Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 6, 1978

239 N.L.R.B. 207 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. and Randy Burnworth. Case 31-
CA 7424
November 6. 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PIFNELI 0
AND TRUESDALE
On June 27, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Rich-
ard J. Boyce issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and counsel for the General
Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief in support
thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, except
as modified herein, and to adopt his recommended
Order.
For the reasons stated by the Administrative Law
Judge, we find that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act because its suspension of Randy
Burnworth was motiviated by the protected concert-
ed activity in which he engaged on September 30,
1977. Additionally, we find, in agreement with the
Administrative Law Judge, that Burnworth's suspen-
sion on September 30 was unlawful in any event be-
cause it was induced, at least in part, by his various
protected concerted activities earlier that month.
We do not, however, adopt the Administrative
Law Judge's rationale which dismisses the Respon-
dent's contention that Burnworth's September 30 re-
fusal to work contravened the no-strike clause and
thus was without protection. In our view, the Admin-
istrative Law Judge's discussion on this argument is
inapposite because Burnworth's actions on that date
did not rise to the level of being a strike or a work
stoppage.
The record reveals that, on the day of his suspen-
sion, Foreman Glen Marshall had assigned Burn-
worth and a fellow workman, Andrew Bittner, the
task of changing the filter bags on the pneumatic
conveyor system in the Respondent's grain storage
building. This job is considered an undesirable one
because grain dust escaping the bags during the
changing process completely covers those performing
the work. Burnworth, aware that grain dust in sus-
pension presents a danger of explosion, knew that
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC.
workmen in the grain house were conducting welding
operations. Burnworth reminded Marshall of a previ-
ous conversation between them regarding the safety
of welding in the grain building and told him that
"he might have to refuse to do the work." Marshall
admonished Burnworth to inspect the grain building
before making such a decision, to which Burnworth
replied that even entering the building would be dan-
gerous if welding was in progress.
Approximately I hour later, having completed
other work assigned them, Burnworth and Bittner in-
formed Foremen Marshall and Bob Holzworth that
thev were proceeding to the grain house and inquired
whether the welding operations had been completed.
Holzworth retorted that the assignment presented no
danger. Burnworth, citing various of its sections, re-
sponded that he believed that welding in the grain
building violated the city's fire code. Holzworth stat-
ed that he had spoken with Jim Turner, manager of
industrial relations, who had assured him the work
was safe.
Burnworth and Bittner then proceeded to the grain
house, agreeing that they would not work in the
building should welding be in progress. Burnworth
testified that when he arrived at the grain house, he
found it freer of dust than he had ever seen it, and he
noticed that all the windows had been opened to pro-
vide maximum ventilation. He spoke with the weld-
ers who were present and learned they would be fin-
ished in 10 to 15 minutes; thereupon Burnworth and
Bittner departed the building to wait.' Foreman Mar-
shall, finding them outside the grain building, asked
them why they were not at work, to which Burnworth
replied that, because of the welding, it was hazardous
to be in the building. Marshall recounted the safety
precautions Respondent had taken in the building,
but Burnworth and Bittner again refused to work
while the welders were working. Marshall then took
them to speak to Holzworth. who, after speaking
with Burnworth, suspended him pursuant to the di-
rection of Turner.
We find no basis on these facts to conclude that
Burnworth's actions amounted to a strike. The rec-
ord presents no evidence that Burnworth intended
his actions either to pressure Respondent to grant
any concessions or to protest any of its policies. He
and Bittner simply deferred execution of their assign-
ment until the welders completed their work in the
grain building, a period which was expected to be
from 10 to 15 minutes. Similarly, we do not find that
urnv.orth lestified thal he used Ihis time tor obtain materia.ls and equip-
menl required to effect the assignment
207
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this act amounted to a work stoppage of the type
contemplated by the no-strike clause, due to its brief
duration and the failure of Respondent to show that
it in any way interfered with production.2 Thus, we
dismiss Respondent's contention on this point, but in
so doing we do not rely on the rationale of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. We affirm the conclusions
of the Administrative Law Judge in all other re-
spects.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Anheuser-Busch, Inc.,
Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
2See Shelry & Anderson Furniture Manufacture (Co., Inc. v. N . R B.. 497
F.2d 1200, 1203 (91h ('ir 1974). Empire Steel Manufaciuring (Conpany. Inc..
