Copper Craft Plumbing

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 27, 2009

354 N.L.R.B. 958 (N.L.R.B. 2009)

354 NLRB No. 108
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Copper Craft Plumbing, Inc., and Kansas City
Plumbing, Inc., a single employer and their alter
egos KC Commercial Plumbing, Inc., and Studio
36 LLC and Donovan Shafer and Steven R. Cox.
Cases 17–CA–24227 and 17–CA–24291
November 25, 2009
DECISION AND ORDER AND ORDER
REMANDING
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBER SCHAUMBER
On April 30, 2009, Administrative Law Judge Marga-
ret G. Brakebusch issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board1 has considered
the judge’s decision and the record in light of the excep-
tions and briefs, and has decided to affirm the judge’s
rulings, findings, and conclusions only to the extent con-
sistent with this Decision and Order and Order Remand-
ing.
1. The judge found that Respondents Copper Craft
Plumbing, Inc. (Copper Craft Plumbing), Kansas City
Plumbing, Inc. (Kansas City Plumbing), and KC Com-
mercial Plumbing, Inc. (KC Commercial Plumbing) are
alter egos and a single employer and, as such, violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening employees with
unspecified reprisals and by discharging employee
Donovan Shafer because of his protected concerted ac-
tivities. The judge further found that these Respondents
violated Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) of the Act by deny-
ing employees the opportunity to drive work vans home

1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act. See Narricot Industries, L.P. v.
NLRB,___F.3d___, 2009 WL 4016113 (4th Cir. Nov. 20, 2009); Snell
Island SNF LLC v. NLRB, 568 F.3d 410 (2d Cir. 2009), petition for
cert. filed 78 U.S.L.W. 3130 (U.S. Sept. 11, 2009) (No. 09-328); New
Process Steel v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. granted
___S.Ct.___, 2009 WL 1468482 (U.S. Nov. 2, 2009); Northeastern
Land Services v. NLRB, 560 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2009), petition for cert.
filed 78 U.S.L.W. 3098 (U.S. Aug. 18, 2009) (No. 09-213). But see
Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 469
(D.C. Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed 78 U.S.L.W. 3185 (U.S. Sept.
29, 2009) (No. 09-377).
at the end of the workday and by laying off employees
on September 17, 2008, in order to discourage them from
the exercise of their Section 7 rights. There are no ex-
ceptions to these findings. Accordingly, we shall enter
an Order against these Respondents with respect to these
findings.
2. The judge additionally found that Respondent Stu-
dio 36 LLC (Studio 36) is an alter ego of the other named
Respondents. Specifically, the judge found Studio 36
liable as an alter ego of the other entities under the
“piercing the corporate veil” analysis set forth in White
Oak Coal, 318 NLRB 732 (1995) , enfd. mem. 81 F.3d
150 (4th Cir. 1996).2 Contrary to the judge, we find that
this analysis is not applicable here.
The Board’s test in White Oak Coal is appropriate for
identifying those cases where “a shareholder has so dis-
regarded the separate identity of the corporation that it is
appropriate to make his or her personal assets available
to remedy the unfair labor practices of the corporation.”
Flat Dog Productions, 347 NLRB 1180, 1183 (2006).
Where, as here, the General Counsel only seeks a finding
that one legal entity is the alter ego of another, that
analysis is not appropriate. Rather, the Board examines
whether the entities have substantially identical man-
agement, business purposes, operations, equipment, cus-
tomers, supervision, and ownership. See, e.g., Cross-
roads Electric, 343 NLRB 1502, 1506 (2004), enfd. 178
Fed. Appx. 528 (6th Cir. 2006); citing Advance Electric,
268 NLRB 1001, 1002 (1984), enfd. as modified 748
F.2d 1001 (5th Cir. 1984), cert. denied 470 U.S. 1085
(1985). Accordingly, we shall sever the allegation con-
cerning Studio 36’s alleged alter ego status and remand it
to the judge for the purpose of analyzing the allegation
under the appropriate standard.
3. The judge’s conclusions of law state that Studio 36
is also a single employer with Respondents Copper Craft
Plumbing, Kansas City Plumbing, and KC Commercial
Plumbing. However, the judge neither discussed nor ana-
lyzed the single-employer allegation as to Studio 36.
Accordingly, we shall also sever and remand this allega-
tion to the judge for clarification as to (a) whether the
judge intended to find Studio 36 to be a single employer
with the other entities, and (b) if so, to explain this find-
ing under the following appropriate factors for determin-
ing single employer status: (1) interrelation of opera-

2 In White Oak Coal, supra, 318 NLRB at 735, the Board found that
the corporate veil may be pierced and personal liability assessed when:
(1) there is such unity of interest and lack of respect given to the sepa-
rate identity of the corporation by its shareholders, that the personalities
and assets of the corporation and the individuals are indistinct, and (2)
adherence to the corporate form would sanction a fraud, promote injus-
tice, or lead to an evasion of legal obligations.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
tions; (2) common management; (3) centralized control
of labor relations; and (4) common ownership or finan-
cial control. See Shane Steel Processing, 353 NLRB No.
58, slip op. at 1 (2008); Paint America Services, 353
NLRB No. 100, slip op. at 1 (2009).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondents, Copper Craft Plumbing, Inc., Kansas City
Plumbing, Inc., and KC Commercial Plumbing, Inc., as
alter egos and a single employer, Kansas City, Missouri,
their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees with unspecified reprisals
because they engaged in union or other protected con-
certed activities.
(b) Discharging employees for engaging in protected
concerted activities.
(c) Laying off employees in order to discourage em-
ployees from filing charges with the Board and from
engaging in other protected concerted activities.
(d) Denying employees the opportunity to drive work
vans home at the end of the workday in order to discour-
age employees from filing charges with the Board and
from engaging in other protected concerted activities.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Donovan Shafer, Steven Cox, Jeff Raley, Charles
Simms, Javier Mendoza, James Newstrom, Ismael Casti-
llo, Gerardo Valenzuela, Gerardo Valenzuela Sr.,
Roberto Becerra, Justin Beauchamp, and any other em-
ployees included in the September 17, 2008 layoff, full
reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or any other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Donovan Shafer whole, with interest as set
forth in the remedy section of the judge’s decision, for
any loss of wages and benefits that he suffered as a result
of his unlawful discharge on July 8, 2008.
(c) Make Steven Cox, Jeff Raley, Charles Simms,
Javier Mendoza, James Newstrom, Ismael Castillo, Ger-
ardo Valenzuela, Gerardo Valenzuela Sr., Roberto Be-
cerra, Justin Beauchamp, and any other employees in-
cluded in the September 17, 2008 layoff, whole, with
interest as set forth in the remedy section of the judge’s
decision, for any loss of wages and benefits that they
suffered as a result of their unlawful layoff.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, re-
move from its files any reference to the unlawful dis-
charge of Donovan Shafer, and within 3 days thereafter
notify him in writing that this has been done and that the
discharge will not be used against him in any way.
(e) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful layoffs of
Steven Cox, Jeff Raley, Charles Simms, Javier Mendoza,
James Newstrom, Ismael Castillo, Gerardo Valenzuela,
Gerardo Valenzuela Sr., Roberto Becerra, Justin
Beauchamp, and any other employees included in the
September 17, 2008 layoff, and within 3 days thereafter
notify them in writing that this has been done and that
the layoffs will not be used against them in any way.
(f) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, rescind
the August 22, 2008 notice to employees denying them
the opportunity to drive company vehicles to their
homes.
(g) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Kansas City, Missouri facility copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 17,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(i) Within 14 days after service by the Region, mail
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.” Re-
spondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since July 8, 2008.
(j) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-

3 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United State Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
COOPER CRAFT PLUMBING, INC. 3
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations concerning
(1) whether Respondent Studio 36 is an alter ego of Re-
spondents Copper Craft Plumbing, Kansas City Plumb-
ing, and KC Commercial Plumbing, and (2) whether Re-
spondent Studio 36 is a single employer with Respon-
dents Copper Craft Plumbing, Kansas City Plumbing,
and KC Commercial Plumbing, are severed and re-
manded to Administrative Law Judge Margaret G.
Brakebusch for further action consistent with this Deci-
sion and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the judge shall prepare a
supplemental decision setting forth credibility resolu-
tions, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recom-
mended Order, as appropriate on remand. Copies of the
supplemental decision shall be served on all parties, after
which the provisions of Section 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations shall be applicable.
Dated, Washington, D.C. November 25, 2009
Wilma B. Liebman, Chairman
Peter C. Schaumber, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with unspecified reprisals
because you engage in union or other protected concerted
activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge you for engaging in protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT lay you off in order to discourage you
from filing charges with the Board and from engaging in
other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT deny you the opportunity to drive work
vans home at the end of the workday in order to discour-
age you from filing charges with the Board and from
engaging in other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed above.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer Donovan Shafer, Steven Cox, Jeff Raley,
Charles Simms, Javier Mendoza, James Newstrom, Is-
mael Castillo, Gerardo Valenzuela, Gerardo Valenzuela
Sr., Roberto Becerra, Justin Beauchamp, and any other
employees included in the September 17, 2008 layoff,
full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Donovan Shafer whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits resulting from his discharge,
less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL make Steven Cox, Jeff Raley, Charles
Simms, Javier Mendoza, James Newstrom, Ismael Casti-
llo, Gerardo Valenzuela, Gerardo Valenzuela Sr.,
Roberto Becerra, Justin Beauchamp, and any other em-
ployees included in the September 17, 2008 layoff whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from
their discriminatory layoff, less any net interim earnings,
plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful discharge of Donovan Shafer, and WE WILL, within 3
days thereafter, notify him in writing that this has been
done and that the discharge will not be used against him
in anyway.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful layoffs of Steven Cox, Jeff Raley, Charles Simms,
Javier Mendoza, James Newstrom, Ismael Castillo, Ger-
ardo Valenzuela, Gerardo Valenzuela, Sr., Roberto Be-
cerra, Justin Beauchamp, and any other employees in-
cluded in the September 17, 2008 layoff, and WE WILL
within 3 days thereafter, notify them in writing that this
has been done and that the layoffs will not be used
against them in any way.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, rescind our August 22, 2008 notice denying you
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
the opportunity to drive company vehicles to your
homes.
COPPER CRAFT PLUMBING INC., KANSAS CITY
PLUMBING, INC., A SINGLE EMPLOYER AND
THEIR ALTER EGO KC COMMERCIAL PLUMB-
ING, INC.
Mary G. Taves, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Walter R. Roher, Esq., for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARGARET G. BRAKEBUSCH, Administrative Law Judge.
This case was tried in Overland Park, Kansas, on January 13
and 14, 2009. The charge in Case 17–CA–24227 was filed by
Donovan Shafer (Shafer) on July 14, 2008,1 and amended on
November 24, 2008. The charge in Case 17–CA–24291 was
filed by Steven R. Cox (Cox) on September 11, 2008, and
amended on November 21, 2008.
On November 26, 2008, the Regional Director for Region 17
of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued an
order consolidating cases, consolidated complaint and notice of
hearing based upon the allegations contained in Cases 17–CA–
24227 and 17–CA–24291. The consolidated complaint alleges
that Copper Craft Plumbing, Inc. (Copper Craft) and Kansas
City Plumbing, Inc. (Kansas City Plumbing) constitute a single-
integrated business enterprise and a single employer within the
meaning of the Act. The consolidated complaint further alleges
that on or about August 22 and 25, 2008, Studio 36 LLC (Stu-
dio 36) and KC Commercial Plumbing, Inc. (KC Commercial)
were established by Copper Craft and Kansas City Plumbing as
a disguised continuation of Copper Craft and Kansas City
Plumbing for the purpose of evading responsibilities under the
National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The consolidated
complaint additionally alleges that Copper Craft, Kansas City
Plumbing, KC Commercial, and Studio 36 are, and have been
at all material times, alter egos and a single employer within the
meaning of the Act.
The consolidated complaint further alleges that the four Re-
spondent entities described above, and collectively referred to
herein as Respondent; terminated Shafer on July 8, 2008, be-
cause of his protected concerted activities. The consolidated
complaint also alleges that Respondent laid off Cox and nine
other employees on or about September 17, 2008, because
Shafer and Cox filed charges with the Board and because of
their activities in support of the Union. The consolidated com-
plaint additionally alleges that on or about September 1, 2008,
Respondent required Cox and seven other employees to begin
parking work vans at the Respondent’s facilities rather than
permitting them to drive the vans home at the end of the work-
day. Finally, the consolidated complaint alleges that in or
about mid-July 2008, Respondent, acting through Tim Net-
tekoven, threatened employees with unspecified reprisals be-
cause they engaged in union or other protected activities. Re-
spondent filed a timely answer, denying the allegations of vio-

