Salted Reasoning
by Peter S. Saucier

There may be nothing more sacred than the truth, but not in the eyes of the National Labor Relations Board, or the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. A union activist, acting in the name of union organizing, can tell the biggest whoppers he cares to concoct, and find warm support in the arms of some parts of the federal government.

A union organizer named Starnes applied for employment at Hartman Brothers Heating & Air Conditioning. Proudly displaying the union logo on his baseball cap, a costume suited to his role, Starnes proclaimed himself a union organizer, and completed the application for employment. The employer offered Starnes a job, based upon the representations in the employment application. Immediately after receiving the offer, Starnes volunteered that he not only was a union organizer, but the job history on his employment application was false. In particular, Starnes had written that he had been laid off from his previous job when he in fact had taken a leave of absence to work for the union. Upon hearing Starnes's confession of dishonesty, Hartman asked Starnes to go home. Later that day, Hartman learned that Starnes also lied about his driving record and terminated Starnes.

Starnes's actions are referred to as salting in the labor business. That term relates back to a popular bunko move during prior centuries to plant gold nuggets in a mine where they could be found by unsuspecting dupes who then bought the mine at an outrageous price. Even the judges of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledge that "the purpose of salting is not in fact to organize, but to precipitate the commission of unfair labor practices by startled employers."

Not surprisingly, Starnes and his union, the Sheet Metal Workers, filed an unfair labor practice charge, and the National Labor Relations Board prosecuted Hartman to a judgment that was the source of the appeal to the federal court. Starnes was awarded back pay for the day of work that he "missed" before the lies about his driving record were discovered.

For good reason, most employers do not expect a fair outcome in a salting case before the NLRB. But there is hope that federal judges will adopt a reasonable position that discourages deceit and dishonesty. Hartman's hopes were misplaced. On appeal, the court ruled that Starnes acted properly by lying about the circumstances of leaving his last job. Otherwise, the court reasoned, "the company might have smelled a rat." It appears that they meant the jig would be up on the union's plan of NLRB sanctioned workplace terrorism, not necessarily that Starnes was a rat. The Court wrote, "the question presented by this case . . . is whether a salt may lie to get a job. * * * We think that he may. . . ."

So there you have it. According to the NLRB and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, it is consistent with public policy to make awards to people who startle employers into action through deceit. Anyone smell a rat?

February 2002

Kollman & Saucier, P.A., The Business Law Building, 1823 York Road, Timonium, MD 21093   Phone: 410-727-4300
Fax: 410-727-4391   © 2008 Kollman & Saucier, P.A. All rights reserved.
Website maintained by Armistead Technologies, Llc.^tm