234 NLRB 530. (1978).
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RIKHARD J BOYCE. Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard before me in Los Angeles, California, on March
14, 15, and 16, 1978. The charge was filed on October 5,
1977, by Randy Burnworth, acting in his individual capaci-
ty (Burnworth). The complaint issued on November 30,
alleging that Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (Respondent), had vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act (Act), as amended.
Post-trial briefs were filed for the General Counsel and
for Respondent.
I JURISDICTI(ON
Respondent is a Missouri corporation engaged in the op-
eration of a brewery in Van Nuys, California. Its annual
gross income exceeds $500,000. and it annually ships beer
of a value exceeding $50,000 across state lines.
Respondent is an employer engaged in and affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
II ISSI F
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(l) and (3) by suspending Burnworth from September
30 through October 9, 1977. The answer denies any wrong-
doing.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. Evidence
Burnworth is a swing-shift maintenance machinist at Re-
spondent's Van Nuys brewery and part of a unit covered
by a labor agreement between Respondent and District
Lodge No. 94, International Association of Machinists
(Union).' His immediate supervisor is Glen Marshall, fore-
man of the maintenance department. Marshall's immediate
superior is Bob Holzworth, general foreman of the swing
shift.
Burnworth, among others, is called upon from time to
time to change filter bags or "socks" in the brewery's airve-
yor. The airveyor has 60 such socks, which filter foreign
matter from grains used in the brewing process. The socks
are 6 inches in diameter and range in length from 66 to 74
inches. They are replaced every 2 or 3 months, the proce-
dure taking 20 to 30 minutes per sock and requiring two
employees. Marshall testified that those changing socks
"will be covered with the dust from head to foot," and that
it is an "undesirable job" for that reason.
The airveyor is a multistory cylindrical structure situated
in the grain building at the brewery, in a room 72 feet high
by 52 feet square. The socks are housed at the seventh floor
level and are accessible by catwalk. The room is heavily
windowed for ventilation purposes, and its light fixtures,
switches, etc., are designed to minimize the possibility of
igniting a dust explosion.
As is more fully described below, Burnworth's suspen-
sion followed his refusal on September 30, 1977, to change
socks while welding was being done in the room. This had
become a point of contention 3 or so weeks before, when
he and a coworker were told to change socks in the same
circumstances. Burnworth was reluctant then to undertake
the task, telling Marshall and Holzworth of his concern
that the welding might spark an explosion. They were un-
sympathetic, Holzworth declaring that the practice had
been in effect for 20 years without mishap and inviting
Burnworth to go home if he did not like it. With that,
Burnworth and the coworker returned to the airveyor. The
welding by then was done, and they changed socks as or-
dered.
Soon after that initial confrontation, Burnworth began
to discuss the seeming danger of the situation with various
of his coworkers, espousing the need for the development
and posting of rules governing welding, etc., in the grain
building. They shared his concern and assisted him in
working up a series of questions and comments to be put to
management regarding the matter.
Burnworth showed a handwritten draft of the questions
and comments to his union steward, Don Hendrickson,
who likewise shared his concern. Hendrickson arranged for
his wife to convert the draft to this typewritten form: 2
Safety Question:
Who and how determines when it is safe and by
It is concluded that the Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ini of Sec 2(5) of the Act
' Spelling errors corrected.
208
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC.
what procedures when followed is it determined safe
to:
I. Use electric drill motor?
2. Use air motor?
3. Use cutting torch?
4. Use welder?
5. Have on person a ligh:ter and smoke in the
grain building?
We were under opinion that none of the above were
allowed, unless the following were:
1. All windows are open.
2. By scientific method determine amount of
grain dust in air is at a safe non-combustible level.
(What method is used?)
3. All exposed areas vacuumed and cleaned.
4. Possible area wetted.
5. All machinery that could spout dust into work
area shut off, and tagged at all on switches.
6. All other normal fire precautions are in effect.
Now to point out, we arrived on 7th floor of grain
building to discover several men at work, some weld-
ing, some soldering, and some using cutting torch.
Upon examination we discovered:
1. That only 4 or 5 windows were open, (and we
don't think that is sufficient.)
2. Areas poorly cleaned with much dust residue.
3. No electrical shutdown enforced.
4. Areas not wetted down.
5. One "engineer said it was safe." By what scien-
tific method did he use to gain this knowledge and
power?
6. No fire permit or extra fire extinguishers on
site visible.
