Cameron Iron Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 12, 1971

194 N.L.R.B. 168 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cameron Iron Works, Inc. and International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local
Union No. 716. Case 23-CA-3788
November 12, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
On June 18, 1971, Trial Examiner Fannie M. Boyls
issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt her
recommended Order.
The Respondent argues that the result reached by
the Trial Examiner is inconsistent with Warner Gear
Division of Borg-Warner Corp., 102 NLRB 1223.
In that case, because of contractual guarantees, the
Trial Examiner found, and the Board affirmed, that
"union stewardship necessarily involves taking time
out from normal working time for the performance of
union functions." In this case, as the Trial Examiner
noted, there was no such contractual requirement.
The Respondent argues that this is a distinction
without a difference, because there existed here a
practice of permitting stewards to utilize working time
for the, performance of steward functions. In our view,
there is a difference, in that a practice, while not to be
lightly disregarded, does not necessarily freeze the
parties in a rigid mold, to which reasonable exceptions
or qualifications may not be made. Unfortunately in
this case neither party explored with the other what
solutions were available-e.g., whether Baker might
have been permitted to perform some union functions
during working hours, perhaps more limited in scope
and timing than would have been the case with a non-
leadman, or whether the Union might even agree to a
total restriction of Baker's stewardship duties during
work time because of the allegedly demanding nature
of the leadman assignment. It is surely not inconceiv-
able that some mutually satisfactory arrangement
could have been worked out.
In the absence of such efforts, we agree with the
Trial Examiner that Respondent could not arbitrarily
restrict the right of the employees and their Union to
be represented by the man they desired to have
represent them. While, as indicated in Warner Gear,
the employer surely has a legitimate interest in the
effective utilization of working time, the employees
also have a legitimate statutory interest in the
designation of their representatives for purpose of
194 NLRB No. 23
collective bargaining. In Warner, the Examiner
concluded that there was no room for seeking an
accommodation between these interests because of
the contractual commitment. Here we think that
room existed, particularly in light of the absence of
such a contractual commitment.
It will be apparent from this discussion that we feel
constrained to give narrow application to the holding
of Warner Gear. Employees' statutory rights should
not be diluted in the absence of compelling evidence
that other considerations require such limitations.
Even then, only such limitations as appear to be
reasonable and necessary to accommodate those
considerations can be permitted. Where the facts, as
here, indicate that much less restrictive measures
could have preserved the freedom of employees and
their union to designate a steward, we are unwilling to
find that the Act permits the employer to impose the
drastic measure of conditioning Baker's selection
upon his acceptance of a demotion.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the Respondent, Cameron Iron Works, Inc., Houston,
Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
recommended Order.
MEMBER KENNEDY, dissenting:
Contrary to my colleagues, I would not find that in
the circumstances of this case Respondent, by
requiring its employee Keith B. Baker to resign his
position as union steward as a condition to the
retention of his position as leadman, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of
forgings, oil tools, mill products, and extrusions. Its
facilities consist of the main plant and offices at Katy
and Silber Roads, Houston, Texas, and the Cypress
plant, located some 12 miles to the west. Respondent
has approximately 2,100 hourly paid employees at
these two facilities. The Union is the certified
collective-bargaining representative of its mainte-
nance electricians, numbering up to 100. The rest of
the employees are represented by a local of the
International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers. Maintenance electricians are assigned
to both the Katy and the Cypress facilities. Respon-
dent has had a long history of amicable collective
bargaining with both labor organizations.
Baker is employed as a leadman at Respondent's
CAMERON IRON WORKS, INC. 169
Cypress plant. Under the terms of Respondent's
contract with the Union, leadmen receive 20 cents per
hour above the rate of the classification in which they
are assigned . The employees at the Cypress facility
work on a continuing-shift basis, with the first shift
beginning' at 7 a.m. and ending at 3 p.m.; the second
shift being from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m.; and the third shift
being from 11 p.m. until 7 a.m. Stewards selected and
designated by the Union have been- allowed to spend
the necessary time on the job investigating com-
plaints, adjusting grievances, and conferring with
employees and company officials about these matters.
Leadmen are assigned to particular crews of employ-
ees and are responsible for implementation of work
orders. In this capacity, leadmen are charged with
substantial authority and control over the employees
assigned to them.
Baker was employed by the Respondent in January
1968 as a journeyman electrician and in November
1968 became the Union's steward. In April 1969, he
was promoted to a leadman. Sometime prior to
October 1970, Baker was assigned to the second
shift-3 p.m. to 11 p.m. At that particular time no
supervisory personnel were assigned to that shift.
Since that shift was without supervision, the leadman,
Baker, was in charge of the operation.
