Bechtel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1963

141 N.L.R.B. 844 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisal because of their member-
ship in, sympathy for, or activity on behalf of any union.
WE WILL NOT prohibit our employees from discussing grievances with other
employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form unions, to join
or assist Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, or any other union, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer to Milford Allen, Luther Jackson Evans, and H. C. McKinney,
Jr., immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges pre-
viously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by them
as a result of the discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members
of the above-named or any other union.
WELLINGTON MILL DIVISION WEST POINT
MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1831
Nissen Building, 310 West Fourth Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Telephone
No Park 4-8356, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
Bechtel Corporation and Thomas H. Tucker. Case No. 3-CA-
1888. March 27, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 26, 1962, Trial Examiner William Seagle issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.'
1 Ave find no merit in the Respondent's contention that the Trial Examiner lacked the
required degree of impartiality and objectivity However, we do not adopt the various
remarks made by the Trial Examiner with respect to Respondent's counsel
The Respondent excepted to the Trial Examiner's refusal to allow the Respondent to
produce evidence showing an alleged proclivity on the part of the dischargees to engage
in unprotected activity. We find no merit in this contention In our opinion, the fact
that the dischargees may have engaged in unprotected activity on other occasions does not
excuse the Respondent's conduct, Involved herein, in discharging these employees for
141 NLRB No. 70.
BECHTEL CORPORATION 845
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations.'
ORDER
The-Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the
Trial Examiner with the following modifications:
(1) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph
2(b) of the Recommended Order :
(b) In the event that the Respondent's operations in the Platts-
burgh project have been completed, make whole William L. Pitt-
senberger, Bonnie White, Raymond A. Young, and Thurman M.
Hickerson for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason
of their discharges, and assure them of their future eligibility
for employment by the Respondent in the manner and to the
extent set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report en-
titled "The Remedy," as modified by the Decision and Order
herein.
(2) The following note shall be added to the bottom of the notice
immediately below the signature line :
NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees pres-
ently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their
right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
(3) The following paragraph shall be substituted for the penulti-
mate paragraph appearing below the signature line at the bottom of
the notice.
This notice must remain posted as long as operations on the
Plattsburgh project are in progress, but for a period of no longer
than 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
having engaged in conduct which the Trial Examiner found , and we agree , was protected
activity
'The Trial Examiner recommended , among other things, that in the event the Re-
spondent 's operations at the Plattsburgh project have been completed, the Respondent
shall send letters to Pittsenberger , White, Young , and Nickerson , the four employees
whom it had unlawfully discharged, stating that , notwithstanding their discharges, they
would be considered eligible for employment in the future at any of the Respondent's
projects , if they should choose to apply for employment at any of them We adopt this
recommendation We wish to make it clear , however, that the Respondent is not re-
quired to offer the four dischargees employment at other projects but only to consider
them for employment on a nondiscriminatory basis.
Member Leedom dissents from the inclusion of interest on the backpay obligation for
the reasons stated in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716.
846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on May 8, 1962, a complaint dated August 3, 1962, was
issued against Bechtel Corporation, herein called the Respondent, charging it with
violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
Specifically, it was charged in the complaint (as further detailed in a subsequent
bill of particulars) that the Respondent discharged four of its millwright employees,
Thurman M. Hickerson, William L. Pittsenberger, Bonnie White, and Raymond A.
Young, and failed to reinstate any of them except Pittsenberger, because they had
complained that work which they should have performed was being assigned to
ironworkers and that their employer's safety program was inadequate, and also
because they had formalized their complaints in a letter, dated April 19, 1962, and
addressed to the present of their Union.
The allegations of the complaint having been denied, a hearing with respect to them
was held before Trial Examiner William Seagle on September 11 and 12, 1962,
at Plattsburgh, New York. After the testimony had been taken, counsel on both
sides presented oral argument very briefly but also requested permission to file briefs.
Subsequently, counsel for the Respondent filed a brief which has been duly considered.
Upon the record so made, and based on my observation of the witnesses, I hereby
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
At all material times, the Respondent, Bechtel Corporation, which has been duly
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, has maintained its principal
office and place of business at 220 Bush Street, in the city of San Francisco, State
of California. The business of the Respondent is to perform construction contracts
at various locations in the United States. The project of the Respondent involved
in the present proceeding is the Atlas missile base, consisting of 12 missile sites located
in and around Plattsburg, New York.
During the past year, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its operations,
has purchased, transferred, and delivered to the Plattsburgh, New York, missile
project, goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000. These goods and materials
came directly from States of the United States other than the State of New York.
The operations of the Respondent at the Plattsburgh, New York, missile project not
only affect commerce but also exert a substantial impact on national defense.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 1042, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO,
hereinafter referred to as Local 1042, and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, have at all material times been labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharges of the millwrights
Work on the Plattsburgh project, which is the only intercontinental ballistic missile
base in the eastern half of the United States, was commenced in 1959, and Bechtel's
work, which was the second phase of the Atlas missile installations, and consisted of
the installation of the mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic equipment at
the 12 missile sites located in and around Plattsburgh, began in 1961 and was
scheduled for completion in November 1962. At the time of the hearing in the
present proceeding, the work as a whole was head of schedule, and work had
actually been completed at a number of the 12 missile sites.
The work at the Plattsburgh missile sites was directed by L. M. Allen, project
manager , and by M. L. Morris, project superintendent, and the supervisory hierarchy
also included, apparently, a site superintendent and general foreman at each of the
missile sites. The record shows that, in addition, there were, at sites 4 and 10, the
two sites primarily involved in the present proceeding, working millwright foremen.
