UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UN

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 20, 2019

09-CB-205891 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 20, 2019)

JD–31–19
Louisville, KY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND
APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE
FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES
AND CANADA, AFL-CIO (PPF), LOCAL 502
(Ward Engineering Co., Inc.)
And Case 09-CB-205891
JOE WYSSBROD, AN INDIVIDUAL
Zuzana Murarova, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Ben Basil, Esq., and
David Leightty, Esq.
for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MELISSA M. OLIVERO, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Cincinnati, Ohio,
on August 1, 2018. Joe Wyssbrod, an individual, filed a charge on September 7, 2017, and a first
amended charge on November 3, 2017.1 The General Counsel issued the complaint on April 30,
2018, and an Amendment to the complaint on August 1, 2018 (collectively referred to as the
complaint). The complaint alleges that the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO (PPF),
Local 502 (Local 502 or Respondent) violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor
Relations Act2 (Act) by removing the Charging Party from its referral list without apprising him
of his current obligations under a union-security clause and without disclosing to him that he
could be reinstated to the referral list by paying a hiring hall fee, and by failing and refusing to
reinstate him to its referral list and failing and refusing to refer him to employment. (GC Exhs.
1(c), 2.) Respondent timely answered the complaint, denying that it violated the Act.3 (GC Exh.
1(g).)

1 All dates are in 2017, unless otherwise indicated.
2 29 U.S.C. §§151-169.
3 The General Counsel filed an amendment to the complaint on August 1, 2018, prior to the hearing.
(GC Exh. 2.) Respondent filed an answer to the amendment at the hearing, denying the relevant
allegations. (R. Exh. 29.)
Respondent did not file a written answer to the complaint, but denied the allegations contained
therein.
JD–31–19
2
The parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. On the entire record,4 including my
own observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, 5 and after carefully considering the briefs
filed by the parties, I make the following5
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
10
Ward Engineering Co., Inc. (Ward Engineering or Employer), a corporation, has been
engaged as a mechanical contractor in the construction industry at its facility in Louisville,
Kentucky, where it annually purchases and receives goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from points outside the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Local 502 admits, and I find, that Ward
Engineering is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and 15
(7) of the Act. Local 502 further admits, and I find, that it is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
20
A. Local 502’s Agreement with the Association and Kentucky Law
At all material times, Local 502 and the Mechanical Contractors Association of Kentucky,
Inc. (MCAKY), were signatory to a collective-bargaining agreement (agreement), effective
August 1, 2012, through July 31, 2017. (GC Exh. 4.) A successor agreement is effective 25
August 1, 2017, through July 31, 2022.6 (GC Exh. 4.) Local 502 is the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the following employees: All employees in the bargaining unit
(Unit) described in Article 3 of the collective-bargaining agreement between the Mechanical
Contractors Association of Kentucky, Inc., and Respondent. The agreement covers anyone
performing plumbing and pipefitting work within several counties in central Kentucky. (GC 30
Exh. 4.) Prior to the current collective bargaining agreement, there was no provision requiring a
contractor to have just cause to terminate an employee. (Tr. 195.)
The agreement effective through 2017 contained a union security clause in Article 4, which
states, inter alia35
All employees in the bargaining unit . . . must, as a condition of employment,
maintain membership in good standing for the life of the Agreement.
. . .

4 The transcript in this case (Tr.) is mostly accurate, but I make the following corrections: Tr. 48, l.
20, “502” should be “Facebook”; and Tr. 116, l. 6, “MS. MURAROVA” should be “MR. BASIL.”
5 Although I have included citations to the record to highlight particular testimony or exhibits, my
findings and conclusions are not based solely on those specific record citations, but rather on my review
and consideration of the entire record for this case. My findings of fact encompass the credible testimony
and evidence presented at trial, as well as logical inferences drawn therefrom.
6 As discussed further herein, the union-security clause in the successor agreement was voided by
Kentucky’s right to work law, effective January 9, 2017.
JD–31–19
3
The Employer or the individual contracting firm agrees to notify the Union when
additional or replacement employees are needed. The Union agrees to furnish
applicants on a non-discriminatory basis to perform the necessary work when so
notified, within 48 hours after receiving the request from the Employer. The
decision, with regard to the hire and tenure of all employees, shall be made by the 5
Employer. Loaning and/or borrowing employees from contractor to contractor
will be prohibited.
. . .
The Union and the Employer mutually agree that they will not discriminate
against anyone because of race, color, creed, age, sex, persons qualifying under 10
the Americans With Disabilities Act, or national origin in accepting members, or
in the selection and hiring of employees, and do further agree that they will
comply with all State and Federal Laws and Regulations regarding Equal
Employment Opportunity.
15
No employee shall be discharged from employment for violation of this Article
except for failure to pay union dues, initiation fees and assessments required by
the Union.
. . .
20
(GC Exh. 4, pp. 9−10.)
The collective-bargaining agreements further contain the following provision relating to the
hiring of employees:
25
ARTICLE 41 – Hiring and Use of Employees
142. For the purpose of this Agreement the words “Home Local Union” shall
mean the local union having jurisdiction in the area of the Employer’s place of
business, and, therefore, is the local union which referred the employee to the 30
Employer
143. The Employer will first request the home local union for qualified
personnel. The local union, upon such request, agrees to furnish at all times to the
Employer duly qualified Mechanical Equipment Service Journeymen, 35
Servicemen, Service Apprentices and Tradesmen, including Journeymen with
special skills, where applicable, in a sufficient number, as determined by the
Employer to properly execute all work covered by this Agreement.
144. In the event the local union having jurisdiction is unable to supply the 40
requested number of qualified and competent Service Journeymen, Servicemen,
Service Apprentices or Tradesmen and other employees as herein described, the
Union, upon request of the local union, agrees to notify its other local unions of
the availability of work and will request these local unions to refer such qualified
employees to the Employer. 45
JD–31–19
4
145. If neither the local union nor the Union is able to supply competent and
skilled Employees satisfactory to the Employer within forty-eight (48) hours, the
Employer may hire such persons wherever available, subject to the provisions of
Article 11 and train such persons to perform the work required. It is understood
that consideration for such employment and training shall be given to Employees 5
with previous experience in the plumbing and pipefitting industry and/or the
mechanical equipment service and maintenance industry.