1 All dates are in 2008, unless otherwise indicated.
lative conduct. Respondent admits, however, that Copper Craft
and Kansas City Plumbing have been affiliated business enter-
prises with common officers, ownership, directors, manage-
ment, and supervision; have formulated and administered a
common labor policy; have shared common premises and fa-
cilities; have provided services for, and made sales to each
other; have interchanged personnel with each other; and have
held themselves out to the public as a single-integrated business
enterprise. Respondent admits that Copper Craft and Kansas
City Plumbing constitute a single-integrated business enterprise
and a single employer within the meaning of the Act. In its
answer, Respondent admits that Copper Craft, Kansas City
Plumbing, KC Commercial, and Studio 36 have had substan-
tially identical management, business purposes, operations,
equipment, customers, and supervision, as well as ownership.
Respondent denies, however, that Studio 36 is engaged in the
business of plumbing and asserts that it was created solely to
own a building that serves as a residence and a warehouse for
Copper Craft, Kansas City Plumbing, and KC Commercial.
On the entire record, including my observations of the de-
meanor of the witness, and after considering the briefs filed by
the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a corporation, with an office and place of busi-
ness in Kansas City, Missouri, has been engaged in the business
of residential and commercial plumbing. During the past 12
months, Respondent performed services valued in excess of
$50,000 directly for customers located outside the State of Mis-
souri. Respondent admits, and I find that it is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act. I also find2 that Local 8 for the Plumbers
and Gasfitters (the Union) has been a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
1. Origin of the business enterprise
Respondent’s business operation in residential plumbing be-
gan in 1995. On September 23, 2004, Copper Craft and Kansas
City Plumbing were incorporated in the State of Missouri by
Timothy Nettekoven and Christian M. Ismert to own, manage,
and operate as a commercial and residential plumbing contrac-
tor in the greater Kansas City geographical area. In 2007,
Timothy J. Nettekoven (Nettekoven) and his wife Cami L. Net-
tekoven purchased Christian M. Ismert’s ownership interest in
Copper Craft Plumbing and Kansas City Plumbing and became
the sole shareholders of both entities. Prior to October 2008,

2 Sec. 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations provides that any
allegation not specifically denied or explained in an answer filed shall
be deemed to be admitted to be true unless good cause to the contrary is
shown or the respondent states that he is without knowledge. Finding
neither exception to apply, the complaint allegation concerning the
status of Local 8, Plumbers and Gasfitters (the Union) is deemed to be
admitted.
COOPER CRAFT PLUMBING, INC. 5
both Copper Craft and Kansas City Plumbing maintained a
place of business at 2930 Cherry, Kansas, City, Missouri. In
October 2008, Copper Craft and Kansas City Plumbing relo-
cated to 3600 Troost Avenue, in Kansas City, Missouri.
2. Interrelationship between Copper Craft and Kansas
City Plumbing
The parties stipulate that Copper Craft and Kansas City
Plumbing maintain combined business and accounting records,
and while maintaining separate bank accounts use such ac-
counts in the combined operation of both businesses. In the
operation of their business, Copper Craft and Kansas City
Plumbing utilized the same equipment, tools, office supplies,
vehicles, and employees. The bulk of the equipment used by
both companies was owned by Copper Craft and the employ-
ees’ salaries were paid by Copper Craft. Copper Craft and
Kansas City Plumbing have also maintained the same insurance
carriers and policies to cover their business operations. In the
operation of their businesses, Copper Craft and Kansas City
Plumbing performed services for the same customers and used
the same plumbing suppliers. Beginning in mid-2006, most of
the bids for new business were made under Kansas City Plumb-
ing. It was Nettekoven’s intention that Kansas City Plumbing
would eventually take over all the work of Copper Craft.
Based upon undisputed evidence and the stipulations of the
parties, I find that Copper Craft and Kansas City Plumbing
constitute a single-integrated business enterprise and a single
employer within the meaning of the Act.
3. Respondent’s work force
In the summer of 2008, Respondent employed approximately
11 field employees, including plumbers and plumbers’ helpers.
Donovan Shafer was employed as a lead plumber and had
worked for Respondent since October 2006. He had been a
licensed plumber since 1991 and had experience in commercial,
residential, and underground plumbing. Steve Cox and Jeff
Raley also worked for Respondent as lead plumbers. The par-
ties stipulated that Shafer, Raley, and Cox were not supervisors
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
4. Respondent’s supervisors and agents
Nettekoven is president for both Copper Craft and Kansas
City Plumbing. Cami Nettekoven is secretary, a member of the
board of directors, and office manager for both Cooper Craft
and Kansas City Plumbing. Cami Nettekoven is also president,
secretary, and a member of the board of directors for KC
Commercial. The parties stipulated that Nettekoven and Cami
Nettekoven continued to manage and supervise the business of
KC Commercial just as they managed the business of Copper
Craft and Kansas City Plumbing. Brian Lee served as manager
of operations for Respondent and is an admitted supervisor.
James Newstrom held the position as master plumber and is an
admitted agent of Respondent. Respondent continued to utilize
Newstrom as a plumber after the September 17, 2008 layoff.
There is no record evidence and no assertions by any party that
there were any other supervisors other than Lee and the Net-
tekoven’s.
B. Discharge of Donovan Shafer
The consolidated complaint alleges that Respondent termi-
nated Donovan Shafer on July 8, 2008, because he and others
engaged in protected concerted activity as well as activities on
behalf of the Union. Respondent submits that Shafer was not
engaged in any protected activities and that his termination was
for reasons other than any protected activity.
1. Employees’ lunch with the union representative
On May 12, 2008, Shafer and Cox were working on the same
jobsite when they were visited by Jim Stout; an organizer with
Local 8 of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Union (the Union). Cox
knew Stout from his work with a previous company. As Stout
arrived at the jobsite shortly before their lunchbreak, Shafer and
Cox joined Stout for lunch. When they returned to the jobsite
in Stout’s vehicle, Nettekoven was present on the jobsite deliv-
ering materials. Although Shafer and Cox immediately re-
turned to work, Stout remained to talk with Nettekoven. It is
undisputed that Stout told Nettekoven that he had taken Shafer
and Cox to lunch and that he knew them because they were
previously in the Union. Stout additionally asked Nettekoven if
there would be a time when he would be interested in becoming
a union contractor. Nettekoven recalled that his only response
to Stout was to say “maybe.” Nettekoven testified however,
that at the time of his conversation with Stout, he did not be-
lieve that there was any good reason for his company to be-
come part of the Union.
Following the lunch meeting with Stout, Shafer spoke with
fellow employee Javier Mendoza about the potential for the
employees becoming unionized. Shafer recalled that he may
have given Mendoza some paperwork showing the Union’s
first-year apprentice scale and the Union’s benefit package that
he had received from Stout during their lunch meeting. Shafer
testified that he shared this information with Mendoza in order
that Mendoza could convey it to the Spanish-speaking employ-
ees working for Respondent.
Shafer recalled that within the next day or two after his lunch
with Stout, he again spoke with Stout. During the conversation,
Stout explained that when he asked Nettekoven about becom-
ing a union contractor, Nettekoven stated that he didn’t think
that he had any plumbers that were worth union scale. Shafer
checked with Cox and discovered that Stout also repeated this
same comment by Nettekoven to Cox as well. Shafer and Cox
discussed this comment and agreed that they were worth more
than they were currently being paid. Shafer and Cox discussed
this concern and other concerns with fellow employee Jeff
Raley. During these conversations, they discussed their con-
cerns about their inability to get the necessary materials and
blueprints for their jobs in a timely fashion and their frustration
with the length of the commute time to get to their respective
worksites. They also discussed vacation and holiday pay, as
well as Cox’s need for the use of a company van. Shafer, Cox,
and Raley decided that they needed to meet with Nettekoven to
discuss these various concerns. Raley set up a meeting for the
three of them with Nettekoven. In setting up the meeting,
Raley assured Nettekoven that the meeting was not going to be
all about wages; however, he expected wages to be a part of the
discussion.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
2. The employees’ meeting with Nettekoven
Toward the end of May 2008, Nettekoven met with Shafer,
Cox, and Raley at a restaurant near one of the worksites. Su-
pervisor Bryan Lee (Lee) also attended the meeting. The
plumbers brought a list of the issues that they wanted to discuss
with Nettekoven and Cox took notes during the meeting. The
employees told Nettekoven and Lee that they believed that the
lead plumbers should all be paid the same wages. The employ-
ees further explained that since they were “running” their re-
spective jobs, their wages should be $31 to $32 an hour. In
response to their comments about wages, Lee discussed with
them his understanding of the existing union scale for wages.
The employees also voiced their desire to have more holidays
and paid vacation. Although Nettekoven and Lee made no
promise to increase employee wages, they discussed the possi-
bility of a profit-sharing plan for the employees. Lee recalled
that during the meeting he told the employees that the cash flow
had been somewhat better and that the Company had been able
to pay off some of its debt.
The employees additionally explained to Nettekoven and Lee
their frustration with working without access to a full set of
prints for their respective projects. Nettekoven and Lee voiced
their understanding of this issue and assured the employees that
they would have access to the full set of blueprints. Cox testi-
fied that the employees also mentioned their concerns about
existing language barriers for crews composed of both Spanish-
speaking and English-speaking employees. When the employ-
ees voiced concerns about the distances they were driving to
the jobsites, Nettekoven stated that he would try to assign them
work closer to their homes.
In his testimony, Lee confirmed that during the meeting, the
employees talked about difficulties in getting materials as well
as the unavailability of blueprints that hindered their ability to
make work decisions. He recalled that they talked about the
use of vans and about their wages. Lee acknowledged in his
testimony that he raised union scale with the employees while
discussing wages. He recalled that Cox had mentioned that the
Union had just negotiated new contract wages. Lee testified
that about a week after he and Nettekoven met with the em-
ployees, he and Nettekoven discussed their suspicion that the
impetus for the meeting may have been the employees’ lunch
with the union organizer.
Cox testified that approximately 10 days after the meeting,
Nettekoven told him that he would get the use of a van to drive
to the worksites and that he would get a $2 an hour raise. Raley
contacted Nettekoven twice after the meeting to ask whether he
was going to receive an increase in his wages. On one occa-
sion, Nettekoven told him that he would have to wait until his
anniversary date and on another occasion; he told Raley that he
had not had an opportunity to discuss the matter with his wife.
During a later conversation with Nettekoven, Shafer asked
Nettekoven if he had spoken with his wife about the raises.
Nettekoven told him that none of the employees were going to
get wage increases; however, he would implement a profit-
sharing plan. Although Nettekoven told both Shafer and Cox
that employees would receive profit sharing, the plan was never
implemented.
3. The events of July 7, 2008
Shafer testified that although Nettekoven had told him that
he would be assigned to jobs closer to his home, he never re-
ceived3 those assignments. The commute to his assigned jobs
required his driving as much as 1 hour and 20 minutes each
way. Shafer’s normal starting time for work was 7 a.m. Be-
cause the cellular telephones used by the employees have a
GPS tracking component, the employees were able to clock in
when they reached their jobsite by using their telephones.
Shafer left for his assigned job on July 7, 2008, at approxi-
mately 6 a.m. After approximately 45 minutes into his drive,
he received a telephone call from Nettekoven. During the tele-
phone conversation, Nettekoven discussed what he wanted
accomplished on the job that day and the manpower that he was
sending to the job to assist Shafer. The conversation lasted for
approximately 10 to 15 minutes. Although Shafer was still
approximately 15 minutes away from the jobsite, he clocked in
at 7 a.m. Nettekoven did not dispute Shafer’s testimony about
the telephone call or about the length of time that they spoke
during Shafer’s drive to the worksite.
On the same day, Cox reported to the Sam’s Club carwash
jobsite and clocked in when he arrived at the site. After arriv-
ing at the site, however, he learned from Nettekoven that he
was to report to the Valvoline site. Later that same day, Cox
received a telephone call from a new office employee whose
first name was identified as Lisa. She told him that he had
clocked in early and that she was going to dock his pay. Dur-
ing the same day, Shafer also received a telephone call from
Lisa. She told him that because he had clocked in 19 minutes
before he actually arrived at the worksite, the time would be
deducted from his pay.
When Shafer and Cox spoke with each other during the day,
they discovered that they had both been told that their pay
would be deducted because of the time that they clocked in.
Shafer and Cox agreed that they needed to meet with Net-
tekoven to discuss the deduction in pay. When Shafer spoke
with Nettekoven on July 7 to request a meeting, Nettekoven
initially told Shafer that he was too busy. Shafer responded by
asking if they could meet within the next 24 hours. Shafer
testified that he did so because Nettekoven had proven “pretty
good about putting meetings off.” Although Shafer detected
some frustration or exasperation in Nettekoven’s voice, Net-
tekoven agreed to meet with Shafer within 24 hours. Net-
tekoven admits that he was aware that both Shafer and Cox
wanted to meet with him over the clocking in issue and their
pay being docked.
4. The events of July 8, 2008
When Cox completed the work he was doing on the Val-
voline job on July 7, Nettekoven told him to report to the Noo-
dles and Company jobsite. Nettekoven told him to continue to
work there until either he (Nettekoven) or the general contrac-
tor on the carwash site called him to return to work on the car-
wash. On July 8, 2008, Cox returned to the Noodles and Com-