Thus at site 4 there was a site superintendent by the name of Robert J. Morris, a
general foreman by the name of Gordon Miller, and a millwright foreman by the
name of Bushey; and at site 10 there was a site superintendent by the name of
Anthony Buonanno, a general foreman by the name of H. G. Underwood, and mill-
wright foremen by the names of Charlie Reynolds and Frank O. Kenaston. The
BECHTEL CORPORATION 847
managerial hierarchy also included a labor relations representative by the name of
Jack Price, who helped to administer Bechtel's union agreements, advised on work
assignments , and hired employees.
When Bechtel entered the Plattsburgh area, it sought to assure itself of an adequate
labor supply by entering into union agreements. Thus, Bechtel entered into an
agreement with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.
The agreement was dated June 20, 1960, and was to continue in effect for a period of
1 year from its date and from year to year thereafter unless notice of termination
or modification was given in writing by either party 60 days prior to the anniversary
date of the agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, Bechtel recognized the
jurisdictional claims of the Union, agreed to abide by the hours and wages and other
working conditions in the locality, and to make use of the Union's facilities on a non-
discriminatory basis to secure competent journeymen. The agreement also contained
a provision for the arbitration of disputes, and prohibited lockouts, strikes, or work
stoppages pending such arbitration.
The local agreement actually governing the employment of millwrights by Bechtel
was an agreement negotiated by the Northern New York Building Trades Employers
Association, Inc., with the Adirondack & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters.
This agreement, which will be referred to hereinafter as the millwright agreement,
was dated July 1, 1961, and was to continue in effect until June 30, 1964, unless a
change were desired by either party to the agreement, in which case 60 days' notice
of a desire to effect a change was to be given. Among the pertinent provisions of
the millwright agreement are article V, section 1, which requires an hour's notice
to be given to employees before they are discharged or laid off; article VI, section 1,
requiring the union business agent to appoint a job steward, and prescribing that the
job steward was to be allowed a reasonable length of time to perform his duties;
article XV, sections 1 to 11, defining the trade jurisdiction of the millwrights, and
binding the parties to the procedural rules, decisions, and awards made by the National
Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes; and article XVI, requiring
any question relating to the interpretation or violation of the agreement to be sub-
mitted to arbitration, and prohibiting interruptions to work pending the arbitration
proceedings.
The local union through which Bechtel obtained its millwrights was Local 1042
of the Carpenters. When millwrights were required, Jack Price, Bechtel's labor
relations representative, would contact Alexander Turbide, the business agent of
Local 1042,i who would obtain them through the union hiring hall. This was done
pursuant to the agreement with the International , there being no written agreement
with Local 1042. In all, some 300 millwrights came to be employed on the Platts-
burgh project.
The union hierarchy concerned with the Bechtel job included George F. Welsch,
an International representative of the Carpenters, and William Lawyer, a general
representative of the Carpenters who had jurisdiction over all millwrights, as well as
carpenters , on missile sites . Pursuant to the provisions of the millwright agreement,
there were also, of course, union stewards on sites 4 and 10. The name of the steward
on site 4 was one Rok, and one Robert Pugh was the steward on site 10.
The present proceeding is directly concerned with the hiring and firing of four of
the millwrights, namely, Raymond A. Young and Thurman Hickerson, who were
hired on April 16, 1962, and assigned to work on site 4, and William L. Pittsenberger
and Bonnie White, who were hired on April 4 and 17, 1962, respectively,2 and assigned
to work on site 10.3 However, one other millwright, Frank O. Kenaston, who was
hired at the same time as Bonnie White, played a large role in the events that led to
the discharge of the other millwrights . His discharge is not alleged to have been
unlawful only because he was made a millwright foreman on the very first day of his
employment.
All five of these millwrights had had many years of experience . Young had been a
millwright for 6 years, Hickerson for 10 years, Pittsenberger for 12 years, and White
for 18 years. While the record does not show the precise number of years that
Kenaston had been a millwright, they must have been many, for he had previously
worked at no less than three other Atlas missile bases which were located at
Cheyenne, Wyoming, and at Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska, and had been general
i There were in all 17 different business agents on the Bechtel job
'Unless otherwise indicated all references to dates made hereinafter will be in 1962
a Tbere were four other millwrights who were included in the charge, namely, Frank
0. Kenaston, H. G Underwood, Leonard R Wishman, and Thomas H. Tucker. They were
not included , however, in the complaint because at the time of their discharge they were
supervisory employees.
848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
foreman while working at the base at Lincoln. Young, Hickerson, Pittsenberger, and
White had also come to the Bechtel job from other missile bases in the Middle West.
None of the five millwrights was a member of Local 1042 but it may be inferred
from the record as a whole that they were all union members. It is affirmatively estab-
lished, however, that White was a member of Local 1643, a millwright local in
Chicago, Illinois, and that Kenaston was a member of Local 1821, a millwright local
in Omaha, Nebraska.
The record shows that jurisdictional problems arose on the Bechtel job in April
1962. Price testified that in the middle of April 1962 he was made aware of
complaints concerning work assignments, particularly at site 10, which were that
ironworkers were doing work that belonged to the millwrights. He had several
conversations about the complaints with H. G. Underwood, the general foreman at
site 10, who contacted him about the matter. The complaints also occasioned a
visit from Turbide, the business agent of Local 1042, who was accompanied by
Lawyer. The grievance discussed on this occasion was that ironworkers were being
used in the precision drilling of steel on the launch platform, and Price testified that
the grievance was adjusted.
Actually, the complaints concerning work assignments arose even earlier than the
middle of April. Pittsenberger, who was hired on April 4, and who worked on site 10,
testified that the complaints that ironworkers were doing millwright work arose from
"the first day I was on the site." These complaints had to do with the idler sheaves
on the launch platform, and Pittsenberger testified that after Pugh, the union steward,
called Turbide about it, the work was assigned to the millwrights. Pittsenberger also
testified that on April 17 or 18 the ironworkers started to set up the jigs to drill the
holes for the locks and actuators on the launch platform, and that various millwrights
discussed this assignment individually in the course of their work, and also discussed
it as a group during their lunch hour. Again, the problem was brought to the
attention of Turbide through Pugh.
