Wolfe Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 1, 2001

336 N.L.R.B. 684 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 684
Wolfe Electric Company, Inc. and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No.
265, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL–CIO. Case 17–CA–
18957
October 1, 2001
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN HURTGEN AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN
AND TRUESDALE
On April 15, 1998, Administrative Law Judge Albert A.
Metz issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief and the Charging Party
filed an answering brief. On September 29, 2000, follow-
ing an unpublished remand order by the Board the judge
issued the attached supplemental decision. The Respon-
dent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decisions and the record1
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order of the supplemental de-
cision as modified.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recom-
mended Order of the administrative law judge’s supple-
mental decision, as modified below, and orders that the
Respondent, Wolfe Electrical Company, Inc., Lincoln,
Nebraska, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified.4

1 The Respondent has requested oral argument. The request is denied
as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and
the positions of the parties.
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance 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.
In its exceptions, the Respondent argues, inter alia, that its owner,
Richard Wolfe’s action against the applicants was motivated not by
animus toward their union status, but by his anger against them for
upsetting his wife, who was serving as the office receptionist during
their initial visit to his shop. Mrs. Wolfe was terminally ill with cancer.
While we have sympathy for the Wolfe’s under these circumstances,
we agree with the judge that the union applicants did nothing that
would deprive them of the protection of the Act.
3 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order in accordance
with our recent decision in Ferguson Electric Co., 335 NLRB 142
(2001).
4 Par. 2(c) of the adopted Order provides that the nine discriminatees
are to be made whole for any loss of earnings and benefits resulting
from the discrimination against them, with that calculation of backpay
to take “into consideration the issues set forth in Dean General Con-
tractors, 285 NLRB 573 (1987).”
Substitute the following for paragraph 2(d).
(d) “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 desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records, including 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.”

Mary G. Taves, Esq., for the General Counsel.
William A. Harding, Esq. and Margaret E. Stine, Esq., for the
Respondent.
Michael J. Stapp, Esq., for the Charging Party Union.
DECISION
ALBERT A. METZ, Administrative Law Judge.1 This case
involves issues of whether the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).2
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of the briefs
filed by the parties, I make the following findings of fact.
I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The Union
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II. BACKGROUND
The Respondent is a nonunion electrical contractor in the
Lincoln, Nebraska area. The Respondent’s supervisory hierar-
chy includes President Richard L. Wolfe (Wolfe); and estima-
tor/supervisors, Roger Hall and David Wolfe.
In the fall of 1995 the Respondent became aware of the Un-
ion’s efforts to organize nonunion area electrical contractors by

For the reasons set forth in his dissents in Ferguson Electric Co.,
330 NLRB 514 (2000), enfd. 242 F.3d 426 (2d Cir. 2001), and Tualatin
Electric, 331 NLRB 36 (2000), Chairman Hurtgen disagrees with the
application of Dean, at least as to “salt” situations. In the Chairman’s
view, the burden should be on the Union (and the General Counsel
acting on its behalf) to come forward in compliance with evidence that
the “salts” would have been hired by the Respondent on subsequent
jobs had they not been unlawfully denied employment. See also, the
dissent in Kamtech, Inc., 333 NLRB 242, 243 fn. 7 (2001). Further, as
to discriminatee Bill Roussan, a union organizer, Chairman Hurtgen
would place the burden on the Union and General Counsel to establish
in compliance how long Roussan would have remained in the Respon-
dent’s employ but for the Respondent’s 8(a)(3) violation. 3D Enter-
prises Contracting Corp., 334 NLRB 57, 58–59 (2001) (dissenting
opinion).
1 This case was heard at Lincoln, Nebraska, on January 5–7, 1998.
All dates refer to the time period April 1996 through January 1997
unless otherwise stated.
2 29 U.S.C. § 158 (a)(1) and (3).
336 NLRB No. 48
WOLFE ELECTRIC CO. 685
attempting to get the contractors to hire its members (salting).
As a result of his concern about the organizing, Wolfe held an
employee meeting to discuss the matter. Based on the de-
meanor of the witnesses and the record as a whole, I find,
Wolfe told his employees that because of the Union’s organiz-
ing activities, he was going to quit advertising in the newspaper
and hire his employees through word of mouth referrals. Wolfe
said he would close business before he would allow the Union
to organize the shop. Wolfe held another employee meeting in
early 1996 where he told his employees that he was going to
start using a hiring service to employ electricians. Wolfe ex-
plained that the hiring service was experienced at determining
if applicants were union members.3
III. THE HIRING OF DOYLE HORWART
In late March 1996, Doyle Horwart, a union electrician,
heard a radio advertisement by Advantage Personnel, an em-
ployment agency, seeking electricians. Horwart applied at
Advantage and was interviewed by its representative, Tinka
Williams. Williams referred Horwart for an interview at the
Respondent’s shop on April 3. Horwart interviewed with
Wolfe and surreptitiously tape recorded their conversation.
