ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTORS, INC. AND KIELCZEWSKI CORPORATION

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jan 13, 2014

22-CA-089865 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 13, 2014)

JD(NY)–05–14
West Orange, NJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NAITONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTORS, INC.,
AND KIELCZEWSKI CORP., ALTER EGOS
AND A SINGLE EMPLOYER
and Case No. 22-CA-089865
LOCAL 78, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
Bert Dice-Goldberg, Esq., for the General Counsel.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
STEVEN DAVIS, Administrative Law Judge: Based on a charge and a first amended
charge filed on September 21, 2012 and August 28, 2013, respectively, by Local 78, Laborers
International Union of North America (Union), a complaint was issued on July 31, 2013 against
Environmental Contractors, Inc., (ECI) and Kielczewski Corp. (KC), Alter Egos and a Single
Employer, herein called ECI, KC or Respondents.
The complaint alleges and the answer admits that, at all material times, ECI and KC
have had substantially identical management, business purposes, operations, equipment,
customers, supervision and ownership. The complaint also alleges and the answer also admits
that in about September, 2011, KC was established by ECI as a disguised continuation of ECI.
The complaint further alleges and the Respondents deny that ECI established KC for the
purpose of evading its responsibilities under the Act, that both companies are alter egos and a
single employer within the meaning of the Act, and that they are a single-integrated business
enterprise and a single employer within the meaning of the Act.
The complaint also alleges that following the Board’s certification of the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of ECI’s unit employees, the Respondents
refused the Union’s request to recognize and bargain with it. It is alleged that, at the same time,
the Respondents changed the wages and benefits they paid to unit employees by reducing such
wages and benefits without notice to the Union and without affording it an opportunity to bargain
with the Respondents and without first bargaining with the Union to a good-faith impasse.
The Respondents’ answer denied the material allegations of the complaint, other than
those which they admitted, including those set forth above, and on September 24, 2013, a
hearing was held before me in Newark, NJ.1 Upon the evidence presented in this proceeding,
and my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of the brief filed

1 Following the close of the hearing I received GC Exhibits 24 and 24, a video recording and
transcript of a conversation between Union organizer Leonardo Naranjo and Respondent
supervisor Peter Cybura. They are hereby received in evidence.
JD(NY)–05–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
by the General Counsel,2 I make the following:
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction and Labor Organization Status
The Respondents, having an office and place of business in West Orange, New Jersey,
have been contractors in the construction industry doing residential and commercial demolition,
asbestos removal, mold and lead removal. The complaint alleges, and the answer admits, that
during the 12-month period ending September 30, 2012, the Respondents performed services
valued in excess of $50,000 in states outside the State of New Jersey. I therefore find and
conclude that the Respondents have been employers engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Respondents’ answer denied knowledge that the Union is a statutory labor
organization. Abraham Hernandez, a Union Business Agent and organizer, testified that it
represents employees working in the environmental industry, including the removal of asbestos,
lead and hazardous waste. Hernandez stated that the New Jersey Building Laborers District
Council is a board comprised of representatives of all the Laborers’ locals of the Laborers
International Union in New Jersey. The Union is a member of that organization. Hernandez
further stated that, prior to September, 2008, Local 1030, Laborers International Union,
represented employers in New Jersey, but subsequent to that date, the International Union
transferred the representational rights of Local 1030 to Local 78, the Charging Party. Moreover,
in a Stipulated Election Agreement approved by the Regional Director on March 20, 2012, ECI
agreed, and I so find, that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II. The Request for Postponement
The Respondents were advised in the complaint which was issued on July 31, 2013, that
the hearing was scheduled for September 24. In the late afternoon of September 23,
Respondents’ attorney, Waldo Carkhuff, called General Counsel Dice-Goldberg and said that he
could not be present at the hearing due to an unspecified “conflict.” General Counsel advised
him that at that late hour he could not consent to an adjournment and gave him Associate Chief
Administrative Law Judge Biblowitz’ contact information.