146. The Employer shall retain the right to reject any applicant referred by the
union. The Employer shall retain the right to terminate any employee for just 10
cause providing Employer so states in a termination notice.
147. The selection of applicants for referral to jobs shall be on a non-
discriminatory basis and shall not be based on, or in any way affected by union
membership, bylaws, rules, regulations, constitutional provision, or by any other 15
aspect or obligation of union membership, policy, or requirement; no distinction
in treatment should be made based on religion, color, age, national origin, sex,
handicap status, Vietnam era, or disabled Veteran’s status, or on any other basis
prohibited by law.7
20
(GC Exh. 4, pp. 23−24.)
The Union maintains dispatching rules for its hiring hall. (GC Exh. 4, p. 5.) These rules
allow contractors to request employees by name by making a written request. The rules further
state that, “These rules do not prohibit a member from being requested or from soliciting his/her 25
job.” The rules further require, “Every member must have a referral to go to work.” Lewis and
Justin Wendler, a Union member, testified that employees solicit their own work outside of the
hiring hall. (Tr. 134, 155.) If an employee solicits his or her own job, the contractor is still
required to contact the hiring hall for a referral. (Tr. 196.) Contractors also call union members
directly about jobs if they have been employed in the past.8 (Tr. 112.) An employer must submit 30
a request for a particular worker in writing. (Tr. 156.) The Union will also honor letters from
employers indicating that they will not employ a particular employee. (Tr. 156.)
Members are supposed to be referred in the order of the job-referral list. (Tr. 150.)
Prospective employers may ask to see who is on the referral list and the list is given to them in 35
redacted form. (Tr. 151.) Sometimes members may be referred off the list out of order, such as
when an employer is seeking an employee with a particular skill set (such as HVAC, welding, or
plumbing). (Tr. 151.)
The constitution of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing, 40
Pipefitting and Sprinkler Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada (UA) contains

7 The provisions of the current agreement are identical, but are numbered differently. (GC Exh. 4, pp.
57−58.)
8 None of these practices (members soliciting their own jobs, contractors contacting employees
directly, or contractors obtaining referrals for employees they have solicited directly or for employees
who solicited their own work) are embodied in the agreements between MCAKY and the Union.
JD–31–19
5
provisions dealing with the suspension and expulsion of members for non-payment of dues. (R.
Exhs. 17, 18; Tr. 180.) The constitution states that a member owing more than 3 months’ dues
shall automatically be suspended from membership without notice of any kind. (R. Exh. 17.) A
suspended member is denied all rights and privileges. Id. Any member in arrears for a 6 month
period shall be expelled, and can only be reinstated after paying all of the money he legally owes 5
and a new initiation fee. (R. Exh. 18.) The reinstating local union may require expelled
members to produce proof of area residence for 2 years, as well as proof of current
qualifications, before accepting the reinstatement. (R. Exh. 18; Tr. 190.) A local union may not
deny reinstatement to any expelled member if he meets all of the requirements, unless granted
specific permission to deny reinstatement by the General President of the UA. (R. Exh. 18.)10
Local 502’s bylaws and constitution also contain a provision related to suspension and
expulsion. (GC Exh. 4; R. Exh. 1, Article XIX). A suspended member becomes in good
standing and his or her suspension is lifted upon the payment of all back dues and a $50
reinstatement fee. Id. A list of suspended members is to be read to 2 consecutive meetings after 15
the suspension.9 Id. A member is expelled when in arrears for a period of 6 months or more. Id.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky maintains a “right to work” law. Ky. Rev. Stat. §336.130
(2017). The statute mandates that no employee shall be required, as a condition of employment
or continuation of employment, to become or remain a member of a labor organization, or pay 20
dues, fees, assessments, or similar charges of any kind or amount to a labor organization. KRS
§336.130. (GC Exh. 3; R. Exh. 28.) Moreover, any agreement or practice between any labor
organization and employer which violates an employee’s rights as set forth in this statute are
unlawful and void under Kentucky law. KRS §336.132. (R. Exh. 28.) This law does not apply
to any collective bargaining agreement entered into before January 9, 2017, but does apply to 25
any renewal or extension of an agreement entered into before that date. Id.
B. The Union and the Charging Party’s Union Membership
Scott Lewis has been Local 502’s business and financial secretary since December 2017. He 30
previously served as a business agent and business manager for Local 502. Three business
agents report to Lewis: Erik Elzy; Kent Jesse; and Ryan Kleber. (Tr. 144.) All four take phone
calls from members. (Tr. 144−145.) Prior to Lewis, Danny DeSpain served as the Union’s
business manager and financial secretary.10
35
Charging Party Joseph Wyssbrod is a journeyman pipefitter. He became a member of Local
502 on September 2, 1986. (Tr. 27.) Wyssbrod was not a member during a period from 2016
until June 20, 2018, when his membership was reinstated. (Tr. 28.) He has been referred for
work since his reinstatement. (Tr. 29.)
40
Wyssbrod was suspended from union membership in December 2016. (GC Exh. 4, p. 108.)
Despite his dues arrearage and suspension, Wyssbrod’s name remained on the Union’s job-
referral list through February 2017. (GC Exh. 4, pp. 116−121.)

9 There is no evidence in the record that Wyssbrod’s name was read at 2 consecutive meetings after
his suspension.
10 DeSpain did not testify at the hearing.
JD–31–19
6
Wyssbrod was previously suspended from union membership for nonpayment of dues in
2012. (R. Exh. 10; Tr. 66.) Thereafter, Wyssbrod apparently tendered a check to the Union for
what he thought what the amount required to be reinstated. (R. Exh. 10.) However, he did not
pay the full amount of his arrearage or the $50 reinstatement fee. The Union sent Wyssbrod a 5
letter advising him of the full amount owed. (Id.)
C. The Charging Party’s Work History
Wyssbrod’s last union job in 2016 was at the Ford Plant in Louisville, Kentucky (Kentucky 10
Ford plant), for Ward Engineering. Prior to his work at the Kentucky Ford plant, Wyssbrod
worked a number of jobs through the Union’s referral hall. Most of these jobs ended with
Wyssbrod being discharged. (R. Exh. 5.) Wyssbrod had a reputation for insubordination,
tardiness, and absenteeism. (Tr. 88−89, 168.) Employers have contacted the Union and asked
that Wyssbrod not be referred for work. (R. Exhs. 4, 12, 14; Tr. 101−102.) Wyssbrod has been 15
nicknamed “Kentucky Joe” by some employers, who have asked that the Union not refer him for
work. (Tr. 89.) Due to problems with Wyssbrod, Local 502 experienced difficulty in getting its
members dispatched to other locals. (Tr. 179.)