WE DESIRE ANSWERS TO ALL THE ABOVE QUESTIONS BE POSTED ON
THE BULLETIN BOARD
Hendrickson Hendrickson gave a copy of the document
to one of the employees, Richard Garcia, for presentation
at the September 13 monthly meeting of Respondent's
safety committee. Garcia was not a member of the commit-
tee, but was to attend as the winner of a safety slogan
contest. Garcia gave the copy to Donald Burnell, supervis-
or of plant personnel, either just before or just after the
meeting adjourned. Whichever, it did not receive commit-
tee consideration.
On September 14, Burnell discussed the document with
his superior, James Turner, manager of industrial relations.
This was by long-distance telephone, Turner being at com-
pany headquarters in St. Louis, Mo. Turner felt that some
of the points bore validity and directed Burnell to take
them up with the brewmaster, Jim Bianchi, and the mainte-
nance superintendent, George Edwards. Burnell accord-
ingly met with Bianchi and Edwards, and also with Mar-
shall and Holzworth, on September 15. There was some
speculation during these meetings about the authorship of
the questions and comments, with Burnworth being isolat-
ed as most likely.
Later on the 15th, Hendrickson noticed that the minutes
of the safety committee meeting had no mention of the
questions and comments and asked Burnell if they had
been received. Burnell said they had, and Hendrickson
asked if he intended to respond to them. Burnell replied
that there was no need for that, that he had reviewed the
situation and saw no basis for concern about safety in the
grain building. Burnell then either said he knew or asked
Hendrickson who was responsible for the document. In
either case, no names were mentioned.
On September 16, reacting to the nonmention in the
minutes of the questions and comments, Burnworth made
the first of numerous telephone calls to the Van Nuys Divi-
sion of the Los Angeles Fire Department and to the Cali-
fornia Division of Industrial Safety. The calls to the fire
department prompted Arthur Bowman, a fire inspector, to
visit the brewery on September 23, at which time he was
escorted through the grain building by the plant engineer,
Hubert Smith. Explaining his presence, Bowman told
Smith that there had been "a complaint ... regarding
welding that was being done under allegedly unsafe condi-
tions in the grain building." He did not identify the com-
plainant.
Based upon his inspection and upon research about
grain-dust explosions.3 Bowman sent a citation of fire/life
safety violation to Respondent. The citation, dated Sep-
tember 27 and received September 30, states among other
things:
2. N.F.P.A. Pamphlet #51-B will be your source of
precautionary measures (minimum) which you will be
expected to adhere to.
3. Provide written instructions on bulletin board in
maintenance offices of complied directions and pre-
cautions taken from above pamphlet for all mainte-
nance personnel's knowledge and reference.
The N.F.P.A. is the National Fire Protection Associa-
tion, and its standards as set forth in its various pamphlets
are incorporated in the Los Angeles Fire Code. Among the
standards set forth in Pamphlet 51-B is this:
41. Cutting or welding shall not be permitted in the
following situations:
* . . * *
413. In the presence of explosive atmospheres (mix-
tures of flammable gases, vapors, liquids or dusts with
air), or explosive atmospheres . . . that may develop
in areas with an accumulation of combustible dusts.
Meanwhile, Burnell discussed the situation with Alan
Ball of Respondent's insurance carrier, Zurich-American
Among other things Bow man consulted by telephone with the St. Louts
Fire Department because of the heavr concentration of grain storage facil-
ities in its jurisdiciion.
4Pamphlet 61 B of the N. F P.A. contains this paragraph:
10101 Welding and cutting operations are potentialiy one of the most
hazardous operations tha: may be conducted in grain storage and han-
dling buildings. fhis is parlicularly true because of the combustible
dust and other refuse which might he found in the Immediate vicinity
where welding or cutting is carried out
209
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Insurance Companies. On September 2
some printed materials to Burnell describi
be taken in the operation of grain-hand
cluding this:
17. Ignition Sources
(b) Welding and Cutting not done
nary understanding prior to such we
written permission. All dust produc
area shut down....
On September 26, Ball inspected the gi
an independent consulting engineer, CI
though both commented at the time that
well kept, they did say that they had cert
tions, which were reduced to writing an(
spondent on October 10. Neither Ball no
the sock-changing process, and neither w
ion of its being done during welding. Th
tions are silent on that issue.
On September 28, Burnworth showed a
tions and comments to Marshall and urge
and posting of safety rules. Marshall r
could do nothing about it, and suggeste
go to the Union and to the Occupational
Administration (OSHA).