Upon my arrival at the hearing the following day, I was advised by Judge Biblowitz that
he received a phone message from Carkhuff at 4:00 p.m. the previous afternoon in which
Carkhuff advised that he could not appear at the hearing due to a “conflict.” Carkhuff sent a fax
to Judge Biblowitz at that time, as follows:

2 I was administratively advised that on December 13, 2013, a Consent Order Granting
Interim Injunction was entered into between the Respondents and the General Counsel
pursuant to Section 10(j) of the Act. Pending the disposition of the proceeding before the Board,
the Order enjoined the Respondents from refusing to recognize and bargain with Local 78,
making unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment of their employees, and
ordered the Respondents to recognize and bargain with the Union at the request of the Union,
and restore any or all of the terms and conditions of employment of the unit employees as
established by the collective-bargaining agreement which expired on April 30, 2012. I have
received the Order in evidence as General Counsel’s Exhibit 1(h).
JD(NY)–05–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
Re: Adjournment
Pursuant to my telephone calls of 9-23-13 to your Honor and our
adversary, I will be unable to appear tomorrow morning in the
above matter. ECI 22-CA-089865. Thank you.
Various subpoenas were issued by General Counsel to the Respondents for the
appearance of Slawomir Kielczewski on September 24 at this hearing. A notice attached to the
charge states that the hearing will be held on the date and hour indicated and that
postponements will not be granted unless good and sufficient grounds are shown and the formal
requirements are met, including that the request must include the grounds for the request, and
the tentative dates for the rescheduled hearing. In addition, the positions of all parties must be
ascertained and set forth in the request and copies must be simultaneously served on the other
parties. The notice sates that “except under the most extreme conditions, no request for
postponement will be granted during the three days immediately preceding the date of hearing.”
Neither Respondents’ attorney Waldo Carkhuff nor his clients, the Respondents,
appeared at the hearing. The hearing opened at 10.34 a.m. at which time I denied the
Respondents’ request for postponement. The General Counsel’s first witness, Hernandez,
testified briefly. At about 11:00 a.m., I asked the General Counsel to phone Carkhuff and advise
him that his request for a postponement was denied and that I would adjourn the hearing for
one hour to permit him to attend the hearing if he wished.
During the recess, the General Counsel phoned Carkhuff and so advised him. He stated
that Carkhuff said that it was “impossible” for him to attend the hearing because he was “doing
something medical.” The General Counsel sent him a fax and e-mail confirming their
conversation. The hearing resumed at 12:16 p.m. Neither Carkhuff nor his clients appeared.
I affirm my ruling denying the Respondents’ request for postponement. No details were
given of the alleged “conflict” Carkhuff had with the hearing date. Presumably, he would have
been able to resolve the alleged conflict earlier since he had been advised of the hearing date
nearly two months before. When given the opportunity to appear at the hearing, Carkhuff
claimed that “something medical” made it impossible for him to appear. Again, no details were
provided. The request for postponement lacks merit and is denied.
III. The Facts
A. Background
On May 1, 2007, the Building Contractors Association of New Jersey (Association) which
represented ECI and other employers in the construction industry, entered into a collective-
bargaining agreement with the New Jersey Building Laborers District Council which was
effective until April 30, 2012. That agreement was a pre-hire Section 8(f) contract.
ECI’s answer admits that at all times prior to December 29, 2011, it was an employer-
member of an Association which represented it and other employers in the construction
industry, and that it authorized the Association to represent it in negotiating and administering
collective-bargaining agreements with the Union. ECI’s answer further admits that on about
December 29, 2011, it gave timely notice that it was revoking its authorization to the Association
to negotiate on its behalf, and terminating the collective-bargaining agreement.
On March 7, 2012, the Union filed a petition seeking to represent the employees of ECI.