In September 1970, Baker began devoting a sub-
stantial amount of working time to the investigation
of an unusually large number of grievances which had
accumulated. Respondent became seriously con-
cerned as to whether Baker could effectively perform
as a leadman and at the same time also carry out his
duties as union steward. Accordingly, on October 8,
1970, Respondent's Maintenance Superintendent
White called Baker into his office and informed him
that he would be required to make a-choice between
being a leadman and continuing to serve as the union
steward. Baker was told that if he elected to continue
in his position as leadman he would be required to
resign as steward and that if he elected to maintain his
steward's position he would be reassigned to the
journeyman electrician classification which he for-
merly held. As Respondent's Maintenance Superin-
tendent White testified, Respondent felt that Baker:
... couldn't adequately cover both jobs. He
couldn't do the company a good job as leadman
and he couldn't do the company adequate-I
mean, the union a good job as union steward .. .
to do both jobs, he would have to be available to
anybody at anytime, to process their grievances.
Or he would also have to be available to the
Company at anytime to do his day-to-day work,
and to follow through on his job as a leadman.
Respondent's Manager of Industrial Relations Fran-
zen testified that at the Cypress plant, on the second
shift, the responsibilities called for by Baker's job as
leadman were incompatible with his duties as union
steward:
I think it reasonable to reach that conclu-
sion, if you think about just simply the geographi-
cal area, 1,600 acres, 500 acres for this particular
active facility; power stations in one end of the 500
acres, a building in the other end; three-quarters of
a mile between the two major buildings; electrical
wires and currents going all over the 500 acres and
with a leadman by himself with no supervision on
the second shift; and is responsible for the
journeyman electricians and everything that might
come up or is scheduled to be done on this shift. I
don't see how he could effectively do both.
Respondent does not take the position that none of
its leadmen may occupy both a position as a leadman
and at the same time as a union steward; it is
confining its contentions solely to that of the second
shift leadman over the maintenance electricians-the
position regularly occupied by Baker. It simply takes
the position that Baker's job on the second shift,
where there was no supervision present during most of
the time, required that Baker devote his full time to his
work and that his duties as union steward precluded
him from doing that during working hours. Respon-
dent has not been charged with a violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, and it is not contended that its
action against Baker was motivated by any antiunion
considerations. Respondent's Manager of Industrial
Relations Franzen testified that there are positions in
the Company occupied by leadmen in which it would
be both feasible and practical for an employee to
serve as a union steward and at the same time be a
leadman.
While Respondent's conduct in the instant case may
appear to be prima facie discriminatory, on closer
examination and upon consideration of all attending
circumstances I am persuaded that such conduct is
not proscribed. Respondent's witnesses testified
credibly that the Respondent considered its leadmen
very important in its operations and placed great
reliance on their performance. In September or
October 1970, Respondent talked to its leadmen
about rotating them in their positions; the leadmen
agreed. At this time, Respondent was actually looking
for a supervisor and was testing to see which of its
leadmen would best qualify for a supervisory position.
Respondent was also of the view that the job of a
leadman was a full-time position, and it wanted a full-
time man for such a full-time job. Respondent made
no effort to prohibit its stewards from handling the
Union's business on working time. No hostility was
shown by Respondent either to the Umon or to the
right of its employees to concerted activity; there was
no antipathy to the Union. As found by the Trial
Examiner, there was a long and harmonious bargain-
170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing relationship with the Union , and a complete
absence of union animosity.
Respondent 's contract with the Union contains no
provisions granting its stewards any rights to devote
working time to union business . Although it is
normally a protected concerted activity to present and
handle grievances, an employer may impose reasona-
ble rules relating to the prosecution of such matters on
working time . In the absence of a contractual
agreement permitting the investigation and prosecu-
tion of complaints on working time , the rights of
employees and of union stewards to undertake such
activities may be limited . Russell Packing Co. and
Peerless Packing Co ., 133 NLRB 194, 196 . The Board
and the courts have long recognized the right of an
employer to make and enforce reasonable rules
governing the conduct of its employees on company
time , even though these rules may limit the statutory
right of employees to engage in union or concerted
activities . Terry Poultry Company, 109 NLRB 1097.
See also Peyton Packing Co., Inc., 49 NLRB 828, 843,
enfd . 142 F.2d 1009 (C.A. 5).
As I view this case , it is indistinguishable from
Warner Gear Division, Borg-Warner Corporation, 102
NLRB 1223 . In adopting the decision of the Trial
Examiner in Warner Gear, supra, the Board reasoned
that while the Act protects the right of employees to
join unions and to participate in its activities it does
not give employees the right to engage in union
activities during working time ; such right must arise,
if at all, from a contract . In situations where the
union's stewardship necessarily involves the utiliza-
tion of working time for the performance of union
functions and the union steward is denied a promo-
tion it becomes necessary to determine whether the
denial of the promotion is predicated on animosity
toward the union, in which event the Board would
find discrimination , or whether it stems from a desire
to have employees devote all their production time to
their work , in which event the Board would not find
discrimination . That the latter alternative might also
tend to discourage employees from seeking or holding
steward positions was not deemed by the Board to be
determinative in that context , unless it also appeared
that the company denied promotions because of past
union activities during working time-which then
would be tantamount to discrimination on the basis of
union membership alone.