Wolfe said he normally hired employees on his own, but that,
“it’s gotten real scary with some people coming in from the
union.” Wolfe told Horwart that, “the last thing you need to
have is somebody coming in saying I’m here and I’m going to
unionize your shop.” Wolfe said he had thought of not accept-
ing any work or employment applications because of this prob-
lem, but Advantage Personnel offered to find people for him to
avoid all of the problems. Wolfe told Horwart that his employ-
ees are instructed to inform individuals who came to the shop
looking for work, that the company is not taking applications,
and only if persons are referred from Advantage will he talk
with them. Wolfe inquired about Horwart’s union affiliation, “I
don’t know if you ever been a member of union or not.” Hor-
wart told Wolfe that he had been a member of a union many
years ago. Wolfe continued by saying that, “And so all the
contractors have to go through say like Advantage . . . so they
don’t get union people coming out.”
After leaving his interview with Wolfe, Horwart again went
to Advantage and met with Tinka Williams to discuss his inter-
view. During the course of their conversation Williams asked
Horwart, “Are you union?” Horwart said he was not. The
Respondent denies that Advantage Personnel and Tinka Wil-
liams are its agents. The Respondent, however, employed Ad-
vantage to serve as its representative for the referral and hiring
of workers. I find that Advantage and Williams were agents of
the Respondent for this purpose and agents of the Respondent
within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. I further find
that Williams was acting within the scope of her agency when
she interrogated Horwart about his union membership. Eldeco,
Inc., 321 NLRB 857, 863 (1996); Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(D).
Horwart was assigned by Williams to start work with the Re-
spondent on April 9. He was initially paid by Advantage but
was entirely supervised by the Respondent. After 2 weeks,

3 The original charge in this case was filed on December 23, 1996.
The Act’s Sec. 10(b) statute of limitations period began June 23, 1996.
Horwart became Respondent’s direct employee and was paid
by the Respondent. Horwart continued to work for the Re-
spondent until he was laid off on January 6, 1997, for lack of
work.
On June 10 Horwart was engaged in a conversation with Su-
pervisor Roger Hall. Horwart asked where he would be work-
ing next. Hall said Horwart would be going to the New Cove-
nant Church jobsite and that there would be two electricians
from ABC Electric there as well. Hall explained that ABC
Electric is a union contractor and that Howart did not have to
talk with the union electricians. Horwart was instructed to be
courteous to them, but he was not to tell them about any work
that the Respondent had. Hall also told Horwart that the Union
had been “salting” some electrical shops recently and had suc-
ceeded in organizing one shop in Lincoln.
On June 20 Horwart had a conversation with Wolfe who told
him that a journeyman electrician and an apprentice had just
quit. Wolfe stated he needed six more workers immediately for
some large jobs. Wolfe asked Horwart if he knew of any per-
sons who might be interested in working for the Respondent.
Shortly thereafter, Horwart told Union Business Agent Bill
Roussan, of this conversation.
IV. JULY 8—UNION MEMBERS SEEK WORK
A. First Union Visit
On the morning of July 8, union members Jerry Chorowicz,
David Cousins, Glenn Isaacs, Roy Lamb II, John Markey, Fred
Munch, Bill Pilant, Samuel Pulec, and Bill Roussan went to the
Respondent’s office to apply for work. Some of the men were
wearing union insignia on their clothing. Karen Wolfe, wife of
the Respondent’s owner, Richard Wolfe, was in the office and
spoke to the men. The men made tape recordings of the brief
conversation that ensued. They also had a video camera with
them. The men identified themselves as being from the Union
and asked about work. Karen Wolfe told them they would have
to speak to her husband, that she would not take applications
without Wolfe being present. She told the group that Wolfe
would be back in about an hour. Roussan asked how Respon-
dent normally hired employees. Karen Wolfe said the Respon-
dent used an employment agency. Munch asked if there was a
particular agency where they should apply. Karen Wolfe told
the group they would have to speak to Wolfe about that. Rous-
san presented a list of the employees who were in the group.
Karen Wolfe told the group she would let Wolfe know they had
been there. Roussan thanked Karen Wolfe for her time. Karen
Wolfe said “You’re very welcome,” and the group left the
building.
Although not apparent to the union men, Karen Wolfe was
unfortunately terminally ill at the time. After the men left,
Karen Wolfe became upset and called her husband to return to
the office. Wolfe found his wife in an anxious state and he
became angry by what he considered the inappropriate conduct
of the union men, which unexpectedly distressed his wife.
Wolfe related that, “She told me eight [sic] Union guys had just
been in there . . . they had a video camera. And she was ex-
tremely scared and . . . worried that she had said something that
would cause us to be sued.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 686
B. Second Union Visit
Later in the morning five of the union men returned to the
Respondent’s office to talk to Richard Wolfe. Again the en-
counter was tape recorded by the Union. Wolfe berated the
men for upsetting his wife and told them of her illness. The
men apologized for any upset they had caused Karen Wolfe and
pointed out that their meeting had been cordial. Wolfe said that
he was not hiring and not accepting applications. Wolfe told
the men to leave.
The men were never hired nor considered for employment
thereafter by the Respondent. Wolfe testified that he perceived
the treatment of his wife by the union applicants to have been
so unacceptable that he would not consider any of them for
employment regardless of their qualifications.
