U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93-621 PDF 2004

EXAMINING UNION ‘‘SALTING’’ 

ABUSES AND ORGANIZING 

TACTICS THAT HARM THE U.S. 

ECONOMY

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE 

RELATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

May 10, 2004 in Round Rock, Texas

Serial No. 108-57

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice Chairman 

Cass Ballenger, North Carolina 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Sam Johnson, Texas 

James C. Greenwood, Pennsylvania 

Charlie Norwood, Georgia 

Fred Upton, Michigan 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Jim DeMint, South Carolina 

Johnny Isakson, Georgia 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Jon C. Porter, Nevada 

John Kline, Minnesota 

John R. Carter, Texas 

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado 

Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee 

Phil Gingrey, Georgia 

Max Burns, Georgia 

George Miller, California 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Major R. Owens, New York 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Ed Case, Hawaii 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Denise L. Majette, Georgia 

Chris Van Hollen, Maryland 

Tim Ryan, Ohio 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York

Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director 

John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER–EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas, Chairman

Jim DeMint, South Carolina, Vice Chairman 

John A. Boehner, Ohio 

Cass Ballenger, North Carolina 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

John Kline, Minnesota 

John R. Carter, Texas 

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado 

Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota 

Ed Case, Hawaii 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

George Miller, California, ex officio 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on May 10, 2004 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Carter, Hon. John R., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas .............................................................................................................. 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6

Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 4

Johnson, Hon. Sam, Chairman, Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, Committee on Education and the Workforce ................................ 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Statement of Witnesses: 

McGee, Sharon, President & CEO, RM Mechanical, Inc., Austin, TX ......... 8

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9

Nesbitt, Tom, Esq., Attorney, Fulbright & Jaworski, Austin, TX ................ 38

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 40

Runyan, Shelly, Vice President, Titus Electrical Contracting Inc., Austin, 

TX ................................................................................................................... 19

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21

Van Os, David, Esq., Attorney, David Van Os & Associates P.C., San 

Antonio, TX ................................................................................................... 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14

Additional materials supplied: 

Gonzales, J.R., Acting President and CEO, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of 

Commerce, Letter submitted for the record ................................................ 52

Titus Electrical Contracting, Inc. and United Brotherhood of Electrical 

Workers Local 520, (Case Nos. 16-CA-21010-2 et al.), 2003 WL 159078 

(N.L.R.B. Division of Judges) (January 17, 2003), Submitted and placed 

in permanent archive file ............................................................................. 53

(1)

EXAMINING UNION ‘‘SALTING’’ ABUSES AND 

ORGANIZING TACTICS THAT HARM THE U.S. 

ECONOMY 

Monday, May 10, 2004

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Round Rock, Texas 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in City Council Chambers, Round Rock City Hall, 221 E. Main Street, Round 

Rock, Texas, Hon. Sam Johnson (Chairman) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Johnson, Carter, and Grijalva. 

Staff present: Loren E. Sweatt, Professional Staff Member; Kevin 

Smith, Senior Communications Advisor; Jody Calemine, III, Minority Counsel, Employer-Employee Relations. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

Chairman JOHNSON. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee 

on Employer-Employee Relations of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce will come to order. You all are probably wondering what a quorum is. It takes two to tango in Congress. 

We’re meeting here today on examining union ‘‘salting’’ abuses 

and organizing tactics that harm the United States’ economy. I’d 

like to begin by thanking the city of Round Rock, and the Mayor, 

Hyle Maxwell, for hosting this hearing today. I want you to know 

I appreciate their hospitality and I’m pleased to be here. I’m eager 

to hear from our witnesses, but before I begin, I ask unanimous 

consent that the hearing record remain open for 14 days to allow 

Members’ statements and other extraneous material referenced 

during the hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I appreciate you all being in the audience today. Thank you all 

for coming. The Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee is 

holding a series of hearings examining emerging trends in labor 

law in our country. This is the second in our series, and today we’ll 

look at the strategies unions use to organize non-union workplaces 

and whether or not these practices are fair to both employers and 

workers. 

2

In other words, does current law under the National Labor Relations Act provide a labor-neutral environment or is there room for 

improvement? Let me say up front that our concerns today have 

nothing to do with individual union members or unions in general. 

The role that Congress intended unions to play in the workplace 

is distinct from the subject of today’s hearing. 

Our hearing today will focus on the practice of ‘‘salting,’’ and 

whether this tactic unfairly hinders the ability of employers to run 

their businesses, provide for their workers, and thrive in a fiercely 

competitive economic environment. Salting is the practice used by 

union organizers to enter a non-union contractor’s company with 

the sole purpose of attempting to organize the employees from 

within. 

Let’s not kid ourselves here. Certain unions use ‘‘salts’’ to cause 

deliberate harm to businesses by increasing their costs and forcing 

them to spend time, energy, and money to defend themselves 

against frivolous charges, and sometimes, to run employers out of 

business. An employer has little choice but to hire these individuals. If they don’t, they will soon find themselves defending unfair 

labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board, 

which can be economically devastating. 

As a result of court decisions in the early 1990’s, limiting the 

ability of unions to organize on or near a company’s property, union 

leaders will defend the practice of salting as one of the only ways 

in which union organizers can meet with employees. Often, these 

employees, or salts, are paid by the union to organize and have little monetary incentive to perform the actual work they were hired 

to do at a satisfactory level. This creates a hardship for the employer for many reasons. 

First, the employer is not getting a quality work product from his 

employee. This can put projects behind schedule, over budget, and 

create problems for other employees who must pick up the slack of 

the union salt. Second, because the union salt is actively trying to 

become a problem employee, the employer may feel he has no other 

choice but to fire the salt. This may provide the salt the opportunity to file unfair labor practice charges and if the employer 

chooses to fight these charges, it will cost him or her thousands of 

dollars. This negative financial impact is exactly the blow the 

unions are seeking to deliver. 

What it comes down to is this: employers have to compete on an 

increasingly global basis against relentless competitors, here and 

abroad. They must compete in the face of high taxes, rising health 

care costs, and burdensome government regulations. They should 

not have to compete against employees within their own company, 

employees deliberately placed there by unions out to harm them. 

That is just plain wrong. 

Our witnesses today have first-hand experience as targets of salting. These companies were caught in the crosshairs of the unions 

because they were successful firms. The National Labor Relations 

Act does not protect companies from some of these practices. Unfortunately, it may contribute to some of the problems. I welcome our 

witnesses and look forward to their testimony today. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Johnson follows:]

3

Statement of Hon. Sam Johnson, Chairman, Subcommittee on Employer–

Employee Relations, Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Good afternoon. The House Employer–Employee Relations Subcommittee is holding a series of hearings examining emerging trends in labor law in our country. This 

is the second in our series, and today we’ll look at the strategies unions use to organize non-union workplaces and whether or not these practices are fair to both employers and workers. 

In other words, does current law under the National Labor Relations Act provide 

a labor-neutral environment or is there room for improvement? Let me say up front 

that our concerns today have nothing to do with individual union members or 

unions in general. The role that Congress intended unions to play in the workplace 

is distinct from the subject of today’s hearing. 

Our hearing today will focus on the practice of ‘‘salting,’’ and whether this tactic 

unfairly hinders the ability of employers to run their businesses, provide for their 

workers, and thrive in a fiercely competitive economic environment. Salting is the 

practice used by union organizers to enter a non-union contractor’s company with 

the sole purpose of attempting to organize the employees from within. 

Let’s not kid ourselves here. Certain unions use ‘‘salts’’ to cause deliberate harm 

to businesses by increasing their costs and forcing them to spend time, energy, and 

money to defend themselves against frivolous charges, and sometimes, to run employers out of business. An employer has little choice but to hire these individuals. 

If they do not, they will soon find themselves defending unfair labor practice 

charges at the National Labor Relations Board, which can be economically devastating. 

As a result of court decisions in the early 1990s, limiting the ability of unions to 

organize on or near a company’s property, union leaders will defend the practice of 

salting as one of the only ways in which union organizers can meet with employees. 

Often, these employees, or salts, are paid by the union to organize and have little 

monetary incentive to perform the actual work they were hired to do at a satisfactory level. This creates a hardship for the employer for many reasons. 

First, the employer is not getting a quality work product from his employee. This 

can put projects behind schedule, over budget, and create problems for other employees who must pick up the slack of the union salt. Second, because the union 

salt is actively trying to become a problem employee, the employer may feel he has 

no other choice but to fire the salt. This may provide the salt the opportunity to 

file unfair labor practice charges—and if the employer chooses to fight these 

charges, it will cost him or her thousands of dollars. This negative financial impact 

is exactly the blow the unions seek to deliver. 

What it comes down to is this: Employers have to compete on an increasingly 

global basis against relentless competitors, both at home and abroad. They must 

compete in the face of high taxes, rising health care costs, and burdensome government regulations. They should not have to compete against employees within their 

own company—employees deliberately placed there by unions out to harm them. 

That is just plain wrong! 

Our witnesses today have first-hand experience as targets of salting. These companies were caught in the crosshairs of the unions because they were successful 

firms. The national labor relations act does not protect companies from some of 

these practices. Unfortunately, it may contribute to some of the problems. I welcome 

our witnesses and look forward to their testimony today. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And before we allow you to begin, I would 

like to allow our Members who are here the opportunity to make 

an opening statement themselves and we normally limit our opening statements to 5 minutes each and I hope you all understand 

we’d like you, as well, to limit your opening remarks to that. 

Mr. Grijalva, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and first of 

all I’d like to thank Congressman Carter for hosting our Subcommittee here in Round Rock today and I especially thank the 

witnesses who have come to provide this testimony. We do appreVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:28 Oct 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\93621 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
4

ciate the time and effort that all of you took. Hearings sometimes 

require a witness at a moment’s notice to make adjustments in 

their schedule and their time and we’re all very appreciative of 

that and the role that you’re playing today in providing us with 

facts and information is key in this process. 

That is why we are all here today, to gather facts. We must do 

so with open and fair minds. We come to hear all sides on this 

issue. 

I understand from the title of this hearing that the intent is to 

focus on union organizing tactics such as salting. Our Subcommittee had a hearing just a few weeks ago on union organizing 

tactics under voluntary recognition agreements such as a card 

check. So this is the second hearing we have had that focuses on 

union practices. 

As we go about examining the state of labor relations and worker 

rights in this country, we must be careful to maintain a balanced 

view, one that puts a fair focus on both union and employer practices. I want to make sure, all of us want to make sure that we 

hear the whole story. The jurisdiction of our Subcommittee demands that balance and fairness. 