The Union won an election held on April 11, 2012, and thereafter, on April 23, the Union was
JD(NY)–05–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees of ECI in the
following unit:
All full-time and regular part-time building and construction
laborers employed by the Employer in the State of New Jersey but
excluding all office clerical employees, managers, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
The complaint alleges that, at all times since about April 23, 2012, based on Section 9(a)
of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit
employees.
B. The Request to Bargain
Hernandez and Business Agent Radosaw Korek testified that on April 11, the day of the
election, after the ballots were counted and the Tally of Ballots was distributed to the parties,
they attempted to speak to Slawomir Kielczewski, the president of ECI. 3 They approached him
and offered a handshake, and said “so let’s talk; let’s open and follow up our future relationship.”
Slawomir “wrestled with us… pushed us out of the office,” telling them twice, “get the fuck out of
my office.” Later, Korek entered the office and told Slawomir that the Union won the election.
Slawomir stepped outside, and “kicked us out on the sidewalk,” telling them to “get the fuck out
of my property.” 4
Korek testified that, following the election, he attempted to speak to the employees to
learn if their working conditions had changed. He left several phone messages and visited their
homes, but received no response from the workers.
Korek called Slawomir at least three times in June to ask him about a new company,
Kielczewski Corp., that the Union believed had been formed and had begun performing jobs. He
also attempted to speak to Slawomir’s brother, Wesley Kielczewski. On each occasion,
Slawomir and Wesley refused to speak about the Union, Slawomir saying “we have nothing to
discuss in this matter about the union issue between my company and me.” Wesley told him he
had to speak to Slawomir.
Union organizer Oscar Borreo testified that he and organizer Leonardo Naranjo visited a
jobsite at 133 Summit Avenue in Summit, New Jersey on June 21, 2012. Naranjo recorded his
conversation with supervisor Peter Cybura.5 Apparently, Naranjo posed as an employee
seeking work. Cybura identified himself as the supervisor and asked Naranjo if he was “union.”
Naranjo denied being “union.” Cybura said that the Employer “is not with the Union” because
union workers were lazy and earn about $30 per hour, whereas non-union employees earn $10
or $15 per hour.

3 In various documents filed in 2010 through 2012 by ECI with the New Jersey Department
of Labor, and documents issued by that agency, Slawomir Kielczewski is listed as the president
of ECI. Because several of the Respondents’ officials have the same last name, I will refer to
them by their first names.
4 Inasmuch as the Respondent made no appearance at the hearing and presented no
witnesses, the testimony of all the witnesses who testified in behalf of the General Counsel are
uncontradicted. I credit their testimony.
5 Cybura is listed on KC payroll documents as being “NJ Supervisor” and a website
maintained by KC states that he is the “project manager/estimating Environmental Services.”
JD(NY)–05–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
Naranjo asked for the name of the company, adding that he could not see the name of
the company on the truck. Cybura said “because we paint this. Because that was union
company, we not union company anymore.” He added that prior to that time the name of the
company was Environmental, but it was now called Kielczewski Corporation. Cybura added that
the owner of Kielczewski is the same owner of Environmental – “the same owner. He just
change the name.” Cybura told the Union agents that when they work in New York “we are with
the Union in New York, Local 78” but the company no longer works in New York.
A “Notification of Asbestos Abatement” signed by Slawomir for that job listed KC as the
abatement contractor. However, the vehicle used by KC on that job is registered to ECI but bore
no KC logo. Moreover, a notebook in the cab of the truck entitled “asbestos abatement project
log book” bore the notations “Summit Parmely Apt. Building, 133 Summit Avenue, ECI Project
Number 12023-AR.”
Organizer Borreo testified that he visited ECI’s office at 235 Watchung Avenue and
photographed the vehicles there. Some of the trucks bore an ECI logo, and others did not.