On September 30, Marshall directed
coworker, Andrew Bittner, to change so
tion of what they were doing. Burnworth
ing was in progress in the grain buildin
shall of their conversation of the 28th ar
have to refuse to do the work." Marsh
Burnworth go to the grain building and
tion of the situation before making up hi
worth replied that even that would be
were going on. Burnworth then asked, or
Marshall thought he should clock out, or
work he could do.
An hour or so later, when he and Bitt
go to the grain building, Burnworth infor
Holzworth that they were on their way at
of the welding. Holzworth, citing sundr
precautions that had been taken, stated
danger, and Burnworth countered that
spondent to be in violation of certain fir
he had obtained. Holzworth responded
industrial relations manager, had assured
ation was safe, to which Burnworth dec
did not have to work in it.
Burnworth and Bittner then procee
building, agreeing en route that they 1
socks if welding was underway. Upon a
the building to be immaculately clean,
than they had ever seen it, and that the
opened to achieve maximum ventilation.
then present, although a welding crew p
Burnworth ascertained from the welde
be done in 10 or 15 minutes, and he a]
building to await that. Moments later, M
them near the brewhouse. He asked w
1, Ball delivered working, and Burnworth said it was unsafe in the grain
ng precautions to building because of the welding. Marshall, first reciting the
ling facilities, in- litany of precautions that had been taken, asked them to go
to work and they refused. 5
The three then went before Holzworth. Marshall related
what had just happened, and Holzworth conferred with
* * Turner by telephone. Pursuant to Turner's guidance,
ewithout prelimi- Holzworth recited anew the assorted precautions that had
been taken and asked Burnworth if he still refused to work)rk and only with
ing operations in tduring welding. Burnworth said that he did, adding that
the welding was almost over. Holzworth said that that was
irrelevant and, still following Turner's instructions, an-
rain building with nounced that Burnworth was suspended pending further
harles Smith. Al- investigation. Bittner apparently was silent throughout this
t the building was meeting and suffered no sanctions for his part in the mat-
ain recommenda- ter. He changed the socks later that evening, after the weld-
d received by Re- ing had ended, aided by another employee.
)r Smith observed On October 3, Burnworth received a notice of violation
as asked his opin- of plant rules or regulations. It states that he had violated
heir recommenda- plant rule I I-A by refusing to "perform assigned work or
refusal to comply with supervisory instructions." It further
a copy of his ques- states:
!d the formulation You are hereby suspended for one week from October
esponded that he 3, 1977, to and including October 9, 1977. You will
d that Burnworth report to work on your regular shift on Monday, Octo-
Safety and Health ber 10, 1977. Any further violations will result in a
more severe disciplinary action.
Burnworth and a
cks upon comple- On October 4, having been informed by Burnworth of
, aware that weld- the September 30 incident, Inspector Bowman sent Re-
g, reminded Mar- spondent a second citation concerning "welding and/or
nd said he "might cutting in grain elevator"; on November 3, a fire preven-
all suggested that tion engineer for the City of Los Angeles recommended to
make an evalua- Respondent by letter that "the removal of socks from the
s mind, and Burn- airveyor system should not be undertaken during welding
unsafe if welding operations"; and, on November 10, Respondent incorpo-
stensibly in jest, if rated that recommendation in a newly posted procedure
r if there was other for cutting and welding.
Turner testified that the decision to suspend Burnworth
tner were ready to was his alone and that, when he directed it on the 30th, he
med Marshall and only knew that an employee, identity and circumstances
id asked the status unknown, had refused to follow orders. Turner embel-
y inspections and lished that, when he talked to Holzworth on the 30th, he
that there was no "made no connection with the previous problem" of safety
t he believed Re- in the grain building. He testified elsewhere, however, that
re regulations that it was not necessary for Holzworth to go into particular
i that Turner, the detail with him on the 30th because "I was very familiar
I him that the situ- with the events leading up to this, because of the questions,
,lared that Turner because of my investigations, because of my discussion
with various people." Consistent with this latter testimony,
ded to the grain Marshall testified that he was aware, on September 30, that
would not change the controversy about safety in the grain building was
arrival, they found "coming to a head" and that he assumed Burnworth to be
perhaps more so "responsible." Marshall nevertheless denied that Burn-
windows had been worth was assigned the sock-changing operation that day
· Nor were welders to facilitate a confrontation.
resently appeared. Turner testified at one point that he did not learn of
!rs that they would Burnworth's part in the written questions and comments
nd Bittner left the until well after the suspension, only to concede that he first
1arshall came upon
vhy they were not 5 Marshall testified that "they refused."