C. Subsequent Communications Between the Parties
After July 8 the Union sent Wolfe several letters and faxes
expressing the union workers’ continued interest in employ-
ment with his company. The union made clear that the men
would accept any available positions as journeymen or appren-
tices. Wolfe refused to sign for the letters but did receive the
faxes. On September 12 Wolfe sent a letter to the Union stating
that the Respondent was not hiring journeyman electricians, nor
was it taking applications on July 8, 1996. The Respondent did
hire some field employees after July 8.
V. ANALYSIS OF THE HIRING ISSUE
The Government alleges the Respondent committed an un-
fair labor practice when it refused to hire, or consider for hire,
the July 8 union applicants. The General Counsel has the initial
burden of establishing that union or other protected activity was
a motivating factor in Respondent’s action alleged to constitute
discrimination in violation of Section 8(a)(3). The elements
commonly required to support such a showing of discrimina-
tory motivation, are union activity, employer knowledge, tim-
ing, and employer animus. Once such unlawful motivation is
shown, the burden of persuasion shifts to the Respondent to
prove its affirmative defense that the alleged discriminatory
conduct would have taken place even in the absence of the
protected activity. Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982);
approved in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462
U.S. 393 (1983). “The elements of a discriminatory refusal-to-
hire case are the employment application . . . the refusal to hire
. . . a showing that [the applicant] was or might be expected to
be a union supporter or sympathizer, and further showings that
the employer knew or suspected such sympathy or support,
maintained an animus against it, and refused to hire the appli-
cant because of such animus.” Big E’s Foodland, Inc., 242
NLRB 963, 968 (1979).
On July 8 the Respondent was aware of the men’s union af-
filiation because they so identified themselves, wore union
insignia and their list of addresses was on union stationary.
The timing of Wolfe’s actions in rejecting them for employ-
ment was immediate to their appearance at his shop. The Re-
spondent’s animus towards the Union is shown by such conduct
as Wolfe telling his employees he would no longer advertise in
the paper, that he would close the business rather than permit it
to become union organized, and that he would use an employ-
ment agency to screen out union applicants. Respondent’s
animus is also demonstrated by Tinka Williams’ interrogation
of Doyle Horwart as to whether he was a union member, as
well other conduct by the Respondent described below.
The nine union members who appeared to apply for work on
July 8 were engaged in protected, concerted activity. NLRB v.
Town & Country Electric, 516 U.S. 85 (1995). They did not
engage in any discourteous conduct when they were in the Re-
spondent’s office. The men did not anticipate the distress that
resulted to Karen Wolfe. Wolfe testified that the reason his
wife was upset was her fear she had said something that could
result in a lawsuit. Nothing the union members did on July 8
removed them from the protection afforded them by Section 7
of the Act, including the fact that they had a video camera.4
The Respondent’s brief argues that the sole reason the Re-
spondent refused to hire, or consider the union men for hire,
was Wolfe’s personal animosity towards them for the adverse
effect their visit caused his wife. This defense does not meet
the Respondent’s Wright Line burden of showing that it would
not have considered for hire or employed the men regardless of
their protected concerted activity. The fact is the Respondent
rejected the men for engaging in noncoercive protected activity,
i.e., concertedly seeking employment. Wolfe’s personal feel-
ings of how they conducted that protected activity is not a de-
fense to the unfair labor practice charge. I further find that
Wolfe’s anger was used by the Respondent as a convenient
pretextual excuse to preclude it having to consider the union
men for employment. Limestone Apparel Corp., 255 NLRB
722 (1981), enfd. sub nom. 705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1982). The
refusal of the Respondent to consider for hire or to hire these
men because of their protected activity is found to be a viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 3E Co., 322 NLRB
1058 (1997).
VI. JULY 9 EMPLOYEE MEETING
On July 9 Richard Wolfe held a meeting with his electri-
cians. He expressed his anger against the union men that had
visited the office the previous day. According to Horwart,
Wolfe said that if any of the men present wanted to work union
they could get out now. Wolfe also told the employees that the
Union can send representatives to their jobs. If they saw any
such representatives the employees were to notify their supervi-
sors. He mentioned that the union organizers frequently wore
red apparel. Wolfe said that he would fight the Union to the
end and as well as anyone who treated his wife “that way.”
Wolfe testified he was very angry with the men and referred to
them as “pricks.” He denied telling the employees it would be
futile to select the Union to represent them, to report union
contact to the Respondent, or that he told employees interested
in the Union that they could go out the door. He did recall
telling employees he had no animosity towards the Union and
the employees could be in the Union if they wanted to be, but
he personally wanted nothing to do with anybody that would
intimidate a woman or intimidate someone with a video cam-

4 Karen Wolfe said nothing to the union men about any prohibition
against using a video camera on the Respondent’s premises.
WOLFE ELECTRIC CO. 687
era. Several employees testified to their recollections of the
meeting. Each was less definite in their recollection of events
than Horwart and Wolfe.