The complaints concerning work assignments on site 10 were intensified after
Kenaston and White were hired on April 17. During the first 3 days of his employ-
ment, Kenaston called the attention of Union Steward Pugh to work being done by
the ironworkers that he thought should have been assigned to millwrights. Among
these complaints were ones relating to the tripod weldments on the top of the launch
platform, which Kenaston regarded as precision work; the setting and the drilling of
the templates for the locks and actuators on the launch platform; and the removal
of the strikers and the shims, as well as the cleaning of the bases for the door
actuators.
White also participated in these discussions concerning work assignments but in
addition there were complaints concerning safety conditions on site 10. These had
to do with working on a narrow scaffold that was 2 by 12 feet. In his testimony,
White described the situation as follows: "Well, the particular thing I am referring to
is, we are up about 50 feet from the ground level, from the L.P. (launch platform),
and we were on a floating shaft on a two by ten board-4 no back up-doing work and
everything-men passing like that-two men men passing like that-you were in too
tight quarters."
There were also work assignment difficulties on site 4 where Young and Hickerson
worked. On the second day of their employment, which would be April 17, they
noticed what Young described as "a rod and spring change in the expansion system."
These rods had a coupling that had to be set, and this was being done by the iron-
workers, although Young and Hickerson regarded it as millwright work. On April 29
or 30, Young and Hickerson further complained that work was being done on the
launch platform that belonged to the millwrights. On both of these occasions, Young
and Hickerson discussed the problems with Union Steward Rok, and on the second
of these occasions, their foreman, Bushey, was present.
Kenaston and White, and particularly Kenaston, seem to have shown more ag-
gressiveness in pushing the work assignment issue than the other millwrights. After
Kenaston had talked to Pugh, the union steward told him that he would contact
Turbide but he also asked Kenaston, in view of his greater experience, to talk di-
rectly to Price, and Kenaston talked to Price over the telephone for about 5 minutes.
However, in addition, Pugh himself contacted both Turbide and Price. When Pugh
talked to Turbide, the business agent, he apparently promised to come out to the site
but he failed to put in an appearance Pugh's conversation with Turbide on this
occasion occurred during the morning of April 20, which was Good Friday.
On that day, the work was shut down at noon, and Kenaston, being still dis-
satisfied with the working conditions on the job, decided, while White was with him,
White was mistaken about the length of the platform. As I have indicated in the
text, it was 12 rather than 10 feet in length
BECHTEL CORPORATION 849
to write a letter to M. A. Hutcheson, the general president of the Carpenters, setting
forth his feelings about the Bechtel job. He complained that on most of the sites com-
prising the job, millwright work was going to the ironworkers. After describing
this work in some detail, he complained further that nothing was being done about
it by the business agent who had left town. He then concluded as follows:
I came on this job Tuesday, April 17 so I don't know what all they have stole
up to that point. But I know it has been done & they will continue to do our
work if we don't act fast. Betchel Corporation is the subcontractor on these
12 sites.
I do know of my past experience on missile [sic] and this site stinks as far
as working conditions go and getting our work.
Safety is something they never heard of. Men work on one 12" plank and
very few safety belts are available.
We do not have a gang box for our personal tools. So most of us will not
take them on the job.
Will close & hope that something will be done to get our work back.
Kenaston's letter was written on a sheet of Bechtel stationery, which was given
to him by H. G. Underwood, the general foreman on site 10. Having composed the
letter on Friday, April 20, and signed it, Kenaston the next day proceeded to obtain
signatures of other millwrights endorsing his views. Kenaston testified that he
might "possibly" have talked to some of the men about the letter when he came to
work on Saturday morning but he insisted that he obtained most of the signatures
during the noon hour. He also testified that he obtained two signatures, those of
Red Young and Hickerson (in the case of the latter when he met Hickerson in a
cafeteria downtown) after working hours on Saturday.
Although Kenaston signed the letter as its author, he also signed it before the men
as an endorser. There were five other millwrights who signed the Kenaston letter
twice as endorsers. These five were Young, Hickerson, and White, three of the four
millwrights who are the subject of the complaint, and Leonard R. Wishman and H.
G. Underwood, the general foreman on site 10. In all, not counting Kneaston, 17
millwrights signed the Kenaston letter as endorsers. Two of the signatories were from
site 1, namely, Tucker and Wishman. The signatories were about evenly divided
between millwrights, who were from out of town, and those who were local
residents.
Not obtaining any immediate results, or an immediate reply, Kenaston and a
number of other millwrights dispatched a telegram in the form of a night letter
to Hutcheson, under date of April 30, complaining that the ironworkers were still
getting the millwrights' work.5 However, after the sending of the telegram, Hutch-
eson gave Kenaston's letter to George F. Welsch, the International representative of
the Carpenters, and asked him to investigate the complaint. Welsch arrived in
Plattsburgh on May 1, and made an appointment to see Price at 8 a.m. on May 2.
Turbide was also present at the meeting between Welsch and Price but he did not
arrive until after the meeting had started.
Welsch began the conference by showing Price, Kenaston's letter. Price read the
letter as it lay on his desk, and he complained of the fact that it had been written
on Bechtel stationery, a circumstance that greatly disturbed him, since he did not
know, apparently, that the letterhead had been given to Kenaston by his general
foreman. Welsch and Price then got down to discussing the work assignment
problem, and Price stated that the complaints had been rectified on sites 1, 2, 3, and
4.6 Welsch and Price did not, however, resolve the problems relating to the gang
toolbox or the safety conditions. It was left to Turbide to take care of these problems.