Lewis began keeping notes on his problems with Wyssbrod in 2010. (R. Exh. 5; Tr. 175.) 20
Lewis intended to bring Wyssbrod before the Union’s Executive Board on charges. (Tr. 176.)
Lewis became familiar with Wyssbrod’s reputation among mechanical contractors due to
frequent calls and correspondence concerning his work habits. (Tr. 178−179.) Lewis has
experienced problems dispatching Wyssbrod due to his reputation. (Tr. 178.)
25
Lewis received an email from Local 440 in Indianapolis, Indiana, regarding Wyssbrod in
December 2015. (R. Exh. 6; Tr. 167.) Wyssbrod was terminated from a job in Local 440’s
jurisdiction for absenteeism and tardiness. ((Tr. 168.) Wyssbrod was eventually rehired by this
same employer, but was discharged a second time for absenteeism and tardiness. (Tr. 170−171.)
The employer provided Wyssbrod’s time sheets at Local 502’s request to establish the basis for 30
his discharge. (Tr. 170.)
The Union received an email containing Wyssbrod’s timesheets from Stanger Mechanical
regarding Wyssbrod in December 2015. (R. Exh. 8; Tr. 171−172.) Wyssbrod had been
terminated from a job at the Kentucky Ford plant for absenteeism and tardiness. (R. Exh. 8; Tr. 35
172.) The Union requested and received Wyssbrod’s timesheets to verify the reasons for his
discharge. (R. Exh. 8; Tr. 172−173.)
D. The Charging Party’s December 2016 Discharge and Subsequent Efforts to Obtain Work
Through the Union40
Wyssbrod’s most recent job at the Kentucky Ford Plant ended on December 28, 2016. On
that date, the general foreman handed out paychecks and Wyssbrod received an envelope.
Wyssbrod did not open the envelope at that time. (Tr. 33.) Wyssbrod opened the envelope the
next morning. Inside the envelope was a check and a document indicating that he had been 45
JD–31–19
7
terminated. (GC Exh. 6; Tr. 34.) Wyssbrod was discharged for disregarding direct orders from
his foreman.11 (GC Exh. 6.)
When Wyssbrod realized that he had been terminated, he called Erick Elzy, Local 502’s
assistant business manager. (Tr. 197.) Elzy told Wyssbrod that he wasn’t aware of what had 5
happened and would call him back. A day or 2 later, after not hearing back from Elzy,
Wyssbrod called him at the union hall.12 (Tr. 35.) Wyssbrod testified that he attempted to
contact Local 502 every day for three of four months and stopped leaving messages after the first
few weeks.13 (Tr. 38−39.) Elzy testified that it was difficult to reach Wyssbrod because his
phone would be off or he would not answer. (Tr. 199.) Wyssbrod left messages at Local 502’s 10
hall on at least 4 different occasions after his discharge by Ward Engineering. (GC Exh. 7.)
There is no evidence that Elzy ever returned Wyssbrod’s calls.
Ronald Hicks, a retired pipefitter and Union member of the Union, attempted to contact
Union on Wyssbrod’s behalf. (Tr. 81.) Hicks planned to loan Wyssbrod the money to be 15
reinstated. (Tr. 81.) Hicks called DeSpain in July, but DeSpain told Hicks he would have to get
back to him. (Tr. 81.) DeSpain never called Hicks. (Tr. 81.) Hicks went to a Union meeting
later that month and asked DeSpain what it would cost to reinstate Wyssbrod. (Tr. 82.) DeSpain
said he didn’t think he wanted him [Wyssbrod] back. (Tr. 82.) DeSpain never told Hicks the
amount owed for Wyssbrod’s reinstatement. (Tr. 82.) 20
In August, Wyssbrod spoke with Lewis. (Tr. 51.) Wyssbrod asked why the Union did not
want him. (Tr. 191.) Lewis told him because of past problems. (Tr. 191.) Wyssbrod asked for
a “price” [for reinstatement] and Lewis responded that there was no price. (Tr. 191−192.) Lewis
told Wyssbrod that the conversation was over and hung up.14 (Tr. 192.) There is no evidence 25
that Lewis spoke to Wyssbrod after the August telephone call.
Even before passage of Kentucky’s right to work law, non-members were eligible to be
placed on the Union’s job-referral list. (Tr. 192.) After the MCAKY collective-bargaining
agreement expired in 2017, the Union calculated the amount of a non-member fee required for 30
placement on the list.15 (GC Exh. 5; Tr. 193.) Lewis never told Wyssbrod that he could be

11 Although Wyssbrod denies he was given an order by his foreman not to take a golf cart into the
parking lot of the Kentucky Ford plant, I do not credit his testimony for reasons elucidated later in this
decision.
12 The General Counsel produced 3 pages of phone message slips, each slip containing 4 messages,
which were largely ineligible. (GC Exh. 4.) Later, the General Counsel produced larger copies of 6
individual message slips pertaining only to Wyssbrod. (GC Exh. 7.) 4 of the slips post-date Wyssbrod’s
discharge by Ward Engineering. The slips contain 3 different call back numbers for Wyssbrod. In one
message, Wyssbrod asks about a “reinitiation [sic] fee.”
13 I do not credit this testimony because I did not find Wyssbrod to be a credible witness.
Furthermore, Wyssbrod testified that he had cell phone records to back up his claims, but did not produce
those records. (Tr. 72.) Elzy was not asked about how many messages he received from Wyssbrod.
14 I credit Lewis’ version of this conversation over that of Wyssbrod. I found Lewis to be a more
credible witness. In addition, despite considerable prodding by the General Counsel, Wyssbrod gave 3
vague, but different, versions of this conversation. (Tr. 51−53.)
15 MCAKY and the Union entered into a successor agreement, effective from August 1, 2017, through
July 31, 2022. (GC Exh. 4.)
JD–31–19
8
placed on the list without being a union member. (Tr. 193.) Wyssbrod never asked about
placement on the list as a non-member and the fee amount was never communicated to him. (Tr.
193.)