Horwart’s demeanor and detailed testimony of this meeting
were persuasive. He appeared to be a careful analyst of what
he observed. Wolfe was admittedly very agitated at the union
men during the meeting and said he would not deal with such
persons. The other witnesses had only fragmentary recollec-
tions of the meeting and their testimony of the event was not
valuable in assessing what was actually said. Considering the
demeanor of the witnesses and the record as a whole, I credit
Howart’s version of what was said at this meeting. I find that
Wolfe’s statements to the employees that, (1) they could go out
the door if they supported the Union, (2) he would fight the
Union, and (3) the employees should report any union contact,
threatened, restrained, and coerced the employees in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
VII. CHANGES IN HIRING PROCEDURES
Shortly after the July 8 visit by the union men the Respon-
dent posted a sign on its office telling the public that it was not
accepting any employment applications. As discussed below,
on July 22, Wolfe asked some of his electricians if they knew
of any workers he could hire. Wolfe said he would take down
the “no applications” sign for 5 minutes so they could come in
and apply. Based on the record as a whole, I find that the Re-
spondent posted the sign about not accepting applications in an
effort to keep union employees from applying for employment.
The discriminatory posting of this sign is found to be a viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Casey Electric, 313
NLRB 774, 775 (1994).
VIII. JULY 22 REMARKS CONCERNING FUTILITY AND
SOLVING EMPLOYEE PROBLEMS
On July 22 Wolfe called a meeting of his electricians and
apprentices to inform them that he had received a certified let-
ter from the Union. He said he had refused delivery of the
letter and he would fight the Union to the end, and in court if
necessary. Wolfe also said that an electrician and an apprentice
had suddenly quit that day. He asked the men what was caus-
ing them stress on the job. Wolfe told them his door was al-
ways open and he would try to help them with any problems.
Wolfe and the employees then discussed various problems.
The meeting concluded and several of the employees and
Wolfe gravitated to the reception area of the office. At that
point Wolfe said that he did not want to lose any more workers,
and asked the employees if any of them knew of electricians he
could hire to let him know and if his attorneys permitted it, he
would take the “no applications” sign down for 5 minutes so
they could come in and apply.
Wolfe’s statements about fighting the Union to the end is a
message to the employees that supporting the Union would be a
futility. In the same context seeking out employee concerns
and offering to rectify their problems also conveys to the em-
ployees that they do not need union representation. Capitol
EMI Music, 311 NLRB 997, 1007 (1993); and Family Foods,
300 NLRB 649, 663 (1990). I find that both the “fight to the
end” remark as well as soliciting and offering to correct em-
ployee concerns in this circumstance are violations of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
IX. SEPTEMBER 13
On September 13 Supervisor Roger Hall had a conversation
with Horwart and employee Mike Bevins. Hall asked Bevins if
he was registered with the State as an apprentice. Bevins said
he was registered and ready to take the journeyman electri-
cian’s license test. Hall said that was good because the Re-
spondent could no longer hire journeymen because of the Un-
ion, and that all journeymen would have to come from within
the company. I find that Hall’s statement that the Respondent
could not hire because of the Union is a violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Family Foods, supra at 660.
X. NOVEMBER 1 THREATS OF ECONOMIC
CONSEQUENCES
On November 1 Wolfe held an employee meeting with his
attorney also present. Wolfe read a prepared statement to the
employees followed by a question and answer period. Horwart
recalled that Wolfe said during this question period that if the
employees selected the Union that his customers would no
longer use the Respondent. Wolfe also said that he had to close
the book on growth because of the Union and that he could not
afford to pay union benefits and remain competitive. Wolfe
denied making any threats but conceded he has told the em-
ployees he had to stay competitive. Other employees testified
that they did not recall attending any meeting where Wolfe
made threats to employees.
Supervisor Hall was placed at this meeting by Horwart. Hall
was later called as the Respondent’s witness but was not asked
to deny his attendance at the meeting or explain what Wolfe
might have said. The Respondent’s attorney was not called as a
witness. Under the adverse inference rule when a party has
relevant evidence within its control which is not produced, that
failure gives rise to an inference that the evidence is unfavor-
able to the party. Auto Workers v. NLRB, 459 F.2d 1329 (D.C.
Cir. 1972). Such an inference is appropriate in this case. I find
that had Hall and the Respondent’s attorney testified concern-
ing this meeting their testimony would have been contrary to
Wolfe’s denial of making any threatening statements. Interna-
tional Automated Machines, 285 NLRB 1122–1123 (1987).
Howart’s testimony was convincing as was his demeanor. I do
not credit Wolfe’s denial of making any such threats. I find
that Wolfe’s threats of adverse economic consequences made to
employees in this meeting are violations of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. Weldun International, 321 NLRB 733, 746–747
(1996); and 299 Lincoln Street, Inc., 292 NLRB 172, 173–174
(1988).
XI. DECEMBER 23
A. Howart Discloses Union Activity
On December 23 Horwart gave the Respondent a letter from
the Union that explained he was a union organizer. He also
told Supervisor David Wolfe that he was on restricted duty
because of a heart problem. Horwart supported this claim with
a physician’s letter, and said he was going to be off work on
December 26 to have a heart catheterization test. David Wolfe
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 688
told him to keep the Respondent informed as to how the tests
turned out.
