Prompt cleaned and maintained the federal government building at Cadman Plaza. The employees performed this work under a collective bargaining agreement between Prompt and Local 32B-32J. GSA solicited bids for a new cleaning contract. The bid solicitation required the new contractor to pay the same wages as Prompt and to have an initial workforce of which at least fifty percent comprised experienced cleaners. P was awarded the contract. Local 32B requested that P hire Prompt's Cadman Plaza employees. A GSA official mentioned the names of various employees as being 'good workers,' and P observed two Prompt employees sleeping. P did not take note of the names of either the good workers or the sleeping workers. The building manager (another GSA employee) informed P that the GSA had taken deductions from Prompt's fee, presumably for deficient performance. P told the building manager that he did not intend to hire any of Prompt's employees because of the deductions and the two employees he had seen sleeping on the job. The building manager also informed P that certain judges whose chambers were in the Cadman Plaza building wanted P to retain the Prompt employees who cleaned their chambers. The building manager stated that it would be advantageous for P to hire as many of them as possible. The GSA official who conducted the inspection gave P a list of ten 'better cleaners from Prompt Maintenance,' and urged P to hire them. P agreed to hire the ten Prompt employees. P ignored the rest. P then hired eight workers who had not previously worked for Prompt. P had previously employed four of these workers. Two had good work records, and two did not. P also hired four workers who had not previously been employed by either Prompt or P. P admitted that none of them had relevant work experience. P then entered into a supplemental agreement with Amalgamated Local Union 355--with which P had a collective bargaining agreement. Local 32B filed an unfair labor practice charge against P. D's General Counsel filed a complaint against P in that P had bargained with Local 355 knowing that it represented a minority of the workers at Cadman Plaza and that it had refused to consider employing Prompt employees. Before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), P admitted that it had recognized Local 355 although Local 32B represented a majority of the employees at Cadman Plaza. That issue was settled by P recognizing Local 32B for its Cadman Plaza employees. The ALJ concluded that P violated §§ 8(a)(1) and (3) upon finding that P had declined to consider any Prompt employees who were not on the 'better cleaners' list in order to recognize and bargain with Local 355 rather than Local 32B. D adopted the ALJ's findings. P was ordered to offer employment and back pay to the Prompt employees it had refused to consider. P appealed.