-4 form and I-9 form, read the
Company’s post-accident, drug and alcohol policies as well as
signed for an employee handbook and the Company’s safety
mission as well as a drug/alcohol testing consent form.
Boggs testified he was not given any referral or job on
9

JD(ATL)—49—03

July 24, 2002. Boggs asserts he was told a roofer/welder
position would be coming up in a few days and that was the job
he was actually applying for. Boggs testified he was told the
New Smyrna Beach job had been filled.
Boggs testified he never at any time threatened to sue the
Company or that he had placed Vaughn on the Disney job to prove
to the Company that he could place a plant in their employment.
Boggs testified he called the Company on July 26, 2002 to
check on his job status but that the Company never thereafter
telephoned him. Boggs testified his next contact with the
Company was when he hand-delivered to the Company a copy of the
underlying charge herein on or about November 15, 2002.
Boggs specifically denied being late for his July 22, 2002
interview. Boggs likewise specifically denied he was offered
the New Smyrna Beach job on July 22 or 23 and specifically
states he was on time for his July 24, 2002 meeting with the
Company.
Boggs stated he told Company Recruiter Vary on July 23,
2002 that Vaughn was a union sheet metal worker but would not be
able to take the Disney World located job with contractor Ferran
and advised Vary that position should then be vacant.
Current Coleman Goodemote Construction Project Manager
Louis Leorza testified he was Project Superintendent at the
Fountains Condominium construction project in New Smyrna Beach,
Florida in the summer of 2002. Leorza testified Foley &
10

JD(ATL)—49—03

Associates was a general contractor on the project and that all
trades on the project got a little behind in their schedules and
workers were needed in various crafts, including heating,
ventilation, air conditioning, sheet metal workers.
Leorza testified he contacted the Company herein about
sheet metal workers for duct work and the Company supplied one
employee, namely Ted Warrington and one other employee for a day
or two. Leorza testified he continued to need sheet metal
workers but was not to his knowledge supplied any additional
ones by the Company herein during the summer of 2002. Leorza
denied ever telling the Company herein that he would never use
them again or recommend them again because they had been
unsatisfactory in supplying workers to that site. Leorza denied
canceling any work order for additional workers.
According to Leorza, some welding work was involved in the
heating, ventilating, air conditioning work at the New Smyrna
Beach site at The Fountains and some of the welding work on
refrigerated lines in the walls would need to go all the way to
the roof where the air conditioning compressors were located.
Company Recruiter Vary testified he has 15 years work
experience, is a former union member and has seven years hiring
experience for skilled workers. Vary commenced work for the
Company herein as a recruiter on June 23, 2002.
Vary testified that as a recruiter for the Company herein
he had authority to hire or decline to hire applicants as he saw
11

JD(ATL)—49—03

fit without review.
Recruiter Vary testified Boggs telephoned him at 7:35 a.m.
on July 22, 2002 about employment. Vary testified he had never
heard of Boggs prior to that time and no one mentioned Boggs to
him prior to that time. Boggs told Vary that he was in the
immediate area and Vary scheduled an appointment for Boggs at
8:00 a.m. that date, July 22, 2002. Company Recruiter Vary
testified Boggs did not show until 10:05 a.m. Vary stated that
caused him to view Boggs as unreliable.
Vary testified Boggs was boisterous and arrogant during the
interview and even leaned on Vary’s desk. Vary testified Boggs
said he was an organizer for the union and was going to organize
men on the job. Vary testified Boggs said he had ten years work
experience and was a union-trained sheet metal worker and that
he had all the tools needed for the job.
Vary testified he gave Boggs, as he did all applicants, an
oral examination on his skills and allowed Boggs to rate himself
on a number of skills and training as well as the availability
of tools. Vary testified that at the end of Boggs interview, he
had summed Boggs up as “arrogant, rude and was late for the
interview” and he simply did not like Boggs.
Vary testified the July 22, 2002 interview with Boggs
lasted approximately 45 minutes to an hour with Boggs leaving
the Company at approximately 11:00 a.m. that morning.
Vary testified that at approximately 11:20 a.m. on July 22,
12

