Watkins Engineers & Constructors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 4, 2001

333 N.L.R.B. 878 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 818

Watkins Engineers & Constructors, Inc. and Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship
Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers,
AFL–CIO. Case 12–CA–18146
April 4, 2001
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN AND WALSH
On November 6, 1998, Administrative Law Judge
George Carson II issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the
Charging Party filed cross-exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the Respondent, the Charging Party, and the
General Counsel filed answering briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions
only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Or-
der.
The issues presented on exceptions in this case are
whether the judge correctly found that the Respondent
did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by re-
fusing to hire, but did violate the Act by refusing to con-
sider for hire, 24 union-affiliated applicants. Based on
our recent decision in FES, 331 NLRB 9 (2000), we
agree with the judge’s finding of a refusal-to-consider
violation, but we have decided to remand the refusal-to-
hire portion of the case. The remand may include, if
necessary, reopening the record to obtain evidence re-
quired to decide the case under the FES framework.
1. The facts
The Respondent (Watkins), a nonunionized construc-
tion and maintenance corporation in Jacksonville, Flor-
ida, had a contract with the Jacksonville Electric Author-
ity (JEA) to provide ongoing maintenance at the St.
John’s River Power Park, one of JEA’s steam generating
stations. In early January 1996,2 Watkins successfully
bid on a contract with JEA to perform additional work
during an upcoming outage3 at St. John’s. Watkins’ pro-
ject manager, Bob Webber, knew that additional em-
ployees would be needed to perform the outage work, but
he did not know exactly when the outage would occur.

1 The Respondent and the Charging Party have excepted to some of
the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not
to overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless
the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that
they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950),
enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing the findings.
2 All dates hereinafter are in 1996 unless otherwise specified.
3 An outage refers to a period of time where the powerhouse or
boiler is shut down for maintenance and repair.
Watkins’ hiring policy is to accept employment appli-
cations only when job openings are anticipated. In Janu-
ary, Webber began keeping a call-in list of qualified in-
dividuals who called to inquire about upcoming job
openings. According to the judge, the record showed
that any person with boilermaker skills who called to
inquire about work after Webber began the call-in list
should have been placed on the list. As of March, the
call-in list contained approximately 580 names. The
Respondent, however, did not place on the call-in list the
names of 234 union members who were qualified and had
called Watkins about employment.5 All of these union
applicants had, about the same time, submitted resumes
that showed their union status.
In March, Watkins began calling applicants on the
call-in list for the outage project. The call-in list was
Watkins’ primary source for hiring outage workers. The
outage work started on March 17 and lasted for 21 days.
Approximately 130 individuals were hired to perform the
outage work.
The judge found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act by refusing to consider for hire 246
union applicants because of their affiliation with the Un-
ion. The judge found, however, that the Respondent was
not hiring in January and early February. Therefore, he
dismissed the refusal-to-hire allegation.
2. The refusal-to-consider allegation
The judge applied the Wright Line7 test and found that
the Respondent unlawfully refused to consider for em-
ployment the 24 union applicants. We agree with the
judge’s unfair labor practice finding for the reasons set
forth by him and the additional reasons set forth below.
In FES, the Board clarified the elements of a discrimi-
natory refusal-to-consider violation:

4 The one union applicant on the call-in list was Juan Pichardo.
Pichardo called Watkins on January 25, did not reveal his union affilia-
tion, and was told to submit a resume. Presumably at this point, Pich-
ardo was placed on the call-in list. Subsequently, the Respondent
learned of Pichardo’s union affiliation. Pichardo was not contacted by
the Respondent.
5 The Union learned in January that Watkins had been awarded the
outage contract. Union President James Estes told union members at a
January 19 union meeting to call Watkins about employment.
6 We agree with the judge that there is no basis for finding a viola-
tion with respect to union members who failed to comply with the
Respondent’s hiring procedures. In adopting this dismissal, we need
not rely on any suggestion he may have made that some union appli-
cants were not considered because they failed to follow their Union’s
instruction to call the Respondent about their applications.
7 Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir.
1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982).
333 NLRB No. 99
WATKINS ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS 819
To establish a discriminatory refusal to consider,
pursuant to Wright Line, supra, the General Counsel
bears the burden of showing the following at the
hearing on the merits: (1) that the respondent ex-
cluded applicants from a hiring process; and (2) that
antiunion animus contributed to the decision not to
consider the applicants for employment. Once this
is established, the burden will shift to the respondent
to show that it would not have considered the appli-
cants even in the absence of their union activity or
affiliation.
If the respondent fails to meet its burden, then a
violation of Section 8(a)(3) is established.

FES, supra at 15.
The judge’s findings comport with this test. First, the
Respondent excluded union applicants from its hiring
process. The Respondent’s call-in list was Watkins’
primary source for hiring outage workers and, thus, a key
component of its hiring process. The Respondent placed
on the list any person with the skills of a boilermaker
who called to inquire about work after mid-January and
before the March outage—approximately 580 names.
The over 100 applicants the Respondent hired for outage
work were on the call-in list. By failing to put the union
applicants on the call-in list, Watkins clearly excluded
them from the hiring process.
Second, antiunion animus contributed to the decision
not to place the names of known union-affiliated appli-
cants on the call-in list. We agree with the judge’s find-
ing that “blatantly disparate treatment” supports an infer-
ence of unlawful motivation. The Respondent’s omis-
sion of the union-affiliated applicants is a classic exam-
ple of such disparate treatment. We further rely on the
testimony of Edward Aaron, Watkins’ senior vice presi-
dent of operations, who explained why Watkins returned
the union members’ resumes. According to Aaron, “[I]f
I get twenty resumes from the [union] hall, I usually be-
lieve something is up” and that a batch of resumes from
one fax number “throws a suspicion” on those resumes.
Finally, the Respondent did not show that it would not
have considered these 24 applicants for employment ab-
sent their support for the Union.
Based on the foregoing, we find that an unlawful re-
fusal to consider violation has been established under the
FES framework.
3. The refusal-to-hire allegation
In FES, the Board held that the General Counsel must
establish the following elements to meet his burden of
proof in a discriminatory refusal-to-hire case:

(1) that the respondent was hiring, or had concrete
plans to hire, at the time of the alleged unlawful con-
duct; (2) that the applicants had experience or training
relevant to the announced or generally known require-
ments of the positions for hire, or in the alternative, that
the employer has not adhered uniformly to such re-
quirements, or that the requirements were themselves
pretextual or were applied as a pretext for discrimina-
tion; and (3) that antiunion animus contributed to the
decision not to hire the applicants.