The other side of the story must not be neglected. According to 

the latest number available in 1998 alone, there were 24,000 workers who won compensation after having been illegally fired or punished because of their union activity. This was up from one thousand such compensated workers in the 1950’s. Fear pervades our 

workforce and stifles the exercise of workers’ right to organize. A 

recent poll showed that a staggering 79 percent of workers felt they 

were very or somewhat likely to be fired for trying to organize a 

union. Unfortunately, these fears are often justified. Employers illegally fire employees for union activities in 25 percent of all organizing efforts, according to the latest study. These numbers reveal 

a real crisis in rights, in human rights in this country and I think 

this also merits Congress’ urgent attention. 

Now, as I understand it, the complaints about union salting seem 

to fall into three broad categories and yet each one of these categories implicates a fundamental right. One complaint is that 

union workers disrupt the workplace with their efforts to convince 

their co-workers to organize. At issue, there seems to be the fundamental right of association. 

A second complaint is that salting practices are often accompanied by very public campaigns against non-union contractors. At 

issue here seems to be the union’s freedom of speech. 

And the third complaint is that salts file legal complaints against 

their employer for violating organizing rights or engaging in workplace practices and endanger workers’ health and safety. At issue 

here seems to be the union or the worker’s right to petition the 

government, another fundamental right. 

For these reasons we must be particularly careful to take a balanced look at the issues being presented today. As stated, our very 

fundamental rights which Congress should not and cannot abridge. 

We must keep in mind that the work to organize is a fundamental, 

internationally recognized human right. The rights of workers’ selforganization and collective bargaining form the core of the National 

Labor Relations Act. Freedom of association is enshrined in our 

5

Constitution. It, along with the freedom of speech and the right to 

petition government were considered important enough to earn a 

top spot in our Bill of Rights. 

But I am also sensitive to the needs of business owners who may 

complain about unlawful interference with their business operations and endeavors. Successful, vibrant businesses, especially 

small businesses are vital to our economy. They generate jobs and 

at the same time, the labor movement has served an equally vital 

role in assuring that the jobs generated lift up and maintain our 

standard of living, provide for and protect workers’ health and care, 

and retirement security and give workers a fair voice in the workplace. 

Business’ role in creating jobs is particularly vital these days in 

an economy that has lost more jobs than any similar period since 

the Great Depression. Labor’s role in protecting the quality of these 

jobs and workers’ standard of living is also particularly vital these 

days. As our nation has hemorrhaged so many good jobs, 

outsourcing, people leaving, taking jobs out of this country, the new 

jobs pay an average of over 20 percent less than the old jobs they’re 

replacing. The number of people without health care continues to 

rise and the number of people without access to historically strong 

guaranteed retirement benefits of union pension plans has increased also. 

So I’m keenly interested in hearing from our witnesses on these 

issues on how we can improve labor relations in this country, resolve legitimate grievances and do so without abridging the basic 

rights of employers, workers and unions. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the hearing. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. We appreciate you coming 

in all the way from Arizona. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Enjoyed the trip. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Texas is a good place to be. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I’d now like to recognize my colleague on 

the Education and the Workforce Committee, Mr. Carter, who as 

you know represents this area. 

Mr. Carter, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN R. CARTER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank all 

of you for coming in here today and joining us in the field hearing 

here in the great State of Texas. I’m especially pleased this Subcommittee has chosen to convene here in Round Rock which is our 

Home District. 

The topic today for this hearing is no source of pleasure. However, as we examine the problem that has brought us together this 

afternoon, the problem of salting abuse, we discuss the damages 

these tactics are causing employers across the country. Salting is 

a practice in which the union attempts to get hired by non-union 

company in order to organize the company from within or simply 

to disrupt the non-union employer or to put it at a competitive disadvantage. It is a very old and widely known practice. It places emVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:28 Oct 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\93621 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
6

ployers in a no win situation. Most time employers must hire the 

union salt or face costly litigation that results from unfair labor 

practice charges. 

Today, we are here to examine the fairness of these salting campaigns. I do not wish to delve into the arcane, but it is worth noting for the record that why this practice is called salting. The one 

that seems more accurate to me is the legendary story of the 

Roman salting the earth at Carthage to prevent anything from 

growing as punishment for resisting the Roman Empire. This, to 

me, seems especially apt as from many people’s perspective salting 

is a practice that prevents companies from growing. 

As Members of Congress, we have heard from many of our constituents that salting is an unfair practice leading to employment 

of union members who are not interested in providing quality work 

or giving their best to their employer. That is why Congressman 

Jim DeMint of South Carolina introduced and why I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 1793, the Truth in Employment Act which would prohibit the practice of salting. The Truth in Employment Act makes 

clear that an employer is not required to hire someone who is not 

a bona fide applicant in that the applicant’s primary purpose in 

seeking the job is not to work for the employer. Simply put, no employers should be forced to hire a union salt. 

As we face the challenges of job creation in this country, it is 

time to question a practice that, in fact, destroys people’s livelihood, companies and demolishes the American dream. Our focus 

should be on helping employers create more jobs, not tearing them 

down and destroying them. 

Our witnesses here today will describe how union salting campaigns have adversely affected their businesses and impacted their 

personal lives. And I also look forward to hearing recommendations 

on how the Congress should proceed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carter follows:]

Statement of Hon. John Carter, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Texas 

Thank you all for coming, it’s an honor to host this field hearing in the great state 

of Texas, and I am especially pleased that the Subcommittee has chosen to convene 

this important hearing in our own district here in Round Rock. 

The topic of today’s hearing is no source of pleasure. However, as we examine the 

problem that has brought us all together this afternoon–the problem of salting 

abuse, and the damage these tactics are causing employers across the country. 

Salting is a practice in which a union worker attempts to get hired by a non-union 

company in order to organize the company from within, or simply to disrupt the 

non-union employer or put it at a competitive disadvantage. It is a very old and 

widely known practice, and it places employers in a no-win situation: most times, 

Employers must hire the union salt or face the costly litigation that result from unfair labor practice charges. Today, we are here to examine the fairness of these salting campaigns. 

I do not wish to delve into the arcane, but it is worth noting for the record why 

this practice is called salting: the one that seems most accurate to me is the legendary story of the Romans salting the earth of Carthage to prevent anything from 

growing as punishment for resisting the Roman Empire. This to me seems especially 

apt, as from many people’s perspective, salting is a practice that prevents companies 

from growing. 

As Members of Congress we have heard from many of our constituents that salting is an unfair practice leading to the employment of union members who are not 

interested in providing quality work or giving their best to their employer. That is 

why Congressman Jim DeMint of South Carolina introduced, and why I am a coVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:28 Oct 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\93621 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
7

sponsor of, H.R. 1793, the Truth in Employment Act, which would prohibit the practice of salting. The Truth in Employment Act makes clear that an employer is not 

required to hire someone who is not a ‘‘bona fide’’ applicant in that the applicant’s 

primary purpose in seeking the job is not to work for the employer. Simply put, no 

employer should be forced to hire a union salt. 

As we face the challenges of job creation in this country, it is time to question 

a practice that in fact destroys people’s livelihoods, companies, and demolishes the 

American Dream. Our focus should be on helping employers create more jobs, not 

tearing them down and destroying them. Our witnesses here today will describe 

how union salting campaigns have adversely affected their businesses and impacted 

their personal lives, and I also look forward to hearing recommendations for how 

Congress should proceed. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Carter. You didn’t talk anywhere near 5 minutes. What happened? Have you ever heard of a 

Texas Judge who wasn’t able to talk 5 minutes? 

I think we have a very distinguished panel of witnesses before 

us today and I want to thank you all for coming. I understand my 

colleague from Texas would like to introduce the first witness on 

our panel today and I yield to Mr. Carter for that purpose. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to introduce 

Sharon McGee who is the president and CEO of R.M. Mechanical 

based in Austin and established in 1976. The company provides 

heating, ventilation and cooling equipment and is able to fabricate 

sheet metal onsite. Among the many certifications she holds, Ms. 

McGee holds a Class A master mechanical license in the State of 

Texas, is a certified safety and health official and an adjunct constructor for Texas OSHA. I’d like to introduce Ms. McGee. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. I’ll introduce the other witnesses and then the Members will be advised that the witnesses 

will all testify before we begin the questioning process. 

I’d like to introduce the No. 2 witness who is David Van Os. Is 

that correct? He’s a union labor lawyer and is the managing shareholder with the law firm of Van Os & Associates. He represents 

various unions throughout Texas and is based in San Antonio, 

Texas. 

Shelly Runyan is our third witness who founded Titus Electric in 

1985 with her now husband, Ty, who is also here to answer questions, out of the back of their Dodge Satellite. Since then the company has grown to an average of 70 employees and is the largest 

independently owned contractor in Central Texas. They were the 

first independent company to offer health insurance. The company 

has focused on commercial and industrial electric services. 

Our last witness is Mr. Tom Nesbitt who received his law degree 

from the University of Texas. You’re not wearing an orange tie and 

his undergraduate degree from Baylor University. He practices 

labor and employment law and has first hand experience with the 

impact of the local salting campaign on small businesses in the 

Austin area. 

Again, I would ask the witnesses to please try to limit your statements to 5 minutes and your entire written testimony and anything you wish to add may be added in the official record at the 

end of the hearing. 

She’s got a little clock here and if you hear it going beep, beep, 

beep, that’s 5 minutes. 

With that, I’ll recognize the first witness to begin. 

8

STATEMENT OF SHARON McGEE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, R.M. 

MECHANICAL, INC., AUSTIN, TEXAS 

Ms. MCGEE. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Johnson and 

Members of the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations. 

My name is Sharon McGee and I am President and CEO of R.M. 

Mechanical, Inc. R.M. Mechanical has been serving Central Texas 

since January, 1976. I currently employ 60 people and perform 

heating, air conditioning, ventilation, design/build projects, sheet 

metal fabrication-retail and wholesale, service-residential and commercial and refrigeration. My company’s make up is 80 percent 

commercial and 20 percent residential. I currently serve as the 

Chairman of the Board for the Central Texas Chapter of Associated 

Builders and Contractors here in Austin, ABC, of which R.M. Mechanical is a proud member. ABC is a national trade association 

comprised of 23,000 construction and construction-related firms 

from across the country, all of whom are bound by a shared commitment to the merit shop philosophy of awarding construction 

contracts to the lowest responsible bidder, regardless of labor affiliation, through open and competitive bidding. With 80 percent of 

construction today performed by open shop contractors, ABC is 

proud to be their voice. 

I am here today to share with you my company’s experience with 

salting abuse, and to express to you the desperate need for legislation prohibiting this nefarious union pressure tactic. Salting is the 

practice of intentionally placing trained union professional organizers on non-union jobsites to harass or disrupt company operations, apply pressure, increase operating and legal costs, and to 

ultimately put a company out of business. The objectives of the 

agents most often culminate in the filing of many unfair labor practice claims with the National Labor Relations Board. 

