Scheid Electric

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Nov 13, 2009

18-CA-019084 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 13, 2009)

JD–55–09
Mankato, MN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SCHEID ELECTRIC
and Case 18-CA-19084
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 343
Joseph H. Bornong, Esq. of Minneapolis, MN,
for the General Counsel.
Michael Priem of Rochester, MN,
for the Charging Party.
Jon S. Olson, Esq., of Edina, MN,
for the Respondent-Employer.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Bruce D. Rosenstein, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried before me on
October 20, 2009,1 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, pursuant to a Complaint and Notice of Hearing
(the complaint) issued by the Regional Director for Region 18 of the National Labor Relations
Board (the Board). The complaint, based upon an original and amended charge filed on various
dates in 2009 by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 343 (the Charging Party
or Union), alleges that Scheid Electric (the Respondent or Employer), has engaged in certain
violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The
Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint denying that it had committed any violations
of the Act.
Issues
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
interrogating an employee about his union activities and threatening him with loss of
employment. It further alleges that the Respondent constructively discharged an employee
because of the employees assistance and support of the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act. Lastly, the complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)

1 All dates are in 2009 unless otherwise indicated.
JD–55–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2
and (5) of the Act when it withdrew recognition of the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative, repudiated the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement, and
instituted new terms and conditions of employment without notice or affording the Union an
opportunity to bargain with respect to the conduct and effects of the conduct.
On the entire record2, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the oral argument of the General Counsel, I make the following
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
The Respondent is a corporation engaged in residential and commercial electrical
contracting and service, with its principal office and place of business located in Mankato,
Minnesota. Respondent in conducting its business operations purchased and received goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 at its Mankato, Minnesota facility directly from
suppliers located outside the State of Minnesota. The 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 and
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Background
On or about April 12, 2006, Respondent entered into two “Letter of Assents-A” whereby
it agreed to be bound by the collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and the
Minneapolis Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc. (NECA), and to
adhere to future agreements unless timely notice was given (GC Exh. 2 and 3).3 On or about
July 23, 2007, a majority of the Unit selected the Union as their representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining with Respondent.4

2 The Respondent did not appear at the hearing and presented no evidence in its defense.
Prior to the hearing, the Respondent appeared by Counsel and filed an answer. On October 16,
Counsel for the Respondent participated in two conference calls with the General Counsel and
the undersigned. Prior to the commencement of the hearing on October 20, I requested the
General Counsel to try and contact the Respondent’s Counsel as no one appeared at the
hearing on behalf of the Employer. Counsel for the General Counsel was able to reach
Respondent’s Attorney by telephone and reported that the Attorney was not authorized to
represent the Respondent in the proceeding and would not be appearing at the hearing.
Accordingly, I proceeded to take the evidence of the General Counsel.
3 The Respondent became a party to the Residential Wiring Agreement from September 1,
2008 to August 31, (GC Exh. 4) and the Residential Wiring Agreement from September 1, to
August 31, 2010 (GC Exh. 5). Additionally, the Respondent became a party to the Inside
Construction Agreement from June 27, 2008 to June 30, 2010 (GC Exh. 6).
4 The “Voluntary Recognition” document states in pertinent part: This will confirm the fact
that on July 23, 2007, at Scheid Electric you, Marty Walgenbach met with me and Mark Magult
(witness) to discuss IBEW Local Union 343’s request that you recognize it as the NLRA Section
9(a) collective bargaining representative of all of your employees performing electrical
construction work within the jurisdiction of the local union on all present and future jobsites,
which we both agree is a unit appropriate for bargaining under Section 9(a) of the National
Labor Relations Act. We presented to you authorization cards demonstrating that a majority of
Continued
JD–55–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
3
At all material times, Martin Walgenbach has been the owner of Respondent and a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Likewise, Allan Stork and Michael
Priem have been Business Managers of the Union.