Organizer Saverio Samarelli and Vila testified that they visited Blair Academy on
October 4, 2012. They asked in the office for “ECI.” The receptionist, David S., 6 said “you mean
the abatement contractor.” They said “yes,” and the receptionist said “he’s under Kielczewski
Corp.,” Vila spoke with Wesley about ECI, with Wesley saying that there were issues with
employees making personal phone calls at work and not being productive. Wesley said that
“any issues regarding the union should be directed to his brother, the owner.”Samarelli left his
business card with Wesley, and asked that his brother call him. Received in evidence was a
photograph of a sign bearing Kielczewski Corp’s name at the site and a truck. Samarelli stated
that he saw a man wearing a shirt bearing an ECI logo at the jobsite.
On October 15, 2012, Samarelli visited a jobsite in Newark where he spoke to and
recorded his conversation with Wesley who recognized Samarelli from his visit on October 4.
Samarelli identified himself as being from the International Union, but working in behalf of Local
78. He attempted to learn what type of work the company was doing at the jobsite and how
many employees worked there. Wesley was generally noncommittal, advising Samarelli to
speak with his brother who was the boss of Environmental Contracting and remarking “since
you’re union and I’m not union … I really can’t disclose too much information.”
Wesley complained about the high labor cost when the company was a union contractor,
paying his employees over $50 per hour including benefits. He admitted that he was now paying
his employees perhaps $20 less per hour since he did not pay them any benefits. Wesley
conceded that compared to the wages he previously paid, there was a “big difference,”
estimating that if employees worked 1,000 hours, the company would save $20,000. Wesley
added “that answers your question…. If you have a job, if you’re talking about millions, if
somebody wishes to go non-union then you get an even bigger difference. You know what I’m
saying?”
When asked if stiff competition was the reason his company went “non-union”, Wesley
answered “well yes, yes and no. I don’t even know what’s the main reason. I’m not going there. I
don’t want to speak about something….” Wesley also complained that he believed that his
competitors who do prevailing wage work do not pay their employees the proper wage, but his

6 No further identification of the man was made.
JD(NY)–05–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
company does – “my problem is my competition is in the position [that] their numbers are lower.”
C. The Alter Ego and Single Employer Status of the Respondents
The Respondents admit that they have had substantially identical management,
business purposes, operations, equipment, customers, supervision and ownership. The
Respondents also admit that in about September, 2011, KC was established by ECI as a
disguised continuation of ECI.
ECI applied for an asbestos license in February, 2011. The application states that ECI
was incorporated in December, 1993, and lists Slawomir Kielczewski as its president.
Numerous jobs were listed as having been done in 2010 with the following scope: asbestos
abatement, demolition, mold remediation and asbestos remediation,
Kielczewski Corporation filed an application for an asbestos license in May, 2012. It
stated that it was incorporated on December 22, 2010, and listed its president as Slawomir
Kielczewski. A website maintained by KC states that KC “is a company that is comprised of
former employees of EC” and then directs the reader to ECI’s website for the credentials of
those workers.
Both ECI and KC’s applications list their address as 235 Watchung Avenue, West
Orange, New Jersey. That location is owned by Mariola Kielczewski, the ex-wife of Slawomir,
who leased it to ECI in August, 2010.
The KC application contains a letter dated May 8, 2012, in which Slawomir advises the
New Jersey Asbestos Control & Licensing department that certain equipment will be sold to KC
“in the future.” The lengthy list of equipment to be sold, according to Hernandez, includes “pretty
much all of the equipment that he possess at ECI.” On May 24, 2013, KC was issued an
asbestos license which permitted it to “perform any type of asbestos work.”
Certain unit employees of ECI were retained by KC. They include Nathaniel Couram,
Serhiy Drozdyak, Henryk Maciorowski, Jacek Marosz, Piotr Piecuch, and Wieslaw Piecuch. ECI
clerical employees Mariola Kielczewska, Barbara Reed, and Rafal Skrzypcak also continued
their employment with KC.
Bids for work and proposals for both companies were prepared by Slawomir and
Cybura. ECI continued to bid on work in its name. In January, 2012 and thereafter, it bid on
certain work. ECI’s proposals noted that “work performed after April 30, 2012 will be open shop
only” or stated that “work is priced to be completed non-union after May 1, 2012.”