On April 30, 1998, I retained Mr. Lynn Hensley, a labor law attorney based right here in Round Rock, Texas to represent my firm 

because R.M. Mechanical because it received word from the NLRB 

that unfair labor practice charges had been filed. In 1998, R.M. Mechanical, an open shop contractor, performed a substantial amount 

of work, over $7 million, at an IBM facility in Austin, Texas alongside other mechanical contractors that were signatory to the union. 

At that time, R.M. Mechanical was in need of additional HVAC 

workers; therefore, I placed a ‘‘help wanted’’ ad in the Austin 

American-Statesman for qualified, skilled workers. Immediately 

following the placement of the help wanted ad, R.M. Mechanical 

was salted by four union representatives who applied for work. 

These applicants were not immediately hired and they subsequently filed charges against me for unfair labor practices, discrimination and an investigation took place. Adhering to my company policy, I did not hire any applicant until I had completed the 

interviewing process with all applicants. 

I, along with three other officers from R.M. Mechanical, gave 

statements to Mr. Armendariz, District Director for the NLRB. Our 

attorney was present for these statements. The union representatives continued to appear on my jobsites, talking with my employees and generally creating a disturbance on the jobsite and in their 

9

personal lives. Many of our employees were intimidated by the continued presence of the union officials. 

In the hopes of putting my employees’ minds at ease, I held an 

open forum for all employees of R.M. Mechanical to facilitate a discussion. I explained to them that they have the right to join the 

union. I also shared that if they did so, they would be entering into 

a contract with the union which would be negotiated with union officials. It warrants mentioning that at that time, R.M. Mechanical 

employed two individuals who had previously been signatory to the 

union. 

Subsequently, I had announced that R.M. Mechanical would hold 

an election so our employees could choose whether to remain open 

shop or to become unionized. At this time, I was still in need of 

people to perform our work, so I offered the union applicants positions with R.M. Mechanical. I then proceeded to make the Director 

of the NLRB aware of my course of action. 

I informed Mr. Armendariz that I had offered the positions to the 

four union applicants. They would be performing the duties of the 

position that I advertised about and they were to begin work the 

next day. The four union members did not show up for work. I contacted the District Director and informed him of the ‘‘no show’’. He 

asked me, in turn, to leave the positions open for an additional 10 

days, which I did. They once again failed to show up. It took no less than $15,000 in legal fees to prove that R.M. Mechanical had done nothing wrong and had broken no laws. The 

charges were dropped by the NLRB and a statement was issued 

from the NLRB that R.M. Mechanical had operated on a fair and 

consistent basis according to law and did not discriminate. 

I urge Congress to address this unscrupulous tactic by passing 

H.R. 1793, the Truth in Employment Act which was introduced in 

April of 2003 by Representatives Jim DeMint, Cass Ballenger and 

John Carter of Texas. 

Thank you again for my opportunity to testify before you today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McGee follows:]

Statement of Sharon McGee, President & CEO, RM Mechanical, Inc., 

Austin, TX on behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors 

Good afternoon Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Andrews, and members of 

the House Subcommittee on Employer–Employee Relations. I am extremely grateful 

for the opportunity to testify before you today on this issue of great importance to 

my company. My name is Sharon McGee and I am the President and CEO of R.M. 

Mechanical, Inc. R.M. Mechanical has been serving Central Texas since January, 

1976. I currently employee 60 people and perform Heating, Air Conditioning, Ventilation, Design/Build projects, Sheet metal Fabrication–Retail and Wholesale, Service–Residential and Commercial and Refrigeration. My company make up is 80 percent commercial and 20 percent residential. I currently serve as the Chairman of 

the Board for the Central Texas Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors 

(ABC) of which R.M .Mechanical is a proud member. ABC is a national trade association comprised of 23,000 construction and construction-related firms from across 

the country, all of whom are bound by a shared commitment to the merit shop philosophy of awarding construction contracts to the lowest responsible bidder, regardless of labor affiliation, through open and competitive bidding. With 80 percent of 

construction today performed by open shop contractors, ABC is proud to be their 

voice. 

I am here today to share with you my company’s experience with salting abuse, 

and to express to you the desperate need for legislation prohibiting this nefarious 

union pressure tactic. Salting is the practice of intentionally placing trained union 

professional organizers on non-union jobsites to harass or disrupt company operations, apply pressure, increase operating and legal costs, and to ultimately put a 

10

company out of business. The objectives of the agents most often culminate in the 

filing of many unfair labor practice claims with the National Labor Relations Board 

(NLRB). 

However, salting is not merely an organizing tool. It has become an instrument 

of economic destruction aimed at non-union companies that has little to do with organizing. A publication of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, one 

of salting’s principal proponents, has described that particular union’s salting tactics 

as a process of ‘‘infiltration, confrontation, litigation, disruption, and hopefully annihilation of all non-union contractors.’’ Unions send their agents into open shop workplaces under the guise of seeking employment when their true intentions are to deliberately increase costs to employers through workplace sabotage and the filing of 

frivolous discrimination charges. R.M. Mechanical and I, as well as other construction companies based here in Austin, have become all too familiar with how disruptive, intimidating and damaging these pressure tactics can become. 

On April 30, 1998, I retained Mr. Lynn Hensley–a labor law attorney based right 

here in Round Rock, Texas to represent my firm because R.M. Mechanical received 

word from the NLRB that unfair labor practice charges had been filed. In 1998, RM 

Mechanical (an open shop contractor) performed a substantial amount of work—over 

$7 million—at an IBM facility in Austin, Texas alongside other mechanical contractors that were signatory to the union. At the time, R.M. Mechanical was in need 

of additional HVAC workers; therefore, I placed a ‘‘help wanted’’ advertisement in 

the Austin American Statesman for qualified, skilled workers. Immediately following the placement of the help wanted ad, RM was salted by four union representatives who applied for work. These applicants were not immediately hired and they 

subsequently filed charges against me for unfair labor practices/discrimination and 

an investigation took place. Adhering to company policy, I did not hire any applicant 

until I had completed the interviewing process with all applicants. 

I along with three other officers from R.M. Mechanical, gave statements to Mr. 

Armandariz, District Director for the NLRB. Our attorney was present for these 

statements. The union representatives continued to appear on my jobsites, talking 

with my employees and generally creating a disturbance on the jobsite and in their 

personal lives. Many of our employees were intimidated by the continued presence 

of the union officials. 

In the hopes of putting my employees’ minds at ease, I held an open forum for 

all employees of RM Mechanical to facilitate a discussion. I explained to them that 

they have the right to join the union. I also shared that if they did so, they would 

be entering into a contract with the union which would be negotiated with union 

officials. It warrants mentioning that at that time, RM Mechanical employed two 

individuals who had previously been signatory to the union. 

Subsequently, I announced that RM Mechanical would hold an election so our employees could choose whether to remain open shop or to become unionized. At this 

time, I was still in need of people to perform our work, so I offered the union applicants positions with RM. I then proceeded to make the Director of the NLRB aware 

of my course of action. 

I informed Mr. Armandariz that I had offered the positions to the four union applicants. They would be performing the duties of the position that I advertised and 

they were to begin work the next day. The four union members did not show up 

for work. I contacted the District Director and informed him of the ‘‘no show’’. He, 

in turn, asked me to leave the positions open ten more days, which I did. They once 

again failed to show up. 

It took no less than $15,000 in legal fees to prove that R.M. Mechanical had done 

nothing wrong and had broken no laws. The charges were dropped by the NLRB 

and a statement was issued from the NLRB that R.M. Mechanical operated on a 

fair and consistent basis according to law and did not discriminate against any applicant. 

R.M. Mechanical Inc., along with the Associated Builders and Contractors, firmly 

believes in laws designed to protect employees; however, these laws are being manipulated by labor unions in order to regain their diminishing market-share. Salting 

abuse uses coercive governmental power to accomplish the unions’ goals, rather 

than competing fairly and ethically based on merit. Additionally, I believe it is unfair for the government to compel an employer to subsidize a union organizer’s disruptive behavior in the workplace; businesses like R.M. Mechanical should be able 

to hire people who truly want to work for that company. 

Small businesses are not the only ones that suffer as a result of salting abuse. 

Since federal agencies pay all of the costs to investigate and prosecute these frivolous complaints filed by the union salts, the American taxpayer is funding the defense of unscrupulous, anti-competitive and often extortionist behavior. Moreover, 

investigating frivolous complaints wastes limited federal agency resources that could 

11

be better spent at the agency. Ultimately, it is the America taxpayer who loses, by 

having hard-earned tax dollars go to sustain the union’s tactic of generating frivolous charges and lawsuits. The government should not be forced to use taxpayers’ 

dollars to support a flawed system that allows tens of thousands of cases to be 

brought against employers that are later dismissed as having no merit. 

The unions’ efforts against merit shop competitors also result in an increase in 

both the cost of doing business and the cost to the consumer. As I stated earlier, 

these frivolous salting charges have cost our company significant time, money and 

resources in defending ourselves against what amounts to baseless complaints. 

These complaints have prevented us from hiring more employees, investing in better 

equipment, securing more work to grow our company, and providing additional jobs 

in the community. 

In defending ourselves against false and frivolous charges, employers incur thousands of dollars in legal expenses, delays, and lost hours of productivity. Unions and 

their agents have argued that they have the right to organize and to be hired to 

work on merit shop jobsites. While unions have the right to attempt to organize 

workers, open shop companies and their employees also has the right to refrain 

from supporting union activities and be free from unwarranted harassment. 

I urge Congress to address this unscrupulous tactic by passing H.R. 1793, the 

Truth in Employment Act which was introduced in April of 2003 by Representatives 

Jim DeMint (R–S.C.), Cass Ballenger (R–N.C.) and John Carter (R–TX). This vital 

legislation amends section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to make 

clear that an employer, such as R.M. Mechanical, is not required to hire any person 

who seeks a job in order to promote interests unrelated to those of the employer. 

This bill in no way infringes upon any rights or protections otherwise accorded employees under the NLRA. Employees will continue to enjoy their right to organize. 

The bills merely seek to alleviate the legal pressures imposed upon employers to 

hire individuals whose overriding purpose for seeking the job is to disrupt the employer’s workplace or otherwise inflict economic harm designed to put the employer 

out of business. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and for your 

willingness to highlight this abusive practice. I am now happy to answer any questions the subcommittee may have. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Appreciate your comments. 

Mr. Van Os, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID VAN OS, ESQ., ATTORNEY, DAVID VAN 

OS & ASSOCIATES, P.C., SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 

Mr. VAN OS. Chairman Johnson and Members of the Committee, 

thank you very much for the invitation to appear before the Committee in this field hearing. It is an honor to participate in the 

American democratic process of self-government through the elected representatives of the people. It is especially an honor to participate in a field hearing wherein the people’s elected representatives 

leave Washington, D.C., and come out here to the people. The Committee is to be commended for partaking of this process. 

I have been practicing law as a labor lawyer for 27 years. And 

I am very familiar with the many obstacles that current law places 

against workers’ human rights to organize unions in the workplace. 