B. No-Solicitation Rule and Trespass Threat
That afternoon Wolfe called an employee meeting. Horwart
returned to the office and was ushered into Wolfe’s office before
the meeting. Present were Wolfe, Hall, David Wolfe, and the
Respondent’s attorney. Horwart was given a copy of Respon-
dent’s newly published no-solicitation/no-distribution rule and
told to sign it to affirm he had received a copy. Horwart signed
and Wolfe told him that he would protect Horwart’s rights.
Horwart said he would do the same for the Respondent’s rights.
They then went into the employee meeting.
At the meeting Wolfe also gave the employees copies of the
new no-solicitation rule but they were not required to sign any-
thing confirming they had been given the rule. Wolfe passed
out copies of Horwart’s letter announcing his union organizing
efforts. Wolfe told the employees that he felt Horwart was a
party to the harassment of contractors, and noted that “union
thugs” had been handbilling in front of the shop that morning.
Wolfe called Horwart a sneak and told the employees they did
not have to talk with the Union if they did not want to. Wolfe
accused Horwart of timing his announcement to ruin Christmas.
Wolfe concluded by stating that anyone who had their name on
printed literature found on the premises would have trespass
charges filed against them.
Wolfe’s remarks about filing trespass charges against anyone
whose name appeared on handouts did not attempt to distin-
guish lawfully distributed materials. I find that this general
threat is a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The no-solicitation/no-distribution rule issued on December
23 was facially invalid. It defined worktime as including meal
and break periods. The rule also prohibited distribution of lit-
erature in public areas of company property. The Respondent
had not had any such rule before the union activity at the shop.
The rule was implemented the day Horwart identified himself
as a union organizer. The Respondent offered no justification
for creating the rule. The Respondent corrected the rule on
December 26 to the extent that worktime was redefined not to
include meals and breaks. Finally, on February 12 the rule was
again revised to eliminate the prohibition against distributions
in public areas. The record shows that the rule was originally
promulgated to meet Horwart and the Union’s organizational
efforts. Such motivation in establishing a no-solicitation rule is
a violation of the Act. Harry M. Stevens Services, 277 NLRB
276 (1985). In addition, the language of the first two versions
of the rule was unlawful in its overbroad prohibitions. I find
that the promulgation and maintenance of the no-solicitation
rule is a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Cannondale
Corp., 310 NLRB 845, 849 (1993); Mack’s Supermarkets, 288
NLRB 1082, 1096–1097 (1988); and Times Publishing Co.,
240 NLRB 1158 (1979).
XII. HORWART’S WARNINGS
On December 26 Howart had his heart catheterization test.
He was admitted to the hospital the following morning and
underwent angioplasty surgery. On December 30 Horwart
telephoned Wolfe to report what had happened to him. Wolfe
informed Horwart that he was receiving a written reprimand for
failing to call in on Friday, December 27, and Monday, De-
cember 30.
A. December 31 Notice
On December 31 the Respondent prepared a written warning
for Horwart’s failure to call the Respondent to report his ab-
sence from work. When Wolfe learned further details of Hor-
wart’s medical problems, however, he rescinded this written
disciplinary notice. The Government alleges that the discipline
notice was discriminatorily issued to Horwart. I find that the
admitted failure of Horwart to inform the Respondent of his
absence was justification for the Respondent to issue the short-
lived disciplinary notice to him. I find that the Respondent did
not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by this conduct.
B. January 6 Notice
Horwart returned to work on January 6. On that day he was
notified that he was being laid off because of lack of work. He
was given four sheets of paper at this time. Two of the papers
stated he had been reminded on several occasions that he was to
turn in reports for extra work that he had done on a particular
job. (GC Exhs. 21, p. 2 and 42.) The Government asserts that
these two notices about overdue paperwork were unlawful dis-
ciplinary warnings based on Horwart’s union activity. The
Respondent is unable to bill customers unless this paper work is
on file. Howart testified that he had not been reminded to turn
in this billing paperwork. Nonetheless, he admitted he had
“overlooked” filling out the reports.
I find that, whether considered disciplinary or not, the Re-
spondent was justified in requiring Horwart to complete his
paperwork. Customer billing depended on such documentation
and Howart was being laid off that very day. The Respondent
has demonstrated that the notice would have been given Hor-
wart regardless of his union activities. I find the Respondent’s
action in this regard did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Wolfe Electric Company, Inc. is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local
265, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL–CIO is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act.
4. The foregoing unfair labor practices constitute unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not violated the Act except as herein
specified.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended5

5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommend
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
WOLFE ELECTRIC CO. 689
ORDER
The Respondent, Wolfe Electric Company, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to hire or consider for hire employees because
of their union membership or activities.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge if they support the
Union; implying to employees that it would be futile to support
the Union; telling employees that they should report contact
with the Union; soliciting and offering to correct employee
grievances; and stating the Respondent could not hire journey-
men because of the Union.
(c) Restricting or changing its employment practices in order
to discriminatorily preclude the hiring of union members or
supporters.
(d) Making threats to employees of adverse economic conse-
quences if they select union representation.
(e) Promulgating, maintaining, or enforcing no-solicitation
and no-distribution rules, or any other rules, for the purpose of
discouraging union activities.
(f) Threatening to file trespass charges against anyone whose
name appears on handouts found on the Respondent’s premises.