Certain of KC’s proposals for jobs dated April, 2012 and later also stated that “work
performed after April 30, 2012 will be open shop only.” Also, exclusions noted are “union labor”
and “union harmony.”
Both ECI and KC use the same vendors. For example, both use Circle Recycling, Inc.,
Circle Rubbish Removal, Inc., and Sky Environmental Services, Inc. Both companies have the
same account number at Home Depot Credit Services, American Express and Valley National
Bank.
D. The Change in the Employees’ Terms and Conditions of Employment
The complaint alleges that following the Board’s certification of the Union as the
JD(NY)–05–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of ECI’s unit employees, the Respondents
changed the wages and benefits they paid to unit employees by reducing such wages and
benefits without notice to the Union and without affording it an opportunity to bargain with the
Respondents and without first bargaining with the Union to a good-faith impasse. The evidence
supports that allegation.
The Respondents’ payroll records in evidence show that ECI’s unit employees were paid
according to the Association-Union contract, but then when they were employed by KC after
June, 2012, their wages and benefits changed.
For example, Wieslaw Piecuch was classified as a Laborer Class A when employed by
ECI, and earned $29.05 per hour. He received pension, health and “other” benefits of $77.20,
.40, and $109.36, respectively.7 At KC in July, 2012, however, he received a wage rate of
$29.85 per hour, and health benefits only.
Similarly, Piotr Piecuch, classified as a cleaner and Laborer Class A at ECI, earned a
wage rate of $29.05 and pension, health and “other” benefits of $77.20, .40, and $109.36.8
However, at KC, in May, 2012, he earned $35.00 per hour, but no benefits.
Further, Nathaniel Couram, a cleaner and asbestos handler, received $29.00 per hour at
ECI, and pension, health and “other” benefits of $62.64, .40, and $118.88, respectively. 9
However, in June, 2012, he received a wage rate of $35.00 per hour and no benefits at KC.
Analysis and Discussion
I. The Alter Ego and Single Employer Status of the Respondents
When the General Counsel alleges that an entity is the alter ego of another company,
subject to the latter's legal and contractual obligations, the General Counsel has the burden of
establishing that status. U.S. Reinforcing, Inc., 350 NLRB 404, 404 (2007). The determination of
alter ego status is a question of fact for the Board, resolved by an examination of all of the
attendant circumstances.
The Board generally will find an alter ego relationship when two entities have
substantially identical ownership, management, business purposes, operations, equipment,
customers and supervision. Not all of these indicia need be present, and no one of them is a
prerequisite to finding an alter ego relationship. Unlawful motivation is not a necessary element
of an alter ego finding, but the Board also considers whether the purpose behind the creation of
the suspected alter ego was to evade responsibilities under the Act. McCarthy Construction Co.,
355 NLRB 50, 52 (2010), adopted in 355 NLRB 365 (2010); U.S. Reinforcing, above.
The Respondents admit that they have had substantially identical management,
business purposes, operations, equipment, customers, supervision and ownership. In addition,
some of the same employees of ECI were retained by KC to perform the same work. The same
clerical staff was employed. The same vendors and certain vendor account numbers continued
to be used by KC. The Respondents also admit that in about September, 2011, KC was
established by ECI as a disguised continuation of ECI.

7 Those benefits were received for the payroll dated January 4, 2012.
8 Those benefits were received for the payroll dated January 4, 2012.
9 Those benefits were received for the payroll dated February 27, 2012.
JD(NY)–05–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
In Southport Petroleum Co. v. NLRB, 315 U.S. 100, 106 (1942), the Supreme Court said
that “[w]hether there was a bona fide discontinuance and a true change of ownership … or
merely a disguised continuance of the old employer ... is a question of fact ... .” The Supreme
Court noted that if “there was merely a change in name or in apparent control ... there is added
ground for compelling obedience.” In such cases, where there is only a technical change in the
structure or identity of the employing entity, “without any substantial change in its ownership or
management,” it has been held that the new employer “is in reality the same employer” and
subject to the same legal and contractual obligations. Howard Johnson v., Detroit Joint Board,
417 U.S. 249, 252 fn. 5, 262 fn. 9 (1974).
The Respondents deny that ECI established KC for the purpose of evading its
responsibilities under the Act, that both companies are alter egos and a single employer within
the meaning of the Act, and that they are a single-integrated business enterprise and a single
employer within the meaning of the Act.
