Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02056/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02056-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Midwest Heating and Air Conditioning
Respondent
Midwest Precision Heating and Cooling
Respondent
National Labor Relations Board
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1862

___________

Midwest Precision Heating and * 

Cooling, Inc.; Midwest Heating * 

and Air Conditioning, Inc., * 

* 

Petitioners, * 

* 

v. * 

* 

National Labor Relations Board, * 

* 

Respondent. * 

___________

On Petition for Review of an

No. 04-2056 Order of the National Labor

___________ Relations Board.

National Labor Relations Board, * 

* 

Petitioner, * 

* 

v. * 

* 

Midwest Precision Heating and * 

Cooling, Inc.; Midwest Hearing * 

and Air Conditioning, Inc., * 

* 

Respondents. *

___________

Submitted: January 10, 2005

Filed: May 19, 2005

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Entry ID: 1904592
-2-

___________

Before SMITH, HEANEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

In this appeal from the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"), Midwest

Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. ("Midwest Air Conditioning") seeks reversal of

two NLRB rulings: (1) that Midwest Air Conditioning was the alter ego of Midwest

Precision Heating and Cooling ("Precision") and (2) that Midwest Air Conditioning

violated the National Labor Relations Act, specifically, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1), (3),

and (5). Finding no error, we affirm.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

This case turns on the origins and management relationships of three

companies: Precision, Midwest Air Conditioning, and Midwest Heating and Cooling.

For many years, William Lambert was the sole owner and principal manager of both

Precision and Midwest Heating and Cooling. However, William Lambert's sons,

John, Jack, and Jeff Lambert, were heavily involved in their father's businesses. 

Precision installed heating and air-conditioning equipment primarily for

builders of new residential construction in Kansas City, Missouri. For two decades,

Precision and Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO ("the

Union") had been parties to a series of collective-bargaining agreements that covered

Precision's manufacturing, fabricating, installation, repairing, and servicing

employees. The most recent collective-bargaining agreement between Precision and

the Union was effective from July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2002. Midwest Heating and

Cooling was a nonunion company that serviced, maintained, and replaced heating and

air-conditioning units. Midwest Heating and Cooling operated out of the second floor

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Entry ID: 1904592
1

At that time, William Lambert was diagnosed with cancer. 

-3-

of the building that housed Precision and was managed by Jack Lambert. Midwest Air

Conditioning was established in 1999 and is owned by John and Jack Lambert.

In the mid-1990s, John Lambert and his brother Jeff Lambert began assuming

managerial duties at Precision. Jeff Lambert managed the shop and served as a

corporate officer. John Lambert, along with William Jones, also served as corporate

officers, bid jobs for Precision, and assigned employees work. In late 1997 or early

1998, William Lambert retired, although he would come into the office a few

mornings a week. John Lambert began using his father's desk, and by 1999, certain

Precision documents identified John Lambert as Precision's president. In March 1999,

William Lambert was involved in a serious automobile accident and was unable to

actively participate in the management of Precision. With William Lambert

incapacitated, John Lambert and William Jones assumed total responsibility for

Precision. 

In July 1999, John Lambert, while still managing Precision, incorporated

Midwest Air Conditioning. However, the new company did not hire any employees

or perform any services for any clients in 1999. During that time, John Lambert

continued running and remained president of Precision. According to John Lambert,

he started his own business because he feared his father would never let him gain

complete control of Precision. By January 2000, John Lambert convinced Jack

Lambert, to become joint owner of Midwest Air Conditioning. 

Later that month, William Lambert agreed to sell his two businesses, Precision

and Midwest Heating and Cooling, to Midwest Air Conditioning.1

 The sales occurred

in separate transactions. First, on January 12, 2000, the day after John Lambert

resigned his employment with Precision, William Lambert sold Midwest Heating and

Cooling to Midwest Air Conditioning for $20,000.00. After purchasing the assets,

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Entry ID: 1904592
2

In January 2001, William Lambert lost his battle with cancer and Midwest Air

Conditioning stopped making payments to Precision pursuant to the terms of the

promissory note and the asset purchase agreement.

-4-

Midwest Air Conditioning hired Midwest Heating and Cooling's nonunion employees

and, without any hiatus, continued Midwest Heating and Cooling's business from the

same location. 

Second, on January 31, 2000, John Lambert and William Lambert signed an

asset purchase agreement, whereby Midwest Air Conditioning agreed to purchase the

assets of Precision. The agreement was drafted by Precision's attorney and the

purchase price was for $412,107.00. This price was set by Precision's accountant, as

Midwest Air Conditioning did not have separate legal or accounting representation.

