Opinion ID: 2996266
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The refusal-to-hire charge.

Text: Local 150’s first argument on appeal is that the Board erred in concluding that Brandt did not refuse to hire prounion applicants. An employer violates §§ 8(a)(1) and (3) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1) and (3), if it refuses to hire an individual because of his union sentiments, membership, or activities. Bloedorn v. Francisco Foods, Inc., 13 276 F.3d 270, 288 (7th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, an em- 13 Section 8(a) of the NLRA provides that “[i]t shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—(1) to interfere with, (continued...) 20 No. 02-1044 ployer violates the Act if it refuses to hire applicants be14 cause they are union salts. Hartman Bros. Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 280 F.3d 1110, 1111 (7th Cir. 2002). To establish a discriminatory refusal-to-hire violation, the General Counsel must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) the employer was hiring, or had concrete plans to hire, at the time of the alleged unlawful conduct; (2) that the job applicants had experience or training relevant to the announced or generally known requirements of the positions for hire, or, in the alternative, that the employer has not adhered uniformly to such requirements, or that the requirements were themselves pretextual or were applied as a pretext for discrimination; and (3) anti-union animus contributed to the decision not to hire the applicants. FES (A Division of Thermo Power) and Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 520 of the United Association, 331 N.L.R.B. No. 20, 2000 WL 627640  (May 11, 2000), review denied and petition enforced by, N.L.R.B. v. FES (A 15 Division of Thermo Power), 301 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 2002); see 13 (...continued) restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in [29 U.S.C. § 157]; . . . or (3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 158(a). 14 “Salting” is “the practice whereby a union inserts its organizers into some employer’s workforce in the hope that they will be able to organize it.” Hartman Bros., 280 F.3d at 1111. 15 The Board’s decision in FES clarified the General Counsel’s burden under the Wright Line test in the hiring context, noting “[w]e realize . . . that there has been some confusion over the (continued...) No. 02-1044 21 also Vulcan Basement Waterproofing of Ill., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 219 F.3d 677, 684 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that in order “ [t]o prove a violation [of Section 8(a)(1) or (3)], the NLRB’s General Counsel must ‘prove that antiunion animus was a substantial or motivating factor in the employer’s decision to make adverse employment decisions’ ”) (citation omitted). Once this is established, the employer can avoid liability by demonstrating “that it would not have hired the applicants even in the absence of their union activity or affiliation.” FES, 2000 WL 627640, at ; see also Vulcan, 219 F.3d at 684 (holding that if the General Counsel proves anti-union animus by a preponderance of the evidence, “the employer can then avoid a finding of an unfair labor practice if it can show that it would have taken the action regardless of the employee’s union activities”). If the employer makes this showing, the Board will not find a violation of the Act. FES, 2000 WL 627640, at ; see also Van Vlerah Mech., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 130 F.3d 1258, 1263 (7th Cir. 1997) In this case, the Board agreed with the ALJ that al- though the General Counsel had proven that Brandt displayed anti-union animus by making it more difficult for pro-union applicants to submit employment applications with the company, Brandt demonstrated that, notwithstanding this animus, it would not have hired the applicants under its nondiscriminatory, preferential hiring policy. Specifically, the Board found that all but one of 15 (...continued) requirement that the General Counsel make an initial showing that applicants have experience or training relevant to the announced or generally known requirements of the positions for hire . . . . We, therefore, clarify that the General Counsel must make this initial showing.” FES, 2000 WL 627640, at . 22 No. 02-1044 Brandt’s hires in 1997 and 1998 were referred applicants, with the one exception being pro-union applicant Angela Smith, and that the company did not hire any unknown or walk-in applicants during that time period, the manner by which all of the pro-union applicants had sought employment. Local 150 does not dispute either of these facts, but maintains that the Board, nevertheless, erred in concluding that Brandt met its burden of showing that it would not have hired the pro-union applicants even in the absence of their union activity or affiliation because: (1) the hiring policy maintained by Brandt is inherently discriminatory, destructive of the union-affiliated appli16 cants’ Section 7 rights; (2) Brandt did not rely on its preferential hiring policy as a