3 Cox confirmed that following the meeting with Nettekoven, he
continued to commute to his jobsite for over an hour without any com-
pensation.
COOPER CRAFT PLUMBING, INC. 7
pany site; the site where Shafer was also working. During the
morning of July 8, Shafer received a telephone call from Net-
tekoven. When Nettekoven asked Shafer where Cox was work-
ing, Shafer confirmed that Cox was present at his same jobsite.
Shafer then took the opportunity to inquire of Nettekoven what
time of the day that he wanted to meet with Shafer and Cox.
Shafer testified that Nettekoven replied: “I can’t deal with that
now. I need Steve at that fucking carwash now.” Shafer did
not recall that he had heard Nettekoven use profanity with him
previously. Because Nettekoven and Shafer were speaking on
a two-way phone, Cox confirmed Nettekoven’s profanity and
his directive to Shafer for him (Cox) to return to the carwash
immediately. When Shafer again asked Nettekoven if he were
going to come to the worksite for the scheduled meeting, Net-
tekoven replied that he had 24 hours until he had to meet with
the employees. Cox described Nettekoven’s tone of voice with
Shafer as agitated.
Nettekoven testified that on July 8, 2008, he believed that
Shafer had ordered Cox to come to the Noodles and Company
jobsite. Although Nettekoven admitted that he had no inde-
pendent knowledge that Shafer was responsible for Cox being
at the Noodles and Company jobsite, he asserted that there
would have been no other reason for Cox to have been there.
Shafer testified that he did not have the authority to direct
where employees worked and he denied that he had ordered
Cox to be at his same jobsite. Cox also testified that he re-
ported to the Noodles and Company jobsite because of his pre-
vious day’s instruction and not because Shafer told him to work
in that site.
Cox waited until 7 a.m. on July 8, 2008, and then telephoned
Nettekoven. Cox described Nettekoven as “nice” to him and
noted that Nettekoven’s tone of voice had changed dramatically
from the earlier tone used with Shafer. Nettekoven simply
explained the circumstances that necessitated his going back to
the carwash earlier than had been expected. Cox also explained
to Nettekoven that he had reported to the Noodles and Com-
pany worksite because he had been told to work there until
notice from either Nettekoven or the general contractor. Dur-
ing his testimony, Nettekoven did not rebut Cox’s testimony
that he (Cox) had been told to work at Noodles and Company
until notified to return to the carwash site.
Later in the morning, Nettekoven came to Shafer’s jobsite to
deliver a trailer. Nettekoven acknowledged, however, that an
additional reason for his going to the Noodles and Company
jobsite was to meet with Shafer. When Shafer saw Nettekoven,
he approached Nettekoven and asked if they were going to have
the meeting about the disputed time. Nettekoven replied that he
did not have time to do so. Shafer asked: “When are we going
to have the meeting?” Nettekoven only responded that the
meeting would be when he returned and then he left the jobsite.
Nettekoven testified that when Shafer approached him, his
manner was “belligerent” and “pushy.” Nettekoven acknowl-
edged, however, that Shafer did not curse him. Nettekoven
further admitted that when he told Shafer that he didn’t have
time to meet with him, Shafer went back to work without fur-
ther comment. Shafer recalled that while he had been frustrated
when speaking with Nettekoven, he had not yelled or threat-
ened Nettekoven. He denied that he approached Nettekoven in
a threatening manner or that he ever pointed his finger at Net-
tekoven during the conversation. Nettekoven testified that he
had wanted to fire Shafer for about a year, however, he “didn’t
have the pieces in place to make it happen” until the July 8,
2008 conversation.
Justin Beauchamp was working at the Noodles and Company
jobsite on July 8, 2008, and was aware of the conversation be-
tween Nettekoven and Shafer. Beauchamp asserted that while
he did not hear what Shafer said to Nettekoven, he recalled
Shafer’s tone as “rude.” Beauchamp went on to explain that by
“rude,” he meant that Shafer’s tone of voice was elevated, al-
though not screaming. Beauchamp further explained that he
was actually working on a trailer and he did not physically
observe Nettekoven and Shafer when they spoke. He esti-
mated, however, that they were approximately 4 to 5 feet away
from each other and about 4 to 5 feet away from him when they
spoke. In describing Nettekoven’s response, Beauchamp testi-
fied: “I just heard him say that he can’t deal with this right now
and he has to go.” Beauchamp described Nettekoven’s tone of
voice as normal. At that point, Beauchamp returned to work
inside the building.
Javier Mendoza was also working at the Noodles and Com-
pany jobsite on July 8. He recalled that Shafer approached
Nettekoven and told him that they needed to talk. Nettekoven
told him that he didn’t have time and that he would talk with
Shafer when he returned from dumping some rock with Men-
doza. Mendoza recalled that Shafer had simply said, “Okay,”
and walked back into the building. Mendoza recalled that
while Shafer appeared frustrated and upset, he did not scream
or curse Nettekoven.
Shafer and an apprentice were working on a bathroom group
across from the front door of the building being constructed
when Nettekoven later returned to the jobsite that afternoon.
Nettekoven walked over to Shafer and stated: “We can have
that meeting now. This isn’t going to take long.” Then Net-
tekoven asked Shafer for his keys to the company van, his
company phone, and for his company gas credit card. Realiz-
ing that he had been fired, Shafer told Nettekoven that he
would need to retrieve his tools. He then went to the two ap-
prentices with whom he was working and told them that it had
been nice to work with them. Nettekoven directed him to also
take his personal tools from the company van. Because Shafer
no longer had access to drive the company van, Nettekoven
ultimately decided that he would drive Shafer home. Shafer
recalled that there was very little conversation between them
during the 80-minute drive home.
5. Conclusions concerning Shafer’s discharge
Section 7 of the Act protects the right of employees to en-
gage in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection
and Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits employers from inter-
fering, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of that
right.4 In its decision in Meyers Industries, 268 NLRB 493
(1984), the Board found that employee activity is concerted
when it is “engaged in, with, or on the authority of other em-
ployees.” The employer is found to violate the Act if, having

4 29 U.S.C. §§ 157–158.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
knowledge of an employee’s concerted activity, it takes adverse
employment action that is “motivated by the employee’s pro-
tected concerted activity.” Id. at 497. In a later decision, the
Board additionally clarified that “concerted activities” pro-
tected by Section 7 are those “engaged in with or on the author-
ity of other employees, and not solely by and on behalf of the
employee himself.” Meyers Industries II, 281 NLRB 882
(1986).
In its brief, Respondent asserts that on July 8, 2008, Shafer
“confronted his supervisor, Tim Nettekoven, at a work site
during work hours and demanded an immediate meeting to
discuss the fact that he was not going to be paid for clocking in
early that morning5—approximately 19 minutes prior to arriv-
ing at his designated job site.” Respondent submits that in that
instance, Shafer pursued his individual complaint action on his
own behalf. Respondent further argues that “the fact that two
individual employees decided to try to speak with Nettekoven
about their individual issues at a common time should not be
construed as concerted activity.” Despite Respondent’s argu-
ment that Shafer and Cox were simultaneously pursuing indi-
vidual interests, it is apparent that Shafer’s activities were pro-
tected inasmuch as his request to talk with Nettekoven involved
issues that directly effected terms and conditions of employ-
ment for both he and Cox. See Senior Citizens Coordinating
Council of Riverbay Community Inc., 330 NLRB 1100 fn. 18
(2000).
Respondent also argues that even if the activity of Cox and
Shafer on July 8, 2008, could be classified as concerted, the
argument for protection fails because counsel for the General
Counsel has failed to show that Nettekoven was aware that
Shafer and Cox were engaged in concerted activity. Counsel
for the General Counsel submits, however, that in the 3 months
prior to his termination, Shafer engaged in a number of activi-
ties that constituted protected concerted activity and the record
supports her assertion. There is no dispute that Nettekoven
knew about Shafer’s lunch with the union representative in
mid-May. Lee even admitted that he and Nettekoven had dis-
cussed the possibility that the meeting with the union represen-
tative had been the impetus for the May meeting requested by
the employees. Lee admitted that there had been a discussion
of union wages and the most recent union contract during the
meeting with the employees. Respondent does not deny that
during the meeting, the employees discussed their concerns
about their wages, benefits, and working conditions. The em-
ployees specifically voiced their concerns about not having the
necessary materials and blue prints to do their jobs adequately.
They also complained about the time required for them to
commute to their respective worksites. Thus, as of July 2008,
Nettekoven was not only aware of Shafer’s link to the Union,
but also of Shafer’s interest in improving wages, benefits, and
working conditions for Respondent’s employees. Nettekoven
admitted that Shafer told him on July 7, 2008, that both he and
Cox wanted to meet with him and Nettekoven further admitted
that he knew that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the
clocking in issue. Accordingly, Nettekoven was aware that