My testimony is offered on behalf of the Texas AFL-CIO. The 

Texas AFL-CIO, a federation of numerous affiliated unions in 

Texas, is the leading voice for the interests of working people and 

their families in the State of Texas. Through its affiliated local 

unions, the Texas AFL-CIO speaks on behalf of over half a million 

organized workers in Texas, as well as on behalf of the interests 

of millions of unorganized workers of every trade, craft, and occupation. We are the only institutional voice fighting every day, 

today, for American jobs. And I would like to take this opportunity 

to ask this Committee to hold a hearing, another hearing here in 

12

Central Texas focusing on the massive outsourcing of high tech jobs 

that has devastated the livelihoods of so many Central Texans. 

As long ago as 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of 

Phelps Dodge Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, addressed the question of whether the National Labor Relations Act 

prohibited employers from refusing to hire applicants for employment because of their Union affiliation. There is nothing new about 

the tactic of salting. 

Justice Frankfurter on behalf of the Supreme Court noted in pertinent part as follows: ‘‘The denial of jobs because of union affiliations is an old and familiar aspect of American industrial relations.’’ Justice Frankfurter continued: ‘‘Indisputably the removal of 

such obstructions was the driving force behind the enactment of 

the National Labor Relations Act.’’

Clearly, Congress and the Courts recognized in passage of the 

National Labor Relations Act over six decades ago, nearly seven 

decades ago, that a key component in the ability of workers to seek 

union recognition was the ability of union affiliated workers to obtain employment in non-organized work places. 

In my written testimony which I am submitting to the Committee, I discuss in much further detail the history and the practices and dynamics of salting, a history that goes back decades. 

We often hear the employer community of employers who argue 

against salting, that salting somehow creates divided loyalties. 

This divided loyalties argument has no basis in reality and that 

fact is borne out by the indisputable truth that at this very moment in thousands of workplaces in America, there are hundreds 

of thousands of union stewards who are productive and loyal employees of their employer and at the same time serve as diligent 

and respected union representatives on behalf of their co-workers. 

Every day, these hundreds of thousands of union stewards, many 

of which are right here in Central Texas, fulfill jointly held loyalties to both their employer and their union. They are often among 

the most productive and exemplary employees of their employer. 

Union representation and collective bargaining bring to the workplace a productive partnership where both the employers’ and employees’ interests are taken into consideration and healthfully balanced. 

It is also a fiction to suggest that union salts do not work productively for their non-union employer. For example, after Titus Electric Company of Austin, Texas hired union salts who were members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 

520, Titus’ owner, Mr. Ty Runyan, announced at an employee 

meeting that two of the IBEW members whom he knew were union 

members were two of the most productive employees on the job 

site. 

America’s unions seek nothing more than good American jobs 

with the self-respect that is obtained by performing productive 

work in return for decent wages, benefits and working conditions 

in the context of a healthy, American economy. 

Far from having any need to change laws so as to lessen the protection of workers’ organizing rights, what America and the American economy need is more protection of those rights and more public education about the need for such protection and the salutary 

13

advantages to the entire economy of union organization and collective bargaining. 

Thank you very much, Committee, for your courteous attention 

to my comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Os follows:]

14

Statement of David Van Os, Esq., Attorney, David Van Os & Associates P.C., 

San Antonio, TX


93621.015
15


93621.016
16


93621.017
17


93621.018
18


93621.019
19

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, sir, and you may put those in 

the record, the rest of your comments. 

Mr. VAN OS. Thank you. 

(Applause.) 

Chairman JOHNSON. Normally, in the U.S. Congress we don’t 

allow the audience to respond to comments that are made, but 

we’re in Texas. 

Ms. Runyan, you may begin your testimony and if you wish to 

have your husband make any side remarks, you’re welcome to do 

that. 

STATEMENT OF SHELLY RUNYAN, VICE PRESIDENT, TITUS 

ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING, INC., AUSTIN, TEXAS 

Ms. RUNYAN. Thank you very much. I’m Shelly Runyan, Vice 

President of Titus Electrical Contracting and this is my husband 

and business partner, Ty Runyan. Ty and I started Titus Electrical 

with nothing but determination to succeed. Our first work truck, 

as you said, was a 16-year-old Dodge Satellite. In the beginning, 

to make ends meet between draws, I held as many as two jobs, 


93621.020
20

while managing Titus Electrical. Ty worked in the field from daylight to dark, often 7 days a week. On days he needed help pulling 

wire or building switchgear, I worked alongside him as an electrician’s helper. With a lot of hard work and determination, and by 

the grace of God, we made it through some very tough times. 

Today, we own the largest, independent electrical contracting 

company in Central Texas. 

Having started with nothing, it has always been our first priority 

to take the best possible care of our team mates. As our company 

grew, we added benefits: medical and dental insurance, life and accident/disability insurance, a 401(k) retirement plan, paid vacations 

and holidays. Our team mates are paid at the top of the industry, 

which is often higher than union scale. 

Having said that, I’d like to take you back to November 2001 

when Ty pulled up at the construction site for the Palmer Events 

Center in Austin. He was there because the original electrical contractor, an independent contractor who had been unionized through 

a vicious salting attack and had not bankrupted. 

When Ty arrived he was confronted by an IBEW 520 organizer 

who told him, ‘‘This here’s a union job. You’d better get out of 

here.’’ He told Ty he didn’t know the trouble he was getting into. 

That began what the Austin Chronicle dubbed ‘‘Battle on Town 

Lake.’’

Beginning December 2001 and continuing through November 

2003, the IBEW and its agents filed close to 200 ULPs and numerous EEOC charges and civil suits against us. 

During construction of the Palmer Events Center, the construction economy in Austin was at its most depressed in years. Between November 2001 and March 2002, we had over 530 applicants 

for electrical positions. We hired 48 technicians during that time 

period, meaning that a given applicant had less than a 1 in 10 

chance of getting a position with our company. In every instance, 

we hired the best possible applicant for each position, strictly adhering to our established hiring procedures. Many of the people we 

hired were known union members. We did not and do not discriminate. Despite this, in almost every instance where a union member 

submitted their name, the union filed the ULP complaint against 

us knowing fully that we in fact did hire some of their members 

knowing we had only a few positions open and hundreds of applicants for those positions. The fact is they were intentionally filing 

groundless complaints in an effort to bankrupt us for having the 

audacity to take on a ‘‘union job.’’

We have spent over a half a million dollars in legal fees, not to 

mention the cost of lost productivity, defending ourselves against 

the malicious and groundless attacks of the IBEW. Worse yet, they 

did so with the implicit cooperation and support of the NLRB. 

The NLRB, a government agency which is ostensibly an independent arbiter, has been corrupted by the dictates of the AFLCIO. In one instance, after a review of our confidential files by an 

NLRB agent, the agent passed confidential information to the 

IBEW which then filed another lawsuit. 

We have also been through the ALJ court, where the IBEW and 

their attorneys sat with the NLRB’s two attorneys and conspired 

in their attempted prosecution of us and yet we are supposed to beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:28 Oct 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\93621 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
21

lieve that the NLRB is an unbiased arbiter. The union’s attorney 

who sat with the NLRB’s attorneys was David Van Os, the same 

lawyer who represented the union and its members in every one 

of the close to 200 ULPs filed against us, and who filed seven lawsuits, all of which were financed by the IBEW. He is the same attorney who now sits before you today trying to justify and defend 

this system. 

Having said this, the problem is not the IBEW. The problem is 

the NLRB and the perverted interpretation and prosecution of archaic labor laws. 

Many salts are not legitimate employees. Employees are hired 

and retained by a business to build a positive and productive team 

and work toward the mutual benefit of the employee, employer and 

the customer. Salts have intentionally sabotaged and concealed 

electrical work, in one case causing an electrical explosion. 

We have had salts physically assault our team members. They’ve 

been arrested off our job sites and we’ve lost customers because of 

them. And yet, when terminated, invariably they would file a ULP 

and the NLRB would attempt to prosecute charges against us for 

legitimate terminations. 

We’ve had a death threat, vandalism to employee and company 

property during pickets, anonymous threatening phone calls to employees’ homes at 1 a.m. and intention damage and sabotage to our 

work sites by these salts. 

Legislation should clearly define that an employee is not someone who is paid or encouraged by outside organization to damage 

or disrupt a company and anyone who does can be terminated or 

not hired. 

The NLRB should not be allowed to be corrupted. Employers 

should not be guilty until proven innocent. 

If our economy is to revitalize, these NLRB endorsed and sanctioned salting attacks must be eradicated from the construction industry and our economy as a whole. In so doing we will allow 

American business to focus on efficiency and customer service, not 

problems created by the NLRB at the behest of the AFL-CIO. 

Thank you for your time and thank you for taking these bold 

steps to repair a broken system. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Runyan follows:]

Statement of Shelly Runyan, Vice President, Titus Electrical Contracting, 

Inc., Austin, TX 

Hello, I’m Shelly Runyan, Vice President of Titus Electrical Contracting and this 

is my husband, and business partner Ty Runyan. In your handout you have ‘‘An 

Introduction to Ty Runyan (Narrative)’’ and an interview from Austin Construction 

News and Fortune Small Business. To summarize them Ty is ° Hispanic, ° Irish, 

grew up in South Texas, left school in 11th grade and started in construction as 

a ditch digger. With the help of an electrician who he met on a project, he got his 

first job as an electrician in 1981. In 1987, Ty and I started Titus Electrical Contracting out of the back of a 1971 Dodge Satellite. Today we own the largest, independent electrical contracting company in Central Texas. 

Having started with nothing, it has always been our first priority to take the best 

possible care of our Team Mates. As our company grew we added benefits: Medical 

& Dental Insurance, Life and Accident / Disability Insurance, a 401(k) Retirement 

Plan, Paid Vacations and Holidays. Our Team Mates are also paid at the top of the 

industry, which is often higher than union scale. 

Having said that, I’d like to take you back to November 2001 when Ty pulled up 

at the construction site for the Parmer Events Center, in Austin. He was there because the original electrical contractor, who was unionized, had bankrupted. When 

22

I arrived I was confronted by an IBEW 520 organizer who told us that, ‘‘This here’s 

a union job. You’d best get on outta here!’’ He told Ty he didn’t know the trouble 

he was getting into. That began what the Austin Chronicle dubbed ‘‘Battle on Town 

Lake’’. Beginning December 2001 and continuing through November 2003 the IBEW 

and its agents filed close to 200 ULPs and numerous EEOC charges and civil suits. 

During construction of the Palmer Events Center, the construction economy in 

Austin, was at its most depressed, in years. Between November 2001 and March 

2002 we had over 530 applicants for electrical positions. We hired 48 technicians 

during that time period, meaning that a given applicant had less than a 1 in 10 

chance of getting a position with our company. In every instance, we hired the best 

applicant for each position, strictly adhering to our established hiring procedures. 