JD(ATL)—49—03

2002 he received a call from one Thomas Vaughn seeking an
employment interview. Vary set up an appointment for Vaughn
that same day at 1:30 p.m. According to Vary, Vaughn showed up
on time, was very cordial, spoke of his family and was
interested in what type of family insurance and benefits the
Company could provide. Vary said he was very impressed with
Vaughn. Vaughn was given the same skills and knowledge test
that Boggs had been given, according to Vary.
Vary testified he considered Vaughn an excellent applicant
and offered him a job at the Disney World location for
contractor Ferran. Vary had Vaughn fill out an orientation
package that included W-4 and I-9 forms, safety mission
statements, employee handbook acknowledgment and related
documents. Vary testified he decided to hire Vaughn during the
interview based on Vaughn’s attitude and demeanor. Vary
testified he was also impressed with Vaughn’s aggressive nature
toward his profession, namely he was interested in being and
performing work as a skilled sheet metal worker.
Vary testified he had no knowledge of any union affiliation or
lack thereof on Vaughn’s part. Vary gave Vaughn the location of
the job, a contact person, a telephone number and a reporting
time.
Vary testified he learned from contractor Ferran that
Vaughn never showed for the job. Vary testified that after a
referred applicant does not show for work for two consecutive
13

JD(ATL)—49—03

days, that employee is terminated by the Company.
Company Recruiter Vary explained no payroll records are
generated on any such employee because the employee never showed
for or performed any work that would generate a time card on
which a payroll record could be developed.
Company Recruiter Vary testified that approximately 15
minutes after Vaughn left his, Vary’s office, on July 22, 2002,
he received a telephone call from Boggs. According to Vary,
Boggs wanted to know why he had hired Vaughn for the Disney
World located job with contractor Ferran. Vary testified he had
not mentioned any job sites to Boggs because if one is told as
an applicant where a job is, the applicant can go directly to
the employer and be hired directly by the contractor and the
Company herein would not make any commission on referring an
employee to a contractor.
Company Recruiter Vary told Boggs he had a job with a
contractor in New Smyrna Beach, Florida and offered the job
to Boggs. According to Vary, Boggs refused the New Smyrna Beach
job, which was with Foley & Associates at The Fountains
Condominium project in New Smyrna Beach, Florida. Boggs told
Vary if he, Vary, did not give him, Boggs, the Disney World
located job, he would sue Vary for union bias. Vary testified
he offered Boggs the job at New Smyrna Beach the afternoon of
July 22, 2002 because he had an opportunity to call one of Boggs
listed prior employers after their morning interview and the
14

JD(ATL)—49—03

employer’s representative had given Boggs a favorable
recommendation. Vary testified the prior employer that he spoke
with was a union employer.
Company Recruiter Vary testified that after he offered
Boggs the job at New Smyrna Beach and Boggs turned him down, he
told General Manager Craig that Boggs had turned down the job
and had threatened to sue him. Vary testified General Manager
Craig instructed him to document his actions, thus leading to
his creating contemporaneous notes of his interview and other
interactions related to Boggs. Vary testified General Manager
Craig ordered him to call Boggs and again offer Boggs the job at
The Fountains Condo project for Foley & Associates in New Smyrna
Beach, Florida. Vary telephoned Boggs on July 23, 2002 and
again offered Boggs the New Smyrna Beach job. Boggs again
refused the job. According to Vary, General Manager Craig then
called Boggs and offered him the job which he, Boggs, accepted.
Boggs was then scheduled to fill out his employment package on
July 24, 2002, which he did. According to Vary, Boggs was given
the location, a phone number and a contact person at Foley &
Associates at The Fountains Condo project in New Smyrna Beach,
Florida.
Vary testified he learned from the contractor that Boggs never
showed up for employment. After two days of not showing for
work, the Company herein terminated Boggs.
Vary testified that Boggs told him on July 24, 2002 during
15

JD(ATL)—49—03

the time he was filling out the paperwork for his employment
package that Vaughn was a plant, a union salt, and that he had
been such in seeking a position with the Company. Boggs told
Vary Vaughn was to demonstrate to Vary how easy he, Boggs, could
get a plant inside the Company and that he had instructed Vaughn
that if he was given a job not to appear at work. According to
Company Recruiter Vary, Boggs bragged he had caused the Tampa
office of the Company herein to close.
Company Recruiter Vary acknowledged he did not want to hire
Boggs because he didn’t like him. That Boggs was trying to get
him into trouble and he considered Boggs to be a dirtbag. Vary
testified he hired Boggs anyway because Boggs got a favorable
recommendation from a previous employer, that the Company needed
skilled heating, ventilation, air conditioning, sheet metal
workers and that his boss, General Manager Craig, told him to
offer Boggs a job a second time. Vary testified he did not
discuss other jobs with Boggs and did not offer Boggs the Disney
World location job with contractor Ferran because Ferran had
canceled the work order with the Company because of the no-show
of Vaughn as an employee.
Vary testified Foley & Associates also became disgruntled
because of the no-show of Boggs and canceled that work order.
An employee, Ted Warrington at Foley & Associates and an employee, Brown at
Ferran, continued to work at those contractors after those
contractors canceled their work order requests for additional
16