defense at the ALJ hearing; and (3) Brandt applied its hiring policy in a discriminatory manner. We begin with Local 150’s argument that Brandt’s preferential hiring policy is inherently “discriminatory and destructive” of the union-affiliated applicants’ Section 7 rights under the NLRA. According to the union, the Board should not have permitted Brandt to use its hiring policy as a Wright Line defense because “policies which effectively eliminate[ ] an entire class of applicants from con- 16 29 U.S.C. § 157 provides that “[e]mployees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a)(3) of this title.” No. 02-1044 23 sideration have been found to be discriminatory and destructive of employee rights,” and because Brandt’s preferential hiring policy has no “legitimate business purpose.” The ALJ dismissed the allegation that Brandt’s preferential hiring policy was a mere pretense for making it more difficult for pro-union applicants to be considered for employment or to discourage membership in labor organizations, concluding that the policy of giving preferential treatment to referred applicants over walk-in or unknown applicants was not “inherently discriminatory.” The Board affirmed the dismissal of this allegation (an allegation separate and apart from the refusal-to-hire charge), but in doing so questioned the ALJ’s use of the phrase “inherently discriminatory,” noting “there is no contention by the General Counsel that [Brandt’s] hiring policy was inherently destructive of Sec. 7 rights.” The General Counsel, of course, has the discretion to decide whether or not to issue a complaint. N.L.R.B. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 23, 484 U.S. 112, 124-25 (1987), and therefore possesses the lesser included authority to exercise exclusive control over the issues contained in any complaint that he issues. See § 3(d) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 153(d) (noting that the General Counsel “shall have final authority, on behalf of the Board, in respect of the investigation of charges and issuance of complaints . . . and in respect of the prosecution of such complaints before the Board . . . .”); Williams v. N.L.R.B., 105 F.3d 787, 790-91 n.3 (2d Cir. 1996). Moreover, the General Counsel’s decision not to issue a complaint, or to include a particular issue in a complaint, is final and unreviewable, United Food & Commercial Workers Union, 484 U.S. at 126. We, therefore, agree with the Board that the question of whether Brandt’s hiring policy is inher24 No. 02-1044 ently discriminatory or destructive is not an issue in this 17 case. This brings us to Local 150’s second argument: that none of Brandt’s witnesses testified before the ALJ that the pro-union applicants were rejected as a result of the company’s faithful adherence to its preferential hiring policy. In a nutshell, the union contends that only reasons offered by Terry Brandt during the ALJ hearing for the company’s refusal to hire the pro-union applicants were that: (1) there were no positions available at the time they applied; and (2) their applications expired after fourteen days. This argument, however, is based on a selective reading of Mr. Brandt’s testimony before the ALJ. At the ALJ hearing, Mr. Brandt provided extensive testimony that the company favored referred candidates 17 Even if the issue were before us, it is highly unlikely that the union’s argument would carry the day. See Zurn/N.E.P.C.O., 329 NLRB No. 52 (1999), 1999 WL 33429961, 1 (September 30, 1999) (holding that employer who followed hiring policy that gave preference to current and former employees, as well as referrals by the employer’s management, did not discriminate on the basis of union activities because “the policy does not on its face preclude or limit the possibilities for consideration of applicants with union preferences or backgrounds”); Custom Topsoil, Inc., 328 NLRB 446, 447 (1999) (holding that employer did not discriminate on the basis of union activities when it differentiated between “stranger” applicants and “familiar” applicants, but did not differentiate between union and nonunion applicants). See also N.L.R.B. v. Louis A. Weiss Mem. Hosp., 172 F.3d 432, 446 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding that an employer not motivated by anti-union animus may freely exercise its business judgment in hiring decisions, and that the Board should not substitute its judgment for that of the employer); Atlas Metal Parts Co. v. N.L.R.B., 660 F.2d 304, 310 (7th Cir. 1981) (same). No. 02-1044 25 and limited walk-in applicants, and that employment applications filed with the company would only be eligible for consideration for a period of fourteen days. Moreover, when Mr. Brandt testified that “no positions were available” for pro-union applicants, he did not assert, as Local 150 suggests, that no hiring took place during the time period in question. On the contrary, Mr. Brandt’s testimony merely reflects that no positions were available for any walk-in applicants because the company was able to meet its hiring needs from a considerable pool of referred candidates. Indeed, in earlier