Many of the people we hired were known union members. We did not and do not 

discriminate. Despite this, in almost every instance where a union member submitted their name, the union filed an NLRB unfair labor practices complaint 

against us, knowing fully that we in fact did hire some of their members, knowing 

that we had only a few positions open, and hundreds of applicants for those positions. The fact is, they were intentionally filing groundless complaints in an effort 

to bankrupt Titus Electrical for having the audacity to take over a ‘‘union job’’. 

We have spent over HALF A MILLION DOLLARS in legal fees, not to mention 

the cost of lost productivity, defending ourselves against the malicious and groundless attacks of the IBEW. Worse yet, they did so with the implicit cooperation and 

support of the NLRB. 

The NLRB, a government agency which is ostensibly an independent arbiter, has 

become a corrupt organization whose agents act with a hidden agenda, directed by 

the AFL–CIO. 

In one instance, after a review of our confidential files by an NLRB agent, a review which we voluntarily agreed to, this agent passed confidential information to 

the IBEW with which they filed another groundless lawsuit. 

We have also been through an ALJ court, where the IBEW and their attorneys 

sat with the NLRB’s 2 attorneys and conspired in their attempted prosecution of 

us, and yet we are supposed to believe the NLRB is an unbiased arbiter. The 

Union’s attorney who sat with the NLRB’s attorneys was David Van Os, the same 

lawyer who represented the union and its members in every case, and who filed 7 

frivolous lawsuits, all of which were financed by the IBEW as part of their assault 

on us. 

Having said this, the problem is not the IBEW; the problem is the NLRB and 

their perverted interpretation and prosecution of archaic labor laws. 

Many salts are not legitimate employees. Employees are hired and retained by 

businesses to build a positive and productive team and work toward the mutual 

benefit of the employee, employer and customer. Salts are often intentionally disruptive and combative. While employed by us, we have had Salts physically assault our 

Team Members, they have been arrested off our jobsites, and we have lost customers because of them. They have intentionally sabotaged and concealed electrical 

work, in one case causing an electrical explosion. And yet, when terminated, invariably the NLRB would attempt to prosecute charges against us for legitimate terminations. 

We have had a death threat, vandalism to employee and company property during 

pickets (trucks, tires, windows, beer bottles in parking lot at night, anonymous, 

threatening phone calls to employees homes at 1:00am, and intentional damage and 

sabotage to our work by these salts (wiring at Braker 3, wiring at Palmer Events 

center). 

We have a ‘‘no other work clause’’, but this cannot apply to a paid union organizer 

per NLRB. 

Legislation should clearly define that an employee is not someone who is paid or 

encouraged by outside organization to damage or disrupt a company and anyone 

who does can be terminated or not hired. 

The NLRB should not be allowed to be corrupted by AFL–CIO (sit in on trials). 

The NLRB should not be encouraged to prosecute the agenda of unions but rather 

to enforce clearly defined law on clear cut violations. Currently the NLRB takes on 

every case, no matter how ambiguous or obviously frivolous. They then attempt to 

prosecute us with the hostility and contempt of a zealot, no matter how obviously 

groundless. In one instance, we had to then defend ourselves for our sprinkler system watering our lawn when picketers arrived at our office. 

The way the current labor laws are written employers are ‘‘Guilty until proven 

Innocent.’’ We have to defend ourselves against baseless, false and frivolous accusations. This costs companies in lost productivity and legal fees. In turn, this hurts 

the legitimate employees and the economy as a whole. 

23

The health of any economy is largely driven by the cost and efficiency of its construction industry. The cost and efficiency of construction are dictated by labor expense and managerial efficiency. 

When management’s primary job is dealing with labor strife intentionally and maliciously created by SALTS and union plants whose intent is to disrupt, damage or 

destroy the very companies and industry that employs them, our entire economic 

foundation destabilized. Construction costs escalate dramatically and in our global 

economy, manufacturers will look elsewhere to produce the goods that Americans 

buy. We will become the nation of last choice for any company’s expansion. 

We are far from alone in this plight. As a member of 2 nation wide electrical contracting associations, by far the number one issue discussed at every meeting is the 

extreme hardships in hiring that are created by union salting practices and the 

NLRB support and prosecution of these cases. The hiring strife is designed to choke 

down the independent contractor so that he cannot acquire needed technicians, cannot compete and will be slowly bled to death. Ultimately, the entire nation picks 

up the bill with dramatically higher construction and unemployment costs. 

If our economy is to revitalize, these NLRB endorsed and sanctioned salting attacks must be eradicated from the construction industry and our economy as a 

whole. In so doing we will allow American business to focus on efficiency and customer service, not problems created by the NLRB at the behest of the AFL–CIO. 

Thank you for your time and thank you for taking these bold steps to repair a 

broken system.

[Attachments to Ms. Runyan’s statement follow:]

24


93621.001
25


93621.002
26


93621.003
27


93621.004
28


93621.005
29


93621.006
30


93621.007
31


93621.008
32


93621.009
33


93621.010
34


93621.011
35


93621.012
36


93621.013
37


93621.014
38

Mr. VAN OS. Mr. Chairman, may I respond on a factual matter? 

Chairman JOHNSON. After the last man has testified. I’ll call on 

you, yes. 

Mr. VAN OS. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Nesbitt. 

STATEMENT OF TOM NESBITT, ESQ., ATTORNEY, FULBRIGHT 

& JAWORSKI, LLP, AUSTIN, TEXAS 

Mr. NESBITT. My name is Tom Nesbitt. I am employed as an associate attorney with Fulbright & Jaworski in Austin, Texas. However, I testify today as an individual, not on behalf of my firm and 

not on behalf of any client. 

I am not here to bash labor unions. Labor unions have historically fought for important protections we now take for granted: 

minimum wage laws, overtime laws, job safety regulations, family 

leave. Nor am I here because of any ideological alignment with opponents of labor unions. I have often supported Democratic candidates for political office and have worked for and supported prolabor Democratic United States Congressman Chet Edwards, a 

statesman whose views I commonly share. 

However, I have been asked to describe what I observed when 

one of my clients, Titus Electrical, became the target of an aggressive ‘‘salting’’ campaign by a labor union. 

Titus Electrical is a small, family owned construction business. 

Its roughly 50 employees have never sought to be represented by 

a labor union. My client had been in operation for about 15 years, 

and by 2001 it had become large enough to compete with the typically large union contractors for government jobs. 

In 2001, the city of Austin was building the Palmer Civic Events 

Center downtown. My client was not originally the electrical subcontractor on the job. Originally, the subcontract went to another 

non-union shop, Guy’s Electric. During that job, the International 

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 520 salted the job, went 

out on strike, filed unfair labor practice charges against Guy’s Electrical, threatened to initiate other legal action, and ultimately convinced Guy’s Electric to sign the IBEW’s collective bargaining 

agreement. Guy’s Electric soon went bankrupt. The electrical subcontract was re-bid, and my client won the bid. 

IBEW Local 520 never sought an election of my client’s employees to determine whether the employees wanted to be represented 

by a labor union. To my personal knowledge, IBEW Local 520 

never asked my client’s existing employees to sign authorization 

cards. However, IBEW Local 520 did initiate an astounding 

amount of legal action against my client. 

IBEW Local 520 filed somewhere in the range of 200 accusations 

of unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations 

Board without, in my view, any apparent regard for the merits of 

the charges. 

The union filed charges alleging that over 40 union electricians 

were discriminatorily not hired. We believe that the union filed a 

charge of unfair labor practices for every known union member who 

applied for a job. The union filed a charge alleging that one union 

electrician was discriminatorily refused hire when my client had, 

in fact, hired the union member. 

39

When the union files charges against my client, my client is compelled to engage legal counsel, investigate the matter, conduct legal 

research in many cases, and file a legal response. This involves 

substantial investment of money and time. The union often filed 

charges, waited until my client had undertaken the burden of its 

defense, and then withdrew the charges. Many of the charges bordered on the ridiculous; but still my client was required to investigate and respond. 

Let me describe a few of the charges filed against my client: 

A union organizer crashed a private party thrown by my client 

and was politely asked to leave. The union organizer left. The next 

day the union filed a charge alleging that expelling the organizer 

from the private party was an unfair labor practice. 

Another charge: on one of the days that the union picketed in 

front of my client’s shop, a paid union organizer set up a video 

camera and proceeded to film the employees, the customers, and 

the vendors of my client who came to do business with my client. 

Believing this to be an attempt to harass and intimidate employees, customers and vendors, my client to document the action, got 

a camera, stepped out onto the front steps of her own place of business, and took a photograph of the paid union organizer while he 

made a public display of videotaping her. The union filed an unfair 

labor practice charge, calling this unlawful surveillance. 

The union initiated other legal proceedings without any apparent 

regard for their merits. The union funded five EEOC charges 

against my client. Although the union had earlier filed NLRB 

charges claiming that most of these employees were not hired because of their union support, the union was now claiming that the 

employees were not hired because of their sex or disability or some 

other protected status. Again, the apparent goal was not to make 

accurate accusations, but to simply initiate legal proceedings of any 

kind. 

The union also funded five discrimination lawsuits against my 

client. The union funded a civil lawsuit against my client for 

wrongful prosecution. The union funded three civil claims against 

my client for defamation. The union filed with the city of Austin 

a third party challenge to the woman-owned business certification 

of a business owned by one of the co-owners of my client. The union 

filed a motion for pre-suit depositions as a prelude to a lawsuit attacking my client’s apprenticeship program. The union ultimately 

brought claims attacking my client’s apprenticeship program. 

There is good evidence that an active union organizer called the 

city of Austin hazardous material department prompting a visit to 

my client’s shop by a city inspector. 

In sum, this was the most massive barrage of litigation I have 

ever witnessed against a small company. I represent companies 

many times the size of this client who do not experience a fraction 

of the litigation instigated by the union since late 2001. 

Subject to any questions that may seek confidential attorney-client communications, I’d be happy to answer any other questions. 

And I thank this Committee for its attention to this very serious 

issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nesbitt follows:]

40

Statement of Tom Nesbitt, Esq., Attorney, Fulbright & Jaworski, Austin, TX 

My name is Tom Nesbitt. I am employed as an associate attorney with the law 

firm of Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. in Austin, Texas. However, I testify today as 

an individual, not on behalf of my firm or any client of Fulbright & Jaworski. 

I am not here to bash labor unions. Labor unions have historically fought for important protections we now take for granted: Minimum wage laws, overtime laws, 

job safety regulations, family leave. I am not here because of any ideological alignment with traditional opponents of labor unions. I have often supported Democratic 

candidates for political office and have worked for and supported pro-labor Democratic United States Congressman Chet Edwards, a statesman whose views I commonly share. 

However, I have been asked to describe what I observed when one of my clients 

became the target of an aggressive ‘‘salting’’ campaign by a labor union. 