The evidence is clear that ECI and KC are alter egos. First, as set forth above, they
admit to the facts establishing an alter ego relationship, but deny the conclusion that must be
drawn therefrom. They also admit that KC was established by ECI as a disguised continuance
of ECI.
Also, it is clear that KC was formed for the purpose of evading its responsibilities under
the Act. The Respondents believed that operating as a union company hindered its ability to be
competitive in the marketplace. Thus, supervisor Cybura and Slawomir’s brother Wesley
complained about the high cost of Union wages and benefits, whereas, as a non-union
company, the workers were paid less since they received no benefits. Cybura admitted that
ECI’s name was obliterated from its trucks because “we not union company anymore.”
Similarly, the Respondents’ proposals for jobs stated that after April 30, 2012, bids for
work would be “open shop only” and priced “non-union.”
The Respondents thus had a plan to reduce labor costs. Pursuant to that plan, after their
contract with the Association expired, they refused to recognize the Union, withdrew recognition
from it and refused to bargain with it following its certification, and changed the compensation
paid to its employees.
The timing of the undisputed events herein and the Respondents’ actions confirm this
plan. In late December, 2011, the Respondents gave timely notification that it was withdrawing
from the Association and did not authorize it to bargain in its behalf following the expiration of its
contract with the Association on April 30, 2012. They notified their prospective customers that
following April 30, 2012, their bids would be based on non-union rates, and the Respondents
chose to ignore the Union’s certification on April 23, 2012.
Thus, ECI made clear its intent to operate KC as a non-union contractor with lower labor
costs and thereby avoid its obligation to bargain with the Union which was certified as their
employees’ exclusive collective-bargaining representative. E.L.C. Electric, Inc., 359 NLRB No.
20, slip op. at 9 (2012).
I also find that the Respondents are a single employer. Two or more ostensibly separate
entities may be found to constitute a single employer where they constitute a single integrated
enterprise. In determining whether such a relationship exists, the Board and courts consider four
factors: common ownership, common management, interrelated operations, and centralized
JD(NY)–05–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
control of labor relations. Radio Local 1264, IBEW v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, 380 U.S.
255, 256 (1965). None of the four factors is controlling, and not all factors need be present to
support a single employer finding. Rather, single employer status depends on all the
circumstances and is characterized by the absence of an arm's-length relationship between
unintegrated companies. Flat Dog Productions, Inc., 347 NLRB 1180, 1181-1182 (2006).
Here, Slawomir was the main actor of both companies. He owned and was the president
of both, he filed documents with regulatory agencies on behalf of both, was viewed by
supervisors of KC as being in charge of that company. Those supervisors told the Union agents
to speak to Slawomir for information regarding KC. The supervisors and managers were the
same for both companies. Their operations wee interrelated. Both did the same type of work
and Swalomir bid on projects for both. They used the same location, certain of the same unit
employees, the same clerical workers, vehicles owned by ECI were used by both companies,
KC took over the same equipment used by ECI, the same vendor account numbers were used,
and there was no evidence that anyone other than Slawomir determined the labor relations of
the two companies.
I accordingly find and conclude that ECI and KC were a single integrated enterprise, and
a single employer.
II. The Refusal to Bargain
The complaint alleges that following the Board’s certification of the Union, the
Respondents refused the Union’s request to recognize and bargain with it. As set forth above,
the Union’s request to bargain, even immediately following its election victory on April 11, was
met with curses and eviction from the Respondents’ office. No clearer message could be sent.