It is uncontroverted that Wyssbrod never received any calls from the Union after he was 5
discharged from Ward Engineering (Tr. 43.) He was never informed of the amount of his dues
arrearage, that he was facing expulsion or had been expelled, or that he could be placed on the
Union’s job referral list as a non-member by paying a hiring hall fee.16
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS10
A. Witness Credibility
A credibility determination may rely on a variety of factors, including the context of the
witness’ testimony, the witness’ demeanor, the weight of the respective evidence, established or 15
admitted facts, inherent probabilities and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the
record as a whole. Double D Construction Group, 339 NLRB 303, 305 (2003); Daikichi Corp.,
335 NLRB 622, 623 (2001) (citing Shen Automotive Dealership Group, 321 NLRB 586, 589
(1996)), enfd 56 Fed.Appx. 516 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Credibility findings need not be all-or-nothing
propositions—indeed, nothing is more common in all kinds of judicial decisions than to believe 20
some, but not all, of a witness’ testimony. Daikichi Corp., 335 NLRB at 622. Some of my
credibility findings are incorporated into the findings of fact above.
I did not find Wyssbrod to be a credible witness. I observed him spend much of his time on
the witness stand looking through documents when the documents were not being discussed, 25
which led to his testimony seeming distracted. Furthermore, he sparred with Respondent’s
counsel under cross-examination and frequently contradicted himself.
For example, when asked whether he was able to obtain work without the Union’s
permission and help, Wyssbrod gave the following answer:30
No. I got no weight on anybody. That’s their domain. That’s their backyard.
Have the BA call me. If I know someone is working at [a] contractor, hey, we are
going to have a call for fifty guys tomorrow and I call home to see if this is good,
I expect to have, at the best, forty-nine other Louisville hands with me. If it’s 35
only one or two guys from Louisville show up and I don’t get to go. So until I got
it nailed down all I can get information-wise and it’s a sure thing. I’ve got to have
a BA representing me calling another BA. They just don’t let you call them to
walk in their office. I know two Bas that I’ve worked with that I can call, but
they’ll still make it legal and tell your BA to call me. 40

16 In response to the General Counsel’s subpoena, pars. 3 and 4, Respondent stated that it had no
documents indicating that it had advised Wyssbrod of the amount of his financial obligations, his
suspension, his expulsion, or that he could be reinstated to the job-referral list as a non-member by paying
a hiring hall fee. (GC Exh. 5.)
JD–31–19
9
(Tr. 208−209.)
He further engaged in the following exchange with Respondent’s counsel:
Q. Are you denying that you got a paycheck?5
A. You didn't ask that.
Q. Okay. Are you denying you got a paycheck -- let me finish the question. I want
you to listen.
A. You paused.
Q. You got a paycheck for the time that you were working for Progressive?10
A. I don't think I've ever stated that.
Q. Are you denying it or not?
A. Am I denying that I got a paycheck from Progressive?
Q. For your work on June 30.
A. I don't know. I don't have the stub to look at. This is their time sheet from their 15
office, I guess.
Q. That's not –
A. That's not my record of my time -- hours I got paid --
Q. Let me finish.
. . .20
A. I'm trying.
(Tr. 212−213.)
Wyssbrod further gave three different versions of a conversation he had with Lewis in 25
August 2017, none of which fully described the conversation:
My intent was to ask about the expulsion, but we got kind of shitty with each
other before that could happen, so their stance was they was [sic] done. I stated
that it was – they all worked for me and I’ll decide if you’re done or not. (Tr. 51, 30
ll. 12−17.)
Hi Joe, this is Scott. How is it going? I’m not worth a shit. What’s up with the
reinstatement? I don’t remember the exact words. I was being refused or they
didn’t want my money and they were done. He hung up on me before I could -- 35
(Tr. 52−53.)
It was about 20 minutes. Never got to it [the amount owed for reinstatement]. It
was what’s the deal with the reinstatement or expulsion. They’re done. They
don’t want my money. That’s it. (Tr. 53.)40
In his initial version of the conversation, Wyssbrod did not state that he asked about
reinstatement or his expulsion from the Union, only that he intended to ask. In the second and
third version, he testified that he asked, “What’s up with the reinstatement?” or “[W]hat’s the
deal with the reinstatement or expulsion?” Despite considerable prodding from Counsel for the 45
General Counsel, Wyssbrod was not able to give a cogent version of his conversation with
Lewis. As such, I credit Lewis’ version of this conversation.
JD–31–19
10
He further testified:
Q. You're well aware of the fact that you can get a job on your own without going
through the hiring hall and you have done so; isn't that correct?5
A. I'm sure it's probably happened. Depends on your definition of soliciting. I'm
soliciting I'm available, are you hiring. The business agent is who you call next.
(Tr. 60.)
10
I specifically did not credit Wyssbrod’s testimony regarding learning of his dues arrearage
from Local 502’s Facebook page or Todd Crider, another union member. (Tr. 40−46.) Crider
did not testify at the hearing and no record of any Facebook posting by a retired member was
produced at the hearing. In fact, the only evidence of a Facebook posting was one made by
Kleber on Wyssbrod’s Facebook page in May, asking Wyssbrod to call him. (R. Exh. 23; Tr. 15
55.)
I do not credit Wyssbrod’s version of why he was fired by Ward Engineering. His testimony
appeared conflated and outlandish. Instead, I credit the version provided by Rockwood and
contained in GC Exh. 6 and R. Exhs. 12 and 14. The documents indicate, and Rockwood
explained, that Wyssbrod was fired for disobeying a direct order by taking a golf cart off of Ford 20
property. (GC Exhs. 6; R. Exhs. 12, 14; Tr. 116.) Wyssbrod did not mention the incident with
the golf cart at all during the General Counsel’s direct examination. (Tr. 32−35.) He later
denied any knowledge of the golf cart incident. (Tr. 60−62.) Later, on rebuttal, Wyssbrod
testified
25
Until today this is the first explanation of any cart or any reason I've got since I
started calling after that termination. I didn't get a lunch. I didn't take a lunch. I
didn't take a cart anywhere to lunch. Me and a guy named Brian were told to go to
the other part of the paint with the cart and get a hundred-foot extension cord, a
ladder, a port-a-band and some Hilti [sic] guns and bits because our foreman lost 30
his keys and couldn't get the boxes open. On the way to the next building the cart
dies in the middle of the road. Security comes up and asks us if we need some
help, so we're trying to go to this building here, where can we plug it in. You can't
leave it here. So we pushed it around the fence so they could reach it with a cord.