210
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC.
"suspected" Burnworth's authorship sometime between
September 19 and 27.
The controlling labor agreement contains this no-strike,
no-lockout clause:
During the term of this Agreement, the Union shall
not authorize, cause, engage in, sanction, or assist in a
strike, work stoppage, or slowdown against the Com-
pany. The Company shall not cause, permit, or engage
in any lockout of the employees covered hereby.
The agreement also contains this provision, under "Safety
Rules":
No employee shall be discharged or disciplined for
refusing to work on a job if his refusal is based upon
the claim that said job is not safe, or might unduly
endanger his health, until it is determined by the Em-
ployer that the job is or has been made safe, or will not
unduly endanger his health. Any dispute concerning
such determination is subject to the grievance proce-
dure.
B. Conclusion
It is concluded that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l)
by its suspension of Burnworth.
The conduct ostensibly triggering the suspension-
Burnworth's refusal to change socks during welding on
September 30th-was a concerted activity, normally pro-
tected by the Act, for two reasons. First, Bittner joined in
the refusal; 6 and second, even had Burnworth been acting
alone, he was acting in arguable vindication of his right
under the agreement to refuse "to work on a job if his
refusal is based upon the claim that the job is not safe." As
stated in Roadway Express, Inc., 217 NLRB 278, 279
(1975):
[W]hen an employee makes complaints concerning
safety matters which are embodied in a contract, he is
acting not only in his own interest, but is attempting to
enforce such contract provisions in the interest of all
the employees covered under that contract. Such ac-
tivity we have found to be concerted and protected
under the Act.
Given Burnworth's arguable contract entitlement to refuse
to work, it does not detract from the refusal's protected
character that it may not, in fact, have comported with the
correct interpretation of the clause in question. The Singer
Company, Climate Control Division, 198 NLRB 870 (1972).
Burnworth's various safety activities before September
30th-discussing with his coworkers the safety of welding
in the grain building and drafting the questions and com-
ments in consultation with them, calling the situation to
the attention of the fire department and the Division of
Industrial Safety, and going over the questions and com-
ments with Marshall on September 28th-likewise were
6 nion Boiler Company. 213 NLRB 81i (1974): Eirex Internaurlnal, In,
213 NLRB 260 (1974); Belfr' Coal ( orporation. 139 NIRB 1058 (19621
Respondent's assertion is rejected that it had no knov, ledge that Burnivorth
and Bittner were acting in concert. As noted in a preslus footnote. Mar-
shall testified that when he asked them to go to work. "thes refused."
concerted activities, normally protected by the Act.7 It is
inferable, moreover, that the suspension was motivated by
the September 30 incident in combination with some or all
of these activities and not, as Respondent would have it, by
that incident in isolation. Most revealing of this, Bittner, a
copartner with Burnworth on the 30th but not before, was
not disciplined. Further to the same effect was Marshall's
testimony that the safety issue was "coming to a head" on
the 30th, with Burnworth assumedly at the core. That "the
gun was loaded and cocked" was suggested as well by
Turner's testimony that he was so abreast of the matter
that a minimum of explanation was needed when
Holzworth called to report the refusal to work. Finally,
Respondent received Inspector Bowman's first citation
earlier on the 30th-a development doubtless tending to
bring things "to a head" that day and which doubtless was
linked in management minds with Burnworth's safety ac-
tivities.
Thus, even accepting Respondent's argument that the
refusal to work on the 30th constituted a stnke and that it
was without statutory protection because of the no-strike
provision, the suspension still was unlawful because pro-
voked in part by Burnworth's other concerted activities,
the protected status of which had not even arguably been
waived through the bargaining process. Quoting from Con-
struction, Production & Maintenance Laborers' Union local
No. 383, affiliated with Laborers' International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO (William Pulice Concrete Con-
struction), 236 NLRB 125 (1978):
[T]o find a violation of the Act it need only be shown
that a respondent's conduct was, in part, discriminato-
rily motivated, and the coexistence of separate lawful
reasons does not eliminate the unlawful aspect of the
conduct in question. In such cases, where a respon-
dent's motivations are mixed, the Board has held that
the legal effect of the conduct is the same as though
the illegal reason for its action was the only operative
reason.