Thereafter, following the April 23 certification, Union agent Korek phoned president
Slawomir at least three times. Each time, Slawomir refused to speak with him about the Union’s
relationship with the Respondents. Other attempts to speak with Wesely, Slawomir’s brother,
were similarly unproductive, with the Union’s agents being told to speak to Slawomir. Union
business cards were left with Slawomir’s brother Wesley, who was asked to have Slawomir call
him, but he did not.
Union agent Naranjo’s June 21 conversation with supervisor Cybura is reflective of the
Respondents’ motivation. At a jobsite, Cybura told him they ECI’s name was removed from the
truck because “we not union company anymore.”
Having found that the Respondents are a single employer, the bargaining unit remained
intact. I find that, as a single employer, the Respondents had a continuing obligation to
recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit
employees, and that the bargaining unit remained an appropriate unit following the
establishment of KC. I find that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union.
I also find that the Respondents unilaterally changed the wages and benefits it paid to its
employees. As set forth above, the unit workers at ECI were paid the wage rate, pension, health
and “other” benefits pursuant to the Association contract, but when employed by KC, they were
paid only wages without any other benefits. I understand that the wage rate at KC was slightly
higher than at EC, but employees were receiving much less in compensation since no
contributions were made to any benefit funds.
JD(NY)–05–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
Regardless of the amount of the wages received by the employees, the violation is the
Respondents’ making unilateral changes in employees’ compensation and their failure to notify
the certified Union of those changes, and their failure to offer the Union an opportunity to
bargain with them concerning those changes.
I also find that since KC is the alter ego of ECI, KC, and to the extent that ECI is still
operating, they are obligated to comply with the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement
that ECI entered into with the Association on May 1, 2007, and which expired on April 30, 2012.
The evidence supports a finding that since about June 1, 2012, ECI and KC failed and refused
to apply the terms and conditions of that collective-bargaining agreement, including the
contractual and fringe benefit provisions therein, which are mandatory subjects of bargaining,
and did so without the Union’s consent. Accordingly, ECI and KC, as its alter ego, violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to apply the terms of the collective-
bargaining agreement that ECI entered into with the Association, and by failing and refusing to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representatives of the
bargaining unit employees of ECI and KC.
Conclusions of Law
1.The Respondents, Environmental Contractors, Inc., and Kielczewski Corp., are
employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 78, Laborers International Union of North America, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all times material herein, Environmental Contractors, Inc., and Kielczewski Corp.,
have been alter egos and a single employer.
4. By establishing Kielczewski Corp. as a disguised continuation of Environmental
Contractors, Inc. for the purpose of evading its responsibilities under the Act, the Respondents
have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees of Environmental Contractors, Inc., employed in the
following appropriate collective-bargaining unit, the Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time building and construction
laborers employed by the Employer in the State of New Jersey but
excluding all office clerical employees, managers, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
6. By changing the wages and benefits of unit employees by reducing such wages and
benefits without notice to the Union and without affording it an opportunity to bargain with the
Respondents and without first bargaining with the Union to a good-faith impasse, the
Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that they must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
JD(NY)–05–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
The Respondents will be ordered to recognize and, on request, bargain with Local 78,
Laborers International Union of North America, as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit employees with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment and, if an agreement is reached, embody it in a signed document.
The Respondents shall also be required to rescind, on the Union’s request, any or all of the
unilateral changes to the unit employees' terms and conditions of employment made on or after
April 23, 2012, and to make the unit employees whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits attributable to its unlawful conduct. The make-whole remedy shall be computed in
accordance with Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir.
1971), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987),
compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010).
The Respondents will be ordered to restore any or all of the terms and conditions of
employment of its unit employees as established by the collective-bargaining agreement which
expired on April 30, 2012. They shall also be required to make all contractually required
contributions to the Union’s benefit funds that it failed to make, including any additional amounts
due the funds on behalf of the unit employees in accordance with Merryweather Optical Co.,
240 NLRB 1213, 1216 fn. 7 (1979), and to make the employees whole for any expenses they
may have incurred as a result of the Respondents failure to make such payments, as set forth in
Kraft Plumbing & Heating, 252 NLRB 891 fn. 2 (1980), enfd. mem. 661 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1981),
such amounts to be computed in the manner set forth in Ogle Protection Service, New Horizons
for the Retarded, and Kentucky River Medical Center, above.