After lunch it would have enough charge to surely drive around the back of the 35
guard shack or forklift. I never asked to take the cart off the property. Nobody
took it off the property. I asked if he could arrange a way to get by the turnstile,
truck, golf cart or whatever so the guy I'm staying with could get his key. I was
told to lay it on the paper -- newspaper box by the turnstile and paint. He was
coming off a job in Jeffersonville and locked himself out. Nobody went -- I didn't 40
have a lunch. I took the tools off the cart, drove my truck around the front of the
plant, got the security guard and shoved about four thousand dollars' worth of
Ward's tools under the fence so we could so something after lunch. Nobody asked
me. Nobody told me anything about this until today.
45
JD–31–19
11
(Tr. 205−206.) Wyssbrod then went on to deny that he was terminated from Ward Engineering.
(Tr. 206.) Wyssbrod spent much of his cross-examination denying any incident involving a golf
cart. Then, on the first time during rebuttal, he gave the testimony above. Documents provided
by Ward Engineering and the testimony of Rockwood clearly establish that Wyssbrod was
terminated from Ward Engineering for the incident involving the golf cart. Wyssbrod’s5
testimony was contradictory, confusing, and wholly incredulous.
In sum, Wyssbrod was a difficult witness and his testimony was confusing and difficult to
believe. Based upon Wyssbrod’s demeanor, contradictory testimony, embellishment, and
quibbling with Respondent’s counsel, I do not credit his testimony except where it was10
corroborated by other evidence or the testimony of a credible witness, or was inherently
plausible.17
I found Ronald Hicks to be a generally credible witness. He testified in an earnest and direct
manner and his brief testimony had the ring of truth. Thus, I credit Hicks’ testimony that he 15
twice contacted the Union in 2017 to find out the amount of Wyssbrod’s arrearage, but was
never provided with the information.
I found Scott Lewis to be a credible witness. He testified in a calm and focused manner. He
candidly testified regarding his frustration with Wyssbrod and his testimony was supported by 20
documentary evidence and the testimony of other witnesses. For example, testimony and
numerous documents support Lewis’ testimony that Wyssbrod was discharged from several jobs
and that contractors did not want to rehire him. (See R. Exh. 4, 5, 7, 12; Tr. 101, 116.) In
addition, the testimony of Dubey and Rockwood corroborate Lewis’ testimony regarding
Wyssbrod’s work problems. As such, I credit Lewis’ testimony.25
I found Jim Dubey to be a credible witness. He gave his testimony in a forthright and steady
manner and he did not waver under cross-examination. He testified regarding Wyssbrod’s poor
work habits. However, his testimony concerned Wyssbrod’s work in June 2018, after he had
been reinstated to the Union. Although Dubey appeared credible on the witness stand, much of30
his testimony was not relevant to Wyssbrod’s work before his discharge by Ward Engineering or
while the Union was refusing to reinstate him.
I further credit the testimony of Mike Rockwood. Rockwood testified in a straightforward
and measured fashion. He conceded his belief that the collective-bargaining agreement does not 35
allow employers to contact employees directly for hire, however, he admitted he has done so.
He further testified that Wyssbrod has called him directly seeking work.18 His testimony
regarding the circumstances of Wyssbrod’s discharge was supported by documentary evidence.
He did not change his testimony under cross-examination. Thus, I credit Rockwood’s testimony.
40
I found Justin Wendler to be a credible witness. He was soft spoken, but he seemed sure of
his testimony. He did not waver under cross-examination. Wendler admitted that union

17 Although I find that Wyssbrod was significantly less than a model employee and found his
testimony largely unworthy of belief, my findings herein finding that the Union violated the Act are
supported by other testimony and documentary evidence.
18 Wyssbrod did not refute this testimony.
JD–31–19
12
members directly solicit contractors for work and that he has hired employees who have done
this. He readily conceded that he is not familiar with the collective bargaining agreement at
issue in this case, as he works under a different agreement. Therefore, I credit Wendler’s
testimony.
5
I further found Eric Elzy to be a credible witness. Elzy’s very brief testimony concerned
several phone message slips regarding calls from Wyssbrod. His testimony was not contradicted
and he was not asked about how many times he was called by Wyssbrod. As such, I credit
Elzy’s testimony.
10
B. Respondent Operated an Exclusive Hiring Hall
The General Counsel’s allegations rest upon the premise that Respondent operates an
exclusive hiring hall. (GC Exh. 2, par. 7.) I find, based upon the record evidence, that
Respondent operated an exclusive hiring hall.15
An exclusive hiring hall relationship generally exists where a union operates as the sole
source of all of the employees of an employer. Operating Engineers Local 406 (Ford, Bacon &
Davis Construction Corp.), 262 NLRB 50, 57 (1982) (citations omitted). The Supreme Court
has stated that the word “exclusive,” with respect to a union’s job referral system, denotes the 20
degree to which hiring is reserved to the union hiring hall. Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers
International Association Local Union No. 6, 493 U.S. 67, 71 fn. 1, 110 S.Ct. 424, 428 (1989).
Hiring is deemed to be “exclusive” if, for example, the union retains sole authority to supply
workers to the employer up to a designated percentage of the work force or for some specified
period of time, such as 24 or 48 hours, before the employer can hire on his own. Id. The party 25
asserting the existence of an exclusive hiring hall bears the burden of proof. Carpenters Local
537 (E. I. duPont), 303 NLRB 419, 420 (1991).
A union's hiring hall is exclusive if it is an employer's initial or primary source for
employees. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, 30
Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, its Territories and Canada, Local 720, AFL-CIO,
CLC (Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc.), 363 NLRB No. 148 (2016), citing Stage Employees IATSE,
Local 720 (AVW Audio Visuals, Inc.), 341 NLRB 1267 (2004), and Denver Theatrical Stage
Employees Union No. 7, 339 NLRB 214, 219 (2003). Furthermore, an exclusive hiring hall may
be created by written or oral agreement or by practice. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage 35
Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, its
Territories and Canada Local No. 151 (SMG and the Freeman Companies), 364 NLRB No. 89
(2016), citing Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (Perry Olsen Drywall), 358 NLRB 1,
slip op. at 1 fn. 2 (2012)(citations omitted). When an employer has the right to reject individuals
referred by a union or has a contractual right to use a certain number or percentage of its own 40
employees for a job, an exclusive hiring hall still exists. Breininger at 71, fn. 1; Local 334
(Kvaerner Songer, Inc.), 335 NLRB 597, 599−600 (2001); Teamsters Local Union No. 174
(Totem Beverages, Inc.), 226 NLRB 690, 690 (1976).