(g) 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, hire or con-
sider for employment Jerry Chorowicz, David Cousins, Glenn
Isaacs, Roy Lamb II, John Markey, Fred Munch, Bill Pilant,
Samuel Pulec, and Bill Roussan to the same or substantially
equivalent positions for which they applied, without prejudice
to any seniority or other rights and privileges to which they
would be entitled in the absence of the Respondent’s discrimi-
nation. Final determination of job availability shall be made in
the compliance phase of this proceeding.
(b) Make Jerry Chorowicz, David Cousins, Glenn Isaacs,
Roy Lamb II, John Markey, Fred Munch, Bill Pilant, Samuel
Pulec, and Bill Roussan whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them, computed on a quarterly basis, less any net interim earn-
ings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), plus interest as computed in New Horizons for the Re-
tarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). Final determination of back-
pay liability shall be made in the compliance phase of this pro-
ceeding. All reinstatement and backpay recommendations are
subject to the procedures discussed in B E & K Construction
Co., 321 NLRB 561 (1996); and Ultrasystems Western Con-
structors, 316 NLRB 1243 (1995). Because Respondent is
engaged in the construction industry, I shall further recom-
mend, in accord with Dean General Contractors, 285 NLRB
573 (1987), that the Board leave to the compliance stage of this
proceeding the determination of whether the discriminatees to
be offered employment would have continued in the Respon-
dent’s employment after completion of the projects for which

Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
they would have been hired. Walz Masonry, Inc., 323 NLRB
1258 (1997).
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from
its files any reference to the unlawful refusal to hire, or con-
sider for hire, of Jerry Chorowicz, David Cousins, Glenn
Isaacs, Roy Lamb II, John Markey, Fred Munch, Bill Pilant,
Samuel Pulec, and Bill Roussan and within 3 days thereafter
notify these employees in writing that this has been done and
that they will be considered for hire in a nondiscriminatory
manner.
(d) 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.
(e) Rescind the no-solicitation/no-distribution rule and notify
all employees this has been done.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Lincoln, Nebraska, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”6 Copies of the notice on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 17, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, 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. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceed-
ings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the
facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current employees, former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since July 8, 1996, and the above-named
discriminatees. Excel Containers, Inc., 325 NLRB 17 (1997).
(g) 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
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.
:
6 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 690
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 refuse to hire, or to consider for hire, em-
ployees because of their union membership or activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge if they
support the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local No. 265, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL–CIO or any other labor organization;
imply to employees that it would be futile to support the Union;
tell employees that they should report contact with the Union;
solicit and offer to correct employee grievances; or tell employ-
ees that we cannot hire journeymen because of the Union.
WE WILL NOT restrict or change our employment practices
in order to discriminatorily preclude the hiring of union mem-
bers or supporters.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with adverse eco-
nomic consequences if they want to select union representation.
WE WILL NOT promulgate, maintain, or enforce any no-
solicitation and no-distribution rules, or any other rules, for the
purpose of discouraging union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to file trespass charges against
anyone whose name appears on handouts found on our prem-
ises.
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, hire
or consider for employment Jerry Chorowicz, David Cousins,
Glenn Isaacs, Roy Lamb II, John Markey, Fred Munch, Bill
Pilant, Samuel Pulec, and Bill Roussan to the same or substan-
tially equivalent positions for which they applied, without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges to
which they would be entitled in the absence of the Respon-
dent’s discrimination.
WE WILL make Jerry Chorowicz, David Cousins, Glenn
Isaacs, Roy Lamb II, John Markey, Fred Munch, Bill Pilant,
Samuel Pulec, and Bill Roussan whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits resulting from our discrimination against
them, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Or-
der, remove from our files any reference to the unlawful refusal
to hire, or consider for hire, of Jerry Chorowicz, David Cous-
ins, Glenn Isaacs, Roy Lamb II, John Markey, Fred Munch, Bill
Pilant, Samuel Pulec, and Bill Roussan and within 3 days
thereafter notify these employees in writing that this has been
done and that they will be considered for hire in a nondiscrimi-
natory manner.
WE WILL rescind our no-solicitation/no-distribution rule.

WOLFE ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.

Mary G. Taves, Esq., for the General Counsel.
William A. Harding, Esq. and Dana M. Van Beek, Esq., for the
Respondent.
Michael J. Stapp, Esq., for the Charging Party.

SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
ALBERT A. METZ, Administrative Law Judge. Subsequent
to the original decision in this case the Board announced its
decision in FES, 331 NLRB 9 (2000). By order dated June 7,
2000, the Board remanded the present case for consideration in
light of the principles announced in FES. The parties have filed
briefs setting forth their positions on the remand issues.
All parties agree that the record is sufficient to decide the
remand issue. I concur. The Respondent argues that the General
Counsel has failed to meet its burden of proving that it had any
job openings on July 8, 1996, and the complaint should be dis-
missed. Counsel for the General Counsel and the Charging
Party assert the record establishes that under the Board’s rea-
soning in FES, Respondent unlawfully failed to hire employees
Samuel Pulec, Jerry Chorowicz, Glenn Issacs, John Markey,
David Cousins, Roy Lamb II, Fred Munch, Bill Pilant, and Bill
Roussan. It is further argued that they are entitled to instate-
ment and to be made whole.