B. The 8(a)(1) Allegations
The General Counsel alleges in paragraphs 5(a) and (b) of the complaint that the
Respondent in mid-April 2009 interrogated an employee regarding the employee’s union
sympathy and activity and threatened the same employee with loss of employment in retaliation
for the employee’s union activity and support. In late May 2009, the General Counsel asserts
that the Respondent threatened employees that it might go non-union and also threatened them
with loss of employment if they continued to support the Union.
Facts
Employee Tim Robertson initially commenced employment with the Respondent as a
“union salt” in early 2003, and left their employ in early 2006 when the Respondent refused to
sign a Union contract. After approximately a seven month hiatus, he was rehired in late 2006,
and remained continuously employed until he was separated on June 16 (GC Exh. 22). During
his second period of employment, Robertson served as the Union shop steward.
In mid-April 2009, Robertson was summoned to a meeting in Walgenbach’s office.
Walgenbach asked Robertson whether he would remain employed if the Respondent went non-
union. Robertson replied that he could not afford to lose his pension or health insurance
benefits and has always been a union member. Robertson informed Walgenbach that he could
not remain an employee of Respondent if it decided to go non-union, that he was a Union
member and would always be a Union member. Walgenbach told Robertson that he would hate
to lose him.
Analysis
The Board has held that interrogation is not a per se violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176, (1984), affd. sub nom. Hotel Employees Union Local
11 v. NLRB, 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985). In determining whether an interrogation is unlawful,
the Board examines whether, under all the circumstances the questioning reasonably tends to
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. Rossmore
House, 269 NLRB at 1177-1178. Emery Worldwide, 309 NLRB 185, 186 (1992). Under the
totality of circumstances approach, the Board examines factors such as whether the
interrogated employee is an open and active union supporter, the background of the
interrogation, the nature of the information sought, the identity of the questioner, and the place
and method of interrogation. Rossmore House, 269 NLRB at 1178 fn. 20; Bourne v. NLRB, 332
F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964); Sunnyvale Medical Clinic, 277 NLRB 1217, 1218 (1985).
_________________________
your employees have designated Local Union 343 to represent them for collective bargaining
purposes. You examined the cards and agreed that the local union has the support of a
majority of the bargaining unit employees. Based on that showing of majority support, you have
recognized the local union as the NLRA Section 9(a) collective bargaining representative as
described above (GC Exh. 8).
JD–55–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
4
Based on the unrebutted testimony of Robertson, who held the position of Union
Steward and was interrogated in the owner’s office, I find that the Act was violated. In this
regard, Walgenbach interrogated Robertson about his union activities and threatened him with
loss of employment because of his support for the Union.
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in
paragraph 5 (a) and (b) of the complaint.
Priem testified that Union general membership meetings are normally held once a
month, however, on May 26, the Union held a special meeting at the Teamsters Hall in
Mankato, Minnesota. Prior to the meeting that commenced around 5:30 p.m., both Priem and
Robertson observed Walgenbach pull his truck into the parking lot. Priem apprised Walgenbach
that this was a members’ only meeting and he was not invited. Walgenbach replied that the
meeting concerned his employees and he intended to be present. After the seven or eight
employees and the business managers finished their refreshments, and just before the meeting
commenced, Walgenbach came into the meeting room. In a very loud manner, he announced
that the Union has never done anything for him and his shop was going to go non-union. He
further stated that we are no longer going to have a contract and none of you are going to have
a job. He ended his remarks with profanity and stated that the employees could now go ahead
with their meeting. Robertson, who attended the May 26 meeting, confirmed that Walgenbach
uttered the above statements in his and other employees’ presence.
Based on the unrebutted testimony of Priem and Robertson, I find in agreement with the
General Counsel’s allegation in paragraph 5 (c) of the complaint that Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
has been violated.
C. The 8(a)(1) and (3) Allegations
The General Counsel alleges in paragraphs 6 (a) through (c) of the complaint that the
Respondent on or about May 1, stopped assigning work to employee Robertson, and
constructively discharged him on or about June 16, because of his assistance and support for
the Union and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities.
Facts
Robertson testified that after his meeting with Walgenbach in mid-April 2009, his hours
of work started to gradually decline. Prior to April 2009, Robertson was regularly assigned 40
hours of work each week. Additionally, Robertson had his company truck and credit card
removed. After mid-April 2009, Robertson started calling the Respondent 2-3 times each week
looking for additional hours of work. His work assignments reached an all-time weekly low of six
hours after the May 26 Union meeting. He then started calling the Employer 3-4 times per week
looking for increased work. Robertson was told by Employer representatives that he would
receive a call back when work was available but he never received such a call.
Robertson became discouraged and went to the Respondent’s office on June 16 to
request a layoff slip. The Respondent provided him a separation notice indicating that he was
let go due to a reduction in force (GC Exh. 22).
Discussion
In Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd, 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied
455 U.S. 989 (1982), the Board announced the following causation test in all cases alleging
JD–55–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
5
violations of Section 8(a)(3) or violations of Section 8(a)(1) turning on employer motivation.
First, the General Counsel must make a prima facie showing sufficient to support the inference
that protected conduct was a “motivating factor” in the employer decision. On such a showing,
the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the same action would have taken place
even in the absence of the protected conduct. The United States Supreme Court approved and
adopted the Board’s Wright Line test in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S.
393, 399-403 (1993). In Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278 fn. 12 (1996), the Board restated the
test as follows. The General Counsel has the burden to persuade that antiunion sentiment was
a substantial or motivating factor in the challenged employer decision. The burden of
persuasion then shifts to the employer to prove its affirmative defense that it would have taken
the same action even if the employee had not engaged in protected activity.
Under the National Labor Relations Act, a traditional constructive discharge occurs when
an employee quits because his employer has deliberately made the working conditions
unbearable and it is proven that (1) the burden imposed on the employee caused and was
intended to cause a change in the employee’s working conditions so difficult or unpleasant that
the employee is forced to resign, and (2) the burden was imposed because of the employee’s
union activities. Grocers Supply Co. 294 NLRB 438, 439 (1089). Under the Hobson’s choice
theory, an employee’s voluntary quit will be considered a constructive discharge when an
employer conditions an employee’s continued employment on the employee’s abandonment of
his or her Section 7 rights and the employee quits rather than comply with the condition.
Hoerner Waldorf Corp., 227 NLRB 612, 613 (1976).
Based on the unrebutted testimony of Robertson, who experienced unbearable working
conditions that commenced after his mid-April 2009 meeting in Walgenbach’s office and
continued after the May 26 Union meeting, I find that Robertson experienced such a reduction
of his assigned work hours that he was forced to resign by seeking a layoff on June 16.
Likewise, it is apparent, that Walgenbach retaliated against Robertson when he learned that
Robertson intended to remain a loyal union member and would not resign his membership if the
Employer went non-union.
For all of the above reasons, I find either under the traditional constructive discharge line
of cases or those under the Hobson’s choice theory, Robertson’s voluntary quit must be
considered to be a constructive discharge. Convergence Communications, Inc. 339 NLRB 408,
412-413 (2003). Therefore, I find in agreement with the General Counsel that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act and sustain the allegations in paragraph 6 of the
complaint.
D. The 8(a)(1) and (5) Allegations
The General Counsel alleges in paragraphs 8(c) and 10(a) of the complaint that on or
about July 23, 2007, a majority of the Unit designated the Union as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining and since that date based on Section 9(a) of the Act, the
Union has been the designated exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit. The
Respondent denied both of these allegations in its answer.
The Board in Staunton Fuel & Material, Inc. 335 NLRB 717 (2001) addressed the issue
of how a union whose status as a bargaining representative is governed by Section 8(f) can
acquire through agreement with the employer the status of majority bargaining representative
under Section 9(a) of the Act.
JD–55–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6
The Board held that a written agreement will establish a 9(a) relationship if its language
unequivocally indicates that the union requested recognition as majority representative, the
employer recognized the union as a majority representative, and the employer’s recognition was
based on the union’s having shown, or having offered to show, an evidentiary basis of its
majority support. The Board noted that the approach taken by the Tenth Circuit in two cases,
NLRB v. Triple C Maintenance, Inc., 219 F. 3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2000) and Oklahoma Installation
Co., 219 F. 3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2000) establishes a legally sound and eminently practical set of
standards for self-sufficient majority recognition. In both cases, the court confirmed that written
contact language, standing alone could independently establish 9(a) bargaining status. To be
sufficient, such language must unequivocally show (1) that the union requested recognition as
the majority representative of the unit employees; (2) that the employer granted such
recognition; and (3) that the employer’s recognition was based on the union’s showing of its
majority support. As the Tenth Circuit discussed in Triple C, although it would not be necessary
for a contract provision to refer explicitly to Section 9(a) in order to establish that the union has
requested and been given 9(a) recognition, such a reference would indicate that the parties
intended to establish a majority rather than an 8(f) relationship.
The evidence adduced at the hearing conclusively establishes that the Respondent
voluntarily recognized the Union as a Section 9(a) representative under the Act (GC Exh. 8).
The General Counsel alleges in paragraphs 12 (a) through (d) of the complaint that on or
about June 2, the Respondent withdrew its recognition of the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the Unit and repudiated the parties’ collective-bargaining
agreement and on or about June 3, the Respondent instituted new terms and conditions of
employment including wage rates, pension and health benefits without notice to or affording the
Union an opportunity to bargain with respect to this conduct and the effects of the conduct.
Facts
By letter dated June 2, the Employer withdrew its recognition of the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit based on objective evidence it
received from a majority of its employees (GC Exh. 9).
By letter dated June 2, the Union informed the Respondent that it is bound to the parties’
contract under Section 9(a) of the Act until its expiration (GC Exh. 10).
By letter dated June 2, the Employer reaffirmed that it has withdrawn recognition of the
Union based on evidence submitted by a majority of the bargaining Unit and further indicated
that it was privileged to repudiate the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement based on Section
8(f) of the Act (GC Exh. 11).
Discussion
In Levitz Furniture Co. of the Pacific, 333 NLRB 717 (2001), the Board held that an
employer must show a union’s actual loss of majority support in order to lawfully withdraw
recognition. That decision, however, was limited to cases where there have been no unfair
labor practices committed that tend to undermine employees’ support for unions. The Board
went on to note that it continues to adhere to its well-established policy that employers may not
withdraw recognition in a context of serious unremedied unfair labor practices tending to cause
employees to become disaffected from the union nor can it rely on any expression of
disaffection by its employees which is attributable to its undermining support for the Union.