In this case, the collective-bargaining agreement between the MCAKY and the Union created45
an exclusive hiring hall. The agreement required that an employer first request the home local
union for qualified personnel. If the local union was unable to supply the requested number of
JD–31–19
13
qualified and competent employees, the union agreed to notify other local unions of the
availability of work and to request these local unions to refer qualified employees. If the local
unions were not able to supply competent and skilled employees within 48 hours, employers
could hire such persons wherever available. Thus, employers bound by the collective-bargaining
agreement were required to first request employees from the Union’s hall and, only after 48 5
hours, could hire others if the Union or other locals could not supply the requested employees.
Additionally, employers could reject or terminate, for just cause, employees referred by the
Union. Signatory contractors retained the right to reject any applicant referred by the Union and
further retained the right to terminate any employee for just cause.
10
However, these conditions do not defeat my finding of exclusive hiring hall status. Pursuant
to the collective-bargaining agreement, the Union was to be the initial and primary source of
employees for signatory contractors. These contractors were required, under the agreement, to
first contact the union for employees. Only if the Union, or another local, could not provide
qualified employees within 48 hours, were the employers able hire off the street. Hiring is 15
deemed exclusive if the union retains sole authority to supply workers to the employer for some
specified period of time, such as 24 or 48 hours, before the employer can hire on his own.
Breininger, 493 U.S. 67, 71 fn. 1, 110 S.Ct. 424, 428 (1989). Moreover, when an employer has
the right to reject individuals referred by a union, an exclusive hiring hall still exists. Breininger
at 71, fn. 1. Thus, despite the caveats contained in the collective bargaining agreement regarding 20
contractors hiring off the street after 48 hours and being able to reject applicants referred by the
Union, I still find that the hiring hall is exclusive.
The plain language of the collective-bargaining agreements in this case establishes the
existence of an exclusive hiring hall. The Union’s hiring hall procedures allowing for direct 25
solicitation of work by members were not agreed to by MCAKY and are not referenced
anywhere in the agreements. Thus, I find that these procedures do not render the hiring hall
system at issue here to be non-exclusive. Instead, I find that the General Counsel has established
the existence of an exclusive hiring hall by the language of the collective-bargaining agreements.
30
Respondent asserts that the Union’s practice of allowing members to solicit work directly
from contractors, and contractors hiring such workers, created a non-exclusive hiring hall. I
disagree. Initially, I note that in other contexts, the Board places the burden of establishing a
past practice upon the party asserting it. See e.g. Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc.,
356 NLRB 1221 (2018). Even if the General Counsel is required to show the absence of a past 35
practice, I would find that the General Counsel has done so. Imprecise and vague testimony was
given on the existence of a past practice. Some witnesses, including Elzy, were not asked about
the practice at all. Dubey testified that he only directly hires supervisors. (Tr. 97−98.) Wendler
testified that he is asked almost monthly about jobs with his employer, but was only able to name
one other employee who was hired as a result of direct solicitation. (Tr. 134−135.) Given this 40
vague and seemingly contradictory testimony, I cannot find the existence of a past practice
regularly allowing for direct solicitation of work by Union members.
Moreover, the Board has found that collective-bargaining agreements that allow employer to
seek employees by name may still establish exclusive hiring halls. For example, in Teamsters, 45
Chauffers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 631 (Vosburg Equipment, Inc. and Bechtel Nevada,
Inc.), 340 NLRB 881 (2003), the Board affirmed a judge’s finding that the union operated an
JD–31–19
14
exclusive hiring hall, which allowed employers to request specific employees by name. See also,
Millwrights and Machinery Erectors Local Union No. 2834, 268 NLRB 150, 156 (1983)
(respondent operated an exclusive hiring hall for the referral of employees and workers were
dispatched after either specific name requests or open calls.) Thus, I find that the Union’s
allowing contractors to request specific employees and allowing employees to solicit their own 5
work does not defeat my finding of the existence of an exclusive hiring hall.
C. Respondent Violated the Act by Removing Wyssbrod from its Referral List without
Advising him of his Obligations
10
In paragraph 8(b) of the complaint, as amended, the General Counsel alleges that Respondent
removed Wyssbrod from its job-referral list without apprising Wyssbrod of his obligations under
the union security clause. (GC Exh. 2.) Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act “prohibits labor
organizations, when acting in a statutory representative capacity, from taking action against any
employee upon considerations or classifications which are irrelevant, invidious, or unfair.” Local 15
553, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America (Miranda Fuel), 140 NLRB 181, 185 (1962). This prohibition extends to a union’s
operation of a hiring hall. Miranda Fuel, 140 NLRB at 184.
It is undisputed that Wyssbrod was removed from the Union’s referral list in April 2017 for 20
failing to pay his dues. It is further undisputed that he Union did not inform Wyssbrod of the
amount he needed to pay to be reinstated at any point before June 2018.
The Board requires unions to inform members, “In explicit terms exactly what [their] current
obligation [is] under the union-security contract to qualify for registry on its out-of-work list and 25
referral from its hiring hall.” International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and
Asbestos Workers, Local No. 5, AFL-CIO (Insulation Specialties Co), 191 NLRB 220, 221
(1981). In Asbestos Workers Local 5, the union operated an exclusive hiring hall. 191 NLRB at
220. The charging party in that case filled out an application for union membership, but failed to
tender the required initiation fee. Id. The union then rejected his membership application and 30
sought his discharge under a union-security clause. Id. Almost 2 years later, the charging party
sought a job with his former employer, but the employer told him that he needed clearance from
the union. Id. The union refused to place the charging party’s name on its out-of-work list. Id.
The Board found that the union in that case violated the Act by refusing to advise the charging
party of what he was required to do in order to qualify for placement on the out-of-work list. Id.35
Furthermore, the Board has found that unions owe a fiduciary duty to inform members or
those seeking work of their financial obligations. Brand Mid-Atlantic, 304 NLRB 853 (1991).