5 The record actually reflects, however, that Shafer’s clocking in
early occurred the previous day.
Shafer wanted to speak with him about an issue affecting wages
for both he and Cox.
Thus, the record evidence establishes that Shafer was en-
gaged in concerted protected activity and that Respondent was
aware of his protected activity. As the Board pointed out in its
decision in Noble Metal Processing, Inc., 346 NLRB 795, 795
and fn. 2 (2006), the analysis for determining whether an em-
ployer has unlawfully disciplined an employee for conduct that
is part of the res gestae of protected concerted activity is con-
trary to a Wright Line6 analysis.
Quoting from its earlier decision in Stanford Hotel, 344
NLRB 558 (2005), the Board in Noble Metal Processing, supra,
explained that “when an employee is disciplined for conduct
that is part of the res gestae of protected concerted activities,
the pertinent question is whether the conduct is sufficiently
egregious to remove it from the protection of the Act.” Noble
Metal Processing, supra at 795. Thus, an employer violates the
Act by discharging an employee engaged in the protected con-
certed activity of voicing a complaint about his or her employ-
ment terms, unless, in the course of that protest, the employee
engages in opprobrious conduct, costing him the Act’s protec-
tion. Atlantic Steel, 245 NLRB 814, 816–17 (1979). In assess-
ing the conduct, the Board considers four factors: (1) the place
of the discussion; (2) the subject matter of the discussion; (3)
the nature of the employee’s outburst; and (4) whether the out-
burst was, in any way, provoked by the employer’s unfair labor
practices. Id. at 816.
There is no dispute that the conversation between Net-
tekoven and Shafer occurred at the Noodles and Company
worksite and in the presence of two other employees. Neither
employee testified that Shafer screamed, yelled, used threaten-
ing gestures, or threatened Nettekoven in any way. Javier
Mendoza confirmed that when Nettekoven declined to talk with
Shafer, Shafer simply responded, “okay,” and returned to work.
Beauchamp only overheard Nettekoven’s comments and did
not hear what Shafer said in the conversation. The evidence
indicates that the exchange between Shafer and Nettekoven was
extremely short and resulted in no disruption of the work proc-
ess for any employee.
Respondent argues that despite the company rule requiring
employees to clock in upon their arrival at their jobsite, Shafer
“unilaterally determined that his pay should begin at an earlier
time of day.” Respondent further argues that there is no evi-
dence that Shafer was pursuing the issue of whether one may
clock in early if engaged in a phone conversation with a super-
visor on behalf of any fellow employees.” While it is apparent

6 Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083, 1089 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899
(1st. Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), is based on the legal
principle that an employer’s unlawful motivation must be established as
a precondition to finding a violation of 8(a)(3) of the Act. American
Gardens Management Co., 338 NLRB 644, 645 (2002). The Wright
Line analysis requires the General Counsel to make an initial showing
sufficient to support the inference that the employee’s protected activity
was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision to discipline an
employee. Once the General Counsel has made that showing, the bur-
den shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the same action would
have taken placed even in the absence of the protected activity. Id. at
645.
COOPER CRAFT PLUMBING, INC. 9
that Shafer did not have the opportunity to detail his concerns
to Nettekoven when he initially requested the meeting, Net-
tekoven admits that he was aware that Cox and Shafer wanted
to talk with him about an issue involving their clocking in on
July 7, 2008. The reasonableness of Shafer’s belief about the
docking of pay for his early clock in and the validity of the
complaint are irrelevant in this circumstance. Additionally,
there is no dispute that Shafer, Cox, and Raley specifically
discussed with Nettekoven and Lee their concerns about their
long commutes to their worksites. It is sufficient that Shafer
and Cox believed that they had a grievance and wanted to speak
with Nettekoven and it is reasonable that their requested meet-
ing was also a continuation of their protected concerted activity
that began in May 2008. See Dayton Typographical Service,
Inc., 778 F.2d 1188, 1191–1192 (6th Cir. 1985).
The third step in the Atlantic Steel analysis considers
whether Shafer’s actions removed him from the protections of
the Act. The Board has long recognized that the protections
afforded by Section 7 of the Act would be meaningless without
taking into account the realities of industrial life and the recog-
nition that disputes over wages, hours, and working conditions
are “among the disputes that most likely engender ill feelings
and strong responses.” United Parcel Service, 353 NLRB No.
39, slip op. at 16, (2008); Consumers Power Co., 282 NLRB
130, 132 (1986). In assessing whether employees lose the pro-
tection of the act, the Board draws a line between cases where
employees engaging in concerted activities “exceed the bounds
of lawful conduct in a moment of animal exuberance or in a
manner not motivated by improper motives and those flagrant
cases in which the conduct is so violent or of such character as
to render the employee unfit for further service.” Allied Avia-
tion Fueling of Dallas, 347 NLRB 248, 256 (2006), enfd. 490
F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2007); Prescott Industrial Products Co., 205
NLRB 51, 51–52 (1973). It has been noted that employee
complaints are sometimes made under conditions that can best
be described as “the heat of battle.” See NLRB v. Ben Pekin
Corp., 452 F.2d 205, 207 (7th Cir. 1971).
Nettekoven described Shafer’s manner as belligerent and
abusive. Nettekoven asserted that Shafer told him: “I want to
meet with you now!” and did so “right in front of all my guys.”
Nettekoven went on to testify: “And—no one talks to me like
that, and he has talked to me like that in the past.” Nettekoven
did not assert that Shafer yelled, threatened, or even used any
profanity during the brief exchange. Nettekoven simply testi-
fied that he terminated Shafer because Shafer was an “asshole”
and the incident on July 8, 2008, was the straw that broke the
camel’s back. When asked to identify Shafer’s other improper
conduct, Nettekoven initially responded that one of the factors
that he considered was Shafer’s moving Cox to the Noodles
and Company jobsite. He acknowledged, however, that he had
no independent knowledge that Shafer had anything to do with
Cox being at the Noodles and Company jobsite on July 8, 2008.
Nettekoven also asserted that Shafer had been a problem em-
ployee for the last year of his employment. When asked to
explain, he maintained that Shafer was arrogant to the office
staff when he called in about purchase orders and he had been
rude to Nettekoven’s wife about his gas card. Nettekoven ac-
knowledged, however, that he had never disciplined Shafer for
any behavior. Nettekoven identified the conduct triggering
Shafer’s discharge as the manner or tone in which Shafer made
his request, rather than any accompanying threat, profanity, or
gesture.
I take note of the fact that much more offensive and disrup-
tive behavior by an employee has failed to lose the protection
of the Act. In NLRB v. Thor Power Co., 351 F.2d 584, 587 (7th
Cir. 1965), the court affirmed the Board’s finding that an em-
ployee did not lose the protection of the Act, despite the em-
ployee’s calling the employer a “horse’s ass,” during a griev-
ance meeting. I also note that in a 2005 decision, the Board
dealt with the circumstance of an employee’s calling the em-
ployer a “f—ing son of a bitch” while angrily pointing his fin-
ger at the employer. While the Board noted that it did not con-
done such insubordination, it also found that the employee did
not lose the protection of the Act because of the overall circum-
stances of the case. Stanford Hotel, 344 NLRB 558, 559
(2005).
In contrast to the cases described above, Shafer’s comments
were relatively mild. The circumstances of the instant case
might be compared to those considered by the Board in its re-
cent decision in Dickens, Inc., 352 NLRB 667, 677 (2008). In
Dickens, the alleged misconduct which so angered the em-
ployer was the employee’s questioning the employer about
bonus rates for other employees and questioning the employer’s
veracity about the rates. The employer deemed such conduct
insulting when the employee questioned the employer’s verac-
ity in front of other employees. Affirmed by the Board, the
judge concluded that such comments “did not come close to
meeting the stringent standard of egregious conduct” to remove
the employee from the protection of the Act. Id. at 11.
Counsel for the General Counsel acknowledges that Shafer’s
request to meet with Nettekoven on July 8, 2008, and his state-
ments made during that request to meet, were not prompted by
any unfair labor practice on the part of the Respondent. She
argues, however, that despite the absence of any provocation by
an unfair labor practice, a weighing of all the Atlantic Steel
factors supports a finding that Shafer did not lose the protection
of the Act.
There is no real dispute in this case that Nettekoven dis-
charged Shafer because of his manner and behavior during their
conversation on the morning of July 8, 2008. Inasmuch as
Shafer was engaged in protected concerted activity when he
approached Nettekoven on July 8, 2008, the only remaining
question is whether Shafer’s conduct was so egregious that it
lost the protection of the Act. Having considered all of the
analysis factors set forth by the Board in Atlantic Steel, I do not
find that Shafer’s conduct took him outside the protection of
the Act.
The Board has clearly found that where the conduct for
which an employer claims to have discharged an employee is
protected activity, the Wright Line7 analysis is not appropriate.
Felix Industries, 331 NLRB 144, 146 (2000); Neff Perkins Co.,
315 NLRB 1229 fn. 2 (1994). I note, however, that even if the
Wright Line standard were applicable, the evidence supports a