In all, the meeting involving Price, Welsch, and Turbide lasted from a half to three-
quarters of an hour.
The very day after Welsch's visit to Price, Pittsenberger, White, Young, and
Hickerson, as well as a number of the millwright foremen on sites 1, 4, and 10,
including Kenaston, of course, were discharged by Bechtel. These discharges oc-
curred at or toward the close of the working day. Each of the discharged millwrights
received a pink termination slip, which, under the general heading, "Reason for
Termination," had printed on it in three separate but parallel columns reasons for
"Layoff," "Discharge," and "Voluntary Quit." There were boxes for checking op-
5 This telegram was signed by Kenaston, Underwood, the general foreman on site 10,
Bill Spitzberger, Leonard Wisbman, L. H. Howes, Pugh, the union steward, Leonard
Wishman, Jr., and Red Young.
9It is significant that Welsch, who gave the testimony as to this did not include site 10
In his enumeration.
850 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
posite the reasons in each category , and each reason bore a number running from
10 to 39 but not consecutively. No. 29 under the heading "Discharge" was "Other
Misconduct (explain)." It was this reason that was checked in the case of the
discharge of each of the millwrights. Under the printed reasons on the termination
slips there were also three blank lines for supplying explanations. In the cases of
Pittsenberger and White, the explanation was "Disagrees with assignments given,"
and in the case of Young and Hickerson the explanation was "Dissatisfied with work."
Each of the millwrights who testified at the hearing related the circumstances under
which his discharge occurred. All of the millwrights were discharged before the
usual quitting time, and without receiving any advance notice at all that they would
be discharged Kenaston testified that he was discharged about 4 p.m., and that
Underwood, White, and Pittsenberger were the other millwrights on site 10 who
were discharged on May 3. White himself testified that he was discharged at 4 p.m.
on May 3 while he was up on the scaffold, and that while he was on the scaffold
Kenaston called to him to come down, since he was fired. White and Kenaston then
went to get their checks, and they were among a number of the discharged mill-
wrights who went to ask Buonanno, the site superintendent, why they had been fired.
Buonanno told them: "You should know." This led White to observe. "I don't."
But at this point, to use the expression of White, Buonanno "clammed up." Pittsen-
berger, who put the time of his discharge at 4:45 p.m., testified that he learned of
his discharge when the timekeeper came down into the hole and told him to pick up
his check. Pittsenberger asked the timekeeper why he was fired but the timekeeper
told him that he did not know why. Pittsenberger then asked his foreman and the
union steward why he had been fired but, they, too, pleaded ignorance. Accom-
panied by Pugh, Pittsenberger then went to ask Buonanno why he had been fired.
Buonanno's reply to this question was: "You know the reason and there is your
steward." Pittsenberger then remarked: "This is the first job I have ever been fired
on in my life." After he had received his termination slip, Pittsenberger asked:
"What assignment have I been assigned to that I disagreed with?" but to this
question he also received no reply Young and Hickerson were discharged about
3:30 p.m. on May 3. Rok, the union steward, came to them in the quonset hut,
presented them with their termination slips, and told them to report to the time-
keeper's trailer to pick up their checks. Unlike the others, Young and Hickerson
did not immediately attempt to find out why they had been fired. Prior to their
discharges, neither Young nor Hickerson had ever been reprimanded, or told that
their work was in any way unsatisfactory.
The day after their discharges Young, Hickerson, and White, accompanied by
Kenaston and Underwood, went to the union hall to see Turbide in an effort to find
out why they had been fired, and to secure reinstatement. When they asked Turbide
why they had been fired, he countered with the question why they had written the
letter to Hutcheson. However, Turbide agreed to talk to Price on their behalf, and
asked them to return to the union hall after he had done so. Turbide saw Price
on May 5 or 6 , and handed the latter a note asking that all of the discharged mill-
wrights be reinstated with backpay. Price testified, apropos of the note: "I wrote
a big `no' on it and handed it back to him." Young testified that when Turbide
reported this to the millwrights, he characterized Price's "no" as "a big flat no." It
seems that Price offered to talk to Young individually but Young declined this offer.
Pittsenberger was apparently more persistent, however, and succeeded in securing
reinstatement. Pittsenberger saw Turbide individually, and asked the business agent
why he had been discharged. Turbide replied that he did not know but that he
would arrange a meeting with Price for the following Monday. Turbide and Pittsen-
berger met with Price but Pittsenberger was not rehired on this occasion. But, on
on Tuesday of the following week, Pittsenberger went alone to see Price, and asked
the latter- "Are you going to put me back to work?" and Price pointed to a sign on
the wall behind his desk that said: "No hiring." Pittsenberger asked Price: "Who
is bigger than you?" and the latter replied: "Mr. Morris 7 or Mr. Allen." Pittsen-
berger then further asked if Price would feel bad if he talked to Morris, and received
a reply in the negative. That same day, therefore, Pittsenberger went to the project
superintendent, and his testimony with respect to the interview was as follows:
Q. What was discussed when you spoke to Mr. Morris?
A. I showed Mr. Morris my termination slip. I said, "Mr. Morris, why was
I fired?" He looked at my termination slip. "You should know the reason."
7 Price was referring to M. L . Morris, the project superintendent , rather than to
Robert J Morris, the site superintendent on site 4
BECHTEL CORPORATION 851
Q. What did you say?
A. I said, "Well, there can't be but one reason. That is the letter that was
signed and sent to International." Mr. Morris said, "I have all the names that
were on the letter." He went to Mr. Price's office. [Emphasis supplied.]