JD–55–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
7
Applying those principles here, I find that the Respondent was not privileged to withdraw
recognition in the subject case due to the unremedied unfair labor practices that I have found
violative of the Act prior to the withdrawal of recognition and repudiation of the parties’
collective-bargaining agreement.
Moreover, for additional reasons, the Board has held in Precision Striping, Inc., 284
NLRB 1110 (1987) that regardless of whether the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement may
have been a 9(a) or 8(f) relationship, an employer is not free to unilaterally repudiate an existing
agreement with an incumbent union. Here, although I found that the relationship between the
parties is governed by Section 9(a) rather then Section 8(f) of the Act, the principle governs in
either situation that the Respondent was not privileged to withdraw recognition or repudiate the
parties’ existing collective-bargaining agreements that were in full force and effect on June 2
and 3 (GC Exh. 4 and 6).
Under those circumstances, in agreement with the General Counsel, Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act has been violated as alleged in paragraph12 of the complaint. Therefore, the
implementation of new terms and conditions of employment including wage rates, pension, and
health benefits among other things without notice to or bargaining with the Union with respect to
this conduct or the effects of the conduct and without the Union’s consent is violative of the Act.
Accordingly, the Respondent must make employees whole for their unlawful actions.5
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating an employee
regarding the employee’s union sympathy and activity, threatening employees with
loss of employment and threatening employees that it might go non-union.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act when it stopped assigning
work to employee Tim Robertson and constructively discharged him on June 16.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act when it withdrew its
recognition of the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
Unit and repudiated the parties’ existing collective-bargaining agreement. It further
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act when it instituted new terms and conditions
of employment including wage rates and pension and health benefits among other
things, without notice to or bargaining with the Union with respect to this conduct or
the effects of the conduct and without the Union’s consent.