The Respondents additionally shall be ordered to (1) compensate the unit employees for
any adverse income tax consequences of receiving their backpay in one lump sum and (2) file a
report with the Social Security Administration allocating the backpay to the appropriate calendar
quarters, as set forth in Latino Express, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 44 (2012).
Where employers, as here, have failed and refused to bargain in good faith with a
certified union, the Board will ensure that such a union has at least 1 year of good faith
bargaining during which its majority status cannot be questioned by extending the certification
year. Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962). Under the circumstances here, I recommend
that the 1-year extension shall commence to run from the date when good faith bargaining
begins.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended10
ORDER
The Respondents Environmental Contractors, Inc., and Kielczewski Corp, West Orange,
New Jersey, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from

10 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 purposes.
JD(NY)–05–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain in good faith with Local 78, Laborers International
Union of North America, as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of their employees
in the following appropriate bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time building and construction
laborers employed by the Employer in the State of New Jersey but
excluding all office clerical employees, managers, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Making unilateral changes to the terms and conditions of employment of their
bargaining unit employees.
(c) 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 effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Recognize and upon request, bargain in good faith with Local 78, Laborers
International Union of North America as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
unit employees with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment
and, if an agreement is reached, embody it in a signed document, and continue to recognize the
Union as the certified exclusive agent of their employees in the unit described below for one
year commencing on the date good faith bargain begins with the Union.
(b) Rescind, on the Union’s request, any or all of the unilateral changes to the unit
employees' terms and conditions of employment made on or after April 23, 2012, and make the
unit employees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits attributable to the unilateral
changes they have made.
(c) At the Union’s request, restore any or all of the terms and conditions of employment
of unit employees as established by the collective-bargaining agreement which expired on April
30, 2012.
(d) Make their unit employees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered
as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of
the decision.
(e) 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 designated by the
Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, 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.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at their facility in West Orange, New
Jersey, copies in English, Spanish and Polish of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”11

11 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a 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.”
JD(NY)–05–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being
signed by the Respondents’ authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondents and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondents have gone out of business or
closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondents shall duplicate and mail, at
their own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees
employed by the Respondents at any time since June 1, 2012.
Dated, Washington, D.C. January 13, 2014

____________________
Steven Davis
Administrative Law Judge
JD(NY)–05–14
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 benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain in good faith with Local 78, Laborers International Union of North America, as the
exclusive collective bargaining representative of our employees in the following appropriate bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time building and construction laborers employed by the
Employer in the State of New Jersey but excluding all office clerical employees, managers,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT make unilateral changes to your terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL recognize and upon request, bargain in good faith with Local 78, Laborers International Union of North America as your
exclusive collective-bargaining representative with respect to your wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment
and, if an agreement is reached, embody it in a signed document, and WE WILL continue to recognize the Union as your certified
exclusive agent for 1 year commencing on the date we begin to bargain in good faith with the Union.
WE WILL rescind, on the Union’s request, any or all of the unilateral changes to your terms and conditions of employment made on
or after June 1, 2012, and make you whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits attributable to the unilateral changes we have
made.
WE WILL at the Union’s request, restore any or all of your terms and conditions of employment as established by the collective-
bargaining agreement which expired on April 30, 2012.
WE WILL make you whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of our discrimination against you.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTORS, INC., AND KIELCZEWSKI
CORP., ALTER EGOS AND A SINGLE EMPLOYER
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot
elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find
out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office
set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
20 Washington Place, 5th Floor
Newark, New Jersey 07102-3110
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
973-645-2100.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 973-645-3784