FES, supra at 12.
We find that the above elements have been established
in this case. First, the Respondent had concrete plans to
hire. The call-in list Webber started in January was spe-
cifically created for the outage work. Webber testified
that he established the list “to supply the names of people
that we may be interested in hiring for the outage in
March.” In other words, the call-in list was a pool of
applicants from which Watkins would be hiring when he
knew more details about the outage project. These facts
demonstrate that in late January and early February,
when the union applicants attempted to apply for outage
positions, the Respondent had “concrete plans to hire”
within the meaning of FES.
Second, the record establishes that the applicants had
experience and training relevant to the positions for hire.
The Respondent stipulated that all of the union applicants
are skilled boilermakers and qualified to do a majority of
the work performed during an outage.
Finally, the record supplies evidence of antiunion ani-
mus. As described above, the Respondent unlawfully
refused to consider the 24 applicants because of their
union affiliation.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the General
Counsel has met his burden of establishing the necessary
elements of an unlawful refusal to hire under the FES
framework.
Once the General Counsel has established his case, the
burden shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate that it
would not have hired the applicants even in the absence
of their union activity or affiliation. In FES, the Board
held that the issue of whether the alleged discriminatees
would have been hired but for the discrimination against
them must be litigated at the hearing on the merits.8
There was record evidence that the Respondent hired
boilermakers during the outage between March 17 and
early April, but the judge made no findings with regard
to whether the Respondent met its burden of establishing
that the union applicants would not have been hired even
in the absence of their Union or affiliation. Instead, the
judge left this issue for compliance proceedings. How-

8 FES, supra at 12.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 820
ever, as the Board stated in FES, “matters which can be
litigated at the unfair labor practice stage, must be liti-
gated at that stage and cannot be deferred to compli-
ance.” FES, supra at 17.
Accordingly, we shall remand the refusal-to-hire alle-
gation to the judge for further consideration of whether,
under FES, the Respondent has demonstrated that it
would not have hired the union applicants for job open-
ings after mid-March, even in the absence of their union
activity or affiliation. This remand shall include, if nec-
essary, reopening the record to obtain evidence required
to decide the case under the FES framework. Although
we are adopting the judge’s finding of a refusal-to-
consider violation, we are not issuing a final order as to
that violation because the remedy we would order for
that violation would be subsumed within the remedy for
a refusal-to-hire violation.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the issue of whether the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by
refusing to hire union-affiliated applicants is remanded to
the judge for appropriate action as set forth above. The
judge shall prepare a supplemental decision setting forth
credibility resolutions, findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and a recommended Order, as appropriate on re-
mand. Copies of the supplemental decision shall be
served on all parties, after which the provisions of Sec-
tion 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations shall
be applicable.

Michael R. Maiman, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Charles F. Henley Jr. and John D. Cole, Esqs., for the Respon-
dent.
Michael J. Stapp, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE CARSON II, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried in Jacksonville, Florida, on August 10, 11, 12,
and 13, 1998. The charge was filed on June 19, 1996,1 and the
complaint issued on October 30, 1997. The complaint alleges
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act by failing to consider for hire, or to hire,
45 named individuals because of their affiliation with the
Charging Party.2 Respondent’s answer denies any violation of
the Act.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by all parties, I make the following