In Brand Mid-Atlantic, the union operated a non-exclusive hiring hall. 304 NLRB at 853.
However, the union did control a member’s ability to seek referral in a specific status. 304 40
NLRB at 854. The Board found that, “In these circumstances, where members depend
exclusively on the [u]nion for access to a higher referral status . . . we find that the [u]nion has a
fiduciary duty to deal fairly with its members .in processing their applications to become
mechanics.” Id. As part of its fiduciary duty, the Board found that the union had an affirmative
duty to advise a member the specific amount he owed the union, including a dues arrearage, and 45
the process by which he could pay before the union could refuse to refer him. Id. Analogously,
JD–31–19
15
in this case, by operating its exclusive hiring hall, the Union owed Wyssbrod a fiduciary duty to
inform him of his specific obligations.
The Union failed and refused to advise Wyssbrod of what he needed to do to regain his
membership in the Union or qualify for placement on its job-referral list. Wyssbrod called the 5
Union at least once and specifically left a message asking what he needed to do in order to be
reinstated. Phone message slips establish that Wyssbrod called or stopped in on at least 3 other
occasions. The Union failed to return Wyssbrod’s calls or messages. Hicks’ efforts to discover
the amount of Wyssbrod’s arrearage were similarly rebuffed. Wyssbrod spoke to Lewis in
August 2017 and asked about the “price” or reinstatement. The Union did not advise Wyssbrod 10
of his obligations until about June 2018. Therefore, I find that the Union’s failure to advise
Wyssbrod of his obligations to obtain reinstatement for over a year violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
of the Act.
D. The General Counsel did not Establish that Respondent Violated the Act by Failing to 15
Advise Wyssbrod that he Could be Placed on the Referral List as a Non-Member by Paying a
Hiring Hall Fee
In paragraph 8(c) of the complaint, as amended, the General Counsel alleges that Respondent
violated the Act by failing to advise Wyssbrod that he could be placed on the referral list as a 20
non-member by paying a fee. (GC Exh. 2.)
In support of this allegation, the General Counsel cites Asbestos Workers Local No. 5, 191
NLRB at 221, and International Union of Operating Engineers Local 406, AFL-CIO (Ford,
Bacon & Davis Construction Corp.), 262 NLRB 50, 51 (1982). In Operating Engineers Local 25
406, the Board found that the union failed to give timely notice of a change in its referral policy
to those using its exclusive hiring hall. 262 NLRB at 51. The Board specifically stated that,
“This failure to give timely notice of a significant change in its referral procedures was arbitrary
and a breach of its duty to represent job applicants fairly by keeping them informed about
matters critical to their employment status.” Id. The General Counsel argues that Respondent 30
here had a duty to disclose information critical to Wyssbrod’s employment status, i.e. that he
could be placed on the job referral list as a non-member by paying a hiring hall fee. I do not find
this argument availing. There was no change in referral procedures or rules in this case. Instead,
I find that Respondent’s duty was, as set forth above, to specifically advise Wyssbrod of his
obligations so that he could obtain reinstatement. 35
Furthermore, in Asbestos Workers, Local 5, the Board found that, “[i]t was incumbent upon
Respondent to advise [the discriminatee] in explicit terms exactly what his obligation was under
the union-security contact to qualify for registry on its out-of-work list and to refer him for
employment.” 191 NLRB at 221. The obligations referenced in that case were an initiation fee 40
and dues. Id. The initiation fee and dues were owed because the discriminatee was seeking
union membership for placement on its job-referral list. These findings are distinguishable from
the General Counsel’s argument that the Union owed a duty to inform Wyssbrod that he could
have been placed on the job-referral list as a non-member by paying a hiring hall fee. In fact, I
could find no Board case that supports the General Counsel’s argument. 45
JD–31–19
16
I find that the General Counsel has not established that Respondent owed a duty to Wyssbrod
to advise him that he could have been placed on the job-referral list as a non-member by paying a
hiring hall fee. Therefore, I recommend that this complaint allegation be dismissed.
E. Cases Cited by Respondent are Inapposite to the Instant Case5
The cases cited by Respondent in its brief are distinguishable from the instant case. For
example, Respondent cited Carpenters Local 53), 303 NLRB 419 (1991), in support of its
argument that the Union did not operate an exclusive hiring hall. (R. Brf. p. 15.) In Carpenters
Local 537, the union’s contract with the employer specifically allowed the employer to hire 10
applicants who were not referred by the union. 303 NLRB at 419. In stark contrast to the
arrangement in Carpenters Local 537, the agreement in this case requires employers to first
request employees from the Union’s hall and, only after 48 hours, could the employer hire others
if the Union or other locals could supply the requested employees. Such an arrangement was
found to create an exclusive hiring hall by the Supreme Court in Breininger. 493 U.S. 67, 71 fn. 15
1. Thus, I find Carpenters Local 537 distinguishable from this case.
In Local 334, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL−CIO (Kvaerner Songer,
Inc.), 335 NLRB 597 (2001), the Board affirmed a judge’s finding that a union operating a non-
exclusive hiring hall. (R. Br. p. 15.) In that case, the collective-bargaining agreement only 20
required the employer to give the local union in the area an opportunity to supply employees.
335 NLRB at 598. In addition, the union there only referred a small fraction of employees for
employment. Id. However, in the instant case, the collective-bargaining agreements require
employers to obtain all employees from the Union or other locals, except under limited
circumstances discussed herein. The General Counsel has established that the plain language of 25
the collective-bargaining agreements establishes an existence hiring hall. Thus, I find Local 334,
Laborers Union of North America inapposite to this case.
Finally, Respondent cites Radio-Electronics Officers Union v. NLRB, 16 F.3d 1280 (D.C.
Cir. 1994), for the proposition that removing a member from a job-referral list for failing to pay 30
dues did not violate the Act. (R. Br. p. 17.) However, the court noted that the arrangement in
that case did not involve a collective-bargaining agreement containing a union-security clause.
16 F.3d at 1286. Without a union-security clause, the court reasoned, the union was not required
to notify a member of a delinquency. Obviously, in this case, a union-security clause existed.