Morris returned and told Pittsenberger to see Price at his office at 4 o'clock, and
Price then told Pittsenberger that he could report to the union hall the next morning.
When he did so, he was put to work on site 6. This occurred on May 16. Price
testified that when Morris talked to him about Pittsenberger he told him to rehire
Pittsenberger because he had "more or less a permanent residence," presumably at
Plattsburg. But, like the other millwrights, Pittsenberger came from the Middle West,
and the more or less permanent residence was only a trailer. When Price was asked
to explain why Pittsenberger had been reinstated, although nothing had been done
about the other three millwrights, he gave as the reason the fact that the latter had
been discharged by competent authority. Forced to admit that Pittsenberger, too,
had been discharged by competent authority, he took refuge in another explanation,
namely, that the other millwrights "were out of town." The record shows, affirma-
tively, however, that White remained in Plattsburg for exactly 2 weeks after his dis-
charge, which would be until May 17, and that during this whole 2-week period
nobody contacted him.
B. Concluding findings
The two basic issues presented by the evidence in the present case are (1) whether
the Respondent discharged the four millwrights because they had protested work
assignments and safety conditions, and, if so, (2) whether these protests constituted
a protected concerted activity.
There can be no doubt but that the Respondent discharged White and Pittsenberger
because of their protests against work assignments. The official reason given for
their discharges on the termination slips of each of them was: "Disagrees with assign-
ments given, and Anthony Buonanno, their site superintendent, candidly admitted
that he discharged them because of their agitation in the matter of work assignments."
He called them, moreover, "the main troublemakers" and complained that they were
"constantly congregating" and arguing about their job problems. In addition,
he conceded that "the method and manner" in which they conducted their agitation-
he meant by this that they did not go through union channels-motivated his decision
to terminate their employment. Buonanno, in testifying that they were "constantly
congregating," meant, apparently, to imply that they were doing so during their work-
ing hours but I do not accept his testimony in this respect. I accept the testimony
rather of the millwrights themselves that, although they did talk to each other about
the work assignments while they were at work, they discussed it as a group only during
their lunch hour.
So far as White and Pittsenberger are concerned, counsel for the Respondent
concedes, indeed, that they were discharged for "agitation with respect to jurisdictional
work assignments other than through proper and specified channels and means "
He does contend, however, that there is a complete dearth of proof that the discharges
of Young and Hickerson were motivated by the same considerations that led to the
discharges of White and Pittsenberger, and he submits that they were discharged
because Robert J. Morris, their site superintendent, was dissatisfied with their work.
Counsel for the Respondent has been able to arrive at this conclusion, however,
only because he has distorted the salient and basic facts bearing on the discharges
of Young and Hickerson.
By considering their discharges before those of White and Pittsenberger, whose
discharges were obviously connected with the jurisdictional agitation, counsel for the
Respondent seeks to disassociate these discharges entirely from this agitation and from
the pattern of conduct of which the discharges were an integral part. Indeed, he goes
so far as to assert that "the jurisdictional agitation problem was with respect to Site
10 entirely" [emphasis supplied], while conceding in the same breath that there were
"some minor jurisdictional questions arising on Site 4." He also pretends that the
letter which Kenaston wrote to Hutcheson was a "protest" with respect to certain
jurisdictional assignments on site 10, although Kenaston spoke in his letter about all
12 missile sites, and the letter was endorsed by millwrights who worked not only on
sites 4 and 10 but also on site 1. No doubt the agitation was more severe on site
10 than it was on site 4 or elsewhere but this is not to say that it was wholly incon-
sequential on site 4. Even more remarkably, counsel for the Respondent argues
that Price had no more than a fleeting glimpse of Kenaston's letter, so fleeting,
708-006-64-vol. 141-55
852 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
presumably, that he could hardly have taken note of its contents . Thus, he asserts
that "Price, Bechtel's labor relations representative , briefly saw this letter when it
was handed to him by Welsh"; that Price never saw it "for longer than a moment";
and that "Price testified that Welsh simply showed him a copy of the letter and Welsh
confirmed this" [emphasis supplied]. The fact is, however, that Price had a good
long and hard look at Kenaston's letter , since Price testified that Welsch not only
showed him the letter but that he read it and was disturbed by it, and Welsch also
testified: "Well, the letter was on Mr. Price's desk. He was reading the letter."
Moreover, both Price and Welsch agreed that the meeting between them lasted from
a half to three quarters of an hour, which would allow more than ample time for
the letter to be examined and discussed. Price did not testify that Welsch "simply"
showed him the letter but that Welsch showed him the letter and even that he was
disturbed by it. That the Respondent' s executives were thoroughly acquainted with
the contents of Kenaston 's letter is, moreover, firmly established by the uncon-
tradicted testimony of Pittsenberger that when he was protesting his discharge to
Project Superintendent Morris (not to be confused with Site Superintendent Morris)
the latter told him that he had all the names on the letter. According to counsel for
the Respondent, the impact of this testimony, which he incorrectly denounces as
hearsay, although he never objected to it when it was offered, is supposed to be
"shattered" by the fact that Pittsenberger was subsequently rehired. How this fact
shatters the testimony of Pittsenberger that Morris knew the names of the millwrights
who had signed the letter is not apparent. As a matter of fact, Pittsenberger was
rehired despite the Respondent's admitted knowledge of his activities, for a reason
that had no direct connection with his activities, namely, that he had a local
habitation. Pittsenberger's reemployment is hardly tantamount, moreover, to a
repudiation by him of his testimony, which was given , of course, subsequent to his
reemployment.
