The Board found that the employer, a construction company, and the union had converted their bargaining relationship from a Section 8(f) relationship – which allows unions and employers in the construction industry to enter into collective bargaining agreements without a showing of majority support with the understanding that the relationship ends with the contract -- into a standard Section 9(a) relationship through a show of signed cards, as called for in the initial contract. The standard Section 9(a) relationship requires a show of majority support and, after the expiration of a contract, the union retains its representative status and the employer remains obligated to bargain. The Board found that because of this conversion, the employer violated the Act by withdrawing recognition, refusing to bargain with the union, and subsequently changing the bargaining unit employees' terms of employment. The Board also found that the employer violated the Act by recognizing a different union as the bargaining unit's bargaining representative.

The charges were filed by Laborers International Union of North America, Local 295.  Chairman Liebman and Members Pearce and Hayes participated. Administrative Law judge William L. Schmidt issued his decision on February 26, 2010.