My client is a small, family owned and run construction-industry subcontractor 

whose roughly 50 employees had never sought and still have never sought to be represented by a labor union. In Austin, the large subcontractors in my client’s field 

are the union contractors. My client has been in operation for about fifteen years, 

and by 2001 had begun to compete with the large union contractors for major construction projects. 

In 2001, the City of Austin was building the Palmer Civic Events Center. My client was not originally the electrical subcontractor on the job. Originally, the subcontract went to another non-union shop, Guy’s Electric. During that job, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 520 salted the job, went out on 

strike, filed unfair labor practice charges against Guy’s Electrical, threatened to initiate other legal action, and ultimately convinced Guy’s Electric to sign the IBEW’s 

collective bargaining agreement. Guy’s Electric soon went bankrupt. The electrical 

subcontract was re-bid, and my client won the bid. 

IBEW Local 520 never sought an election of my client’s employees to determine 

whether the employees wanted to be represented by a labor union. To our knowledge, IBEW Local 520 never asked my client’s existing employees to sign authorization cards. However, IBEW Local 520 did initiate an astounding amount of legal action against my client. 

IBEW Local 520 filed somewhere in the range of 200 accusations of unfair labor 

practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board without any apparent regard for the merits of the charges. 

The Union filed charges alleging that over 40 union electricians were 

discriminatorily not hired. We believe that the union filed a charge of unfair labor 

practices for every known union member who applied for a job. The union filed a 

charge alleging that one union electrician was discriminatorily refused a job when 

my client had, in fact, hired him. 

When the union files charges, my client is compelled to engage legal counsel, investigate the matter, conduct legal research in many cases, and file a legal response. 

This involves substantial investment of money and time. The union often filed 

charges, waited until my client had undertaken the burden of its defense, and then 

withdrew the charges. Many of the charges bordered on the ridiculous; but still my 

client was required to investigate and respond. 

I have not been allotted enough time to catalog the other unmeritorious charges 

filed by the union. Let me describe a few: 

A union organizer crashed a private party thrown by my client and was politely 

asked to leave. The Union organizer left. The next day the union filed a charge alleging that expelling the organizer from the private party was an unfair labor practice. 

On one of the days the union picketed in front of my client’s shop, a paid union 

organizer set up a video camera and proceeded to film employees, customers, and 

vendors who came to do business with my client. Believing this to be an attempt 

to intimidate employees, customers and vendors, my client decided to document the 

paid union organizer’s actions. My client got a camera, stepped out onto the front 

steps of her own place of business, and took a photograph of the paid union organizer while he made a public display of videotaping her. The union filed an unfair 

labor practice charge, calling this unlawful surveillance. What is even more incredible is that an NLRB administrative law judge found this was unlawful surveillance. 

This bizarre result is currently on appeal to the National Labor Relations Board. 

The union initiated other legal proceedings without any apparent regard for the 

merits. The union funded five EEOC charges against my client. Although the union 

had earlier filed NLRB charges claiming that most of these employees were not 

hired because of their support for the union, the union was now claiming that the 

employees were not hired because of their sex or disability or some other protected 

41

status. Again, the apparent goal was not to make accurate accusations, but to simply initiate legal proceedings of any kind. 

The union also funded five discrimination lawsuits against my client. The union 

funded a civil lawsuit against my client for wrongful prosecution. The union funded 

three civil claims against my client for defamation. The union filed with the City 

of Austin a third party challenge to the woman-owned business certification of a 

business owned by one of the co-owners of my client. The union filed a motion for 

pre-suit depositions as a prelude to a lawsuit attacking my client’s apprenticeship 

program. The union ultimately brought claims attacking my client’s apprenticeship 

program. There is good evidence that an active union organizer called the City of 

Austin hazardous material department prompting a visit to my client’s shop by a 

city inspector. 

In sum, this was the most massive barrage of litigation I have ever witnessed 

against a small company. I represent companies many times the size of this client 

who do not experience a fraction of the litigation instigated by the union since late 

2001. 

The legal expense and the administrative burden this created for my client was 

incredible. Yet the union never sought an election, and never, to our knowledge, 

genuinely tried to encourage my client’s employees to support the union. 

In a 2001 NLRB decision, members Liebman and Walsh wrote that they found 

nothing inherently illegitimate about a union’s undertaking to ‘‘driv[e] nonunion 

contractors out of the market, or even out of business, if they did not recognize the 

Union.’’ Aztech Electric, 335 NLRB 260 (2001). That opinion was issued on August 

27, 2001, approximately three months before the IBEW Local 520 turned its sights 

on my client. 

I cannot personally testify that IBEW Local 520’s objective was to run my client 

out of business because I obviously was not able to participate in the Union’s organizing strategy meetings. However, what I do know is that my client was subject 

to massive legal proceedings initiated without any apparent regard for the merits 

of the claims, and I never saw any evidence of a genuine effort by the union to be 

certified as the bargaining representative of my client’s employees. 

Let me conclude by saying that IBEW Local 520 has elected a new Business Manager, David Adamson. It is my belief that Mr. Adamson is an honest and reasonable 

man who does not intend to use the kind tactics employed by his predecessor. However, the fact that this has happened and is apparently sanctioned by NLRB’s interpretation of the law, is something that I am glad has received the attention of this 

sub-committee. 

Subject to any questions that may seek information I am prohibited from disclosing due to attorney-client privilege, I would be glad to answer any questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. Van Os, I would like to ask you a question. You may answer 

if you will. What I’d like to know is you know, you’ve heard from 

two people that there is union problems out there and I’d like to 

know what you think and whether or not the NLRB is doing a good 

job of controlling this stuff. 

Mr. VAN OS. Well, Mr. Chairman, if the NLRB is under the control of the unions——

Chairman JOHNSON. Under the what? 

Mr. VAN OS. If the NLRB is under the control of AFL-CIO——

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, nobody said that. 

Mr. VAN OS. I believe Ms. Runyan has said that quite stridently. 

If they are, I’m sure not aware of it. Now what I’d like to say in 

response to all of this is that throughout our legal system in litigation one party wins and one party loses. And the party that wins 

usually doesn’t win everything they were after and the party that 

loses is usually unhappy. And every time somebody loses in litigation, whether it’s in the State Courts, the Federal Courts, the 

NLRB or any forum, often the party that loses is unhappy and has 

got some sour grapes. And I think what the Committee has just 

heard is a lot of sour grapes from parties who lost. 

42

These charges that Ms. Runyan and Mr. Nesbitt have claimed to 

be unmeritorious were certainly thought to be meritorious or at 

least part of them were thought to be meritorious by somebody because an Administrative Law Judge of the NLRB and I might add 

a very experienced Administrative Law Judge who is the Deputy 

Chief Administrative Law Judge for the NLRB after extensive 

hearings found that Titus Electrical Company had committed a 

number of unfair labor practices, violations of Federal labor law. 

And I am going to attach a copy of the Administrative Law Judge’s 

decision to my written testimony. This is not the appropriate forum 

to try to re-litigate things that the legal system itself has taken 

care of. And is taking care of right now. 

Now with regard to EEOC charges that Ms. Runyan and Mr. 

Nesbitt have chosen to talk about, I am proud, I am very proud 

that my client, Local 520 of the IBEW, went to lengths of expenditure of its precious resources to fight for the right, the rights of 

women to obtain employment in skilled construction trades. It is 

often said that that is a nontraditional area of employment for 

women and my client, IBEW Local 520, did file and finance EEOC 

charges on behalf of women who had been turned down for employment by Titus Electrical Company at a time when Titus Electrical 

Company had zero women working as electricians, in the skilled 

electrical trade. And I don’t know, it seems that unfortunately, the 

witnesses have inferred or implied that there was something frivolous about those charges. Mr. Chairman, the Titus Electrical Company through its lawyers, one of which was Mr. Nesbitt, filed one 

motion for summary judgment at a time when five discrimination 

lawsuits were pending against it. They picked out one that they 

filed a motion for summary judgment which would mean that if 

they won the motion for summary judgment that the case was 

thrown out without a trial. 

The District Judge in Travis County denied that motion for summary judgment and I will be glad to provide the Committee a copy 

of that Court order which by definition means that the District 

Judge found and ruled that the lawsuit was not frivolous and far 

to the contrary, was worthy of going to trial and being heard by 

a jury. 

So my response is that the system is working now, Mr. Chairman, and the system now has ample capability to defend employers, if charges are not meritorious. But if they are meritorious——

Chairman JOHNSON. Is any of what they said true, according to 

you? 

Mr. VAN OS. In terms of——

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, for instance, the person that went to 

a party and filed a lawsuit, is that true or false? 

Mr. VAN OS. I have absolutely no knowledge of any such thing. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK, well, I feel like there is some substance 

of what was said and we’ll just have to look into it. I recognize your 

side of the motion too, and thank you for your comments. 

Mr. VAN OS. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Grijalva, would you care to question? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. A couple of questions and let me follow up with 

the discussion and the question that you started with, Mr. ChairVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:28 Oct 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\93621 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
43

man and maybe direct it at Mr. Nesbitt, since he was counsel for 

the Runyans in a variety of cases. 

In your testimony, you say that those charges that were filed 

had—were filed with no apparent regard for merit, but I can count 

17 charges that had enough merit for a full on trial before an Administrative Law Judge and of those, at least 9 categories of violations of law by Titus Electric. 

Isn’t winning a case, and I just want to follow up on that and 

get some clarity on that, isn’t winning a case an indication of merit 

to some extent, counsel? 

Mr. NESBITT. I would say in answer to your question it may be. 

It may be indication of merit in some cases. I don’t think it was 

in this case. First of all, that case is on appeal to the National 

Labor Relations Board and I would urge the Members of this Subcommittee to review not only the Administrative Law Judge’s opinion which is on appeal at the National Labor Relations Board, but 

the briefs filed in that case and I can provide those if anybody 

wants them. 

The 17 that you’re referring to is whittled down from the original 

approximately and I don’t have an exact count on this, approximately 200 allegations. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So your response is some merit, but not maybe a 

lot of merit? 

I’m trying to get some clarity because any one of us can take one 

example and use that as a cleavage to talk about other charges and 

then in the process I don’t think we should ignore the obvious and 

the obvious is that 9, although they’re on appeal, had merit enough 

to be adjudicated in that way against your client. 