7 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert.
denied 455 U.S. (1982).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
finding of unlawful discharge. The General Counsel has met its
initial burden of establishing the prerequisites of a prima facie
case. The record reflects that within the 2 months prior to his
discharge, Shafer met with Union Organizer Jim Stout, and
Nettekoven was aware of their meeting. Within a short period
of time, Shafer and two other employees requested a meeting
with Nettekoven to discuss concerns about wages and other
terms and conditions of employment. Lee testified that he and
Nettekoven had not expected to discuss wages in the meeting
and had been blindsided by the employees’ introduction of the
topic. Lee also admitted that it became apparent after the meet-
ing that the employees’ meeting with the Union had been the
impetus for their requested meeting.
In order to make out a prima facie case under Wright Line,
the General Counsel must also demonstrate that Shafer’s pro-
tected activity was a motivating factor for his discharge. This
factor can be proven through direct evidence or can be inferred
from circumstantial evidence based upon the record as a whole.
Embassy Vacation Resorts, 340 NLRB 846, 848 (2003). While
there was no direct evidence of animus toward Shafer for his
protected activity, the overall record would support such a find-
ing. Nettekoven’s stated reason for his discharge of Shafer was
his opinion that Shafer was an “asshole” and he (Nettekoven)
had simply had enough of Shafer’s temperament. It is estab-
lished that an employer’s pretextual nature of stated reasons for
an employee’s discharge will support an inference of the em-
ployer’s animus toward the employee’s protected activity.
Montgomery Ward & Co., 316 NLRB 1248, 1253 (1995), enfd.
mem. 97 F.3d 1448 (4th Cir. 1996). Based upon Lee’s testi-
mony, it is apparent that Respondent was aware that the previ-
ous employee meeting was prompted by the employees’ meet-
ing with the Union. In less than 2 months, Nettekoven was
confronted with yet another meeting requested by employees to
discuss wage concerns. The Board has held that where adverse
actions occurs shortly after an employee has engaged in pro-
tected activity, an inference of unlawful motive is raised. La
Gloria Oil & Gas Co., 337 NLRB 1120 (2002). I find that such
an inference may be drawn in this case. Accordingly, the re-
cord supports a finding that if a Wright Line analysis were the
appropriate standard, the General Counsel has met the burden
for establishing a prima face case.
Under Wright Line, once the General Counsel has estab-
lished the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to
show that it would have taken the same action even in the ab-
sence of the employee’s protected activity. Metro Transporta-
tion Services, 351 NLRB 657, 660 (2007); Roure Bertrand
Dupont, Inc., 271 NLRB 443, 443 (1984). In its brief, Respon-
dent asserts that Shafer was a chronic problematic employee
who “provided plenty of motivating reasons for his termination
unrelated to any alleged concerted activity.” Respondent relies
upon Nettekoven’s testimony that he fired Shafer because he
was an “asshole,” and submits that the evidence supports Net-
tekoven’s assessment. In his testimony, Nettekoven recited a
number of examples of what he viewed as Shafer’s previous
misconduct. Nettekoven contended that not only had Shafer
been rude to the office staff, other plumbers, suppliers, and
even to Cami Nettekoven, he had also told inappropriate jokes.
Nettekoven acknowledged, however, that he had never disci-
plined Shafer for any of the examples that he cited. In ac-
knowledging that he had not done so, he testified: “He’s a
grown man, it’s his personality, you know? He’s not a guy
you’re going to change.” Nettekoven also admitted that Shafer
was not only a very good plumber, but that he knew more than
any of the other plumbers and was his best plumber. Net-
tekoven described him as his best “all around plumber.” Lee
testified that Shafer was an excellent plumber.
Interestingly, after Nettekoven fired Shafer, he never met
with Cox about the clocking in issue. Nettekoven said that the
planned meeting “just kind of got lost in the shuffle,” and Cox
did nothing to initiate it. Thus, the overall record supports a
finding that Respondent would not have terminated Shafer on
July 8, 2008, in the absence of his protected activity. Cox did
not pursue the meeting and he continued to be employed until
he was laid off with all of Respondent’s other employees in
September. While Respondent asserts that Shafer had repeat-
edly engaged in rude conduct, he was never disciplined until his
protected activity. Clearly, Shafer was Nettekoven’s best
plumber and any previous rudeness or abruptness was tolerated
until he engaged in protected activity. Accordingly, even under
a Wright Line analysis, the overall record supports a finding
that Respondent unlawfully terminated Shafer on July 8, 2008.
C. Shafer’s Charge
On July 10, 2008, Shafer signed a charge alleging that he had
been unlawfully terminated on July 8, 2008. The charge was
received by the Board’s Regional Office on July 14, 2008. On
the same day, a letter was mailed to Nettekoven, notifying him
of the charge, and requesting that he submit evidence in re-
sponse to the charge. Thus, within approximately 1 week of
Shafer’s discharge, Respondent learned of Shafer’s charge.
The parties stipulated that on August 26, 2008, the Regional
Office faxed a proposed settlement agreement to Nettekoven.
Nettekoven also admitted that a few days prior to August 26,
208, he spoke with the investigating Board agent and learned of
the Region’s decision in the case.
D. Alleged Threat
Jeff Raley testified that after Shafer’s discharge, he had oc-
casion to talk with Nettekoven about Shafer and he asked Net-
tekoven why he terminated Shafer. Nettekoven replied:
“Donovan was an asshole and I didn’t like his attitude, so he’s
gone.” Raley also recalled that during this same time period, he
asked Nettekoven if Cox could fill in for him on a particular
job. Raley recalled that during the conversation, Nettekoven
stated that Cox was “skating on thin ice” and that Cox needed
“to pick his friends better.” When Raley asked what he meant
by the statement, Nettekoven replied: “Like Donovan [Shafer].”
It is well settled “that when a party fails to call a witness who
may reasonably be assumed to be favorably disposed to the
party, an adverse inference may be drawn regarding any factual
question on which the witness is likely to have knowledge.”
Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB 622 (200), enfd. 56 Fed. Appx. 516
(D.C. Cir. 2003). Although Nettekoven remained in the court-
room throughout the hearing, he did not rebut Raley’s testi-
mony. While Nettekoven is not alleged to have directly threat-
ened Raley or Cox, his comments are nonetheless coercive.
COOPER CRAFT PLUMBING, INC. 11
His assertion that Cox was skating on thin ice and that Cox
should pick friends better than Shafer is especially potent when
such comments are made shortly after Nettekoven’s abrupt
termination of Shafer. Of the three employees who initially
brought their concerns to Nettekoven in May, only Raley and
Cox remained. The clear implication was that Raley and Cox
should disassociate from Shafer and not engage in any more
protected activity. While the record is not sufficiently clear as
to the exact date of this conversation, there is the likelihood that
it occurred after Shafer filed his charge with the Board. Cer-
tainly, such statement would also be viewed as an implied
threat to these employees that they should not seek the assis-
tance of the Board. Overall, I find Nettekoven’s remarks were
coercive in nature and constituted an implied threat in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in complaint paragraph
6. See Arnold Junion Fenton Co., 240 NLRB 202, 202 (1979).
E. Respondent’s Change in Employees’ use of their Vans
1. Evidence concerning the change in van use
Prior to September 1, 2008, several of Respondent’s em-
ployees were allowed to drive company vans for their personal
transportation to work. Unless they needed to pick up materials
or supplies at the shop, they could drive directly to and from the
jobsite from their residence. They were not compensated, how-
ever, for their commuting time to their jobsites. The employees
who were allowed to use the company vans to commute to
work were Jeff Raley, Javier Mendoza, and Gerardo
Valenzuela. Additionally, Donovan Shafer was given the use
of a company van before his discharge in July 2008, and Steve
Cox was allowed to use a van after the employees met with
Nettekoven in May 2008.
On August 22, 2008, employees were notified that they
would no longer be permitted to drive company vehicles home
at the end of the workday. In a memorandum dated August 22,
2008, Respondent informed employees that beginning on Sep-
tember 1, 2008, all company vehicles would remain either at
the corporate office or at a location designated by Respondent
when not in use.
The memorandum gave the following reasons as the basis for
the change:
1. Fuel costs are high and vehicles are depreciating too
quickly due to excess mileage.
2. Management needs contact with employees each
morning during the work week to maintain a good
working relationship with employees.
3. The flow of new projects is slowing and some vehi-
cles may not need to be used everyday. Access to
these vans may be needed for company tools and
materials.
Cox testified that when he learned of this change in the use of
the vans, he spoke with Nettekoven and asked him why he was
taking their vans. Nettekoven simply replied that he wanted to
see everybody at the shop. During the conversation, Cox re-
minded Nettekoven that issues relating to commuting to the
worksite had been discussed in the May 2008 meeting. Despite
the fact that Cox reminded Nettekoven that it was going to cost
Respondent more in the long run for the employees to come to
the office and then drive to the worksite each morning, Net-
tekoven simply replied that he wanted to see everyone in the
morning.
2. Conclusions concerning the change in van use
The General Counsel argues that Respondent’s actions were
motivated by animus toward employees’ union and protected
concerted activities, and because Shafer filed his charge on July
14, 2008. Neither Nettekoven nor any other Respondent wit-
ness testified concerning the reason for the change in van use.
Nettekoven told Cox that he wanted to see all the employees at
the shop and the memorandum asserts that management needed
the daily contact with employees in order to maintain a good
working relationship with employees. Respondent’s written
rationale and the unrebutted verbal rationale given to Cox curi-
ously reflects a concern about the daily activities of its employ-
ees that had not been demonstrated previously. Such a new-
found attentiveness to the daily activities of its employees is
significant in light of the status of Shafer’s charge. Nettekoven
acknowledged that within a “few” days before August 26,
2008, he was aware that the Region had found merit to the
charges and was proceeding to either settlement or trial. I take
administrative notice of the fact that August 26, 2008, occurred
on a Tuesday. The memorandum restricting employees’ use of
the vans issued on Friday, August 22, 2008, and within 2 work-
days of the Board’s fax confirming that the Board was seeking
a remedy to Shafer’s unfair labor practice charge. Accordingly,
the Respondent was not only aware of Shafer’s unfair labor
practice charge on August 22, 2008, but was most likely also
aware that the Region intended to take the matter to hearing. It
is reasonable that Respondent wanted daily contact with its
employees in order to monitor employee activities and to ascer-
tain whether any other employees were likely to engage in pro-
tected conduct, rather than the asserted new interest in main-
taining a “good working relationship with employees.”
Certainly, denying the use of the company vans to commute
from their homes to work adversely affected the employees.
Additionally, there is no dispute that Respondent was aware
that its employees had engaged in protected and union activity.
As counsel for the General Counsel points out in her brief,
August 22, 2008, is also the date upon which Respondent, act-
ing through Cami Nettekoven, created Studio 36 as a limited
liability company and 5 days before KC Commercial was in-
corporated as a new company to perform residential and com-
mercial plumbing. While the change in the use of vans would
not necessarily support a finding of unlawful motivation stand-
ing alone, the change in conjunction with Respondent’s other
actions, supports a finding of unlawful motivation. Timing has
been found to be a significant factor in assessing discriminatory
motivation for an employer’s adverse actions toward employ-
ees. L.B. & B. Associates, Inc., 346 NLRB 1025, 1026 (2006),
enfd. 232 Fed. Appx. 270 (4th Cir. 2007).
Based upon the overall record, and especially in light of the
timing of the action, it is apparent that the General Counsel has
met its burden of showing that Respondent’s change in the
employees’ use of company vans was motivated, at least in
part, by employees’ union and protected activities. Thus, coun-
sel for the General Counsel has met her burden of proving that
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
employees’ protected activities were at least a partial motivat-
ing factor in Respondent’s adverse change in working condi-
tions. Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980); NLRB v. Trans-
portation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983). As dis-
cussed above, Respondent presented no additional evidence to
show the basis for the August 22, 2008 memo. Although all of
the factors listed in the memorandum are plausible reasons for
the change, Respondent has not demonstrated by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that it would have withdrawn employees’
use of the vans to commute to work in the absence of protected
conduct. W.F. Bolin Co., 311 NLRB 1118, 1119 (1993). Ac-
cordingly, I find merit to complaint paragraph 7(d).
3. Cox’s charge against Respondent
Cox testified that he spoke with Nettekoven in August about
upcoming work projects. He recalled that Nettekoven told him
about a Buffalo Wild Wings project in Kansas City. Net-
tekoven also mentioned a job in Harrisonville with Harris Con-
struction as the general contractor. Cox recalled that Net-
tekoven stated that it “was pretty much a done deal” that Re-
spondent would get the job and asked Cox how far that would
be from where he lived. In early September, however, Net-
tekoven called Cox with different information. Nettekoven told
Cox that he should put out feelers to find a new job. Net-
tekoven told Cox that the employees’ insurance had been ter-
minated and that the van he was using had to be returned. Net-
tekoven went on to explain that Cox would be laid off after he
finished the job at the Valvoline worksite and the job was esti-
mated to end on approximately October 27. Raley testified that
within a month prior to his layoff on September 17, 2008, Net-
tekoven told him that when he completed the job on which he
was working that he would no longer be needed and he would
be laid off.
On September 11, 2008, Cox filed a charge against Respon-
dent alleging that on or about August 31, 2008, Respondent
told Cox and Raley that they were going to be laid off and fur-
ther alleged that the layoff was in retaliation for Shafer having
filed a charge against Respondent. In the charge, Cox also
alleged that on or about August 31, 2008, Respondent unlaw-
fully changed its policy of allowing employees to drive their
vans home and unlawfully terminated employees’ health insur-
ance. Cox alleged that these actions were taken in retaliation
for Shafer’s charge against the Respondent and in retaliation for
employees’ protected concerted activity and union activity.
F. Respondent’s Creation of New Companies and the
Layoff of Employees
1. Creation of the new companies
On August 22, 2008, Cami Nettekoven filed for the incorpo-
ration of Studio 36 LLC, a limited liability company organized
to conduct real estate investment. Both Tim Nettekoven and
Cami Nettekoven are managing partners of the corporation.
Studio 36 thereafter purchased a building located at 3600
Troost Avenue in Kansas City, Missouri. The upstairs of the
building became the personal residence for Tim Nettekoven,
Cami Nettekoven, and their children in October 2008. Respon-
dent also stipulates that KC Commercial was incorporated in
the State of Missouri on August 27, 2008, by Cami L. Net-
tekoven to own, manage, and operate as a commercial and resi-
dential plumbing contractor in the greater Kansas City geo-
graphic area. Cami Nettekoven is not only the registered agent
for the corporation, but also the president and secretary of the
business. The downstairs of the building located at 3600 Troost
Avenue is used by Copper Craft, Kansas City Plumbing, and
KC Commercial as a shared facility.
2. Nettekoven’s conversation with Javier Mendoza
About a month prior to the layoff, Nettekoven spoke with
Javier Mendoza at Respondent’s facility after everyone left for
the day. Nettekoven told Mendoza that the matter involving
Shafer was “just getting crazy.” Nettekoven stated that he had
not been doing so well with Kansas City Plumbing and the
matter with Shafer’s discharge was “the last straw.” Net-
tekoven shared that he was thinking about closing down the
company. When Mendoza questioned him, Nettekoven assured
Mendoza not to worry because he was starting a new company
and there would be a job for Mendoza. Nettekoven told Men-
doza that he would be laid off with all the other employees and
then would be called back to work again. Nettekoven cau-
tioned Mendoza not to tell anyone about the new company or
about the layoff.
Mendoza further testified that approximately a week before
the layoff, he was notified to come to the office. When he ar-
rived at the office, Cami Nettekoven gave him an envelope
containing a job application. Attached to the application was a
note with the words: “Javier, I’ve started a new company and
I’d like you to apply. Cami.” Mendoza testified that Cami
Nettekoven told him to fill out the application, come in, and she
would interview him.
On September 16, 2008, Mendoza was working with Jim
Newstrom at the Petsmart jobsite. As noted earlier in this deci-
sion, Newstrom was a master plumber and an admitted agent of
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
Newstrom made the comment that they should try to accom-
plish as much as possible on the job that day because they
might not come back to the job. Newstrom went on to add that
they might not come back to any of the jobs. Later in the day,
Mendoza again spoke with Newstrom while they were driving
from the jobsite to Respondent’s facility. Mendoza testified
that Newstrom began talking about Respondent’s new company
and assured Mendoza that he didn’t have to worry. Newstrom
explained to Mendoza that the new company would be in Cami
Nettekoven’s name and would operate by using Newstrom’s
master plumber’s license. Newstrom asserted that jobs were
already lined up for the new company and he commented that
things were looking really good for the new company. During
the conversation Newstrom and Mendoza spoke about the ex-
pected length of time before Nettekoven would bring Mendoza
back to work for the new company. Mendoza told Newstrom
that he would not mind being off work until October 1, 2008, in
order to have some vacation time.
3. The layoff
During the course of the day on September 16, 2008, em-
ployees were told that they were to attend a meeting at the of-
fice the following day and to bring their fuel and store credit
cards with them. When he met with the employees, Nettekoven
COOPER CRAFT PLUMBING, INC. 13
told them that he was “tired of running ragged” and he was
going to close the doors and “finish up what was left.” Men-
doza recalled that Nettekoven told employees that the company
had not been doing well and he was not able to get more jobs.
In addition to Cami Nettekoven and Tim Nettekoven, there was
another unidentified woman present at the meeting who told the
employees about how they could apply for, or train for other
jobs. When Cami Nettekoven spoke briefly at the meeting, she
explained that because her husband had not been spending
enough time at home with his children, the decision was made
to change operations.
Mendoza testified that within 30 minutes of Nettekoven’s
meeting with employees, Nettekoven telephoned him. Net-
tekoven stated that he had heard from Newstrom that Mendoza
would not mind being off work until October 1, 2008, and
Mendoza confirmed what he told Newstrom. Mendoza testified
that Nettekoven ended the conversation by saying that Men-
doza should make sure to have his work clothes ready on Octo-
ber 1. Nettekoven also added that while he couldn’t pay him
for doing so, he could use Mendoza’s help in moving to the
new facility. Mendoza explained that he would not be able to
do that without compensation because of the expense required
for not only gas, but also baby-sitting costs for his two little
girls. Nettekoven ended the conversation by confirming that
employees would meet on October 1 at his house.
When Mendoza had not heard anything further about return-
ing to work for Nettekoven by September 28, he began trying
to reach Nettekoven. Although he telephoned Nettekoven
daily, he was not able to speak with him until October 1. Dur-
ing the telephone conversation, Nettekoven talked about the
extent of the Board agent’s investigation8 of the pending
charges and made the comment that “it’s going way out of pro-
portion.” Nettekoven added: “I would hate to bring you on to
something like this.” Mendoza testified that Nettekoven then
added: “But it’s okay, though, right? Because I mean, you’re
already on unemployment.” Mendoza asked Nettekoven why
he would be on unemployment when Nettekoven had told him
not to look for a job. Mendoza did not pursue the inquiry fur-
ther, however, and simply wished Nettekoven good luck. He
testified that he heard nothing further from Nettekoven.
4. Respondent’s evidence concerning reason for layoff
The only witness called by Respondent to testify concerning
the basis for the September 2008 layoff was Lee, who worked
for Respondent from September 2007 until mid-May 2008.
Prior to working for Respondent, Lee owned a construction
company for 5 years. He first met Nettekoven when he hired
Nettekoven’s company as a subcontractor to do residential
plumbing work. As a result of working together, Lee and Net-
tekoven became friends and have remained friends. In Sep-
tember 2007, Lee began working for Respondent. Lee testified
that just prior to his accepting the job with Respondent, Net-
tekoven contacted him and asked for his help. Nettekoven told
him that an employee who had worked as an estimator and
project manager had embezzled money from the Company and