The asset purchase agreement called for Midwest Air Conditioning to execute a

promissory note payable to Precision for $412,107.00 plus interest, payable at the rate

of $5,000.00 per month over 10 years. The agreement further provided that in the

event of William Lambert's death, all obligations of the promissory note would be

deemed to be satisfied in full.2

 The asset purchase agreement also provided that

Midwest Air Conditioning was not a signatory to any collective bargaining agreement

and did not intend to become signatory to any collective bargaining agreement.

Midwest Air Conditioning also renounced any obligation or intent to hire Precision's

union members/employees.

Precision remained in business after the asset purchase and entered into a leaseback agreement with Midwest Air Conditioning, whereby Midwest Air Conditioning

agreed to lease back to Precision certain equipment and supplies that Precision

previously had sold to Midwest Air Conditioning. Precision obtained any additional

supplies it needed from Midwest Air Conditioning because Precision lacked a line of

credit. In addition, Jeff Lambert continued to run Precision's shop and William Jones

continued to serve as a manager. John Lambert continued to occupy the same first

floor Midwest Precision office he occupied prior to forming Midwest Air

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Entry ID: 1904592
-5-

Conditioning and purchasing the assets of Midwest Heating and Cooling and

Precision. John Lambert continued to assign Precision employees work, continued to

grant Precision employees time off, and continued serving as a contact person for

Precision's builder clients. In April 2000, Midwest Air Conditioning identified John

Lambert as Precision's president, despite the fact that he resigned from Precision

earlier that year. 

In early spring of 2000, nonunion employees of Midwest Air Conditioning

began performing work for Precision that was covered under Precision's collectivebargaining agreement with the Union. An employee of Precision, Thomas Troy

Hutton ("Hutton"), complained to John Lambert about using nonunion employees to

perform Precision's work. John Lambert responded by offering Hutton a nonunion

position with Midwest Air Conditioning with a $2.00 per hour wage increase, a newer

company van, a helper, and paid vacations and holidays. Hutton accepted and began

working for Midwest Air Conditioning that very day, doing the same work that he

had done for Precision.

In the summer of 2000, Precision employee Walter Eastwood ("Eastwood"),

informed John Lambert that he would be quitting in two weeks. John Lambert and

William Jones then told Eastwood that they would give him more money to stay and

work for Midwest Air Conditioning, and offered him $21.00 per hour. Eastwood did

not accept the offer at that time. A few days later, John Lambert told Eastwood that

if Eastwood would work for his new nonunion company, he would pay Eastwood

$23.00 per hour and provide him with full benefits. Eastwood initially accepted this

offer; he later declined to join Midwest Air Conditioning.

Under the terms of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Union,

Precision was obligated to raise its employees' wages by $2.00 per hour in July 2000.

On the morning of July 28, 2000, Precision faxed a letter to the Union announcing

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Entry ID: 1904592
-6-

that Precision was closing that very day and discharging all the unit employees.

Precision's letter stated as follows:

As of this date, Precision Heating and Cooling, Inc. has determined that

it is necessary to cease doing business. We have been compelled to

terminate all of our employees, which of course, includes members of

your union. We will, in accordance with our obligations under the

collective bargaining agreement, submit the necessary fringe benefit

information and a check depositing the same. It is unfortunate that

Midwest Air Conditioning found it was simply unable to compete with

other residential companies because of the union wage structure.

Midwest Air Conditioning was further impacted due to the union being

unable to provide qualified personnel for the shop. The combinations

[sic] of these two items have caused Midwest Air Conditioning to cease

doing business. Unfortunately, there will be no one employed, even in

management, after July 31, 2000; therefore, if you have any questions,

please direct them to our legal counsel, Thomas Moore. (Emphasis

added.)

That same morning, William Jones and Jeff Lambert called Precision's union

employees into John Lambert's office and told them that they were discharged. Many

of the former employees were then offered jobs at Midwest Air Conditioning. Some

of the Precision employees agreed to work nonunion for Midwest Air Conditioning.

Other union employees refused to work nonunion either that day or shortly thereafter.

Those who accepted the offer were hired that very day to perform the same jobs they

performed for Precision. 

That same day, John Lambert also hired his brother Jeff Lambert to manage the

shop for Midwest Air Conditioning, just as he had done for Precision. William Jones

was hired to perform the same duties for Midwest Air Conditioning that he had

formerly performed for Precision. Operating from the same facility that had formerly

housed Precision, Midwest Air Conditioning then finished the work that Precision

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Entry ID: 1904592
-7-

had yet to complete when it closed. On August 1, 2000, Midwest Air Conditioning

sent the following letter to Precision's customers:

Dear Valued Customer,

We are writing this letter to inform you of some changes that are taking

place in our business. As of this date, Precision will no longer be in

business. After a long and difficult decision process, it has become

necessary to close the doors on that business. The difficulties of

remaining competitive with the ever increasing union pay scale and the

inability of the union to provide us with help has made this necessary.