1 All dates are in 1996 unless otherwise indicated.
2 Two posthearing exhibits, CP Exh. 3 and R. Exh. 9, are, without
opposition, received and admitted into evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, Watkins Engineers & Constructors, Inc., a
corporation, is engaged in the business of providing construc-
tion and maintenance services to customers at various locations
in the United States, including the St. John’s River Power Park
located at Jacksonville, Florida, at which it annually purchased
and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points located outside the State of Florida. The
Respondent admits, and I conclude and find, that it is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The Respondent admits, and I conclude and find, that Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Black-
smiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL–CIO, the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Jacksonville Electric Authority produces electrical
power at steam generating stations located near Jacksonville in
the St. John’s River Power Park. During the period relevant to
this proceeding, Watkins had a contract with the Electric Au-
thority pursuant to which it provided ongoing maintenance at
the Power Park utilizing approximately 20 employees. The
Electric Authority typically shuts down its generating stations
for several weeks each year so that major maintenance can be
performed upon the boilers, generators, and other components
of the station. These periods of intense maintenance activity are
referred to as shutdowns or outages. The Electric Authority
solicits bids for the performance of maintenance services dur-
ing shutdowns. Although Watkins provided ongoing mainte-
nance, it had to bid against other contractors in order to obtain
the additional shutdown work. During a shutdown, the contrac-
tor performing the work requires a large number of employees
who possess the skills of boilermakers, millwrights, pipefitters,
and iron workers. Watkins is not signatory to a contract with
the Union.
The local union of the International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers in the Jacksonville area is Local 199. At a building
trades meeting in January, Local 199 President James Estes
learned that Watkins had been awarded the contract for an up-
coming shutdown at the Power Park. During the Union’s
monthly meeting, held on January 19, International Representa-
tive Mike Peterson informed the members that Watkins, rather
than a union contractor, had been awarded the contract for the
upcoming shutdown. Notwithstanding that Watkins was not a
union contractor, he suggested that any members who wanted
to seek shutdown work with Watkins were free to do so. He
prepared a handwritten notice advising members of the upcom-
ing shutdown and providing the Watkins telephone number.
The notice states that the members should document the date
and time of their telephone call, and it advises the caller to
“have witness if possible.”
Watkins’ hiring policy provides that applications for em-
ployment are accepted only when job openings are anticipated.
Watkins’ project manager, Bob Webber, knew that additional
WATKINS ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS 821
employees would be needed to perform the shutdown work, but
he did not know exactly when the shutdown would occur.
Therefore, rather than accept applications, Webber decided to
create and maintain a call-in list. Beginning in January, when a
person called and inquired about upcoming work or working
during the shutdown, Project Manager Webber directed Office
Manager Sean Landrum, who was stipulated to be an agent, and
secretary Rhonda Thrift, the two individuals who handled the
majority of these calls, to obtain the person’s name, telephone
number, and craft. Thereafter, Thrift entered the names onto a
computer. Webber noted that, although it was “possible” that an
individual’s name could have been misplaced, “we tried not to
let that happen.” The call-in list, as of March, contained ap-
proximately 580 names. Watkins did not accept résumés as part
of its hiring process; however, the Electric Authority requested
résumés for employees who would potentially be assigned to
work in two areas. To comply with this request, Watkins, in
January, asked boilermakers or millwrights who inquired about
working during the shutdown to send in a résumé that Watkins
then forwarded to the Electric Authority. Watkins did not ac-
cept unsolicited résumés. The General Counsel placed into
evidence several résumés produced by Watkins pursuant to
subpoena, but he presented no evidence regarding the circum-
stances surrounding the submission to Watkins of these
résumés. Although the names on five of these résumés do not
correspond to names on the call-in list, none of the five indi-
viduals was employed on the shutdown. Thus the record does
not establish that they were submitted in connection with the
shutdown, nor does it establish that they were unsolicited.
Watkins gives priority in hiring to former employees, and
there is no evidence that any person who had not previously
worked for Watkins was hired prior to March. Twelve employ-
ees who had previously worked for Watkins were hired in late
February including five welders, one pipefitter, and one boil-
ermaker, positions that utilized boilermaker skills. The vast
majority of hires were in mid-March, which is consistent with
the testimony of Project Manager Webber. Webber also ex-
plained that Respondent does not internally refer persons to
other jobs. Rather, if no work was available when a person
called, the caller would be told of any other known work. This
is confirmed by Cecil Estes and Jerry Rhoden who, when they
called Respondent, were advised of work in Perry, Florida, and
at the Jacksonville shipyard, respectively.
B. Facts
During the week following Peterson’s announcement at the
union meeting, his handwritten note containing Watkins’ tele-
phone number was posted on the bulletin board at the union
hall. Three members took the initiative to contact Respondent.
On January 25, Juan Pichardo called the number given by Pe-
terson and spoke with Project Manager Webber. He did not
reveal his union affiliation. Webber asked if Pichardo was a
certified welder, and Pichardo replied that he was. Webber
requested that he send a résumé and a document reflecting his
certification. On January 26, Cecil Estes, son of Local 199 Pre-
sident James Estes, called the number provided by Peterson.
Although Estes recalled that he spoke with a woman named
Robin, I find that he spoke with Rhonda Thrift. Estes, who did
not reveal his union affiliation, asked about work at the Power
Park, and Thrift told him that she did not believe that Respon-
dent would need anybody else. Nevertheless, she requested that
he send a résumé and advised Estes that she understood there
was work at Perry, Florida. Matthew Jonjock also called Re-
spondent. The woman with whom he spoke told him that he
needed to “talk to Sean [Landrum]” and to send in a résumé.
Peterson, upon learning that boilermakers were being told to
send in résumés, “surmised that that was going to be their hir-
ing policy for this particular shutdown and proceeded in that
direction.” He developed a form and directed Julie Jacques, the
secretary at Local 199, to prepare résumés for any members
willing to apply to Watkins. The member’s name, address, and
telephone number appear at the top of each résumé. The first
two paragraphs of each résumé state the following:

I am a field construction Boilermaker with skills in
welding, fitting of pipe and plate and rigging. All the skills
you will need to successfully complete current and future
jobs.
I have __ years experience in field construction and
boiler making and am member in good standing with Boil-
ermakers Local #199 in Jacksonville FL.

