Read Case Study $4\mathrm{.}1$ "SALTING" below and answer the following questions.

Decision:

On the issue of failing to hire the overt salts for employment, the Company has met its burden to show that it would not have considered the applicants for the driver positions even in the absence of their union affiliation. At the time that the seven overt salts attempted to apply for employment, the Company was hiring drivers, a position that required a CDL and a HAZMAT endorsement. The overt salts did not satisfy those requirements. Accordingly, it is clear that the Union has failed to establish that the Company violated the Act for failing to hire the overt salts for the driver positions. The Union also contends that the Company unlawfully failed to hire the overt salts for field technician positions, for which they were qualified. In order to prove this violation, the Union must first establish that the Company was hiring field technicians, or had concrete plans to hire field technicians, on April $13,$ the date on which the overt salts visited the Company's facility. The evidence in the record does not establish that the Company was hiring for a field technician position for which the seven overt salts may have had the necessary experience or training. In these circumstances, we find that the Union has failed to prove the allegation that the Company violated Section $8(2)(3)$ and $(1)$ by refusing to hire overt salts.

Further, insofar as the Union argues that the Company unlawfully refused to consider the overt salts for field technician positions, we find that the Union has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Company excluded the overt salts from a "hiring process" involving those positions. As explained above, the Union has established neither that, at the time the seven overt salts attempted to apply for employment on April $13,$ the Company was hiring field technicians, nor that the Company had a policy of accepting applications for positions for which it was not currently hiring. Furthermore, the Union has not established that the Company excluded the overt salts from applying for such positions in the first place; in fact, the Receptionist expressly informed one of the applicants that she would accept an application for a Field Technician position, even though the Company was not currently hiring for that position. None of the overt salts, however, actually submitted applications or pursued the matter further.

Accordingly, we find that the Company did not violate Section $8(a)(3)$ and $(1)$ by refusing to consider for hire the overt salts.

Answer the following questions:

Explain how the Company's treatment of both the "covert" and "overt" salts applications for jobs compares to the recommended counter$-$salting steps for employers.

Would either the "covert" or the "overt" salts in this case satisfy the NLRB ruling that applicants for employment must be genuinely interested in seeking employment before claiming protection under the NLRA?

Does the Company's opposition to becoming a union shop indicate that there was antiunion animus in refusing to consider the "overt" salts for employment?

Please answer questions $1-3$ after tradreading the case stufdy, thank you