8 The transcript erroneously identifies the Board agent as “Mary
Tate” rather than “Mary Taves.”
he asked Lee to work for him and to handle estimates for jobs
that the Company was bidding. Lee testified that another of his
responsibilities was to assess the health of the Company. He
testified that organizationally the Company was in a state of
disarray and that the Company carried a disproportionate
amount of debt in relation to income. Lee testified that there
was an $80,000 debt owed to IRS and also $80,000 owed for
the purchase of a backhoe. He also asserted that there was a
line of credit due to a bank for $120,000. Lee also claimed that
the usual credit balance for one of Respondent’s vendors
ranged from $90,000 to $120,000. Although Lee recited the
series of debts and financial obligations, he produced no sup-
porting documents.
Lee described the Company when he left in mid-May 2008,
and opined: “[I]t was looking like we were coming in for a real
hard patch.” Lee maintained that beginning in January 2008,
he began to recommend monthly to Nettekoven that he should
close down the Company. Lee testified that he left the Com-
pany in May 2008, because he felt that he could no longer do
any good in his job.
5. Conclusions concerning the layoff
Counsel for the General Counsel does not contend that Re-
spondent deliberately chose certain employees for layoff be-
cause of their particular union, or protected concerted activity,
but rather that the mass layoff was ordered to discourage em-
ployees’ activities that are protected by the Act. Counsel for
the General Counsel also asserts that Respondent engaged in “a
course of action in which they abandoned and subsequently
created corporations in retaliation for employees engaging in
Union and protected, activity, as well as to evade their statutory
obligation to remedy the unfair labor practices they commit-
ted.” Because of the timing and the circumstances of the two
events, it is apparent that Respondent’s layoff of its employees
on September 17, 2008, must be viewed in relation to Respon-
dent’s creation of KC Commercial and Studio 36.
Respondent argues in brief that the Company acted consis-
tent with a company facing a downward financial spiral. Based
upon the testimony of Lee, as well as the testimony of em-
ployee witnesses, it is apparent that whether recognized as
Copper Craft or Kansas City Plumbing, Respondent’s business
could not have been characterized as thriving. Lee testified,
without contradiction, about a number of expenses and debts
that plagued Respondent’s financial situation. Respondent
argues that the General Counsel produced no evidence to rebut
Lee’s assessment that Respondent’s financial condition war-
ranted its closing as early as January 2008. Although Lee’s
testimony was unrebutted in this regard, his assessment also
supports a finding of Respondent’s discriminatory motive. If
Lee is to be credited, I must conclude that Nettekoven had a
legitimate and economic basis for closing his business as early
as January 2008. Despite recommendations from Lee, how-
ever, Nettekoven continued the business for approximately 7
more months before he rid himself of his employees and cre-
ated a new business. Although Respondent’s economic situa-
tion may not have improved in the interim, the significant in-
tervening event was Shafer’s unfair labor practice charge;
which included the potential for both a financial remedy, as
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
well as, Shafer’s reinstatement. By the time of the September
17 layoff, Respondent was aware that not only had the Region
found merit to Shafer’s charge, but the Region was additionally
investigating the charge filed by Cox. Respondent’s reaction to
Shafer’s charge is seen most vividly in Nettekoven’s comments
to Mendoza in August 2008. Mendoza’s unrebutted testimony
reflects that Nettekoven told him that the matter involving
Shafer was “just getting crazy.” Nettekoven added that he had
not been doing so well with Kansas City Plumbing and that the
matter with Shafer’s charge was the “last straw.” Nettekoven
went on to share his plan to lay off the employees and to start a
new company. Nettekoven’s statements reflect that the Re-
gion’s investigation and Shafer’s charge played a distinct role
in his decision to close the Company and to create a new com-
pany. Nettekoven’s discriminatory motivation in doing so is
evident by the fact that he cautioned Mendoza not to tell any-
one about the new company or the layoff.
Mendoza produced not only a written application form, but
also a written note from Cami Nettekoven confirming that she
was starting a new company and that she wanted him to apply.
Mendoza also testified that admitted agent Jim Newstrom told
him that Respondent was starting a new company in Cami Net-
tekoven’s name and that the company would operate under
Newstrom’s plumber’s license. I find it significant that Net-
tekoven did not rebut Mendoza’s testimony and neither Cami
Nettekoven nor Newstrom were presented to rebut or contradict
Mendoza’s testimony. Overall, I found Mendoza to be a credi-
ble witness. His description of his conversations with Net-
tekoven and Newstrom were straight-forward with no apparent
attempt to embellish or exaggerate. His testimony reflected no
perceptible personal anger or resentment for Cami Nettekoven
or Tim Nettekoven. His lack of animus or sentiment toward
Nettekoven is apparent in his description of his conversation
with Nettekoven when Nettekoven asked for Mendoza’s assis-
tance in moving to the new facility. Mendoza testified that
when he told Nettekoven that he could not help him move
without compensation for gas or baby sitting, Nettekoven re-
sponded that he would call his “real friends.” Mendoza quickly
added in his testimony that he didn’t think that Nettekoven said
this to offend him and that it “just came out that way.”
Mendoza’s testimony is further enhanced by the testimony of
admitted Supervisor Lee. Although Lee was no longer em-
ployed by Respondent at the time of the layoff, he assisted
Nettekoven in moving some inventory to the new facility and
spoke with him about his business. Lee testified that Net-
tekoven told him that he was going to start a new plumbing
business under a different name. This testimony is consistent
with Mendoza’s testimony concerning the information received
from both Cami Nettekoven and Jim Newstrom. Based upon
Mendoza’s unrebutted and credible testimony, it is apparent
that Respondent intended to hire only specific employees for
the new plumbing business. It is reasonable that Mendoza
would have been a desirable employee to rehire because he had
no union activity, no involvement with Shafer, Cox, or Raley in
protesting terms and conditions of employment, and he had
filed no charges with the Board.
In Midwest Precision Heating & Cooling, 341 NLRB 435,
439 (2004), the Board affirmed the judge in concluding that the
only reasonable explanation for an employer’s going through
the legal process of creating a new company and terminating
old ones was ultimately to avoid the obligation under the col-
lective-bargaining agreement. While there is no union contract
in this case, Respondent was, nevertheless, facing the potential
remedy of reinstating Shafer and the financial obligation of
paying backpay. A number of factors support the General
Counsel’s prima facie case. The Board has found timing to be
a significant element in finding a prima facie case of an unlaw-
ful layoff. See Equitable Resources Energy Co., 307 NLRB
730, 731 (1992). In this case, Respondent implemented the
layoff of all of its employees after its creation of the two new
companies and after learning that the Region had found merit to
Shafer’s charge. Respondent’s unlawful motive for the layoff
is seen in the unrebutted testimony of Mendoza. Additionally,
Respondent’s unlawful motive is not negated by the fact that
most of the employees laid off had not engaged in protected
activity. The Board has found that unlawful motivation may be
shown even when an employer takes adverse action against a
group of employees regardless of their individual protected
activities if the action was ordered to discourage protected ac-
tivity or if it was in retaliation for the protected activity of some
employees. ACTIV Industries, 277 NLRB 356 (1985).
Respondent argues that the September layoffs were not dis-
criminatory because the employees were not engaged in con-
certed protected activity. Specifically, Respondent asserts that
there was no union organization occurring and there had been a
4-month gap between the May meetings and the September
layoff. Respondent is correct that there is no evidence that
employees were engaged in union organizing and there had
been a 4-month interval since Shafer, Cox, and Raley met with
Nettekoven and Lee. Respondent’s argument is nevertheless
flawed because the record contains clear evidence of protected
activity after May. Section 8(a)(4) of the Act provides, and the
Board has found, that an employer commits an unfair labor
practice when it discriminates against an employee who files
charges or gives testimony under the Act. See McKesson Drug
Co., 337 NLRB 935 (2002); Freightway Corp., 299 NLRB 531,
532 (1990). Thus, it is axiomatic that an employee’s filing a
charge with the Board is also protected activity. In mid-July,
Respondent employed approximately 12 employees. By Sep-
tember 17, 2008, two of those employees had filed charges with
the Board.
The General Counsel is not required to show a relationship
between each employee’s union or protected activity and his
layoff. The General Counsel need only show that the mass
layoff was ordered to discourage protected activity or in retalia-
tion for the protected activity of some of its employees. J. T.
Slocomb Co., 314 NLRB 231, 241 (1994). As the court noted
in Birch Run Welding & Fabricating v. NLRB, 761 F.2d 1175,
1180 (6th Cir. 1985), general retaliation by an employer against
the work force can discourage the exercise of Section 7 rights
just as effectively as adverse action taken against employees
who have engaged in protected activities. Accordingly, I con-
clude that the General Counsel has made a prima facie showing
sufficient to support the inference that employees’ protected
conduct was a “motivating factor” in Respondent’s decision to
lay off its work force on September 17, 2008. Wright Line, 251
COOPER CRAFT PLUMBING, INC. 15
NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert.
denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982). Upon such a showing, the burden
shifts to Respondent to demonstrate that the same action would
have taken place even in the absence of the protected conduct.
See Manno Electric, Inc., 321 NLRB 278, 280 at fn. 12 (1996).
The Respondent cannot carry this burden merely by showing
that it had a legitimate reason for its layoff. Respondent must
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the layoff
would have taken place absent protected conduct by its em-
ployees. Roure Bertrand Dupont, Inc., 271 NLRB 443 (1984).
As I have discussed above, the timing of the layoff, the creation
of the new companies, and Mendoza’s credible testimony con-
cerning the revealing statements of Cami Nettekoven, Timothy
Nettekoven, and Jim Newstrom are all factors that weigh in
favor of my finding that the General Counsel has demonstrated
that employees’ protected activity was a substantial or motivat-
ing factor in Respondent’s layoff of its employees on Septem-
ber 17, 2008. In such instances in which the General Counsel
has made out a strong prima facie case under Wright Line, the
burden on the respondent is substantial to overcome a finding
of discrimination. Vemco, Inc., 304 NLRB 911, 912 (1991);
Eddyleon Chocolate Co., 301 NLRB 887, 890 (1991). Thus,
while Respondent’s financial circumstances may have consti-
tuted a legitimate reason for its layoff, Respondent has not
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the layoff
would have occurred when it did in the absence of employees’
protected activities. Cox testified, in fact, that at the time of his
layoff, there were still approximately 3 to 4 weeks of work
remaining. While Lee testified that Respondent was experienc-
ing financial problems in January 2008, neither Nettekoven or
any other representative of Respondent explained the basis for
the creation of the new companies in August 2008 and the lay-
off of its employees in September 2008. Lee, however, testi-
fied that Nettekoven told him that he was going to open the
same business under a different name. As counsel for the Gen-
eral Counsel points out in her brief, it is not reasonable for Re-
spondent to lay off its employees and then to “turn around and
immediately open an identical business.” Thus, Respondent
has not met its burden of demonstrating that it would have
taken the same actions in the absence of employees’ protected
activity. I find that the overall evidence supports finding the
September layoff in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of
the Act.
G. Respondent’s Continuing Liability
As described above, Mendoza testified that when he last
spoke with Nettekoven, Nettekoven talked about the Board
agent’s investigation of his new business; including not only
photographs but also visits to the jobsites. Counsel for the
General Counsel argues that it was only Nettekoven’s belief
that the Board was monitoring his new business that kept Re-
spondent’s business from rising to the level it was before the
creation of the new companies. Counsel for the General Coun-
sel acknowledges that while there was some evidence at the
hearing that Copper Craft, Kansas City Plumbing, and KC
Commercial may no longer be in business, there is nothing that
extinguishes Respondent’s reinstatement obligations to all of
the discriminatees or to toll the discriminatees’ backpay.
1. KC Commercial as an alter ego
In Diverse Steel, Inc., 349 NLRB 946 (2007), the Board ob-
served that it would generally find alter ego status where two
entities have substantially identical management, business pur-
poses, operations, equipment, customers, supervision, and own-
ership. The Board went on to explain that not all of these indi-
cia need to be present and no one of them is a prerequisite to
finding an alter ego. Respondent stipulated that Tim Net-
tekoven and Cami Nettekoven continued to manage and super-
vise the business of KC Commercial, just as they managed the
business of Copper Craft and Kansas City Plumbing. Respon-
dent also stipulated that KC Commercial used the equipment,
tools, office furniture, vehicles, and office supplies of Copper
Craft and Kansas City Plumbing. Respondent further stipulates
that KC Commercial performed work for the same type of cus-
tomers as those that had historically been serviced by Copper
Craft and Kansas City Plumbing. There is no dispute that Cop-
per Craft, Kansas City Plumbing, and KC Commercial all oper-
ated out of a shared facility that was owned by Studio 36. No
rent was charged to Copper Craft, Kansas City Plumbing, or
KC Commercial for the use of the shared facility. Copper Craft
and Kansas City Plumbing were owned by Timothy Nettekoven
and Cami Nettekoven. Cami Nettekoven is shown to be the
owner of KC Commercial in the incorporation of the company
on August 27, 2008.
Thus, the record establishes that Copper Craft, Kansas City
Plumbing, and KC Commercial have substantially identical
management, business purposes, operations, equipment, cus-
tomers, and supervision. While only Cami Nettekoven is
shown to be the owner of KC Commercial, I also note that the
Board has found that where other alter ego factors exist, owner-
ship of two companies by members of the same immediate
family is deemed to be “substantially identical” ownership.
Kenmore Contracting Co., 289 NLRB 336, 337 (1988), enfd.
mem. 888 F.2d. 125 (2d Cir. 1989). Although unlawful moti-
vation is not a necessary element in finding an alter ego, the
Board also considers whether the purpose behind the creation
of the alleged alter ego was to evade responsibilities under the
Act. Diverse Steel, supra at 946. Despite the fact that Respon-
dent laid off all its employees on September 17, 2008, Respon-
dent undertook the expense and time to create an entirely new
company on August 24, 2008, that would conduct the same
business for the same group of customers under the same su-
pervision and management. There is no other logical explana-
tion for Respondent’s doing so other than an attempt to avoid
the legal obligations of Copper Craft and Kansas City Plumb-
ing. See Midwest Precision Heating & Cooling, Inc., 341
NLRB at 439. The record evidence therefore demonstrates that
KC Commercial was established in retaliation for employees’
protected concerted activities and to avoid Respondent’s liabil-
ity under the Act. Accordingly, I must conclude that KC
Commercial is an alter ego of Copper Craft and Kansas City
Plumbing and was created as a disguised continuance of Cop-
per Craft and Kansas City Plumbing. Accordingly, KC Com-
mercial shares the same responsibilities and obligations under
the Act.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD16
2. Studio 36’s liability under the Act
Respondent asserts that Studio 36 was a corporation that was
created solely to purchase and to own the building that served
as the personal residence of Timothy and Cami Nettekoven,
and to serve as a warehouse for Copper Craft, Kansas City
Plumbing, and KC Commercial. There is no evidence that
Studio 36 has ever engaged in the business of plumbing. Net-
tekoven admitted that although Copper Craft, Kansas City
Plumbing, and KC Commercial lease space from Studio 36, no
rent is paid to Studio 36. When he was asked whether the other
corporations paid rent to Studio 36, Nettekoven responded:
“No, because I have enough creditors banging on my door. We
did not charge any rent to anyone because I’d rather pay my
creditors than—I mean, it doesn’t make sense.” Nettekoven
testified that he moved all of the vehicles, inventory, and
plumbing equipment belonging to Copper Craft and Kansas
City Plumbing to the facility owned by Studio 36. He further
explained that it had been his intention to then operate KC
Commercial on the first floor of the Studio 36 facility; while he
and his family resided on the second floor. Nettekoven con-
firmed that while his wife established Studio 36 as a corpora-
tion, he was also a managing member of that limited liability
company.
Counsel for the General Counsel confirms that she is not
seeking personal liability for the Nettekoven’s. She does, how-
ever, seek liability for Studio 36 to remedy the unfair labor
practices discussed above. In White Oak Coal, 318 NLRB 732
(1995), the Board set out a two-part analysis for assessing per-
sonal liability for the shareholders of corporations committing
unfair labor practices. Under White Oak Coal, the corporate
veil may be pierced when (1) there is such unity of interest, and
lack of respect given to the separate identity of the corporation
by its shareholders, that the personalities and assets of the cor-
poration and the individuals are indistinct, and (2) adherence to
the corporate form would sanction a fraud, promote injustice, or
lead to an evasion of legal obligations. Using this same analy-
sis, counsel for the General Counsel submits that Studio 36
should be held liable as an alter ego and single employer with
Copper Craft, Kansas City Plumbing, and KC Commercial.
In determining whether the personalities and assets of a cor-
poration and its shareholders have become indistinct are the
degree to which corporate formalities have been maintained
and the extent to which individual and corporate funds, assets,
and affairs have been commingled, the Board in White Oak
Coal considered the following factors:
(1) whether the corporation is operated as a separate entity;
(2) the commingling of funds and other assets; (3) the failure
to maintain adequate corporate records; (4) the nature of the
corporation’s ownership and control; (5) the availability and
use of corporate assets, the absence of same, or undercapitali-
zation; (6) the use of the corporate form as a mere shell, in-
strumentality or conduit of an individual or another corpora-
tion; (7) disregard of corporate legal formalities and the fail-
ure to maintain an arm’s length relationship among related en-
tities; (8) diversion of the corporate funds or assets to noncor-
porate purposes; and, in addition, (9) transfer or disposal of
corporate assets without fair consideration.
The record does not contain specific information that would
address each of these factors. Counsel for the General Counsel
submits, however, that several of the factors are present. She
asserts: “The overarching evidence of corporate misuse is, of
course, the testimony concerning the establishment of corporate
identities under Cami Nettekoven’s name in an effort to hide
Tim Nettekoven’s involvement in the business.” Counsel for
the General Counsel argues that Tim Nettekoven used both KC
Commercial and Studio 36 as shells of Copper Craft and Kan-
sas City Plumbing “so that he could continue in the plumbing
business without the worries of unfair labor practice liability.”
Although there is no evidence that Studio 36 engaged in the
business of plumbing, the overall record reflects a blending of
identities of the four corporations and their principals. Studio
36 provided not only the residence for Timothy and Cami Net-
tekoven, but also the operating and warehousing facility for the
other three corporations. Not only was there no compensation
paid to Studio 36, there was an absence of any other arm’s
length transactions between Studio 36 and the other corpora-
tions. The overall evidence reflects not only that Studio 36 has
a sufficient unity of interest with the other three corporations,
but also a lack of respect for the separate identity of Studio 36
from the other three corporations. See A. J. Mechanical, Inc.,
352 NLRB 874 (2008). The record fully supports the conclu-
sion that the personalities and assets of the four corporations
are indistinct.
In White Oak Coal, supra, the Board also indicated that the
second prong of the test must have some causal relationship to
the first prong of the test. Stated in another way, the fraud,
injustice, or evasion of legal obligations must flow from the
misuse of the corporate form. Counsel for the General Counsel
submits that the second prong is met because “the fundamental
purpose of the Nettekoven’s establishment of KC Commercial
and Studio 36 was to promote a method to conceal his owner-
ship and control of each corporation and thereby evade his
labor law obligations.” The record as a whole indicates that
KC Commercial and Studio 36 were formed in an attempt to
evade the Respondent’s responsibilities under the Act. Addi-
tionally, it is apparent that while Studio 36 did not function as a
commercially viable plumbing business, it was nevertheless
created as a shell, instrumentality, or conduit to insulate Net-
tekoven’s plan to continue his plumbing business as KC Com-
mercial without the legal obligations engendered by Copper
Craft and Kansas City Plumbing. See Diverse Steele, Inc., 349
NLRB 946, 946 (2007). Accordingly, I find that Studio 36 is
an alter ego of Copper Craft, Kansas City Plumbing, and KC
Commercial and was created as a disguised continuance of
Copper Craft and Kansas City Plumbing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents Copper Craft Plumbing, Inc. and Respondent
Kansas City Plumbing, Inc. constitute a single-integrated busi-
ness enterprise and a single employer within the meaning of the
Act.
2. Respondents KC Commercial Plumbing, Inc. and Studio
36 LLC were established by Copper Craft Plumbing, Inc. and
Respondent Kansas City Plumbing, Inc. as a disguised continu-
COOPER CRAFT PLUMBING, INC. 17
ance of Copper Craft Plumbing, Inc. and Respondent Kansas
City Plumbing, Inc.
3. Respondents Copper Craft Plumbing, Inc., Kansas City
Plumbing, Inc., KC Commercial Plumbing, Inc., and Studio 36
LLC have been at all material times, alter egos and a single
employer within the meaning of the Act.
4. As a single employer and alter egos, Respondents Copper
Craft Plumbing, Inc., Kansas City Plumbing, Inc., KC Com-
mercial Plumbing, Inc., and Studio 36 LLC, herein collectively
identified as Respondent, is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act.
5. Local 8, Plumbers and Gasfitters is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
6. By threatening employees with unspecified reprisals be-
cause they engaged in union or other protected concerted activi-
ties, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. By discharging Donovan Shafer because of his protected
concerted activity, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
8. Denying employees the opportunity to drive work vans
home at the end of the workday in order to discourage employ-
ees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) of the Act.
9. By laying off employees Steve Cox, Jeff Raley, Charles
Simms, Javier Mendoza, James Newstrom, Ismael Castillo,
Gerardo Valenzuela Sr., Gerardo Valenzuela, Roberto Becerra,
and Justin Beauchamp on September 17, 2008, in order to dis-
courage employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged Dono-
van Shafer, it must offer him reinstatement and make him
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed on
a quarterly basis from date of discharge to date of proper offer
of reinstatement, less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in
F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest, as
computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987).
The Respondent having discriminatorily laid off Steven Cox,
Jeff Raley, Charles Simms, Javier Mendoza, James Newstrom,
Justin Beauchamp, Gerardo Valenzuela, Gerardo Valenzuela
Sr., Roberto Becerra, and Ismael Castillo, it must offer them
reinstatement and make them whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis from date of
discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement, less any net
interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., supra,
plus interest, as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded,
supra.
Counsel for the General Counsel urges that the current prac-
tice of awarding only simple interest on backpay and other
monetary awards be replaced with the practice of compounding
interest. Counsel for the General Counsel attached an Appen-
dix to her written brief outlining the basis for her recommenda-
tion. In its decision in National Fabco Mfg., Inc., 352 NLRB
No. 37, slip op. at fn. 4 (March 17, 2008) (not reported in
Board volumes), the Board addressed a similar request by the
General Counsel. Referencing a previous decision in Rogers
Corp., 344 NLRB 504 (2005), the Board explained: “Having
duly considered the matter, we are not prepared at this time to
deviate from our current practice of assessing simple interest.”
Accordingly, I deny counsel for the General Counsel’s request
for an order requiring compound interest.
Inasmuch as I have found KC Commercial Plumbing, Inc.
and Studio 36 LLC as alter egos and a disguised continuance of
Copper Craft Plumbing, Inc., and Kansas City Plumbing, Inc., I
find that all four entities are jointly and separately liable for
Respondent’s unfair labor practices and the remedy thereof.
Counsel for the General Counsel asserts that because of Re-
spondent’s discriminatory discharge of Shafer and its discrimi-
natory layoff of other employees, the General Counsel seeks
the traditional remedy of reinstatement and backpay for the
discriminatees. The General Counsel also acknowledges that
there was some record evidence that Copper Craft, Kansas City
Plumbing, and KC Commercial may no longer be in business.
The General Counsel argues, however, that because Respon-
dent has used the corporate entities in a shell game to avoid its
obligations under the Act, a full restoration remedy including
both backpay and reinstatement for all discriminatees is appro-
priate. I agree that inasmuch as Respondent has unlawfully
terminated Shafer and unlawfully laid off other employees, a
full restoration remedy including both reinstatement and back-
pay is not only appropriate, but required. I also realize, how-
ever, that in the event that Respondent’s business operation has
ceased in its entirety, the potential extinguishment of reinstate-
ment obligations and the appropriate period for the backpay
obligation may have to be fully determined through the compli-
ance phase of this proceeding.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended9
ORDER
The Respondents, Copper Craft Plumbing, Inc., Kansas City
Plumbing, Inc., KC Commercial Plumbing, Inc., and Studio 36
LLC, as alter egos and a single employer, in Kansas City, Mis-
souri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees with unspecified reprisals be-
cause they engaged in union and other protected concerted
activities.
(b) Denying employees the opportunity to drive company
vehicles to their homes in order to discourage employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights.
(c) Terminating employees for engaging in protected con-
certed activities.