testimony, Mr. Brandt readily acknowledged that the company conducted limited hiring during the 14-day periods that the 1997 pro-union applications were valid. He further explained that any hiring taking place at that time was for low-paid laborers and not operators, the position for which he categorized most, if not all, of the pro-union applicants. Furthermore, as noted supra, all of the company’s hires during that time period were referred candidates. Accordingly, Mr. Brandt’s testimony does not undermine the Board’s conclusion that Brandt declined to hire pro-union applicants pursuant to its long standing, nondiscriminatory, preferential hiring policy. Local 150’s final argument is that Brandt applied its hiring policy in a discriminatory manner, and, therefore, the company may not use that policy as the basis of its defense to the refusal-to-hire charge. To put it more precisely, the union contends that because Brandt applied one aspect of its hiring policy in a discriminatory manner (i.e., the procedures governing the receipt and distribution of employment applications), we should presume that the company applied the remainder of its policy in a discriminatory manner. We disagree. Such a presumption would conflate the two steps of the Wright Line test, as clarified in FES, rendering the second step—i.e., wheth26 No. 02-1044 er the employer would have taken the same action even in the absence of union activity or affiliation—superfluous. The first step of Wright Line, as noted supra, requires the General Counsel to produce enough evidence to create an inference that the employer’s decision not to hire prounion applicants was motivated by anti-union animus. Jet Star, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 209 F.3d 671, 675-76 (7th Cir. 2000). Here, the Board found that the General Counsel met this initial burden by producing evidence that Brandt changed its hiring practices to restrict the receipt of employment applications from pro-union applicants. At this point, Brandt, in order to avoid a finding of liability, was required to show that the pro-union applicants would not have been hired even if the company had not at- tempted to restrict or hinder the ability of those applicants to obtain and submit employment applications to the company. Jet Star, 209 F.3d at 675 (holding that in evaluating the employer’s Wright Line burden “we . . . look to whether the employer was able to rebut [the General Counsel’s] evidence or to show that the job action would have been taken even in the absence of the employee’s protected activities”). The Board concluded that Brandt made this showing because the evidence demonstrated that the company applied its preferential hiring policy in a nondiscriminatory manner, and that the pro-union applications, submitted by union members as walk-in applicants, would have been rejected under this longstanding policy notwithstanding any anti-union animus. The Board cannot, as Local 150 suggests, infer that Brandt’s decision not to hire pro-union applicants was fueled by anti-union animus in the absence of evidence calling into question the truthfulness of the nondiscriminatory reason proffered by the company. That is because the General Counsel bears the ultimate burden of persuaNo. 02-1044 27 sion under the Wright Line test, i.e., establishing a causal link between the anti-union animus and the adverse action taken by the employer. Wright Line, 662 F.2d at 90607; FiveCAP, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 294 F.3d 768, 781 (6th Cir. 2002). The ultimate inquiry under the Wright Line/FES analysis is not whether the employer ever exhibited antiunion animus, but whether the employer would have refused to hire the pro-union applicants even in the absence of their union activity or affiliation. FES, 2000 WL 627640, at ; see also Vulcan Basement, 219 F.3d at 684. And although a finding of anti-union animus in one regard may make it more difficult for an employer to meet its burden of proving that its true reason for not hiring prounion applicants was nondiscriminatory, this is ultimately a credibility determination to be made by the ALJ in the first instance and by the Board thereafter; a determination we are required to afford great deference. L.S.F. Transp., 282 F.3d at 980. Therefore, in order to prevail on its petition, Local 150 must point to evidence that significantly undermines the Board’s finding that, notwithstanding any anti-union sentiments, Brandt would have rejected the pro-union applications under its nondiscriminatory, preferential hir18 ing policy. Id. (holding that “we defer particularly to the 18 In this respect, it is irrelevant whether Brandt, as Local 150 alleges, discriminated against pro-union applicants by: (1) allowing Marty Clark to submit an employment application with the company on the same day that it refused to allow prounion individuals to do so; and (2) being inconsistent in the application of its 14-day rule. Neither allegation bears on the question of whether Brandt applied its preferential hiring policy in a discriminatory manner. Furthermore, even were we to assume that these allegations were relevant to the (continued...) 