In FES, the Board addressed the standards for proving re-
fusal-to-hire and refusal-to-consider cases. In a refusal-to-hire
case, the Board held that the General Counsel must show (1)
that the Respondent was hiring, or had concrete plants to hire,
at the time of the alleged unlawful conduct; (2) that the appli-
cants had the experience or training relevant to the announced
or generally known requirements of the positions for hire, or in
the alternative, that the employer did not adhere uniformly to
such requirements, or that the requirements were themselves
pretextual; and (3) that antiunion animus contributed to the
decision not to hire the applicants. Once this is established, the
burden will shift to the employer to show that it would not have
hired the union applicants even in the absence of their union
activity or affiliation. If the employer asserts that the applicants
were not qualified for the positions it was filling, it is the em-
ployer’s burden to show, at the hearing on the merits, that they
did not possess the specific qualifications the position required
or that others who were hired had superior qualifications, and
that it would not have hired them for that reason even in the
absence of their union support or activity.
The Board reasoned that in a refusal-to-hire case, the proof
of the availability of openings could not be deferred to the
compliance stage of the proceeding. In order to find a refusal-
to-hire violation warranting a cease-and-desist order, the Gen-
eral Counsel has only to show that Respondent had at least one
actual job opening, regardless of the number of applicants.
However, if the General Counsel seeks an affirmative backpay
and instatement order, he must show, at the hearing on the mer-
its, the number of openings that were available, that the appli-
cants were qualified for the openings, and that the animus of
the Respondent toward the Union contributed to the decision
not the hire the applicants for the openings. If there were more
individuals who Respondent failed to hire than job openings,
the Board found that the compliance proceeding would be used
to determine which of the applicants would have been hired for
each of the openings, and would therefore be entitled to back-
pay and a job placement, rather than just a remedy for a refusal
to consider. If, on the other hand, the number of openings ex-
WOLFE ELECTRIC CO. 691
ceeded the number of applicants, the compliance proceeding
would be used to establish which of the applicants would have
been hired for which of the openings.
The record establishes that on June 20, 1996, Respondent’s
owner, Dick Wolfe, had a discussion with employee Doyle
Horwart about hiring electrical employees. Wolfe told Horwart
and another employee that he needed to hire six employees and
asked for their assistance in recommending anyone they knew
for employment. Wolfe reported that he had over a million
dollars’ worth of commercial work. Wolfe said that because of
all of the work, he needed employees badly and would even
take kids if they knew of anyone. Wolfe reported that he had a
shortage of journeymen electricians. It was as a result of this
conversation that Horwart reported Respondent’s need for em-
ployees to Union Organizer Bill Roussan.
Roussan and eight other union men then attempted to apply
for employment with the Respondent on July 8, 1996. The nine
individuals that went to the Respondent’s facility on the July 8
were journeymen electricians, Bill Roussan, Fred Munch, Glen
Isaac, Roy Lamb II, Sam Pulec, Jerry Chorowicz, Dave Cous-
ins, and John Markey. Bill Pilant, a union journeyman iron-
worker and certified welder, also went with them to apply for
work. As fully set forth in the original decision, all of these
men were discriminatorily rebuffed in that effort by Wolfe who
told them he was not hiring. Wolfe subsequently posted a sign
at his facility stating that the Respondent was not taking appli-
cations. In an employee meeting on July 22, however, Wolfe
asked his workers to let him know of any potential employees
and he would take the sign down for 5 minutes so they could
apply.
Record evidence shows that the Respondent did hire at least
16 people after the union applicants applied. Employee Doyle
Horwart’s testimony confirmed that the Respondent hired em-
ployees after the union applicants attempted to apply. I credit
Horwart’s testimony in this regard. Additionally, Wolfe testi-
fied that because of his bitterness against the union applicants
for the manner in which he perceived they applied for employ-
ment, he was not going to hire any of them regardless of job
openings.
Based on the record evidence I find that the Respondent did
have concrete plans to hire applicants on July 8, 1996, and that
the General Counsel has proven that approximately 16 employ-
ees were hired following that date. I further find that the Re-
spondent discriminatorily rejected the nine union applicants
because of their union membership and activities and changed
its public hiring posture to avoid hiring union applicants. The
Respondent, when it subsequently hired workers, unlawfully
refused to hire the discriminatees because of their union status.
Wolfe testified that he did not care what qualifications the
Union applicants had, as he would not hire them if they were
the last electricians on earth. The Respondent did not prove that
any of the union applicants were not qualified to fill available
positions. I find that the General Counsel proved that of the
above-noted union applicants, eight were journeymen electri-
cians, well qualified for hire by the Respondent. The ninth in-
dividual, Bill Pilant, is a journeyman ironworker and certified
welder. The record establishes that Wolfe stated he would hire
inexperienced workers to meet his needs and did subsequently
hire apprentices. I find, therefore, that Pilant is qualified for
employment positions other than journeyman electrician.