The résumés then set out the member’s welding certifica-
tions, past employers, and freedom from drugs, information
Jacques obtained from union records.
The Union began asking members to sign résumés on Mon-
day, January 29. On January 29, the Union sent 11 résumés by
facsimile transmission (fax), to the Respondent. None of these
members had called Respondent previously, and none had been
requested to send résumés. Project Manager Webber, upon
receipt of the résumés, observed their similarity and contacted
his superiors. Although Webber claimed that he did not read
these résumés, that “the first one was identified to be with the
Union, and that’s where I stopped,” I do not credit this testi-
mony. He obviously had to identify each résumé to determine
whether it was similar. On January 30, having received nine
additional résumés, Webber called Local 199 President Estes
and had a letter dated January 30 hand-delivered to him. The
letter states that Respondent accepts applications only when it
is hiring, but goes on to advise that Respondent “will accept
telephone calls from anyone that is seeking employment and
tell them the status of available work, if any.” The letter con-
cludes by noting that Respondent is returning the 20 unsolicited
résumés that were sent by fax. Webber admits counting these.
The name of the employee-applicant appears at the top of each
page. The letter does not advise that Respondent was creating a
call-in list for the upcoming shutdown.
Despite this letter, the Union continued to fax résumés to Re-
spondent. On February 1, Webber again wrote Estes. This letter
states that the résumés faxed to Respondent on January 31 had
been discarded. It notes that Webber had advised Estes of Re-
spondent’s hiring policy both in the telephone conversation and
letter of January 30, and it advises that any résumés submitted
in the future would also be destroyed.
On February 9, the Union sent to the Respondent, by certi-
fied mail, the signed résumés of 44 members, including the
résumés of Pichardo and Jonjock, which had been separately
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 822
mailed previously. Because of security at the Power Park, the
public, including the Postal Service, is not permitted access to
any facility other than the Jacksonville Electric Authority ad-
ministration building. Certified mail is signed for by an em-
ployee of the Electric Authority. The Union’s package was
signed for on February 9 by Patricia Kramer. The package was
then placed with other contractor mail and carried to the mail
bin located in the building containing the offices of the contrac-
tors, from which it should have been picked up by a representa-
tive of Watkins. Respondent, in its position statements submit-
ted during the investigation of the charge, denied receipt of this
package.
The Union, during this same time period, prepared and du-
plicated a typed document that secretary Jacques “was giving
out to the guys as they came in.” That document relates to seek-
ing employment with Respondent Watkins and another com-
pany, North American Power Services. It directs employees to
telephone these employers, stating as follows: “Call once a
week if possible every other week at least, ask about your status
on their list and about any jobs they might have going or com-
ing up.” The document then sets out the respective telephone
numbers. It concludes in underlined capital letters: “KEEP A
RECORD OF YOUR CALL, GOOD COMPLETE NOTES!,
AND YOUR PHONE BILL.”
Notwithstanding these clear instructions, only 26 of the
members whose signed résumés were mailed to Respondent
made a telephone call. The majority of the members who called
did so from the union hall on the day they signed their résumés.
Few made a second call; however, multiple calls would have
been unnecessary since one call should have resulted in place-
ment on Respondent’s call-in list.
Estes, who had called on January 26, did not submit a rés-
umé. His name appears on Respondent’s call-in list.
Pichardo, who had called on January 25, signed his résumé
on January 31 and personally mailed it to Respondent. It was
not faxed from the union hall. He did not call Respondent after
sending his résumé. His name appears on Respondent’s call-in
list. Pichardo, whose telephone has an answering machine, was
not contacted by Respondent.
Jonjock signed his résumé on February 1 and had secretary
Jacques mail it for him. It was not faxed. Jonjock, who had
been told that he needed to talk to Sean Landrum, called Re-
spondent about a week-and-a-half after he sent in his résumé.
Landrum asked about a résumé, and Jonjock told him that he
had sent in a résumé. Landrum left the telephone and, when he
returned, told Jonjock that Respondent had his résumé, that
they had “been receiving quite a few of these from boilermak-
ers.” He concluded the conversation by advising that Respon-
dent would call him. Jonjock’s name does not appear on Re-
spondent’s call-in list.
Harold Adams, whose résumé had been faxed on January 29,
called Respondent in late February or early March to inquire
about work. He was informed that Respondent had his résumé,
but that there was no work at the time. His name does not ap-
pear on the call-in list.
Hollis Burch’s résumé dated January 30 was mailed to Re-
spondent on February 9. There is no evidence that this résumé
was faxed to Respondent. Burch telephoned Respondent, asked if
Respondent had received his résumé, and was told that it had.
The male that he was speaking with asked him to verify his
name, address, and telephone number. Since Respondent had this
résumé, it must have been received by mail since it was not faxed
to Respondent. Although Burch testified that he called some 3 to
5 days after signing the résumé, I find his call was made after
February 9. His name does not appear on the call-in list.
Kevin Murphy, whose résumé was signed and faxed to Re-
spondent on February 1, called Respondent on that same day.
He asked that his name be put on the list. About 2 weeks later
he called again, stated that he was checking on the job, and
wanted to be sure he was on the list. The woman who had an-
swered the telephone told him that he was. His name does not
appear on the call-in list.
No other members testified to any conversation confirming
either that their résumé had been received or that their name
was on Respondent’s call-in list. The call-in list, in addition to
the names of Estes and Pichardo, includes the names of Ken-
neth Connell and Lee Kemp. Kenneth Q. Connell’s résumé
identifies him as K. Q. Connell, although he did sign it using
his full name. Connell called Respondent from the union hall.
His résumé was faxed on January 29, the date he signed it, but
the record does not reflect the date of his call. The call-in list
contains the name Kenneth Connell, without the middle initial
Q., and the same telephone number as that shown on K. Q.
Connell’s résumé. Cranford L. Kemp’s résumé was faxed to
Respondent on January 29. At some point, the record does not
establish when, Kemp telephoned Respondent. The name Lee
Kemp, with the same telephone number as that on Cranford L.
Kemp’s résumé, appears on Respondent’s call-in list.3
Michael McVay did not call Respondent on the basis of in-
formation furnished by the Union; however, his telephone bill
confirms that he placed a 2-minute call to Respondent on Janu-
ary 22. McVay did not reveal his union affiliation. He was told
that Respondent had work coming up but was not hiring at the
time. He was not requested to send in a résumé. McVay’s rés-
umé was faxed on February 1 and was included in the February
9 package. McVay made no effort to contact Respondent after
this. His name does not appear on the call-in list.
Eighteen other union members whose résumés were sent to
the Respondent called Respondent pursuant to the Union’s
posted instructions. None of their names appears on the call-in
list. Peterson witnessed more than half of these calls, including
calls by the following eight members:

James Batten called on January 29, the day his résumé
was faxed.
Marvin Gossage called on February 1, after his résumé
had been faxed on January 29.