28 No. 02-1044 Board’s findings regarding credibility, which cannot be disturbed absent extraordinary circumstances,” and will “refuse to interfere with the Board’s choice between two permissible views of the evidence, even though we may have decided the matter differently had the case been before us de novo”). The union attempts to make such a showing on appeal, and we shall therefore now turn to its arguments in this regard. We begin by addressing Local 150’s assertion that Terry Brandt’s comment to employees that the company was no longer accepting applications over the counter (because of the union’s salting campaign) sent “the clear message to the employees that they should not refer unionaffiliated applicants but rather only nonunion applicants.” Assuming this is a permissible inference to draw from Mr. Brandt’s statement, the inference is of no use to the 1997 pro-union applicants who, by the time this statement was made (May 10, 1997), had already filed applications (April 1997) and attempted to obtain new applica- 18 (...continued) question before us, neither is supported by the evidentiary record. Instead, the record shows that although Clark was allowed to file an application on the same day that the prounion applicants were turned away, Terry Brandt sent Clark a rejection letter that day after examining the application and noticing that Clark had not been referred in accordance with the company’s hiring policy. Thus, Brandt’s handling of Clark’s application actually demonstrates that the company followed, rather than deviated from, its hiring policy. There is also nothing in the record to support the union’s assertion that Brandt hired anyone fourteen days after the filing of an employment application. At best, the record shows that some of the individuals Brandt hired started work two weeks after filing their employment applications with the company. No. 02-1044 29 tions (May 9, 1997) as walk-in applicants. Terry Brandt’s statement, therefore, can hardly be said to have reduced the 1997 applicants’ chances of being referred by the company’s supervisors or employees, when none of them ever made an attempt to obtain such referrals. As for the 1998 union-affiliated applicants, there is also nothing in the record suggesting that any of these applicants ever attempted to obtain referrals from a Brandt supervisor or employee, or through one of the equal employment opportunity service providers used by the company. Instead, the record shows that all of these applicants attempted to obtain employment applications from Brandt as walk-ins on May 22, 1998. In the absence of any effort on the part of these applicants to obtain referrals, we will not speculate as to whether the referral option was foreclosed to them because of a statement made by Terry Brandt over a year before they sought employment with the company. Local 150’s next argument is that Brandt deviated from its hiring policy by preferring applicants referred by equal employment opportunity service providers over unknown or walk-in applicants. The crux of the union’s contention is that Brandt’s written hiring policy does not specifically list referrals from equal employment opportunity service providers as a preferred category, and, therefore, the company failed to adhere faithfully to its preferential hiring policy when it gave applicants referred by EEO service providers priority over unknown or walk-in applicants. In making this argument, however, the union does not point to any evidence that Brandt’s “deviation” from its preferential hiring policy—i.e., giving priority to minority referrals—was fueled by anti-union animus. Instead, the union once again suggests that we should infer that the company’s decision to give preferential treatment (here, 30 No. 02-1044 to minority referrals) was motivated by anti-union animus even in the absence of corroborating evidence. Without such evidence, this is something we are rarely, if ever, inclined to do. See Vulcan Basement, 219 F.3d at 685-87; Starcom, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 176 F.3d 948, 951-52 (7th Cir. 1999); Louis A. Weiss Mem. Hosp., 172 F.3d at 443-48. And here, there is nothing in the record even remotely suggesting that Brandt’s decision to give minority referrals preferential treatment was motivated, in any respect, by anti-union animus. Indeed, the record shows that the company gave preferential treatment to applicants referred by EEO service providers pursuant to a conciliation agreement that the company entered into with the U.S. Department of Labor on March 15, 1997. Under this agreement, Brandt agreed to increase the number of women and minorities on each job in order to be in compliance with certain equal employment opportunity guidelines. Moreover, Brandt’s decision to give preferential treatment to applicants referred from EEO service providers is entirely consistent with the company’s longstanding policy of hiring individuals referred from sources that it deems trustworthy over unknown or walk-in applicants; a policy formulated long before Local 150’s salting 19 campaigns. An employer