9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD18
(d) Laying off employees in order to discourage employees
in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, make
whole Donovan Shafer, with interest, for any loss of wages and
benefits that he suffered as a result of Respondent’s unlawfully
discharging him on July 8, 3008.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, make
whole, with interest, Steven Cox, Jeff Raley, Charles Simms,
Javier Mendoza, James Newstrom, Ismael Castillo, Gerardo
Valenzuela, Gerardo Valenzuela Sr., Roberto Becerra, Justin
Beauchamp, and any other employees included in the Septem-
ber 17, 2008 layoff for any loss of wages and benefits that they
suffered as a result of Respondent’s unlawful layoff.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer
Donovan Shafer, Steven Cox, Jeff Raley, Charles Simms,
Javier Mendoza, James Newstrom, Ismael Castillo, Gerardo
Valenzuela, Gerardo Valenzuela Sr., Roberto Becerra, Justin
Beauchamp, and any other employees included in the Septem-
ber 17, 2008 layoff reinstatement to their former jobs, or if
those jobs no longer exists, to substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, re-
move from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge of
Donovan Shafer, and, within 3 days thereafter, notify Donovan
Shafer in writing that this has been done and that the discharge
will not be used against him in any way.
(e) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, re-
scind the notice to employees of August 22, 2008, denying our
employees the opportunity to drive company vehicles to em-
ployees’ homes.
(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment re-
cords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
Kansas City, Missouri facility copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”10 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 17 after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-