JD(ATL)—49—03

employees with the Company herein, according to Vary. According
to Vary, it was Louis Leorza who canceled the work order request
for Foley & Associates.
That essentially is an outline of the factual presentation
in this case as it involves the allegations surrounding Boggs.
Certain credibility determinations need to be made. I carefully
observed the witnesses as they testified. I have utilized that
observation in arriving at the facts that I rely on herein. I
considered each witness’ testimony in relation to other
witnesses’ testimony and in light of the Exhibits presented
herein.
Let me state that if there is any evidence that might seem
to contradict the facts I credit and rely on, I have
not ignored such evidence but rather have discredited or
rejected it as not being reliable or trustworthy. I have
considered the entire record in arriving at the facts herein.
Documentation has played a role in deciding between the
conflicting versions of events herein to a certain but not
controlling degree.
Vary impressed me as a candid, truthful witness testifying
favorably for the Company, even after admittedly being fired by
the Company, a firing which Vary feels resulted in a lifestyle
change for him, a firing which Vary feels was not warranted or
justified. Vary feels he was fired because the new manager
simply did not like him. I note that Vary appears to have
17

JD(ATL)—49—03

nothing to gain by his testimony. It also appears he did not
use this occasion of testifying to get even with the Company for
his firing.
Vary candidly admitted there were certain things in the
hiring process he could not explain fully. As to why, for
example, he would ask one applicant more questions than another.
I am fully persuaded, after observing Vary testify on two
separate days and listening to the tone and inflections of his
voice, that he did so truthfully to the best of his ability.
Documentation, such as his contemporaneous notes as well as the
employment orientation packages of Boggs and Vaughn, for the
greater part, support Vary’s version of events.
I was, on the other hand, not impressed with Boggs’
testimony. I had a number of credibility problems related
to the testimony of Boggs. Some are more important and
controlling than others.
First, he contends he had the union’s Tampa office, instead
of his union office, fax a short resume to the Company.
However, he could not produce any proof such was ever faxed. I
note that the parties stipulated the fax number of the Company
was called by the union telephone in mid-July.
Second, he listed the union’s address as his home address
and he listed the union’s phone number as his phone number on
his application. Boggs denied that certain calls were made to
him at that number.
18

JD(ATL)—49—03

At points in his testimony, Boggs answered more than he was
asked. At other times he wanted to have words with clear
meaning in the context of this case explained to him. It
appeared to me Boggs wanted to testify in a manner that would
ensure his best interest
without careful regard for the truth or the
accuracy of his testimony.
Simply stated, after observing Boggs testify and after
listening to certain contradictory testimony from Company
Recruiter Vary, I am persuaded Boggs’ disputed testimony is
untrustworthy and unconvincing. Boggs testified, for example,
he was given a written test. The documentation and actual test
suggest such would not have been the case because the answers to the
test were pre-written on the test form. I am also suspect of Boggs’
testimony that he just happened to learn on July 22, 2002 that
Vaughn just happened to be out of work that very day and
that he sent Vaughn to the Company that day for employment. I
am also suspect of Boggs’ testimony that as soon as Vaughn got
the job he just happened to have some personal, unexplained
emergency in New York and would not be able to fulfill his job
commitment.
Simply stated, any place that Boggs’ testimony is
contradicted by Company Recruiter Vary, I credit Vary’s version.
Looking then at the credited facts, Boggs was offered and first
declined on July 22, 2002 a job at New Smyrna Beach, Florida for
19

JD(ATL)—49—03

Foley and Associates at The Fountains Condo project. Boggs was
again offered the job on July the 23rd by General Manager Craig
and accepted the job. Boggs then on July the 24th completed the
necessary paperwork and was given a contact name, job site
location, reporting date and a person to report to. Boggs failed
without explanation to appear for two days for that employment
and was terminated.
Looking at the facts that I rely on herein, was any animus
established? That is, unlawful animus against protected or
union activities. I find there was not. Although Company
Recruiter Vary candidly testified he did not like Boggs
personally, he still hired him. Company Recruiter Vary hired
Boggs after getting a favorable recommendation from a union
contractor and even after knowing Boggs had left that specific
previous employer to take employment as a union organizer with a
stated goal of organizing the unorganized and filing Unfair
Labor Practice charges against employers. Vary testified, and I
credit his testimony, that Boggs’ union affiliation played no
role in his hiring decision. He did acknowledge he was told to
offer Boggs the job again a second time after Boggs had first
turned down the job because it was easier to put him on the job
than not to. Boggs, in my opinion, brought about his own demise
by not reporting for the job that he accepted at the New Smyrna
Beach location.
Was Boggs bypassed or somehow treated differently for the
20