As such, extant Board law requires that the Union provide notice of specific financial obligations 35
to a member seeking to use its hiring hall. Therefore, I find Radio-Electronics Officers Union
distinguishable from the instant case.19

19 Furthermore, it is well settled that administrative law judges of the National Labor Relations Board
are bound to follow Board precedent which neither the Board nor the Supreme Court has reversed,
notwithstanding contrary decisions by courts of appeals or district courts. Waco, Inc., 273 NLRB 746,
749 fn. 14 (1984); Pathmark Stores, Inc., 342 NLRB 378 fn. 1 (2004). In Radio-Electronics Officers
Union, 306 NLRB 43 (1992), the Board found that the union had a duty to notify members and other
applicants for employment of any dues or fees they owe before removing their names from its referral
registers. 273 NLRB at 44, enf. denied, 16 F. 3d 1280.
JD–31–19
17
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By removing Joe Wyssbrod from its hiring hall job-referral list without first advising
him of his specific financial obligations (i.e., dues arrearage and reinstatement fee), United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the 5
United States and Canada, AFL−CIO (PPF), Local 502 (Union), has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
of the National Labor Relations Act (Act.)
2. The unfair labor practice committed by Respondent affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.10
3. The Union did not otherwise violate the Act as alleged in the complaint.
REMEDY
15
Having found that Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice, I shall order it to
cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. Specifically, the Union will reinstate Joe Wyssbrod to the job-referral list, if
he has not already been reinstated, unless the Union has advised him of his financial obligations
for reinstatement and/or hiring hall fee required for referral and he has not met these obligations 20
and/or paid the fee.20 Backpay shall be computed in accordance with F.W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest compounded daily as prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB
289 (1950), and Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010), minus tax withholdings
required by Federal and State law. Interest and tax liability shall continue to accrue until the date
of payment.25
In addition, Respondent shall, within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed,
either by agreement or Board order, file a report allocating backpay with the Regional Director
for Region 9. Respondent will be required to allocate backpay to the appropriate calendar years
only. The Regional Director will then assume responsibility for transmission of the report to the 30
Social Security Administration at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner. AdvoServ
of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016).
Respondent shall also compensate Wyssbrod for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of
receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering periods longer than 1 year. Don 35
Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB 101 (2014). In addition, the Union will be
required to post a notice in accordance with J & R Flooring, Inc., 356 NLRB 11 (2010).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended2140

20 As indicated above, the union-security clause in Respondent’s contract with MCAKY was voided
by Kentucky’s right to work law when the contract expired in July 2017. As such, in order to be
reinstated to the job-referral list, Wyssbrod could do so as a Union member or as a non-member by
paying a hiring hall fee.
21 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.
JD–31–19
18
ORDER
Respondent, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO (PPF), Local 502, its officers, 5
agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing or refusing to inform members or persons using its hiring-hall of how they 10
can fulfill their financial obligations required for placement on or reinstatement to
its job-referral list.
(b) Removing anyone from its job-referral list because of a failure to meet financial
obligations, without first advising them of their specific financial obligations.15
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing members or persons using its
hiring hall in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.20
(a) Advise those using its hiring hall, who have been removed from the job-referral
list for nonpayment of dues or fees, of the amount of their current liabilities (i.e.
dues arrearages and/or fees required for reinstatement).
25
(b) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, reinstate Joe Wyssbrod to the job-
referral list, if he has not already been reinstated, unless Respondent has advised
him of his financial obligations for reinstatement and he has not met these
obligations.
30
(c) Within 14 days of this Order, remove from their files any reference to Wyssbrod’s
unlawful removal from the job-referral list and, within 3 days thereafter, notify
Wyssbrod in writing that this has been done and that the removal will not be used
against him in any way.
35
(d) Make Joe Wyssbrod whole for the wages and other benefits he suffered as a result
of being removed from the job-referral list without first advising him of his
obligations, with interest.
(e) Compensate Joe Wyssbrod for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving 40
one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering periods longer than 1 year.
(f) Within 21 days of the Board’s order, file a report allocating backpay to the
appropriate calendar years with the Regional Director for Region 9. The
Regional Director will then assume responsibility for transmission of the report to 45
the Social Security Administration at the appropriate time and in the appropriate
manner.
JD–31–19
19
(g) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place
designated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records, including 5
an electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form, necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its union office and hiring hall
in Louisville, Kentucky, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”2210
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9,
after being signed by Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees and members are customarily
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be 15
distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if Respondent customarily communicates with
its employees and members by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, 20
Respondent has ceased operating the hiring hall involved in these proceedings,
Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all individuals whose names appeared on Respondent’s hiring hall job-referral list
at any time since April 1, 2017.
25
(i) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies of the notice for
physical and/or electronic posting by Ward Engineering Co., Inc., if willing, at all
places or in the same manner as notices to employees are customarily posted.
(j) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a 30
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 20, 201935

Melissa M. Olivero40
Administrative Law Judge

22 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a 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.”
AL. u 64/Ja
JD–31–19
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf with your employer
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to inform those using our hiring-hall of how they can fulfill their
financial obligations (i.e. dues arrearages and/or fees required for reinstatement) required for
placement on or reinstatement to our job-referral list.
WE WILL NOT remove you from our job-referral list because of your failure to meet financial
obligations, without first advising you of your specific financial obligations.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related other manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL advise those using our hiring hall, who have been removed from our job-referral list
for nonpayment of dues or fees, of the amount of their current liabilities (i.e. dues arrearages
and/or fees required for reinstatement).
WE WILL make Joe Wyssbrod whole for the wages and other benefits he suffered as a result of
being removed from our job-referral list without first advising him of his obligations, with
interest.
WE WILL compensate Joe Wyssbrod, for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving
lump-sum backpay awards covering periods longer than 1 year.
WE WILL file a report with the Regional Director allocating backpay to the appropriate calendar
years. The Regional Director will then transmit this report to the Social Security Administration
at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner.
WE WILL reinstate Joe Wyssbrod to the job-referral list, if he has not already been reinstated,
unless we have advised him of his financial obligations for reinstatement and he has not met
these obligations.
JD–31–19
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to Wyssbrod’s unlawful removal from the job-
referral list and, within 3 days thereafter, notify Wyssbrod in writing that this has been done and
that we will not use the removal against him in any way.
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN
AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING
AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO
(PPF), LOCAL 502
(Union)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the
National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want
union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To
find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak
confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain
information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
550 Main Street, Federal Building, Room 3003, Cincinnati, OH 45202–3271
(513) 684–3686, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/09-CB-205891 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., 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, (513) 684–3750.