5 Jennifer Buettner, the third party administrator for benefits under the parties’ existing
collective-bargaining agreement (GC Exh. 6, Article VI), credibly testified that the last payment
made by the Respondent to the fringe benefit funds occurred on June 12, reflective of payments
through May 2009.
JD–55–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
8
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Specifically, having found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act by constructively discharging Tim Robertson on June 16, 2009, I shall order the
Respondent to offer Robertson full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists
to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed. Additionally, the Respondent shall make Robertson whole for any
loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
Backpay shall be computed in accordance with F.W. Woolworth Co. 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with
interest as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). The
Respondent shall also be required to expunge from its files any and all references to the
unlawful discharge of Tim Robertson, and to notify him in writing that this has been done and
that the unlawful discharge will not be used against him in any way.
Further, having found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by
failing to continue in effect all the terms and conditions of their existing collective-bargaining
agreement by withdrawing recognition from the Union on June 2, 2009, and unilaterally
implementing wage rates and other terms and conditions of employment on June 3, 2009,
inconsistent with the terms of the existing Agreement, I shall order the Respondent to recognize
and bargain with the Union, rescind the unilateral changes, restore the status quo ante and
make the unit employees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits attributable to its
unlawful conduct. Backpay 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, supra.
Finally, having found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by
failing to continue in effect all the terms and conditions of their existing collective-bargaining
agreement by failing, since June 1, 2009, to make the contractually required contributions to the
Union’s fringe benefit funds set forth in Article VI of their Agreement, I shall order the
Respondent to make all required benefit fund contributions since June 1, 2009, including any
additional amounts applicable to such funds as set forth in Merryweather Optical Co.,240 NLRB
1213, 1216 fn 7 (1979). In addition, the Respondent shall reimburse unit employees for any
expenses ensuing from the Respondent’s failure to make the required contributions to the
funds, as set forth in Kraft Plumbing & Heating, 252 NLRB 891 fn 2 (1980), enfd. mem. 661 F.
2d 940 (9th Cir. 1981), Such amounts are to be computed in the manner set forth in Ogle
Protection Service, supra, with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, supra.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue
the following recommended6