JD(ATL)—49—03

Ferran job at Disney World than was Vaughn who was offered the
job? The answer is no. Company Recruiter Vary explained that
Vaughn was offered the Disney World location job, among other
reasons, because of his Orlando, Florida application address.
Company Recruiter Vary explained the address Boggs gave on his
application, which was the Union Hall address in Sanford,
Florida, was closer to the New Smyrna Beach job location than it
was to the Disney World location at the Ferran project. I am
not unmindful that Boggs testified the driving time was about
the same. Boggs never, however, denied that the distance was
greater to the Disney location than to the New Smyrna Beach job.
At the time Boggs was offered and refused the New
Smyrna Beach job the first time on July 22, 2002, Vaughn had not
missed his reporting dates at contractor Ferran at Disney
World. I am fully persuaded Company Recruiter Vary never
mentioned or suggested to Boggs he could later be employed on a
roofer and welding job. I am persuaded Boggs did not testify
truthfully on that point. Notwithstanding the fact that Boggs,
for whatever reason, wrote on one of his orientation papers that
it was a roofer and welder job he was seeking.
Has the Company violated the Act by its actions herein? I
am persuaded applying either the FES analysis or the Wright Line
analysis that the Company has not. It appears the Government
would apply the FES analysis and the Company, it appears, or at
least seems to suggest, that it would apply the Wright Line
21

JD(ATL)—49—03

analysis. Under either analysis, the Government’s case fails.
Among other reasons, there has been no demonstrated or inferred
animus under either analysis.
Under FES, the Government must show the Company was
hiring. There is no question about that in this case. That the
applicant had the experience and training, there is no question
in this case. The reason there is no question is the Company
was hiring because it hired Boggs and that the applicant had the
training because the Company stipulated he had the training.
There was no animus demonstrated in any conduct related to
Boggs.
Again, if you apply the Wright Line doctrine, there is no
question that Boggs engaged in protected activity. That is, he
demonstrated his support for the union by wearing a union
shirt, hat, and putting on his employment application that he was a
union organizer and that he was attempting to organize the
unorganized and to file charges. There is no question the
Company knew about it because it was on the application. But
there is no union animus as a substantial or motivating factor
and no causal connection between the Company’s actions herein
and the offering of and the acceptance by Boggs of a job, and
then Boggs' failing to show for his employment.
The Government’s Complaint that the Company failed to hire
or refer Boggs in mid-July fails for the simple fact that Boggs
was hired and offered employment and he never showed.
22

JD(ATL)—49—03

Accordingly, I shall dismiss the Complaint in its entirety.
I thank you and this case is closed.
(Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was closed.)
23

JD(ATL)—49—03
ORLANDO, FL

APPENDIX B JD(ATL)—49—03

PAGE(S) LINE(S) DELETE INSERT
292 1-24 all 24 lines
294 11 during . During
294 12 . The , the
295 5 highlight highlights
295 20 “ ” ” after “arrears”
295 21 at on
296 5 of union
296 11 “ “ ” after “follows:”
296 20 “ ” ” after “Boggs.”
298 22 policy policies
298 23 signing signed
302 19 “union” after “any”
304 22 he Boggs
304 24 “herein” after “Company”
305 8 “ “herein” after “Company”
305 23 “an employee,” after “and”
306 4 the an
306 13 have credited and relied credit and rely
307 14 problems with credibility credibility problems
308 5 what he perceived to be in
308 5 would be
308 6 testified to
308 13 be have been
308 14 written pre- written
308 16 had
309 4 the a
309 5 reporting person. a person to report to.
309 13 even
310 6 union Hall’s Union Hall
310 12 when
310 14 the
310 22 FES FES
310 24 FES FES
311 4 FES FES
311 4 Respondent Company
311 7 Respondent Company
311 14 was demonstrating demonstrated
311 14 “a” after wearing”
311 15 “and” after “hat,”

JD(ATL)—49—03

25