I affirm my original decision and find that the Respondent
has failed to establish that it would not have hired the discrimi-
natees even in the absence of their union activity or affiliation. I
find that the Respondent unlawfully refused to hire all of the
named discriminatees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act. I further find that, under the FES standard, all nine
discriminatees are entitled to instatement and backpay. Any
disputes about what positions each employee was entitled to fill
may be resolved at the compliance stage.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Wolfe Electric Company, Inc., is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Lo-
cal No. 265, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL–CIO is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act.
4. The foregoing unfair labor practices constitute unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent has not violated the Act except as speci-
fied herein and in the original decision.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended1
ORDER
The Respondent, Wolfe Electric Company, Inc. Lincoln, Ne-
braska, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to hire Samuel Pulec, Jerry Chorowicz, Glenn
Issacs, John Markey, David Cousins, Roy Lamb II, Fred
Munch, Bill Pilant, and Bill Roussan, or any other employee,
because of their union membership or activities.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge if they support the
Union; implying to employees that it would be futile to support
the Union; telling employees that they should report contact
with the Union; soliciting and offering to correct employee
grievances in order to interfere with union activity; and stating
the Respondent could not hire journeymen because of the Un-
ion.
(c) Restricting or changing its employment practices in order
to discriminatorily preclude the hiring of union members or
supporters.
(d) Making threats to employees of adverse economic conse-
quences if they select union representation.
(e) Promulgating, maintaining, or enforcing no-solicitation
and no-distribution rules, or any other rules, for the purpose of
discouraging union activities.

1 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 692
(f) Threatening to file trespass charges against anyone whose
name appears on handouts found on the Respondent’s premises.
(g) 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 Samuel
Pulec, Jerry Chorowicz, Glenn Issacs, John Markey, David
Cousins, Roy Lamb II, Fred Munch, Bill Pilant, and Bill Rous-
san immediate instatement to 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.
(b) Make Samuel Pulec, Jerry Chorowicz, Glenn Issacs, John
Markey, David Cousins, Roy Lamb II, Fred Munch, Bill Pilant,
and Bill Roussan whole for any loss of earnings and other bene-
fits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them,
computed on a quarterly basis, less any net interim earnings, as
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus
interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987). As the Respondent is engaged in the con-
struction industry, make whole calculations shall take into con-
sideration the issues set forth in Dean General Contractors,
285 NLRB 573 (1987).
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from
its files any reference to its unlawful refusal to hire Samuel
Pulec, Jerry Chorowicz, Glenn Issacs, John Markey, David
Cousins, Roy Lamb II, Fred Munch, Bill Pilant, and Bill Rous-
san, and, within 3 days thereafter notify these employees in
writing that this has been done and that they will be hired in a
nondiscriminatory manner.
(d) 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, including an
electronic copy of the records if stored in electronic form, nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of
this Order. Bryant & Stratton Business Institute, 327 NLRB
1135 (1999).
(e) Rescind the no-solicitation/no-distribution rule and notify
all employees this has been done.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Lincoln, Nebraska, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”2 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 17, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, 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. In

2 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility in-
volved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respondent at
any time since July 8, 1996. Excel Container, Inc., 325 NLRB
17 (1997).
(g) 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
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 refuse to hire Samuel Pulec, Jerry
Chorowicz, Glenn Issacs, John Markey, David Cousins, Roy
Lamb II, Fred Munch, Bill Pilant, and Bill Roussan, or any
other employee, because of their union membership or activi-
ties on behalf of, the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge if they
support the Union; imply to employees that it would be futile to
support the Union; tell employees that they should report con-
tact with the Union; solicit, and offer to correct, employee
grievances in order to interfere with union activity; or state that
we could not hire journeymen because of the Union.
WE WILL NOT restrict or change our employment practices
in order to discriminatorily preclude the hiring of union mem-
bers or supporters.
WE WILL NOT make threats to employees of adverse eco-
nomic consequences if they select union representation.
WE WILL NOT promulgate, maintain or enforce no solicita-
tion and no distribution rules, or any other rules, for the purpose
of discouraging union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to file trespass charges against
anyone whose name appears on handouts found on our prem-
ises.
WE WILL NOT 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.
WOLFE ELECTRIC CO. 693
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Samuel Pulec, Jerry Chorowicz, Glenn Issacs, John Markey,
David Cousins, Roy Lamb II, Fred Munch, Bill Pilant, and Bill
Roussan immediate instatement to the positions for which they
applied, or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights or privileges.
WE WILL make Samuel Pulec, Jerry Chorowicz, Glenn Is-
sacs, John Markey, David Cousins, Roy Lamb II, Fred Munch,
Bill Pilant, and Bill Roussan whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of our discrimination against
them.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, re-
move from our files any reference to our unlawful refusal to
hire Samuel Pulec, Jerry Chorowicz, Glenn Issacs, John
Markey, David Cousins, Roy Lamb II, Fred Munch, Bill Pilant,
and Bill Roussan, and, WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter
notify these employees in writing that this has been done and
that they will be hired in a nondiscriminatory manner.
WE WILL rescind our no-solicitation/no-distribution rule
and notify all employees this has been done.
WOLFE ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.