10 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board.”
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, mail copies
of the attached notice marked “Appendix.” Respondent shall
duplicate and mail at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
July 8, 2008.
(i) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, April 30, 2009
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against
any of you for engaging in concerted protected activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with unspecified reprisals because
you engage in union or other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT deny you the opportunity to drive company
vehicles to your homes in order to discourage you from engag-
ing in activities that are protected by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT layoff our employees in order to discourage
them from engaging in activities that are protected by Section 7
of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to
you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order,
remove from our files any reference to the unlawful discharge
of Donovan Shafer, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, no-
tify him in writing that this has been done and that the dis-
charge will not be used against him in anyway.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order,
offer Donovan Shafer, Steven Cox, Jeff Raley, Charles Simms,
Javier Mendoza, James Newstrom, Ismael Castillo, Gerardo
Valenzuela, Gerardo Valenzuela Sr., Roberto Becerra, Justin
Beauchamp, and any other employees included in the Septem-
ber 17, 2008 layoff, reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
those jobs no longer exists, to substantially equivalent jobs,
COOPER CRAFT PLUMBING, INC. 19
without prejudice, to their seniority or any other rights or privi-
leges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order,
make whole Donovan Shafer for any lost wages because of his
discriminatory discharge on July 8, 2008.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order,
rescind our notice to employees of August 22, 2008, denying
you the opportunity to drive company vehicles to your homes.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order,
make whole Steven Cox, Jeff Raley, Charles Simms, Javier
Mendoza, James Newstrom, Ismael Castillo, Gerardo
Valenzuela, Gerardo Valenzuela Sr., Roberto Becerra, Justin
Beauchamp, and any other employees included in the Septem-
ber 17, 2008 layoff for any lost wages because of their dis-
criminatory layoff.
COPPER CRAFT PLUMBING, INC., AND KANSAS CITY
PLUMBING, INC., A SINGLE EMPLOYER AND THEIR
ALTER EGOS KC COMMERCIAL PLUMBING, INC. AND
STUDIO 36 LLC