3 Kemp testified to making a number of telephone calls where he ei-
ther reached voice mail or a person named Yvonne. On February 1,
when Kemp thought he was calling Respondent, his log reflects that he
talked to Yvonne who told him that an individual named J. R. would be
doing the hiring for the March shutdown. Project Manager Webber
identified Yvonne and J. R. as employees of Power Plant Maintenance,
another contractor at the site. Thus, on that occasion, it appears that
Kemp reached Power Plant Maintenance instead of Respondent.
WATKINS ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS 823
Robert Hatten called on January 31, the day his résumé
was faxed.
Raymond Hicks called on January 31, the day his rés-
umé was faxed.
Michael Kubeck called on January 31, the day his rés-
umé was faxed.
Kenneth Reynolds called on January 31, the day his
résumé was faxed.
George Spicer called on February 1, after his résumé
had been faxed on January 29.
Thomas Sykes called on February 1. His résumé was
not faxed.4

Peterson also witnessed the calls made from the union hall
by the following 4 members who testified regarding their calls:

Terry Austin called on January 31, the day his résumé
was faxed.5
Rickey Hurst called on January 31, the day his résumé
was faxed.
Jerry Rhoden called on February 1, after his résumé
had been faxed on January 29.6 Rhoden was told there
might be work at the shipyard.
Dale Ferguson called on January 29, the day his rés-
umé was faxed.7

The following 6 employees credibly testified to calling Re-
spondent:

Isham Carter’s résumé was faxed to Respondent on
January 30, the date he signed it. He called Respondent
from the union hall, although the specific date of the call is
not established.8
Bobby Crews, whose résumé dated January 30 was
mailed to Respondent on February 9, called Respondent
from his home. Crews’ initial failure to recall signing a
résumé is immaterial since the document confirms that he
did so. Although Crews did not remember when he called,
the person he spoke with confirmed that Watkins had work
coming up and would need welders. Insofar as Crews was
out of work when he called, and his records reflect that he
was out of work from February 9 until March 5, I find that
he called during that period.

4 Although Sykes remembered filling out a document at the union
hall, he could not remember signing his résumé or speaking with any-
one at Watkins. I credit Peterson who made a contemporaneous note on
the back of Sykes’ résumé reflecting that Sykes called at 9:15 a.m.
5 Austin’s résumé is dated January 29.
6 I credit Peterson’s contemporaneous notes over Rhoden’s fuzzy
recollection regarding the date of this call.
7 Dale Ferguson testified that sometime after this, it could have been
as late as June, Respondent called him and offered him a job out of
town which he refused. Since his name does not appear on the call-in
list, it would appear that this job offer resulted from a subsequent appli-
cation in which the Union was not involved. Ferguson, at some point,
filled out an application in person at Watkins’ office in the area of
Eastport Road and Main Street.
8 Carter took no notes. I find that Carter was mistaken in attributing
to Respondent a statement that he would not be hired after he stated
that “we were trying to organize them.”
William Ducati, whose résumé dated January 30 was
mailed to Respondent on February 9, called Respondent
after having conversations about upcoming work at the
Power Park with a former union member who had worked
with Watkins. When he called, “They said they’d be in
touch.”9
Carlton Ferguson’s résumé was signed and faxed to
Respondent on January 30. Sometime after this, Ferguson
called Tim Mewbourn, who oversaw the work of boiler-
makers on the job. Webber testified that Mewbourn could
effectively recommend applicants for employment. Mew-
bourn took Ferguson’s name and number, but Ferguson
was never called.
Clarence Moody, whose résumé dated January 30 was
not faxed to Respondent, called Respondent sometime af-
ter January, but he did not place a date on the conversa-
tion. The record does not establish from where he made
the call. He told the woman who answered the telephone
that he was following up on an application he had filled
out. The woman did not acknowledge receipt of Moody’s
résumé, but she did state she was going through “them,”
and would call him back. He received no call and made no
further attempt to contact Respondent.
Larry Williams’ résumé was signed and faxed to Re-
spondent on January 29. Three or four days after this, Wil-
liams, who had previously worked for Respondent, called.
The woman he spoke with obtained his name and advised
that he could call back and that someone might be in touch
with him.

