Opinion ID: 759770
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Decision to Hire Joseph Gelski

Text: 21 With regard to the Company's hiring of Gelski over Crumbley and Embrescia, the Board adopted the ALJ's determination that, other than a personal recommendation from a customer, there was no lawful reason for the Company to prefer Gelski over the union applicants. The ALJ found the Company's arguments in support of its decision to hire Gelski unpersuasive because he determined that there was little difference between the test scores and employment records of the applicants, the union applicants had more practical experience than Gelski, and the Company's reasons for relying on wage histories were unreliable. While conceding that the Company's reliance on a recommendation from its customer is understandable, the ALJ concluded that standing alone the recommendation was not enough to tip the scales in Gelski's favor. 22 We disagree. When it assessed the Company's decision to hire Gelski, the Board failed to take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its determinations, see Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at 488, 71 S.Ct. 456, and thereby disregarded the bulk of the evidence which proved Gelski was the preferable candidate even in the absence of protected activity. In drawing their conclusions, the Board and ALJ substituted their own preferences as to which criteria should weigh more in a hiring decision: the ALJ's recommended decision emphasized duration of practical experience in the industry and all but completely discounted test scores, personal recommendations and prior earnings. It was improper for the Board to adopt his recommendation as the weight of the evidence tends to show that the Company would have hired Gelski even if Crumbley and Embrescia had not been not Union members. 23 First, we agree with the ALJ's finding that Crumbley and Embrescia possessed more practical experience than Gelski in terms of training and the raw number of years that each applicant worked in the industry. Gelski had four and a half years' experience as an electrician and was still in the process of completing some of his training. Embrescia completed a four-year apprenticeship and had another four years' experience as a journeyman electrician. Crumbley also completed a four-year apprenticeship and worked nine years as a journeyman electrician. But in light of the numerous factors that the Company purports to consider, experience and employment history alone is not necessarily dispositive. The remaining factors that Clock Electric claims to consider weigh in favor of Gelski. 24 The ALJ also concluded that the employment histories of all three applicants were basically indistinguishable as indicators of job stability. We disagree. The ALJ observed that it appeared as though each of the applicants had worked three jobs in the previous two years, such that Gelski's employment history was no better than either Crumbley's or Embrescia's in terms of job stability. He observed that Embrescia's employment history merely appeared more unstable because he had listed all of his positions for the previous eight years, including his jobs as a union apprentice, and noted that apprentices tend to moved from job to job to obtain a broader range of experience. The facts on which the ALJ relied, however, were incomplete and insufficient to support his comparison of the applicants. Even excluding the time from approximately 1986 to 1990 during which Embrescia was an apprentice, he still worked several more jobs than Gelski during the period from 1990 to 1994. Crumbley only documented his employment history back to 1992, so Crumbley and Gelski could only fairly be characterized as equivalent candidates from 1992 to 1994. The Company possessed additional employment information about Gelski dating from 1989 to 1992. 5 There was simply no information about Crumbley from this period with which to compare it. As between Gelski and Embrescia, the applications show that Gelski at the very least had a more stable employment history than Embrescia over a longer period of time. 25 In addition to job stability, the Company also claims to consider test scores. Gelski received the highest test score of the three applicants under consideration at the time he was hired. The ALJ downplayed this fact by noting that the differences between the applicants' scores were minimal: Gelski received a 16 out of 19, Crumbley a 15 out of 19, and Embrescia a 13 out of 19. Yet a difference of even one to three points is significant given that the test has so few questions overall. The Company essentially used the test as an objective measure of professional competence and tool of comparison. The ALJ simply offered no rational basis for discrediting the Company's reliance on test scores in making hiring decisions and the weight of the evidence relating to this factor unequivocally favors Gelski. 26 Gelski also possessed two qualifications that none of the other applicants had--a personal recommendation from Hank Schwartz, a longtime client of Clock Electric, and actual experience working alongside Clock Electric's employees. As a preliminary matter, we defer to the ALJ's decision to credit Gelski's testimony over that of Chuck Clock as to the nature and extent of Gelski's prior interaction with Clock Electric. Gelski testified that while working for Hank Schwartz some years earlier, he assisted Clock Electric employees on one of their projects. He testified that his contact with Chuck Clock and Clock Electric's employees was brief and that the tasks he performed were simple: occasionally he would retrieve electrical parts for the Clock electricians or if they needed a hand pulling wire he would help. In contrast, the ALJ found that Chuck Clock's testimony about his past work with Gelski made their interaction appear more substantial that it actually was. The ALJ credited Gelski's version of the facts and we defer to his determination. Based on these facts, the ALJ's opinion appears to infer that Chuck Clock did not possess enough information about Gelski to conclude that his qualifications exceeded those of Crumbley and Embrescia. Yet the Board and ALJ glossed over other evidence on the record that supports a contrary conclusion: the balance of Chuck Clock's testimony on this issue centered not on his own personal familiarity with Gelski's capabilities, but on the weight of Hank Schwartz's recommendation. Chuck Clock confirmed that Schwartz's recommendation carried some weight in the hiring process and that he had previously hired another of Schwartz's employees who worked out very well. The Board's order arbitrarily dismissed the recommendation by noting that standing alone, it is not enough to tip the scales in Gelski's favor. Clock Electric, Inc., 323 NLRB No. 211, 158 LRRM (BNA) 1064 (N.L.R.B., Jul.14, 1997). As we have noted, the recommendation did not stand alone. Combined with better test scores, more stable employment history, and as we shall discuss, earnings history and expectations that dovetailed with the Company's average starting wages, it gave Gelski an advantage over the other two applicants. Although it is unnecessary to determine in this case whether Schwartz's recommendation by itself would be enough to justify the Company's hiring decision, we decline to rule out the possibility that a recommendation alone would justify a hiring decision in some other case. Even passing familiarity with one job applicant may suffice to distinguish him (either favorably or unfavorably) from another applicant who is a total stranger. 27 Finally, Gelski was a superior applicant with regard to earnings history and expectations. The ALJ concluded that the Company failed to prove that applicants who take pay cuts tend to leave more quickly than those with lower past earnings. We agree. But the Company need not rely on this high wage defense to support its decision to hire Gelski over Crumbley and Embrescia. The facts in the record show that Gelski's earnings history and wage expectations were firmly in line with what the Company was willing to offer. The Company typically offered an average starting wage of $11.00 to $12.00 per hour. Gelski was last paid $11.00 per hour, and indicated on his application that he expected to start at Clock Electric at $11.00 per hour. In comparison, Crumbley and Embrescia were last paid at $23.48 and indicated on their applications that their salary expectations were open or negotiable. It was evident from the face of Gelski's application that expenditure of time or resources on starting wage negotiations would be unnecessary. Even if Crumbley and Embrescia had listed past wage rates that were not obviously union scale, Gelski's wage expectations made him a conclusively suitable candidate for hire. 28 In light of the foregoing facts and considering all of the factors that the Company itself professes to consider in making its hiring decisions, we conclude that the Company demonstrated that it would have hired Gelski over Crumbley and Embrescia even in the absence of protected activity. The Board's conclusion to the contrary is not reasonable in light of the record facts. We do not reach the same conclusion as to the second hiring.