Through retirement and attrition the union journeymen's numbers have

dropped to seven men. While we will miss the skills and contributions

they have made, we feel we have built up the staff of Midwest Heating

and Air Conditioning to offset this loss. We will continue to provide you

with all your HVAC needs. 

. . . 

Respectfully submitted,

John Lambert

Midwest Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc.

(Emphasis added.)

Thereafter, Midwest Air Conditioning took out an advertisement claiming that it had

been serving the Kansas City metropolitan area for 39 years. Later, Midwest Air

Conditioning held a sale celebrating its 40th year in business. 

In an August 14, 2000 letter addressed to Precision's attorney, Thomas Moore,

the Union's counsel acknowledged that the Union had received Midwest Air

Conditioning's July 28, 2000 fax announcing the discharge of all the union employees

and the closure of Precision. The Union requested bargaining and various

information, but Midwest Air Conditioning never responded. 

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Entry ID: 1904592
3

As of fall 2000, seventy-five percent of Midwest Air Conditioning's business

comprised the new residential HVAC work that Precision formerly performed. About

twenty-five percent of Midwest Air Conditioning's business was the service,

maintenance, and replacement work that nonunion Midwest Heating and Cooling had

performed. As of June 2001, sixty to seventy percent of Midwest Air Conditioning's

business was new residential HVAC work, and thirty to forty percent was service,

maintenance, and replacement work.

-8-

Midwest Air Conditioning retained all, or substantially all, of Precision's

residential builder customers. Midwest Air Conditioning also used the same

equipment that Precision used, although Midwest Air Conditioning had purchased

some additional equipment. Midwest Air Conditioning continued to use fifty-nine of

the sixty-one Precision suppliers. Midwest Air Conditioning kept Precision's phone

number and used the same accountant, lawyer, and payroll provider that Precision

used. In addition to performing new residential HVAC work in the same manner as

Precision, Midwest Air Conditioning also performed the service, maintenance, and

replacement HVAC work that nonunion Midwest Heating and Cooling performed.3

Midwest Air Conditioning had not abided by Precision's collective bargaining

agreement, but had credited the Precision employees it hired with their Precision

seniority.

B. Procedural Background

Based upon an unfair labor practice claim filed against Midwest Air

Conditioning by the Union, the NLRB issued a complaint alleging that Precision and

Midwest Air Conditioning were alter egos and that Midwest Air Conditioning

committed a variety of unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor

Relations Act. The administrative law judge ("ALJ") found that Precision and

Midwest Air Conditioning were alter egos. On appeal, the NLRB affirmed the ALJ

and also found, as had the ALJ, that Midwest Air Conditioning committed five

violations of the National Labor Relations Act, specifically 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1),

(3) and (5), in that they: first, wrongfully discharged Precision's union-represented

employees; second, offered the wrongfully discharged employees jobs (still

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Entry ID: 1904592
-9-

performing bargaining-unit work) with Midwest Air Conditioning on the condition

that there would be no union and no collective-bargaining agreement; third,

repudiated the applicable collective-bargaining agreement; forth, refused to bargain

with the Union; and fifth, bypassed the Union as the exclusive representative of the

unit employees and dealt directly with employees over terms and conditions of

employment.

The NLRB's order required Midwest Air Conditioning to cease and desist the

unfair labor practices and further refrain from interfering with, restraining or coercing

employees from exercising their rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

Affirmatively, the NLRB's order required Midwest Air Conditioning to offer the

unlawfully discharged Precision employees immediate and full reinstatement to their

former jobs or, if those jobs no longer existed, to substantially equivalent positions,

without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,

and to make them whole for any loss of earnings or other benefits suffered as a result

of the unlawful discrimination against them. The NLRB's order also required

Midwest Air Conditioning to make whole employees who performed bargaining-unit

work for Midwest Air Conditioning on and after March 1, 2000, for any losses

suffered as a result of Midwest Air Conditioning's unlawful failure to abide by the

terms of the 1999 collective-bargaining agreement between Precision and the Union.

The NLRB's order further required Midwest Air Conditioning to recognize and

bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the unit employees, and to

continue in force and effect the collective-bargaining agreement. Finally, the NLRB's

order required Midwest Air Conditioning to post an appropriate notice.