Dennis Conway’s résumé is dated January 29. Conway testi-
fied to having called a company that he believed to be Respon-
dent prior to signing his résumé, but he did not testify to the
number he called. In that telephone conversation, Conway was
requested to come in and fill out an application or bring a rés-
umé. He acknowledged that he had been calling various ads
that he found in the paper. In a second conversation, a few days
after signing the résumé and, therefore, in early February,
Conway called and stated that he had filled out an application.
He was told that “all we’re needing is laborers right now, but
we might be hiring some boilermakers later on.” There is no
evidence that Respondent was accepting applications or that it
was hiring laborers or anyone else in early February. Conway
was mistaken regarding the identity of the company that he
reached; he did not call the Respondent.
In March, Respondent began calling the individuals on its
call-in list, many of whom were already working or could not
be reached. Webber testified that persons identified as having
previously worked for Watkins were called first and that an
attempt was made to contact every person in the relevant crafts
on the call-in list. This conclusory testimony was not corrobo-
rated. Much of the calling was performed by Landrum and
Thrift; neither of whom testified. Superintendent Ed Chase,
who also utilized the call-in list, did not claim that he attempted
to contact everyone on the list. Thus, although an attempt
9 Ducati’s testimony regarding a woman asking if he would like to
fill out an application obviously related to some other job inquiry since
Respondent was not accepting applications.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 824
should have been made to contact every person, there is no
probative evidence that this actually occurred. Pichardo, who
had an answering machine, received no call. Thereafter, Re-
spondent began seeking the names of qualified employees from
its current employees. A current employee gave Peterson’s
name to Tim Mewbourn, who hired him. Peterson recom-
mended Camilio Juncao a member of a different local of the
Union, who lived in Tampa, Florida. Mewbourn called Juncao
and hired him. Neither Peterson nor Juncao revealed their union
affiliation.
C. Credibility and Conclusions Regarding Knowledge
of Union Affiliation
The relevant conversations in this case occurred in January and
February 1996, more than 2-1/2 years before the hearing. During
that same 2-1/2-year period, these employees would have had
conversations regarding potential employment with many other
employers. Despite the Union’s direction that the members take
notes when contacting Respondent by telephone, almost none of
the members followed that instruction. In view of the foregoing, I
am able to place little reliance upon the recollection of these em-
ployees regarding any statements relating to the availability of
work or hiring. Although I am satisfied that they sought to testify
truthfully, review of the testimony reveals constant lack of clear
recollection. Of far greater significance is the testimony regard-
ing representations that the employee was on the call-in list or
that Respondent had received the employee’s résumé, issues that
were specific to contact with this Respondent. This is particularly
critical in view of Respondent’s contention that it did not have
knowledge of the union affiliation of the alleged discriminatees.
Although Respondent, in its position statements, denied re-
ceipt of the résumés sent by mail, Respondent did not question
Webber concerning this. Counsel for the Charging Party did
raise this matter with Webber, who responded: “I didn’t receive
the union résumés in the mail.” This testimony does not estab-
lish that the résumés were not received by some other method,
such as by delivery from another contractor on the site or by
delivery to Sean Landrum or Rhonda Thrift who worked in the
same offices as Webber. The record does not reflect whether
Sean Landrum is still employed by Respondent. Rhonda Thrift
left Respondent’s employment in 1996 and assumed a position
with another contractor at the Power Park. The record does not
reflect whether she is still employed by that contractor. The
General Counsel and the Charging Party argue that an adverse
inference should be drawn from the absence of testimony by
Landrum and Thrift; however, it is inappropriate to make an
adverse inference of the basis of absence of testimony by a
person no longer employed by a Respondent. Lancaster-
Fairfield Community Hospital, 303 NLRB 238 fn. 1 (1991). In
this case, no adverse inference is necessary. Webber’s testi-
mony that he did not receive the résumés in the mail does not
categorically deny receipt of the résumés, nor does it rebut the
presumption of delivery to some other agent of Respondent.
There is a presumption of delivery of mail deposited with the
United States Postal Service. U.S. Service Industries, 315
NLRB 285, 292 (1994). When Harold Adams called Respon-
dent in late February or early March, he was informed that
Respondent had his résumé. Since Respondent contends that it
returned or destroyed all résumés received from the Union by
fax, the possession of Adams’ résumé establishes receipt of the
mailed résumés. When Hollis Burch, whose résumé was not
faxed to Respondent, called Respondent after February 9, he
was asked to verify his name, address, and telephone number as
they appeared on the résumé, further confirming receipt of the
44 résumés sent by certified mail. There is no evidence contra-
dicting the credible testimony of Adams and Burch. That testi-
mony, coupled with the inference of delivery of mail, estab-
lishes Respondent’s receipt of the package sent by certified
mail on February 9.
The résumés received by Respondent establish its knowledge
of the union affiliation of those individuals. I do not credit
Webber’s claim that he did not read the names on the résumés
that were faxed to the office. There is simply no way that Web-
ber could have confirmed that the 20 résumés returned to the
Union on January 30 were all from the Union without looking
at them. Even if I were to credit that testimony, it does not es-
tablish lack of knowledge by Respondent’s agent Landrum or
Thrift, who was authorized to receive calls from persons inquir-
ing about employment and who was responsible for maintain-
ing the call-in list. Employee-applicants, including Pichardo
and Jonjock, had been asked to send résumés. Thus, Webber,
Landrum, or Thrift should have checked each résumé against
the call-in list to confirm whether the individual had been re-
quested to send in a résumé regardless of union affiliation. Con-
firmation of Respondent’s knowledge is established by credible
and uncontradicted testimony. Jonjock spoke with Landrum
who left the telephone, located Jonjock’s résumé, and com-
mented that Respondent had “been receiving quite a few of
these from boilermakers.” Adams and Burch were each told
that Respondent had received their résumés. Respondent was
fully aware of the union affiliation of the 44 members whose
résumés were sent to Respondent, and I so find.
Alleged discriminatee Kenneth Messer testified that he
signed a résumé; however, the record does not contain a copy
of it. There is no evidence that it was faxed to Respondent or
included in the Union’s mailing of February 9. Thus, insofar as
there is no evidence that Respondent was aware of Messer’s
union affiliation, I shall recommend that the complaint as to
Messer be dismissed. I draw no inference from the absence of
Messer’s name from the call-in list since, although he testified
to calling on an unspecified date, he could not even remember
the month.
D. Analysis and Concluding Findings
The foregoing facts establish that the issue in this case is not
refusal to hire but whether Respondent unlawfully refused to
consider the alleged discriminatees for hire. Consequently, I
agree with Respondent that there is no basis for a finding of
refusal to hire. Respondent was not hiring in late January and
early February. A Respondent’s refusal to accept applications
when it is not hiring does not violate the Act. Delta Mechani-
cal, Inc., 323 NLRB 76 (1997).
The General Counsel and Respondent argue that Respondent
unlawfully refused to consider for hire or to hire all members
who submitted résumés and that its refusal to accept the
résumés establishes this violation. There is no evidence that
WATKINS ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS 825
Respondent accepted unsolicited résumés and there is no proba-
tive evidence that any résumé submitted prior to January 29 had
not been solicited. The résumés prepared by the Union, except
for those of Pichardo and Jonjock, had not been solicited. Re-
spondent advised the Union that it was not accepting résumés,
consequently neither the Union nor its members had any expec-
tation that names would be placed upon the call-in list as a
result of the résumés. The Union posted written instructions to
its members that directed them to call Respondent, and Peter-
son made it a point to witness those calls. Any member who
was seeking to make a bona fide attempt to obtain shutdown
work with Respondent would, pursuant to the Union’s instruc-
tions, have called Respondent. In view of this, I can find no
basis for finding that Respondent refused to consider for hire
any member who did not follow his own Union’s instructions
to call Respondent. Thus, I shall recommend dismissal of the
complaint as to any member who did not call Respondent.
In assessing the evidence under the analytical framework of
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st
Cir. 1981), I find that the employee-applicants who sent
résumés to Respondent were engaged in union activity. Al-
though Respondent did not violate the Act by failing to place
the names of those individuals on its call-in list, I have found
Respondent was aware of the names and union affiliation those
individuals. When any of those individuals called Respondent,