In contending that Young and Hickerson were discharged because their work
was unsatisfactory, counsel for the Respondent argues that their own testimony that
their work was satisfactory and that they had never been warned that it was un-
satisfactory must be rejected as "self-serving " 8 But this argument overlooks, ob-
viously, the fact that the testimony of the only witness produced by the Respondent
to testify with respect to their discharges was equally "self-serving." This witness was
Site Superintendent Morris, and his testimony must be rejected as wholly incredible.
Although pressed to specify in what respects the work of Young and Hickerson
was unsatisfactory, Morris was wholly unable to do so. He took refuge in a com-
plete lack of memory, which according to him, was due to the fact that Young and
Hickerson had been discharged more than 6 months previously (actually it was, of
course, approximately 4 months previously). Counsel for the Respondent seeks to
excuse the infirmity of Morris' memory on the ground that he had "relied heavily"
on the opinion of his general foreman. Gordon Miller, that the work of Young and
Hickerson was unsatisfactory. But, if this were really so, counsel for the Respondent
should have produced Miller rather than Morris to testify with respect to the dis-
charges of Young and Hickerson. This, however, he failed to do. Having produced
the witness who knew nothing about the discharges, counsel for the Respondent can
hardly complain that the testimony of Young and Hickerson themselves is accepted
in preference to that of such a witness. Their testimony is inherently persuasive,
moreover, for they were millwrights of many years' general experience who had also
previously worked on missile sites . It should take more than the ipse dixit of an
unknowledgeable witness to discredit their testimony.9
It is also impossible to accept the theory of counsel for the Respondent that the
termination slips of Young and Hickerson mean that Morris was dissatisfied with their
work. Morris did, to be sure, testify to this effect, as follows:
Q. Now, the reason given on the slip says "Dissatisfied with work," and there
has been a question raised as a possible ambiguity, who was dissatisfied?
A. I was dissatisfied with the work of these two gentlemen. If it had been
otherwise, I would have checked Box 31. As stated on there, there is no ques-
tion but that I was dissatisfied with their work. [ Emphasis supplied.]
8 This argument appears to be an echo of the now obsolete and generally discredited
disqualification of parties and other interested witnesses at common law. See Wigmore,
Evidence (3d ed ), §§ 575-577.
8 A litigant's unexplained failure to offer material evidence warrants the inference that,
if he adduced the evidence , it would not support his position. See, for instance , Cusano
d/b/a American Shuffleboard Co. v. N.L R B , 190 F. 2d 898, 902 (C.A. 3).
BECHTEL C61UPORATION 853
However, Morris' answer to the question will not stand analysis. As a matter of
fact, it was not he who was responsible for the choice of the language on the termina-
tion slips. According to him, he merely telephoned in to direct the discharges, and
the slips were prepared by someone else. His testimony that he would have checked
box 31 is, moreover, nonsensical . Although box 31 reads "Dissatisfied working con-
ditions," it appears in the column of the termination slip headed "Voluntary Quit,"
and it could not, therefore, be checked in the case of a discharge. There is, actually,
no ambiguity in the language of any of the termination slips. There are no less than
seven of these slips in evidence , and none of them refer to the opinion of the person
making up the slip on behalf of management. They all refer uniformly to the alleged
fault for which the employee named was being discharged. In the cases of Young
and Hickerson, this was that they were "Dissatisfied with work," and that this was
regarded as misconduct on their part is made clear by the fact that box 29 under
"Discharge," which reads "Other misconduct," was checked on their termination slips.
It is apparent, therefore, that according to the Respondent's own confession, Young
and Hickerson, like White and Pittsenberger, were discharged not because their work
was unsatisfactory but because they were dissatisfied with the work, namely, the
working conditions. While the language of the two pairs of termination slips differs
somewhat, they mean in substance the same thing. Like White and Pittensberger,
Young and Hickerson were discharged abruptly without any adequate explanation
or prior warning and without even the hour's notice required by the applicable labor
contract, and all of these discharges followed the very day after Kenaston's letter
was brought to the attention of high officials of the Respondent. I must conclude that
all four discharges were part of the same pattern, and that they were occasioned
by the protests against the work assignments and safety conditions and by Kenaston's
letter to the union president. The discharges occurred, therefore, because the dis-
charged employees had engaged in concerted activities.
It is the position of the Respondent, of course, that even if the activities for which
White, Pittsenberger, Young, and Hickerson were discharged may be said to have
been concerted, they were unprotected.
Counsel for the Respondent seems to contend that the conduct of the four em-
ployees was unlawful under the terms of the agreement with the Carpenters' Union
and the millwright agreement. The agreement with the Carpenters is, obviously,
however, wholly devoid of any provisions bearing on the handling of disputes. The
millwrights agreement does provide for the settlement of jurisdictional disputes by
arbitration but it is equally devoid of provisions specifying any prescribed procedure
for raising the jurisdictional questions which are required to be submitted to arbitra-
tion. The only provision that could possibly be said to be procedural is the pro-
vision contemplating the appointment of union stewards but even in this provision
the duties to be performed by the steward are not specified.
Counsel for the Respondent seems to realize the weakness of his position, insofar
as it is based on the provisions of the agreements. He shifts quickly, therefore, to
what he calls "the normal and customary procedures for handling disputes of all
kinds on this job," which he declares were "carefully set up by the employer and the
union (after all, the authorized collective bargaining representative of the millwrights
on the job) .
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the disregard of customary procedures
would be unlawful,'° the nature of these procedures is somewhat fuzzy, and so is the
extent to which they were actually violated by the discharged employees. There is
nothing to show that the procedures were "carefully set up." They seem rather to
have simply grown, like Topsy, and while, apparently, it may have been understood
that normal or usual disputes would be handled through the union stewards and the
business agents, it is not entirely clear that variations in this procedure could not be
adopted to take care of exceptional situations. Certainly it is not established that if
paricular millwrights became dissatisfied with the way that the stewards and business
agents were performing their duties, they were even debarred from complain-
ing to the president of their own union.