Beyond that, Respondent's argument that the September
30 refusal was without protection because of the no-strike
clause gives unwarranted breadth to the language of that
clause. It states only that "the Union shall not .... " no-
where proscribing employee action independently under-
taken. To give it the broader sweep Respondent urges
would be to ignore the precept that "the waiver of statutory
rights is not lightly to be inferred" 8 and "must be 'clear
and unmistable.' "9 Not only is such a waiver not inferable
from the no-strike clause, as concerns situations such as the
refusal on the 30th, it is directly belied by the clause per-
mitting work refusals "based upon the claim that the job is
not safe."
Also rejected is Respondent's argument that the Septem-
ber 30 refusal was unprotected because the clause just cited
IF.g . H & P totor fxprers. In(. 230 Nl.RB 653 (1977) (threat ha em-
plosee to make safets-related complaint to a Federal agenc): .4illelua
( u.shwln (), Inc. 221 NL RB 999 11975) (safeti-related co.mplaint hb) em-
plo.see to a state agenc): Eri Straetr ( rmpani. 213 Nl RB 344 (19741
(safetl-related complaint hb emnploee to management)
G(;ari-ltohoar, aler ( orporatrin. 210 NL.RB 742. 745 ( 1974)
Insura,( 1 ,orketrl International Union, .4Ft . ( 10, l) -t 0 Joihn Han-
,,,A 1,tual ltti e Insuraznce ( 'otpanl, 236 NI RB 44)0 (1')78).
211
DE(CISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
permits refusals to work only "until it is determined by the
Employer that the job is or has been made safe," Respon-
dent assertedly having made such a determination. The is-
sue of clear and unmistakable waiver aside, this argument
is incompatible with the conclusion reached above that
Burnworth's refusal gained statutory protection in part be-
cause it enjoyed arguable sanction under that same provi-
sion. The argument also assumes a fact not in evidence-
namely, that any kind of good-faith determination had
been made regarding the safety of coincident welding and
sock-changing.
Apart from his protected concerted activities, Burnworth
engaged in protected union activity by enlisting the union
steward, Hendrickson, in aid of his safety campaign. If Re-
spondent's suspension of him was motivated in part by this
activity, the suspension of course violated Section 8(a)(3)
as well as 8(a)(l). It is concluded, however, since the rem-
edy would not be significantly affected, that there is no
need to reach this issue.
It also is concluded, in light of the preceding analysis,
that there is no need to assess the September 30 refusal to
work in terms of Section 502 of the Act.10
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. By suspending Randy Burnworth as found herein,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act.
2. This unfair labor practice affects commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER "
The Respondent, Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Los Angeles,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Suspending or otherwise discriminating against its
employees for engaging in protected concerted activities.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in their exercise of
rights under the Act.
2. Take this affirmative action:
(a) Make Randy Burnworth whole for any loss of earn-
ings or benefits suffered by reason of his unlawful suspen-
sion, plus interest.t2
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this Order.
(c) Post at its brewery in Van Nuys, California, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 31, after being duly signed by Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all palces where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IU Sec. 502 states that "the quitting of labor by an employee or employees
In good faith because of abnormally dangerous conditions for work . ..
[shall not] be deemed a strike under this Act."
All outstanding motions inconsistent with this recommended Order
hereby are denied. In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec.
102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the Natiional Labor Relations Board.
the findings. conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes.
2 Backpay is to be computed in accordance with iF W Woolworth Com-
pant, 90 NLRB 289 1950), with interest to be computed in the manner set
forth in Florida Steel Corporatlin, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See, generally. Isis
Plumhing i& Heating (Co 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United
States ('ourt 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 Ulnited States (Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National L.abor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties participated and had a
chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations
Board has found that we committed an unfair labor prac-
tice in violation of Section 8(a)( ) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and has ordered us to post this
notice and abide by it.
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act gives
all employees the following rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or support unions
To bargain as a group through a representative
they choose
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all such activity except to
the extent that the employees' bargaining represen-
tative and employer have a collective-bargaining
agreement which imposes a lawful requirement that
employees become union members.
WE WILL NOT suspend or otherwise discriminate
against our employees for engaging in protected con-
certed activities.
WE WILL Nor in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in their exer-
cise of rights under the Act.
WE WILL make Randy Burnworth whole for any loss
of earnings or benefits suffered by reason of his un-
lawful suspension, plus interest.
ANHEUSER-ButS(Hi IN(
212