Mr. NESBITT. The cases that were adjudicated in this case did 

not have merit. That’s why we appealed those to the National 

Labor Relations Board. Let me just give you one other example of 

the kind of charge that the Administrative Law Judge sustained, 

if you’ll allow me. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I have one question, one other question, so if you 

would——

Mr. NESBITT. I’ll be very brief. The National Labor Relations Act 

provides that an employer cannot prohibit union members or nonunion members from discussing union membership during break 

times and during lunch. And there are rules set out—we call that 

a no solicitation policy, what it can say and what it can’t say. My 

client has a written non-solicitation policy. Nobody at this table 

contends that it violates the National Labor Relations Board. In a 

meeting with the guys on the work site, Ty Runyan in a conversation that was secretly recorded by a union member, it used the 

phrase ‘‘don’t do that on the job, you can do that when you hit the 

lot’’ which on that job was a synonym for on your break and on 

your lunch which they conducted on the lot. But because he didn’t 

use the specific phrase ‘‘working hours’’ he was found to have committed an unfair labor practice, even though in that case he specifically referred to the written policy that all employees sign off on 

and even though the union salt also said on the audio tape, ‘‘yeah, 

I understand, the guys know better than that’’ signifying that he 

understood that what Mr. Runyan was referring to was the lawful 

written policy. So you’ve got these laws being interpreted in just an 

44

incredible way. So that’s a violation that maybe it is a violation on 

some technical level, but we don’t believe it is. And that’s why we 

appealed. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And last, if I may, Mr. Chairman, and that’s—if 

I may, Mr. Van Os, let’s talk about remedies after we go through 

this process because I——

Chairman JOHNSON. We’ll come back a second time. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK, I’ll come back a second time, because those 

questions are more lengthy. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Mr. Carter, do you intend to 

question? 

Mr. CARTER. A couple of questions. I’ve got a couple of questions 

I’d like to know about. First off, Mr. Nesbitt, under current law, 

what rights do union organizers have and don’t have, just on this—

as we’re talking about this salting issue? 

Mr. NESBITT. Union organizers, even if they’re taking a paycheck 

under current law, they’re treated just like any other employee 

that shows up legitimately wanting a job. 

Mr. CARTER. So they’re treated just like anybody, have a union 

card or not, you’re treated the same way and you’re given certain 

defined ways that you can organize on the job as you just mentioned, the Runyans had a written contract that they put before the 

workers and they agreed to as to when they could do their organizing? 

Mr. NESBITT. Well, they have the same rights. They can do their 

organizing at lunch. They can organize on break time. They can 

stand outside the facility and as people come out of the work place, 

they can hand them fliers, they can hand them leaflets, as long as 

they’re not on company property. They have the ability to look people’s names up in the phone book and call them up on the telephone. I mean this idea that they don’t have avenues to communicate with the employees is, I don’t think that has any merits. 

Mr. CARTER. These 17 out of 200 charges that you were just talking about a minute ago, how many of those have reached NLRB on 

the appeal? 

Mr. NESBITT. All of them are on appeal. All of the violations 

found against my client are on appeal at the NLRB. 

Mr. CARTER. Have any of them been ruled on by the NLRB? 

Mr. NESBITT. No sir. 

Mr. CARTER. Is there a problem with timeliness or getting rulings out of the NLRB? 

Mr. NESBITT. I think so. I don’t know that even Mr. Van Os 

would disagree with that. It’s going to take them a long time, we 

believe, to reach the merits of this. 

Mr. CARTER. And how costly, in a general sense, would each one 

of these 17 appeals mean to an employer that’s doing it? 

Mr. NESBITT. You heard Ms. Runyan testify that she’s incurred 

half a million dollars in legal expense. I didn’t check that before I 

left my office today, but that’s—that would include all of the civil 

litigation. 

Mr. CARTER. Have any been ruled on by the NLRB in any that 

you all have taken up? 

Mr. NESBITT. No. 

45

Mr. CARTER. In fact, you haven’t gotten appellate relief from anybody there and you have to finish the administrative hearings and 

the appellate hearings on administrative law before you can reach 

a courtroom and go to Court? 

Mr. NESBITT. Once the NLRB renders its opinion, it’s appealable 

to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, so you haven’t had any EEO—tell me, how 

many EEOC victories that you had in a case? 

Mr. NESBITT. There were either five or six EEOC charges filed. 

The first one, the EEOC issued a determination. That’s what they 

do. They issue a determination. They determined that the charge, 

that the evidence did not establish a violation of the statute. They 

effectively cleared my client. 

The union then withdrew or the Charging Parties, all of whom 

were being funded by and encouraged by the union, then withdrew 

all of the other charges. They sent a letter to the Commission asking the Commission to cease its investigation and to immediately 

issue a right to sue. So the EEOC adjudicated one out of those, 

found in our favor, and then at the request of the Charging Parties, 

ceased its investigations of the remaining charges. 

Mr. CARTER. If you have a victory in that case, you still pay your 

own attorney’s fees? 

Mr. NESBITT. Absolutely. There’s no fee shifting in that case. If 

you’re victorious in that case, the Charging Party can also file a 

civil lawsuit which they did in these cases. 

Mr. CARTER. Both sides here seem to think they have a position 

of right here and what would you think about a system in which 

the—if the Charging Party makes an accusation as a violation in 

either one of these areas and prevails, then the losing party pays 

the attorney’s fees? 

Mr. NESBITT. I haven’t studied this in depth and as the Subcommittee has, but I really think that is the answer. I frankly believe that the legislation which seeks to define a salt as a non-employee under the NLRB, it may go too far in some respects, with 

respect to salts who legitimately who do show up to try to prove 

their merit, but it certainly does not go far enough in off-setting 

the legal expenses that my client incurred, for example, in charges 

that were ultimately unmeritorious. 

I mean even if you amend the law to say a salt is not an employee, they can still file the charges. They can still drag my client 

through costly legal proceedings to prove himself wrong and there’s 

no accountability at the end of the day to whoever files or funds 

the charges. I think a fee shifting statute would be really what the 

doctor ordered. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, if the argument is that we have competent 

Administrative Law Judges making rulings at these hearings, then 

they should be able to make—and we have a competent appellate 

process, then somewhere in that process we should be able to see 

whether or not there’s a meritorious claim being made and if 

there’s not a meritorious claim being made, then the attorney’s fees 

should be paid by the nonmeritorious party, at least that would be 

a proposal that I would throw out. 

Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. NESBITT. Thank you. 

46

Chairman JOHNSON. Ms. McGee and Ms. Runyan, in your testimony you talk about poor quality work from some of the union 

salts. Do you have an estimate of how much money you spent to 

re-do work that might not have been quality? 

Mr. RUNYAN. Chairman Johnson, may I address that question, 

please? 

Chairman JOHNSON. Sure. 

Mr. RUNYAN. At the Palmer Events Center, we had several instances. One was an electrician that turned out to be what we feel 

is a union salt that terminated conductors underneath circuit 

breakers without stripping them out, thus causing a potential electrical fire. Fortunately, we found those before we energized that 

system. 

In another instance, she took and dead shorted several disconnects and in one instance caused an electrical explosion on another project which she was transferred to. The total economic impact with time that we spent in repairs as well as our research was 

probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000 to $15,000 in 

labor on those two projects alone. 

And this does not begin to address any of the other impact that 

we had out on the project, labor impact, due to productivity, 

etcetera. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Did you try to get rid of that employee? 

Mr. RUNYAN. I did. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Did the union come back at you? 

Mr. RUNYAN. Yes, we did have a ULP filed against us, after we 

determined that she had dead shorted and caused this electrical explosion, we did terminate her and the union did file against us. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Van Os, you shook your head, why? 

Mr. VAN OS. I do shake my head. Excuse me. 

Chairman JOHNSON. That’s OK, just leave it on. 

Mr. VAN OS. Am I on now? Thank you. The particular individual 

that Mr. Runyan has been talking about was not a union salt. She 

had no affiliation with the union at the time that Titus Electrical 

hired her. After she was discharged, she came to the union and 

asked the union to assist her because she felt that she had been 

discriminatorily discharged on the basis of her gender. The union 

did assist her. That’s what unions, the unions do help people who 

believe they have work place disputes and there is nothing to 

apologize for in doing that. 

After the union discovered and found out about her incompetence 

as an employee, the union dropped her case like a hot potato. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. Ms. McGee? 

Ms. MCGEE. Chairman Johnson, I don’t believe that there was 

anything written, in fact, I’m certain there’s nothing written in my 

testimony, there was never an issue of poor quality work. In my 

testimony, the individuals that I hired didn’t show up for work. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK, thank you very much. 

Dr. Grijalva, do you care to question again? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, I have a two part question for Mr. Van Os. 

First, and let me do both parts so that you have an opportunity 

to respond in the timeframe that we have here. The first part having to do with some of the information we’ve been hearing in terms 

of relief that the National Labor Relations Board, that the process 

47

takes such a long time, the employer, my colleagues have referenced a cost for litigation. Talk about the remedy process for the 

employees involved in that process and what’s happened to that. 

And the second part of it and I’ll leave you with the remedy issue 

so we can get that perspective as well, and then I’ll leave you 

with—the second question is H.R. 1793, what would, if Congress 

were to pass this legislation, would employees lose any rights they 

currently have under the National Labor Relations Act, a two-part 

question. 

Mr. VAN OS. The first part of the question, Congressman 

Grijalva, for employees who were discriminatorily rejected for hiring by Titus Electrical in the fall of 2001, those employees are still 

waiting for relief. And I think it’s unfortunate that there’s been 

kind of a suggestion here from the witness table that there was 

something, that there’s something Mickey Mouse or rinky dink 

about the Administrative Law Judge hearing process. The Administrative Law Judge trial is conducted by a very experienced Judge, 

while not an Article 3 Judge, is a very experienced Administrative 

Judge, experienced in the National Labor Relations Act, with full 

opportunities for extensive examination and cross examination of 

witnesses and who is experienced in evaluating the demeanor and 

credibility of witnesses. 

Now for employees who were found by the ALJ to have been 

discriminatorily because of their union affiliation rejected for hiring, they have been waiting for two and a half years for relief. And 

they are—they have lost tremendously through this wait. For employees who were discriminatorily discharged by Titus Electrical, 

because of their union activities, they have been waiting for nearly 

2 years for relief. And the remedies of the National Labor Relations 

Act are almost—the remedies available under the National Labor 

Relations Act are not meaningful enough at the current time to 

provide real deterrence, because even if those employees, if those 

cases, if those findings are ultimately upheld by the NLRB, by the 

Full Board in Washington and then by the Courts, the most that 

those employees can obtain in relief is reinstatement and backpay. 

There are no real compensatory damages to create any real deterrence and often 3 years down the road, after 3 years of litigation, 

that employee probably has gone to other things and is probably 

living in another state by then because especially in a depressed 

economy, he or she is traveling to look for work. 

Does that answer your question? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, the second part about the legislation? 