Midwest Air Conditioning seeks reversal of the NLRB's ruling that they are the

alter ego of Precision and thus violated the National Labor Relations Act.

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Entry ID: 1904592
-10-

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

We review the NLRB’s findings of fact to determine if they are supported by

substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Wilson Trophy Co. v. NLRB, 989 F.2d

1502, 1507 (8th Cir. 1993); see also Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474,

488 (1951). Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Universal

Camera Corp., 340 U.S. at 477 (citation omitted). Although NLRB decisions are

given deference, enforcement is not presumed. Id. at 490. We examine the entire

record and evaluate the NLRB’s decision taking "into account whatever in the record

fairly detracts from its weight." Id. at 488. The ALJ's credibility determinations are

to be considered with the NLRB’s factual findings under the substantial evidence test.

Town & Country Elec., Inc. v. NLRB, 106 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 1997). We weigh

the NLRB’s findings against the countervailing evidence independent of and

consistent with its credibility determinations. NLRB v. Fruin-Colnon Constr. Co., 330

F.2d 885, 889–90 (8th Cir. 1964). While we are prohibited from substituting our

judgment for that of the NLRB, we are not bound by the NLRB's conclusions when

the NLRB's conclusions go beyond what good sense permits. Local Union No. 948,

IBEW v. NLRB, 697 F.2d 113, 117–18 (6th Cir. 1982).

The NLRB's findings of fact are conclusive if they are supported by substantial

evidence on the record as a whole. Wilson Trophy Co., 989 F.2d at 1507. We may not

"displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views," even if we "would

justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before . . . [us] de novo."

Universal Camera Corp., 340 U.S. at 488. The NLRB's application of the law to

particular facts is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. NLRB v. United

Ins. Co. of Am., 390 U.S. 254, 260 (1968).

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Entry ID: 1904592
-11-

B. Alter Ego

United States Code, Title 29, Section 158(a)(5) makes it an unfair labor

practice for an employer "to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of

his employees." Section 158(d) in turn provides that when a collective-bargaining

agreement is in effect, "the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that no party

to such contract shall terminate or modify such contract." Accordingly, it is well

settled that an employer violates 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (5) by refusing to bargain

with the union that represents its employees and by repudiating its collectivebargaining agreement with that union. See generally Kirkwood Fabricators, Inc. v.

NLRB, 862 F.2d 1303, 1305–07 (8th Cir. 1988); NLRB v. Campbell-Harris Elec.,

Inc., 719 F.2d 292, 295–96 (8th Cir. 1983); NLRB v. Indep. Stave Co., 591 F.2d 443,

446 (8th Cir. 1979).

An employer also violates 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (5) by bypassing its

employees' exclusive bargaining representative and dealing directly with employees.

Buffalo Bituminous, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F.2d 267, 270–71 (8th Cir. 1977). As the

Supreme Court has explained, "it is a violation of the essential principle of collective

bargaining and an infringement of the Act for . . . [an] employer to disregard the

bargaining representative [of its employees] by negotiating with individual

employees." Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 678, 684 (1944). An

employer cannot avoid its obligations under the Act merely by forming a new

corporate entity when the newly formed entity is in reality only a "disguised

continuance of the old employer." Southport Petroleum Co. v. NLRB, 315 U.S. 100,

106 (1942). One business entity is bound by the collective bargaining agreement

between another business entity and a union if the two business entities are alter egos.

Iowa Express Distrib., Inc. v. NLRB, 739 F.2d 1305, 1311 (8th Cir. 1984).

Accordingly, an employer violates 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (5) by repudiating the

collective-bargaining agreement between its alter ago and the union, refusing to

bargain with the union that represents its alter ego's employees, and bypassing that

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Entry ID: 1904592
-12-

union and dealing directly with employees. See Campbell-Harris Elec., Inc., 719 F.3d

at 295–96. 

In determining whether two business entities are alter egos, the NLRB and the

courts consider a variety of factors, including whether the two entities have

substantially identical management, business purpose, operation, equipment,

customers, supervision, and ownership. Id. at 295. We also consider whether a motive

for the new entity's taking over of the operations of the old entity was to evade

responsibilities under the Act and whether dealings between the two entities were at

arm's length. Woodline Motor Freight, Inc. v. NLRB, 843 F.2d 285, 288–89 (8thCir.

1988). However, we recognize "the test of alter ego status is a flexible one, such that

lack of . . . [any particular factor] will not bar a finding of alter ego status." CampbellHarris Elec., Inc., 719 F.2d at 296. The NLRB's finding that two entities constitute

alter egos is entitled to affirmance "if supported by substantial evidence on the record

as a whole." Id. at 295.

