Opinion ID: 759770
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Decision to Hire Orin Lemin

Text: 29 Once Gelski was hired, the Company had one more opening for a journeyman electrician. At the time it decided to hire Orin Lemin, the Company also had Crumbley's and Embrescia's applications on file. The Board's finding of discrimination with respect to the hiring of Lemin is supported in part by the candidates' applications, and in part by the circumstances surrounding Clock Electric's reaction to Embrescia's follow-up inquiries and its decisions as to whom to contact for interviews. 30 Unlike Gelski, Lemin was not conclusively a superior candidate from the face of his application and the information available to Clock. Most of Lemin's qualifications did not vary significantly from either Crumbley's or Embrescia's. None of the three had a personal recommendation or prior contact with the Company. Lemin received exactly the same score as Crumbley on the electrical review test. Each applicant indicated that he was willing to negotiate the starting wage rate. 31 As for experience, Crumbley and Embrescia seemed the better candidates. The ALJ determined that Crumbley and Embrescia were superior candidates with regard to the extent of experience possessed by each. Lemin's application listed five years' experience described only in rather oblique terms compared to Crumbley's and Embrescia's applications, which listed thirteen years and eight years of experience, respectively, and which detailed time spent in apprenticeships and in fire alarm and fiber optics training. With regard to job stability, we agree with the ALJ that Lemin's employment history was only slightly better than the other two applicants as Lemin appeared to have worked two different jobs in the prior two years, whereas Crumbley and Embrescia had each worked three. 32 Neither the ALJ nor the Board specifically addressed Lemin's earnings history. Even though Lemin completely fabricated his employment record, it would seem from the face of his application that his earnings history comported with what the Company would be willing to offer as a starting wage. Lemin's application stated that he had last earned $10.25 per hour. One point that distinguishes Lemin's application from Gelski's however is that Gelski's wage expectations were clear from his application. In contrast, the Company could not definitively ascertain what Lemin might hope to earn without contacting him to find out. As the record shows, the Company chose to contact Lemin, but not Crumbley or Embrescia, about setting up an interview. In addition, though the Company attempts to rely on its high wage defense as a justification for not following up with Crumbley and Embrescia, in the case of Lemin, the difference in past wages was the sole distinction. The facts relating to Lemin's interview permit the inference that Clock Electric evaluated applicants for the remaining electrician position not only based upon their objective qualifications, but also based upon union membership or support. 33 The Company contacted Lemin on May 24, 1994, the same day he came in to complete his application, for the purpose of arranging an interview. This happened to be the same day that Embrescia first called the Company to check the status of his application and was told that hiring had been put on hold. 34 Reviewing the evidence on the record as a whole, we agree that there is substantial evidence to support the Board's decision that the Company discriminated against Crumbley and Embrescia on the basis of union membership in hiring Lemin. In light of our conclusion that the Company properly filled one of its vacancies when it hired Joseph Gelski, we will remand to the Board to determine the number of positions that would have been available at the time the Company hired Orin Lemin and whom Clock Electric should have hired instead.