Mr. VAN OS. The second part. If the legislation that has been referenced were to pass, it would destroy one of the very core purposes of the National Labor Relations Act which is that applicants 

for employment cannot be discriminated against on the basis of 

their union affiliation or union activity. If a law were to pass that 

allowed an employer to say that this person is a union—is going 

to organize for the union and therefore I don’t—this person does 

not have the protection of the National Labor Relations Act, that 

would probably increase the cost burden on the whole system because it would spawn far more litigation than exists now because 

there would be endless litigation over that issue. And there’s no 

need to do that. There’s no need to carve out an exception and say 

48

that certain people are not entitled to the protections of the National Labor Relations Act. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK, we have several ideas here. We’re trying to come to a solution, if we can and you know, we can prevent 

salting totally, which I’m not sure we want to do. We can try to 

limit the cost by having whoever fails in the process pay the legal 

charges or maybe we could speed up the process somehow. 

Can you tell me how you think we could do that? Any of you? 

Or how we should address any of those three options? Anybody, 

feel free. 

Mr. NESBITT. I believe that the way to end what I have observed 

as the problem in the Titus Electrical case is to require that if a 

Charging Party or a union makes a charge that it later either withdraws which is kind of what happens, the NLRB investigates and 

if the NLRB isn’t going to complaint on it, the Charging Party then 

withdraws the charge after the employer has incurred a lot of expense to file a response, the Charging Party that files a charge that 

either does not go to complaint or that goes to complaint and is 

deemed to be unmeritorious ought to have to pay the legal fees of 

the responding party. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes, but what I’m hearing is is that the 

NLRB and the administrative law system is not very rapid. Do you 

think we need to try to speed that system up? 

Mr. NESBITT. I do think we should. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It doesn’t take you that long to get the facts 

of the case, does it? 

Mr. NESBITT. No, in fact, the Administrative Law Judge, I think, 

issued his opinion in this case pretty quickly and now it’s really 

been at the National Labor Relations Board that we have experienced a delay. I don’t know the administrative issues that they 

have up there. I’m not here to criticize the National Labor Relations Board. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do you all have experience with NLRB? Do 

you know if they have trouble getting a quorum for hearings, any 

of you? 

Mr. RUNYAN. Chairman Johnson, I’d like to respond to your initial question. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Sure. 

Mr. RUNYAN. And I believe that it would clear the docket substantially if we brought financial accountability to the process. It 

would eliminate. We had some 200 ULPs initially filed against us 

and let me clarify this. Only three to 4 percent of those were successfully prosecuted. Three to 4 percent. We’re talking 3 to 4 out 

of 100, close to 200 filed. If we clear that docket by eliminating all 

of this frivolous litigation, then we will expedite the process tremendously simply by making financial accountability an element of 

the process. 

I’m not saying for 1 second that a salt should be denied legal due 

process. I’m simply saying that if it is determined to be frivolous 

or if it is withdrawn, they need to pick up the tab. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes sir, go ahead. 

Mr. VAN OS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two points. First, to 

mandate fee shifting would burden the constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances, because often and I know that ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:28 Oct 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\93621 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
49

gressman Carter knows this from having been a Trial Judge, if 

every party, every litigant to any kind, in any kind of legal forum 

knew in advance whether they were going to win or lose, then 

there would be no need for dispute resolution forums. Often a litigant or a Charging Party believes that he has or she has a winning 

case and then finds out later that he doesn’t. So I think there is 

a difficulty in suggesting an undercutting of the right to petition 

for redress of grievances to the government which a fee shifting requirement would do. 

Secondly, a second point is that, of course, I’m sure that Mr. 

Nesbitt and Mr. Runyan realize that if you—sometimes you should 

be careful about what you ask for, because you may get it. Certainly, a fee shifting mechanism would go both ways and the many, 

many, many resources that the union has expended on these unfair 

labor practice charges that I’m confident the union is going to end 

up winning would, of course, with a fee shifting statute the employer would have to do the same thing and reimburse the union 

and the government for their legal fees. So I think that is kind of 

a Pandora’s Box for many reasons. 

Now one thing I will agree with my brother of the bar, Mr. 

Nesbitt, about and I don’t know if you call this a collective bargaining contract or not, or a labor management contract, I would 

certainly agree that the NLRB process is too slow and one very 

simple reason for it may be budgetary. I think it probably needs 

more staff. It probably needs more Administrative Law Judges. It 

probably needs more resources because it is a very important statute that the Board is charged with enforcing and administering a 

very important statute. I don’t have any magic wand for a solution 

to suggest except a possibility that it may need more resources. I 

do agree certainly that the process is too slow and that works to 

the disadvantage and the detriment of both employers and workers. 

Chairman JOHNSON. You’re right and we’ll look into that. 

Mr. Carter, do you care to comment? 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Van Os, I agree 

with you. I don’t ever want to deny anybody’s right to seek recourse 

from the justice system, whether it be the administrative justice 

system or whether it be the justice system of the Courts. 

However, we see and you know this and so does every lawyer 

that practices before the bar and if they deny it, then they’re just 

not shooting straight with folks, that both sides of the docket, when 

they have the advantage, the economic or the positional advantage, 

it costs the other guy money, will force an issue, if it costs him 

enough money to force him, even though he may be right, to force 

him into a position where he has no other choice. And when I hear 

17 out of 200 cases that have been credible, it tends to look like 

there’s been a shotgun approach taken to this particular project, 

let’s fire as many shots as we can fire and one or two of those pellets is bound to hit something. 

I am offended by that in the Courts, as are most Trial Judges 

that I know and I’m offended by it in the administrative law procedure. I think it’s the wrong thing to do. 

Answer me something, I understand that the NLRB also is not 

cooperative in bringing up these cases, multiple cases from the 

50

same parties at the same time. In other words, you’re making lots 

of trips to the NLRB. Is that your experience? For instance, if you 

have 17 cases pending against these folks, you make 17 trips before 

the NLRB or will they say we’re going to hear 9 of your cases today 

and 8 of your cases tomorrow? 

Mr. VAN OS. If part of what Mr. Nesbitt is talking about is failure of the Board to consolidate more when there are multiple cases, 

I would certainly agree. 

Mr. CARTER. One of the complaints I’ve heard is that you’re making multiple trips on basically the same job. 

Mr. VAN OS. Well, for example, one of the charges that the IBEW 

filed in this case was a charge claiming that several applicants for 

employment with Titus Electrical had been rejected 

discriminatorily. I don’t know whether or not the Board required 

Titus Electrical and its attorneys to piecemeal the responses to 

that because it was all in one charge because I’m not, as the 

union’s advocate, I wasn’t privy to the other side of the investigation. At the investigative stage it’s done ex parte with both sides. 

If the Board required Titus Electrical and its attorneys to piecemeal that and make 17 different trips as you’ve alluded to, I would 

agree that that’s inappropriate. It certainly, for example, the economic——

Mr. CARTER. Let me interrupt you just a minute. I understand 

where you’re coming from. On 200 cases, each one of those cases, 

from your standpoint, what’s the cost of the union to try one of 

those 200? You had 183 that didn’t find—didn’t reach that level 

anyway, so——

Mr. VAN OS. First of all, with all due respect to Mr. Nesbitt who 

is an honorable lawyer and with all due respect to you, Congressman, I don’t necessarily agree with that figure of 200. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, then let’s make it a hundred. I’ll cut it in half. 

So then if you’ve won 17 out of 100, you’ve got 83 cases. Do you 

have any idea what it’s costing the union individually for each one 

of those cases, those 83 cases that are not going up to the NLRB? 

Mr. VAN OS. In some of those cases, the union retained legal 

counsel which, if they did was my law firm and in some of the 

cases the union did not retain legal counsel. 

Mr. CARTER. I’ll address Mr. Nesbitt. What does it cost your client for each one of those cases, roughly? 

Mr. NESBITT. For each one that goes to complaint and we put on 

a case about—I’m just ballparking this, Mr. Carter, but $10,000. 

Mr. CARTER. So those 83, that would be $83,000? 

Mr. NESBITT. That’s probably right. I mean a lot of this——

Mr. CARTER. So it’s $130,000. Ms. Runyan, do you have an answer? 

Mr. NESBITT. No, the $83,000, it’s not $10,000 per allegation, just 

at the investigative level. It’s hard for me to answer your question 

because you participate in an investigation and that costs money 

no matter what. That’s something that if Mr. Murphy, the organizer sends a charge by fax to the NLRB, that costs him nothing, 

it costs him the price of a fax to San Antonio. It costs my client, 

it may be $500, if it’s just blatantly ridiculous. It may cost him 

$3,000 just to respond at the investigative level. And then you go 

51

to a full blown trial if they go to complaint and then it’s very hard 

for me to answer your question because then you’ve got 15 issues. 

Mr. CARTER. Just like any other trial. 

Mr. NESBITT. That’s right. 

Mr. VAN OS. I would have to say, Mr. Carter——

Mr. CARTER. I think Ms. Runyan wishes to respond. 

Mr. VAN OS. I’m sorry, excuse me. 

Ms. RUNYAN. Let me clarify something for Mr. Van Os and for 

you all. When Mr. Murphy faxes a deal to San Antonio and there 

are 20 different names of people that they’re claiming we fail to 

hire, we have to respond why we didn’t hire that person, who we 

hired, what the qualifications were and all of this has to go 

through our attorney and it’s not just once we have to respond. We 

have to respond on each and every individual listed on that charge. 

And the time and money involved in that I don’t think we’ve done 

one of them that’s less than $2,000, except for the one where the 

following month it was the exact same names, minus one and we 

could pretty much just get Tom to kick out the same information, 

but we still had to pay for it to be responded to. So each and every 

individual name that’s on there has to be addressed. You can’t just 

say well, they’re wrong and let it go at that. It’s automatically we 

are guilty until we prove ourselves innocent. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you. I think my time has expired. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I want to thank you all for being with us 

today. We appreciate your testimony and your valuable time. I’ve 

got a letter from the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce that I’d like 

to enter into the record which thanks us for doing this hearing and 

without objection it will be entered. 

Do you have something you want to enter? 

Mr. RUNYAN. Chairman, I wanted to extend thanks to Congressman Carter and extend thanks from Mr. Jerry Gonzales, Chairman 

of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, an organization that represents $200 billion in business annually in the United 

States and Puerto Rico and he thanks you for your gracious hosting 

of our time there in Washington with you. We thank you for coming down here. 

Chairman Johnson, of course, the letter is addressed to yourself 

and we thank you. 

Congressman Grijalva, we appreciate your contribution as well. 

Chairman JOHNSON. You got three of the core of the Congress 

right here. 

(Laughter.) 

And we thank you all for your attention, your testimony and if 

there’s no further business, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:23 p.m., the Subcommittee hearing was concluded.] 

[Additional Material submitted for the record follows:]

52

Letter from J.R. Gonzales, Acting President and CEO, United States 

Hispanic Chamber of Commerce


93621.021
53

Submitted and Placed in Permanent Archive File, Titus Electrical Contracting, Inc. and United Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 520, 

(Case Nos. 16-CA-21010-2 et al.), 2003 WL 159078 (N.L.R.B. Division of 

Judges) (January 17, 2003)

Æ