The parties agree that Midwest Air Conditioning refused to bargain with the

Union. The parties also agree that Midwest Air Conditioning repudiated Precision's

collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. Additionally, Midwest Air

Conditioning does not directly challenge the NLRB's finding that it bypassed the

Union and dealt directly with Precision employees regarding the terms and conditions

of employment they would enjoy if they went to work for Midwest Air Conditioning.

Midwest Air Conditioning's main argument on appeal is that it is not the alter

ego of Precision, and therefore not bound by Precision's collective bargaining

agreement with the Union. Midwest Air Conditioning relies on Victor Valley Heating

& Air Conditioning, 267 NLRB 1292 (1983) and First Class Maint. Serv., 289 NLRB

484 (1988) for support, but these cases are distinguishable and thus unavailing.

Unlike the instant case, the new entities established in those cases were maintained

as entirely separate entities that shared neither management nor supervision. See

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Entry ID: 1904592
-13-

Victor Valley Heating & Air Conditioning, 267 NLRB at 1296–98 & First Class

Maint. Serv., 289 NLRB at 485–86. The older businesses were continued as separate

ongoing companies and there was no evidence that the new entities were set up to

avoid the unions. See Victor Valley Heating & Air Conditioning, 267 NLRB at 1298

& First Class Maint. Serv., 289 NLRB at 486.

The purchase of Precision's assets by Midwest Air Conditioning was not an

arms length transaction. The agreements were drafted by Precision's attorney and the

purchase prices were set by Precision's accountant, as Midwest Air Conditioning did

not have separate legal or accounting representation. After the asset sale, John and

Jack Lambert had sole control over Precision and continued to operate its business.

Notably, the decision to shut down Precision's business was made by John Lambert,

not by William Lambert. See Best Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 273 NLRB 83, 84

(1984) (alter ego not found where decision to cease operation of old entity solely

made by father, not sons who eventually purchased equipment and rented office

space). Control over Precision and Midwest Air Conditioning after the asset purchase

was not separate and distinct.

Before shutting down Precision, Midwest Air Conditioning commingled

Precision's business and Midwest Air Conditioning's business. Since Precision has

closed, Midwest Air Conditioning has kept all, or substantially all, of Precision's

residential builder customers. Midwest Air Conditioning uses fifty-nine of the sixtyone Precision suppliers. Midwest Air Conditioning kept Precision's phone number in

service, and still uses the same accountant, lawyer, and payroll provider that Precision

used. In addition to performing new residential HVAC work in the same manner as

Precision, Midwest Air Conditioning also performed the service, maintenance, and

replacement HVAC work that Midwest Heating and Cooling performed. See id. (alter

egos not found where new entity decided to seek smaller jobs that had been

performed by existing business, which had been a large contractor that sought only

major works).

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Entry ID: 1904592
4

Midwest Air Conditioning attempts to make the argument that they were in

competition with Precision and that Midwest Air Conditioning survived while

Precision did not; substantial evidence shows that Midwest Air Conditioning did not

perform any business until immediately before Precision ceased operations.

-14-

Seventy-five percent of Midwest Air Conditioning's business comprised the

new residential HVAC work that Precision formerly performed, and about twentyfive percent of Midwest Air Conditioning's business was the service, maintenance,

and replacement work that nonunion Midwest Heating and Cooling had performed.

Sixty to seventy percent of Midwest Air Conditioning's business was new residential

HVAC work, and thirty to forty percent was service, maintenance, and replacement

work. Midwest Air Conditioning did not abide by Precision's collective bargaining

agreement, but did credit the Precision employees it hired with their Precision

seniority.4

 Viewing the record as a whole, we hold substantial evidence supports the

NLRB's finding that Midwest Air Conditioning is the alter ego of Precision.

C. National Labor Relations Act Violations

In its brief, Midwest Air Conditioning also argued that there was not

substantial evidence to support a finding that its offers of employment to union

members Mark McMahon, Kevin Williams, Troy Hutton, Steve Todd, and Steve

Groom were in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(3) and (5). Midwest Air

Conditioning also argued that substantial evidence did not support a finding that it

violated 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5) in bypassing the Union and dealing directly with

employees over terms and conditions of employment. However, at oral argument

counsel for Midwest Air Conditioning conceded that if the ruling regarding alter ego

status is upheld, there is no question that Midwest violated the National Labor

Relations Act by dealing directly with employees. Because we affirm the finding of

alter ego status, we also affirm the NLRB's findings that Midwest Air Conditioning

violated the National Labor Relations Act.

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Entry ID: 1904592
-15-

The judgment of the NLRB is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Entry ID: 1904592