Opinion ID: 219504
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Exclusion of Union Supporters from Portable Plant Driver Positions

Text: The Board was supported by substantial evidence in concluding that by excluding Bales, Eversole and Stevenson as portable plant drivers, [12] the company violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3). As noted, the ALJ credited testimony tending to show that the company purposely avoided placing Bales, Eversole and Stevenson in the portable plant positions. The Board adopted the ALJ's factual conclusions unmodified. Specifically, the ALJ found that Bales, Eversole and Stevenson all indicated their interest in the portable plant position as did at least ten others. Of the entire group, only Bales and Eversole submitted the written, signed notification of interest that the company had requested. Nevertheless, the company selected four other, newer employees. Jeff Davidson, the company operations manager who made the assignment decisions, testified inconsistently as to the process and criteria used to select for the position. For instance, he stated that rear-discharge truck experience was one criterion, but two of the four drivers selected had absolutely no experience with this type of truck. He stated that performance, including attitude, was a criterion, but two of the drivers selected had performance reviews indicating a poor attitude. He stated that a driving test was an important criterion, but one of the drivers selected refused to take the test, and one performed incompetently. Bales and Eversole were not allowed to take the test, and Stevenson performed well. In sum, the ALJ found Davidson's testimony in defense of the company to have been laced with inconsistencies, contradicted by driver testimony, and unsupported by any underlying documents or even specifics. These ALJ factual findings as to the pretextual nature of Spurlino's justifications, together with the evidence of antiunion animus described above, amounted to substantial evidence for the Board to conclude that Spurlino violated §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) by excluding Union adherents from a new and better-paid position.