6 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–55–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
9
ORDER
The Respondent, Scheid Electric, Mankato, Minnesota, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating employees about their union activities and sympathies.
(b) Threatening employees with loss of employment because of their support and
activities on behalf of the Union and threatening employees that it might go non-
union.
(c) Failing and refusing since June 2, 2009, to bargain collectively and in good faith with
the Union by withdrawing recognition from the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the Unit and repudiating the parties’ existing collective-
bargaining agreement.
(d) Failing to continue in effect all the terms and conditions of the parties’ existing
collective-bargaining agreement by failing since June 1, 2009, to make the
contractually-required contributions to the fringe benefit funds found in Article VI of
the Agreement.
(e) Unilaterally implementing wage rates and other terms and conditions of employment
inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the parties’ existing collective-
bargaining agreement without prior notice to and without affording the Union an
opportunity to bargain with respect to this conduct and the effects of this conduct.
(f) Causing the termination of employee Tim Robertson by requiring him to either quit or
agreeing to accept fewer work assignments because Robertson supported or
assisted the Union and to discourage employees from engaging in those activities.
(g) 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 bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees.
(b) Rescind the unilaterally implemented wage rates and other terms and conditions of
employment inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the parties’ existing
collective-bargaining agreement.
(c) Restore the status quo ante of the parties’ existing agreement, and make the unit
employees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits attributable to this
unlawful conduct, with interest, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this
decision.
(d) Continue in effect all the terms and conditions of the parties’ existing agreement by
making all the required benefit fund contributions to the Union’s benefit funds found
in Article VI of the agreement that have not been made since June 1, 2009, with
interest in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(e) Within 14 days from the date of this decision, offer Tim Robertson full reinstatement
to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(f) Make Tim Robertson whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the Respondent’s unlawful conduct, with interest, in the manner set forth in
the remedy section of this decision.
(g) Within 14 days from the date of this decision, remove from its files all references to
the unlawful termination of Tim Robertson, and within 3 days thereafter, notify him in
JD–55–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
10
writing that this has been done and that the unlawful termination will not be used
against him in any way.
(h) 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 decision.
(i) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Mankato, Minnesota,
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”7 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 18, 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.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent 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 Respondent has gone out of business or closed
the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees
employed by the Respondent at any time since April 15, 2009.
(j) 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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. November 13, 2009
_____________________
Bruce D. Rosenstein
Administrative Law Judge

7 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.”
JD–55–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
11
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 the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees regarding the employee’s union sympathy and activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of employment in retaliation for the employee’s
union activity and support.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that we might go non-union.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively and in good faith with the Union by
withdrawing recognition from the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of our
employees or repudiate our existing collective-bargaining agreement with the Union.
WE WILL NOT fail to continue in effect all the terms and conditions of our existing collective-
bargaining agreement by failing to make the contractually-required contributions to the Union’s
fringe benefit funds.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally implement wage rates and other terms and conditions of
employment inconsistent with the terms and conditions of our existing collective-bargaining
agreement, without prior notice to and without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain with
respect to such conduct and the effects of such conduct.
WE WILL NOT cause the termination of employees by requiring them to either quit or agree to
accept fewer work assignments because the employees supported or assisted the Union and to
discourage employees from engaging in those activities.
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 the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
employees in the bargaining Unit and will adhere to all provisions in our existing collective-
bargaining agreement with the Union.
WE WILL make the unit employees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits they may
JD–55–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
12
have suffered as a result of our unlawful action in repudiating our existing collective-bargaining
agreement.
WE WILL recognize and bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees.
WE WILL rescind the unilaterally implemented wage rates and other terms and conditions of
employment inconsistent with our existing collective-bargaining agreement.
WE WILL restore the status quo ante of our existing collective-bargaining agreement, and make
the unit employees whole for any loss of earning and other benefits attributable to this unlawful
conduct, with interest.
WE WILL continue in effect all the terms and conditions of our existing collective-bargaining
agreement by making all the required benefit fund contributions to the Union as set forth in
Article VI of our agreement.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this decision, offer Tim Robertson full reinstatement
to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job, without
prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Tim Robertson whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of our unlawful conduct, with interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this decision, remove from our files all references to
the unlawful termination of Tim Robertson, and WE will, within 3 days thereafter, notify him in
writing that this has been done and that the unlawful termination will not be used against him in
any way.

Scheid Electric
(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.
330 South Second Avenue, Towle Building, Suite 790
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-2221
Hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
612-348-1757.
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, 612-348-1770.
JD–55–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
13