who follows established hiring 19 Local 150 contends that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s characterization of Brandt’s preferential hiring policy as “long standing” or “established.” We disagree. The Board agreed with the ALJ that “Terry Brandt credibly testified that . . . the portion of the hiring policy regarding referral of applicants . . . has been rigorously followed since at least 1994,” and that the company “faithfully adhered to its long standing policy that has been in effect since at least 1994, and was (continued...) No. 02-1044 31 practices can rebut the General Counsel’s showing of antiunion motivation if the hiring practices in question do not preclude the consideration of union applicants. Zurn/N.E.P.C.O., 329 NLRB No. 52 (1999), 1999 WL 33429961, 1 (September 30, 1999) (holding that employer who followed hiring policy that gave preference to current and former employees, as well as referrals by employer’s management, did not discriminate on the basis of union activities because “the policy does not on its face preclude or limit the possibilities for consideration of applicants with union preferences or backgrounds”); Custom Topsoil, Inc., 328 NLRB 446, 447 (1999) (holding that employer did not discriminate on the basis of union activities when it differentiated between “stranger” applicants and “familiar” applicants, but did not differentiate 20 between union and non-union applicants). In this case, Brandt’s preferential hiring policy did not prevent the pro-union applicants from being considered for employment with the company. What doomed their applications was the decision to apply as walk-ins, an 19 (...continued) posted on the employee bulletin boards prior to the submission of the pro-union applications in April 1997.” Having reviewed the record, we believe that substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings in this regard. 20 Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Newtown Corp., 705 F.2d 873, 874 (6th Cir. 1983) (holding that if an employer has an established policy of granting regular, periodic wage increases, “to honor that policy by granting the raise is not an unfair labor practice”); N.L.R.B. v. Rich’s of Plymouth, Inc., 578 F.2d 880, 886-87 (1st Cir. 1978) (holding that employer did not violate NLRA by following established policy of refusing to rehire union employees who quit). 32 No. 02-1044 applicant pool of last resort for the company. Thus, while Brandt may have technically deviated from its written hiring policy, there is no evidence that the company’s decision to do so was in any way fueled by anti-union animus. As previously noted, there is substantial evidence of the exact opposite: that Brandt faithfully adhered to its established hiring policy of favoring referred candidates over unknown or walk-in applicants, regardless of union affiliation. Local 150 also maintains that Brandt deviated from its hiring policy when it failed to give preference to prounion applicants Roger Hoffman, Ron Miller, Don Peden, and Jack Schadt, all of whom submitted applications in April 1997 and apparently once worked for the company. The record shows, however, that Terry Brandt had no knowledge that any of these individuals had previously worked for the company at the time their applications were under consideration. In fact, not one of these applicants listed their prior employment with Brandt on their applications, or, for that matter, informed the company of this information through any other means. In the absence of any evidence that Brandt was actually aware of the applicants’ prior employment history, we fail to see how the union can claim that they were entitled to preferential treatment under the company’s hiring policy. Finally, it is also worth noting that all four applicants were experienced operators, a position that the company had no openings for during the fourteen day period their applications were on file. Finally, Local 150 argues that Brandt applied its hiring policy in a discriminatory manner when it failed to give the 1998 pro-union applicants preferential treatment. The union claims that these applicants informed Brandt, at the time they attempted to file applications, that they No. 02-1044 33 were referred by company employees, and therefore, entitled to preferential treatment under the company’s hiring policy. A cursory review of the record, however, demonstrates that these applicants merely told a Brandt consultant, Irwin Brown, that it was their understanding that company employees could make referrals. Local 150, therefore, has no basis for asserting that the 1998 union-affiliated applicants were entitled to preferential treatment under the company’s hiring policy. In sum, given Brandt’s non-discriminatory preference for referred candidates, its receipt of a sufficient number of referred candidates to fulfill its hiring needs, its decision to hire pro-union applicant Angela Smith, and that the company did not hire any walk-in applicants, regardless of union affiliation, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s dismissal of the refusal-to-hire charge against Brandt.