they should, pursuant to Respondent’s procedure, have been
placed on the call-in list. Of the 27 members who called Re-
spondent, only Estes, Pichardo, Connell, and Kemp are on Re-
spondent’s call-in list. Estes did not submit a résumé, thus there
is no evidence that Respondent identified him as a union mem-
ber. He is not alleged as a discriminatee. The call-in list con-
tains the names of Kenneth Connell, who is named on his rés-
umé as K. Q. Connell, and Lee Kemp, who is named on his
résumé as Cranford L. Kemp. I find that Respondent did not
identify these individuals as union members since the names
Respondent recorded on the call-in list are different from the
names shown on their résumés. Insofar as Respondent had no
knowledge of their union affiliation due to their identification
in a manner other than that shown on their résumés, I shall
recommend dismissal of the complaint as to them. Thus, there
are 24 employee-applicants who called Respondent and who
Respondent identified as union members from the résumés
prepared by the Union.
Having established knowledge of the employee-applicants’
union affiliation, General Counsel must establish that animus
towards employee union activity was a “motivating factor” in
Respondent’s actions. Fluor Daniel, Inc., 304 NLRB 970
(1991). Although the complaint contains no independent
8(a)(1) allegation establishing animus, an inference of unlawful
motivation may be “drawn from evidence of blatantly disparate
treatment.” New Otani Hotel & Garden, 325 NLRB 928 fn. 2
(1998). Of the 24 employee-applicants who called Respondent
and who were identified by their names on the résumés as
members of the Union, only one, Pichardo, appears on the call-
in list. Pichardo called on January 25 and thereafter, on Febru-
ary 1, sent the résumé revealing his union affiliation. Despite
the presence of Pichardo’s name on the list, Respondent did not
contact him. Pichardo had an answering machine, thus any
attempt to contact him would have been received. The record
establishes that any person with the skills of a boilermaker who
called Respondent and inquired about work in and after Janu-
ary, but prior to the shutdown, should have been placed on the
call-in list. Although it was possible that the name of a caller
could be misplaced, Respondent “tried not to let that happen.”
Murphy was told that he was on the call-in list. Adams and
Burch called Respondent and confirmed Respondent’s receipt
of their résumés, as did Jonjock who had been requested to
send a résumé. McVay had also contacted Respondent prior to
sending a résumé identifying himself as a union member. None
of the foregoing employees appears on the call-in list. Indeed,
none of the 22 union members who sent résumés and, either
contemporaneously with the submission of their résumés or
thereafter, called Respondent appear on the call-in list. (Pich-
ardo and McVay did not call after sending their résumés.) I find
that the absence from the call-in list of the names of Jonjock,
McVay, and the 21 members of the Union who signed résumés
and who called the Respondent at or after the time their
résumés were either faxed to Respondent or received by Re-
spondent on February 9 cannot be attributed to mere coinci-
dence. The absence of these names supports an inference of
discriminatory omission.
In D.S.E. Concrete Forms, 303 NLRB 890, 897 (1991), the
Board found an unlawful refusal to consider for hire where the
respondent took various actions to avoid considering union
affiliated applicants, including using a signup roster which
union affiliated applicants were not asked to sign. Id. at 894,
895. In the instant case, the employee-applicants did not have
access to the call-in list which was maintained chiefly by
Landrum and Thrift. Those employee-applicants who called
Respondent should have been placed on the list. Calls were
made to Respondent by the 8 members whose calls were estab-
lished by Peterson and by the 19 other members who testified
concerning their calls. The absence from the call-in list of 23 of
these 27 individuals precluded them from consideration for
employment. Respondent’s brief, although noting that the
names of Pichardo, Connell, and Kemp appear on the list, does
not address the absence from the list of the names of the 23
other union members who called Respondent. The presence of
the names of Connell and Kemp is explained by Respondent’s
failure to identify them as union members. Connell is identified
as Kenneth, instead of K. Q., and Kemp is identified as Lee,
instead of Cranford L. Although Pichardo’s name is on the list,
there is no evidence that Respondent attempted to contact him.
In the absence of any explanation for the absence of the names
of these 23 union members, I find that General Counsel has
established a prima facia case and that the record supports an
inference that the names of these individuals were not placed
on the call-in list because of their known affiliation with the
Union. New Otani Hotel & Garden, supra; Fluor Daniel, supra.
Respondent argues that its hiring of known or suspected un-
ion members reveals an absence of animus; however, it appears
all of the individuals that Respondent knew or suspected to be
union members at the time it hired them had worked for Re-
spondent in the past and had not attempted to engage in any
organizational activity at a Watkins jobsite. Respondent ad-
duced no evidence accounting for or explaining the absence
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 826
from its call-in list of Jonjock, McVay, and the 21 employee-
applicants whom it identified as union members from the
résumés that the Union prepared. Although these employee-
applicants did not make application for employment since Re-
spondent was not accepting applications, each took the action
of making the telephone call that should have resulted in their
names appearing on Respondent’s call-in list. Their unex-
plained absence from the call-in list, which contains approxi-
mately 580 names, reveals blatant disparity and establishes
Respondent’s animus towards union affiliated applicants. Fluor
Daniel, Inc., supra at 971.
The foregoing evidence compels the conclusion that Re-
spondent failed to record on the call-in list the names of those
individuals who it identified as members of the Union and
struck the names of Jonjock and McVay, who had called in
January, from its list after receiving their résumés. By failing to
contact Pichardo, by striking the names of Jonjock and McVay,
and by failing to place on the call-in list the names of the re-
maining 21 employee-applicants whom it identified as union
members from the résumés that the Union prepared, “the Re-
spondent effectively denied ‘the applicants . . . even the possi-
bility of being hired.’” Casey Electric, 313 NLRB 774, 775
(1994). In so doing, Respondent failed to consider these em-
ployee-applicants for hire because of their union affiliation and
violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The 3E Co., 322 NLRB
1058 (1997).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing to consider for hire at St. John’s River Power
Park, Jacksonville, Florida, the 24 employee-applicants named
in subparagraph 2(a) of the recommended Order, because of
their affiliation with the Union, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having unlawfully refused to consider for
hire these 24 applicants, it must consider them for hire and
provide backpay to those whom it would have hired but for its
unlawful conduct. If, at the compliance state of this proceeding,
it is determined that the Respondent would have hired any of
these employee-applicants, the inquiry as to the amount of
backpay due these individuals will include any amount they
would have received on other jobs to which the Respondent
would later have assigned them. Although Charging Party’s
Exhibit 3 appears to reflect that all new hires were terminated at
the conclusion of the shutdown, this issue was not fully liti-
gated, and I shall, consistent with the Board’s decision in Dean
General Contractors, 285 NLRB 573 (1987), not presume that
employment would have ended at the conclusion of the shut-
down. In this regard, I note that Larry Williams had prior work
experience with the Respondent.
Any backpay liability on the part of Respondent may be
minimal. Testimony of those alleged discriminatees who ap-
peared at the hearing revealed that almost all of them had been
referred to jobs and were working during some portion of the
shutdown at the Power Park and, therefore, had interim earn-
ings.10 This is confirmed by the fact that Peterson, when asked
to recommend a welder, named Juncal, who is not a member of
Local 199 and who had to travel from Tampa. Insofar as the
Union herein was dealing in good faith with its members, I am
satisfied that, if Peterson were aware of a member of Local 199
who desired to work for Respondent and who was not working,
he would have named that member rather than Juncal.
Insofar as the shutdown work was completed in 1996, Re-
spondent must mail a copy of the notice to all employees who
were employed at the St. John’s River Power Park during and
after the shutdown. Jo-Del, Inc., 326 NLRB 296 (1998).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended11
ORDER
The Respondent, Watkins Engineers & Constructors, Inc.,
Jacksonville, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing or refusing to consider for hire applicants because
they are members of International Brotherhood of Boilermak-
ers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers,
AFL–CIO, or any other labor organization.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer those of
the employee-applicants named below who would currently be
employed, but for the Respondent’s unlawful refusal to con-
sider them for hire, employment in the positions for which they
applied or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equiva-
lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other
rights or privileges to which they would have been entitled if
they had not been discriminated against by the Respondent.