Moreover, it is not true that the discharged employees were engaged in "brutally
ravishing established procedure," as counsel for the Respondent melodramatically
declares. They did, at least in the first instance, attempt to go through their own
steward and business agent. When they contacted Price directly, it was at the sug-
gestion of their own stewards and foremen who seem to have wholly shared their
views.
10 The customary procedures were actually union procedures which seem to have been
followed in most instances by Bechtel but whether Bechtel was, actually, bound by these
procedures is another question.
854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Finally, it is not precisely true that Local 1042 was in the ordinary sense the author-
ized collective-bargaining representative of the millwrights on the job. To be sure,
Bechtel's adherence to the local agreements was in no way unlawful. Despite the
fact that there is no proof that the Union represented a majority of Bechtel's em-
ployees, it was authorized to enter into the agreements by virtue of Section 8(f)
of the Act, which permits employers in the building and construction industry to
enter into such agreements even if the majority status of the Union has not been
established. In its various subdivisions, Section 8(f) enumerates the types of clauses
which may be included in such agreements but none of these clauses relates to the
handling of grievances.
The question could be raised, therefore, whether employees covered by such
agreements would be bound by "customary" procedures for the handling of grievances,
especially when the agreements themselves are silent with respect to this, and the
employees themselves are not members of the Union. The very conditions revealed
by the record in the present case could be urged against the validity of such agree-
ments. The millwrights who were discharged had not been on the job long enough
to become familiar, really, with whatever consenusual or customary arrangements may
have existed, and they would be held to these arrangements, moreover, although they
were not even given the hour's notice before discharge clearly required by the ap-
plicable agreement. Although this notice was brief indeed, had it been given, the
discharged millwrights would have had at least an opportunity to explain their stand
and to attempt to justify themselves. The Respondent is in the rather anomalous po-
sition of insisting upon the application of an agreement, which did not specify any
particular grievance procedure, while disregarding an important procedural pro-
vision which it did contain.
In arguing that the concerted activity of the millwrights was unprotected activity,
counsel for the Respondent alternates between hyperbole and irrelevance. The
jurisdictional agitation is represented as having produced virtually catastrophic re-
sults, although its duration was brief, its ultimate effect on the Respondent's work
schedule was nil, and the Respondent actually condoned the conduct of one of the
four millwrights for a reason totally unrelated to the supposed gravity of his offense.
Although the proposition is not exactly advanced that the Respondent as a missile
site contractor was exempt from the requirements of the National Labor Relations
Act, counsel for the Respondent does seem to contend that the importance of the
missile industry to the national defense justifies the application of somewhat different
standards. But, then, different standards would have to be applied to the steel,
metallurgical, chemical, or other industries which are also involved in missile manu-
facture. Congress has not seen fit, however, to exempt any industry from the require-
ments of the Act, and the Respondent's conduct in discharging the millwrights must
not be judged solely in terms of those requirements. It is the assumption of the
Act that industrial peace will be promoted best by the observation of its requirements
by all industries and under all circumstances.
Counsel for the Respondent also argues the case as if the millwrights who
participated in the jurisdictional agitation were engaged virtually in a work stoppage.
He treats their conduct at least as a potential work stoppage which the Respondent
was entitled, so to speak, to nip in the bud. Actually, all that they did was to discuss
the work assignments among themselves and to complain to the president of their
Union, as well as to other union officials. There is not the slighest evidence that
they ever stopped work or disobeyed orders. Their intraunion activities were certainly
no concern of the Respondent. In engaging in concerted activities, they were
exercising a statutory right, and such a right is certainly not to be set aside to fore-
stall a potential work stoppage.
In concluding that White, Pittsenberger, Young, and Hickerson were engaged in a
protected concerted activity, I do not deem it necessary to pass upon the question
whether in fact the work assignment problems were being expeditiously handled by
the Respondent and the Union, or upon the question whether safety conditions were
being properly observed by the Respondent. Neither of these questions can be an-
swered satisfactorily on the basis of the existing record. It is sufficient that the
problem existed, and that it occasioned the action taken by the millwrights. It is
also unnecessary to answer the question whether the millwrights acted wisely in
bringing the issue to a head on Good Friday when the union business agent was out
of town. It has frequently been held that the wisdom or unwisdom of employees in
deciding to take concerted action is immaterial.
I am aware that it has also been held that employees who engage in concerted ac-
tivities may not commit an act that is "indefensible," which seems to mean that they
BECHTEL CORPORATION 855
may not show themselves to be disloyal to their employer." But this doctrine
seems to be limited to situations in which the conduct of the employees is unrelated
to the interest of the employees in securing the redress of a labor grievance, and, in
any event, there is no adequate basis for concluding in the present case that the con-
duct of the four millwrights was indefensible. While the letter to Hutcheson con-
tained one expression that would not be employed by a jurist,12 and another that
would not be used in polite society,13 they are not unprecedented in labor controversies.
Moreover, Kenaston never intended to make the letter public, and it only came to
the attention of the Respondent's exclusives because Welsch chose to show it to
Price. Furthermore, the four millwrights were not the authors of the letter but only
its endorsers, and, again, the Respondent's executives themselves could hardly have
regarded the letter as "indefensible" when they chose to forgive one of these
endorsers.
The complaint charges the Respondent not only with the violation of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act but also with the violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. I find
no satisfactory evidence, however, that the discharge of the four millwrights in the
present case was motivated by a desire to encourage or discourage membership in
the Union, particularly in view of the rather anomalous status of the Union. I do
not find, therefore, that Section 8(a)(3) of the Act was violated.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
As I have found that the Respondent discharged White, Pittsenberger, Young,
and Hickerson in violation of Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act, because they had engaged
in protected concerted activities, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and
desist from discouraging the concerted activities of its employees, or otherwise
interfering with the rights of its employees under Section 7 of the Act.