Harold Adams Terry Austin
James Batten Hollis Burch
Isham Carter Bobby Crews
William Ducati Carlton Ferguson
Dale Ferguson Robert Hatten
Marvin Gossage Rickey Hurst
Raymond Hicks Matthew Jonjock
Michael Kubeck Michael McVay
Clarence Moody Kevin Murphy

10 Although Jonjock and Austin testified that they would not have
quit employment with a union contractor in order to accept employment
with Watkins, the record does not establish their employment status on
the dates that Respondent was calling names on the call-in list.
11 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended 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.
WATKINS ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS 827
Juan Pichardo Kenneth Reynolds
Jerry Rhoden George Spicer
Thomas Sykes Larry Williams

(b) Make whole those of the employee-applicants named
above who would have been employed, but for the Respon-
dent’s unlawful refusal to consider them for hire, for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimi-
nation against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy sec-
tion of the decision.
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make available
to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Or-
der.
(d) Mail to all former employees employed by the Respon-
dent at the St. John’s River Power Park at any time since Janu-
ary 29, 1996, and post at its office and jobsites in and around
Jacksonville, Florida, copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix.”12 Such notice shall be mailed to the last known
address of each former employee. Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 12, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative,
shall be mailed within 14 days after service by the Region and
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.

APPENDIX

12 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judge-
ment of a United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and
abide by this notice.

Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights:

To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected con-
certed activities.

WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to consider for hire applicants
because they are members of International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and
Helpers, AFL–CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
those of the employee-applicants named below who would
currently be employed, but for our unlawful refusal to consider
them for hire, employment in the positions for which they ap-
plied or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equiva-
lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other
rights or privileges to which they would have been entitled if
they had not been discriminated against.

Harold Adams Terry Austin
James Batten Hollis Burch
Isham Carter Bobby Crews
William Ducati Carlton Ferguson
Dale Ferguson Robert Hatten
Marvin Gossage Rickey Hurst
Raymond Hicks Matthew Jonjock
Michael Kubeck Michael McVay
Clarence Moody Kevin Murphy
Juan Pichardo Kenneth Reynolds
Jerry Rhoden George Spicer
Thomas Sykes Larry Williams

WE WILL make whole those of the employee-applicants
named above who would have been employed, but for our
unlawful refusal to consider them for hire, for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of
the decision.

WATKINS ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS,
INC.