I shall also recommend that the Respondent take certain affirmative action to
effectuate the policies of the Act but these recommendations present special problems
in view of the fact that the duration of employment in this case was necessarily
limited to the particular project involved therein, and also in view of the uncertainty
whether the project has been completed. While it is almost certain that the Platts-
burgh project, which was scheduled for completion in November 1962, and was
ahead of schedule at the time of the hearing, has already been completed, it is
possible that unforeseen delays have occurred which may have prevented comple-
tion. The recommendations for affirmative action must be made, therefore, in the
alternative, based upon either contingency.
In the event that the project has not yet been completed, I shall recommend that
the Respondent offer to Bonnie White, Raymond A. Young, and Thurman M. Nick-
erson reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole in
accordance with the Board's established remedial policies, which include the calcu-
lation of backpay in accordance with the formula established in F. W. Woolworth,
Co., 90 NLRB 289, and the allowance of interest as determined in Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. As William L. Pittsenberger was reinstated by the
Respondent after his discharge, I shall direct only that he be made whole for any
loss of pay he may have suffered during the period of his unemployment from May 3
to 16. I shall also direct that the Respondent post an appropriate notice, as usual,
at the Plattsburgh project.
In the more likely event that the project has been completed, I shall recommend
that the foregoing Recommended Order be modified to the following extent: The
n See N.L R B. v Local Union No. 1229, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, A F.L. (Jefferson Standard Broadcasting Company), 346 U.S. 464
11 I refer to Kenaston's remark that he did not know "what all they have stole up to
that point." The "they" could refer exclusively to the ironworkers. In any event,
Kenaston was not speaking of theft in the sense that would support a criminal charge
animus furandi or a civil action of trespass de bonis asportatis.
131 refer to Kenaston's remark that "this site stinks as far as working conditions
go ... . 11
.856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Repondent need not offer reinstatement to Pittsenberger, White, Young, and Nick-
erson but shall instead address a letter to each of them stating that, notwithstanding
their discharges at the Plattsburgh project, they will be considered eligible for em-
ployment in the future at any of the Respondent's projects, if they should choose to
apply for employment at any of them. (Pittsenberger is included in the Recom-
mended Order to remove any doubt concerning his future employability by the
Respondent .) In addition, the Respondent shall include in the letters to White,
Pittsenberger, Young, and Hickerson copies of the notice which would otherwise
have been posted if the project had not been completed. In addition, the Respond-
ent shall mail copies of the notice to all employees who were employed by the Re-
spondent at the Plattsburgh project on May 3, 1962, as carpenters, ironworkers, or
millwrights.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Bechtel Corporation, is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 1042, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO, and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging William L. Pittsenberger, and by discharging and refusing to
reinstate Bonnie White, Raymond A. Young, and Thurman M. Hickerson, the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
4. By discharging William L. Pittsenberger, and by discharging and refusing to
reinstate Bonnie White, Raymond A. Young, and Thurman M. Hickerson, the Re-
spondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Respondent, Bechtel Corporation,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging protected concerted activities on the part of its employees by
discharging, or otherwise disciplining, any of its employees who engage in such
activities.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
,of the Act:
(a) In the event that the Respondent's operations on the Plattsburgh project are
still in progress, offer to Bonnie White, Raymond A. Young, and Thurman M.
Hickerson immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiv-
alent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make each of them whole for any loss he may have suffere i by reason of his
discharge in the manner and to the extent set forth in the section entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) In the event that the Respondent' s operations at the Plattsburgh project have
been completed, make whole William L. Pittsenberger, Bonnie White, Raymond A.
Young, and Thurman M. Hickerson for any loss of pay they may have suffered
by reason of their discharges, and assure them of their future eligibility for employ-
ment by the Respondent in the manner and to the extent set forth in the section
entitled "The Remedy."
(c) In the event that the Respondent's operations at the Plattsburgh project are
still in progress, post at the Plattsburgh project copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 14 Copies of said notice, to be furnished to the Respondent by the
Regional Director for the Third Region, shall after being signed by the president
of the Respondent and by the manager of the Plattsburgh project, be posted imme-
11 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the notice shall be further amended by
the substitution of the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals,
Enforcing an Order" for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order "
BECHTEL CORPORATION 857
diately upon receipt thereof, and remain posted for as long as work on the project
continues but in no event longer than for 60 consecutive days. Thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that the said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) In the event that the Respondent's operations at the Plattsburgh project have
been completed, mail copies of the aforesaid notice to the employees specified in the
section entitled "The Remedy."
(e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary for the determi-
nation of the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region, in writing, within 20 days
from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith 15
It is further recommended that, unless within 20 days from the receipt of this
Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies the said Regional Director that it will
comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the Board issue an Order requiring
the Respondent to take the aforesaid action.
In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and, in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage protected concerted activities on the part of our
employees by discharging, or otherwise disciplining, any of our employees who
engage in such activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such
activities.
WE WILL offer to Bonnie White, Raymond A. Young, and Thurman M. Hicker-
son immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of their
discharges by us.
WE WILL make whole William L. Pittsenberger for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of his discharge by us.
WE WILL, in the event that the Plattsburgh project has been completed by the
time this notice is published, assure Bonnie White, Raymond A. Young, and
Thurman A. Hickerson that they are eligible to future employment by us.
BECHTEL CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(President )
-------------------------------------------
(Project Manager)
Th;s notic- must remain posted as long as operations on the Plattsburgh Project
are in progress but not for a period in excess of 60 days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 4th Floor,
The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo 2, New York, Telephone No. Tl.
6-1782, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.