In the instant case, finding no evidence of antiunion
animus or discrimination , and in application of the
legally and logically sound principles announced in
Warner Gear, I would reverse the Trial Examiner and
dismiss the complaint.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
FANNIE M. BoyLs, Trial Examiner: This case, initiated by
a charge filed on October 20, 1970, and a complaint issued
on January 6, 1971, was tried before me in Houston, Texas,
on May 5, 1971. The complaint, as amended at the hearing,
alleges that Respondent , Cameron Iron Works, Inc.,
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , by requiring an employee , Keith B.
Baker, either to accept a demotion from his position as
leadman to that of journeyman electrician or to resign his
position as union steward .' In its answer Respondent
admitted giving Baker this option but denied that its action
was in violation of the statute.
Upon the entire record and after a careful consideration
of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Texas corporation having its principal
office and place of business in Houston , Texas, known as
the Katy facility, and a facility at Cypress, Texas, where it is
engaged in the manufacturing of forgings, oil tools, mill
products , and extrusions . The Cypress facility is the only
one here involved. During the 12-month period preceding
the issuance of the complaint, which is a representative
period, Respondent manufactured , sold, and distributed
products valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped
from its Houston and Cypress facilities directly to points
outside the State of Texas . I find that Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 716 , herein called the Union,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ALLEGED
A. The Issue Presented
The sole question presented is whether Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by requiring Union
Steward Keith B. Baker to resign his union position or be
demoted from his position of leadman to the lesser paying
job of journeyman electrician.
B. The Undisputed Facts and Conclusionary
Findings
Respondent 's main plant and office , known as the Katy
operation , is located in Houston and its other facility,
known as the Cypress facility, where Baker works, is about
1 The complaint which had originally described Baker 's union position
as that of "union subcommitteeman," was amended at the hearing to
describe it correctly as "union steward."
CAMERON IRON WORKS, INC. 171
12 miles away. There are about 2,100 hourly paid
employees at the two facilities, about 80 to 100 of whom,
employed at one or the other of the two facilities, are
maintenance electricians represented by the Charging
Union. The remainder of the employees are represented by
another labor organization. Respondent has had a long
history of bargaining and amicable relations with both
these labor organizations.
The Union has a chief steward and four or five other
stewards servicing Respondent's maintenance electricians
at the two facilities. All except Baker worked at the Katy
facility.
Baker was employed by Respondent in January 1968 as a
journeyman electrician. In November 1968 he became a
union steward. In April 1969 Respondent promoted him to
the position of leadman. Respondent voiced no objection to
Baker's performance of both leadman and union-steward
work until October 8, 1970. On that date, after having first
talked to Plant Engineer Kraft about the matter, Mainte-
nance Superintendent White called Baker into his office
and told him that he, Baker, could not continue to be both a
leadman and a union steward and would either have to
resign from his union position or be demoted to the position
of journeyman electrician, a job which paid 20 cents an
hour less than the leadman's job. White told Baker that
Respondent did not believe Baker could do a good job for
Respondent and also for the Union at the same time. Baker
asked for and was given some time in which to make up his
mind as to what he should do. About 2 days later Baker
informed White that he had decided to keep his"leadman
job.2
The Union's contract with Respondent is silent as to
whether union stewards shall be permitted to perform their
duties as stewards during working hours but Respondent
has never objected to this being done and has always paid
the stewards for working time spent on investigating and
processing grievances. It was the duty of union stewards to
investigate alleged violations of the union contract and
employee grievances, to attempt an informal resolution of
these matters, and, with the assistance of the chief steward,
to process grievances through the several steps provided in
the contract. Until about September 1970 when two
grievances involving the application of seniority provisions
of the contract to the transfer and retention of leadmen
resulted in an arbitration proceeding, all grievances had
been amicably settled without the invocation of the
contract's arbitration provisions.
The duties of union stewards have not generally
consumed much time. As Manager of Industrial Relations
Franzen testified, sometimes a year will pass without a
grievance being filed. In 1970, however, due largely to a
cutback in Respondent's operations in July, a greater
number of grievances than usual were filed. Baker met with
management 8 or 10 times during 1970 about various
grievances and, as steward, he signed the two grievances
2 Baker promptly informed Chief Steward Follett orally of his decision
to resign his steward's job and did not thereafter perform any duties as a
steward. The Union, however, did not name anyone to replace him until
after Thanksgiving when Respondent insisted that Baker give written
notice to White of his decision. The Union then named another electrician
as acting steward, apparently taking the position that on its books, Baker
would remain the union steward pending the outcome of this unfair labor
which resulted in the arbitration proceeding. Each of his
meetings with management took about 20 or 25 minutes. In
addition, of course, he talked to the employees who had
grievances and with the chief union steward. Some of these
discussions were before or after his shift, especially if they
involved employees on shifts other than his own, some were
during lunch or break periods and some were during
working time. No representative of Respondent ever asked
Baker not to talk to employees about their problems during
working time or to spend less working time on such matters.
Maintenance Superintendent White testified that even
during the period of mounting grievances following the
cutback in July 1970, he was satisfied with Baker's work as
a leadman. Manager Franzen agreed that Respondent had
no complaint about Baker's performance of his job as
leadman. It is therefore difficult to understand Respon-
dent's position that there was something "incompatible"
about Baker's performance of the duties of leadman and
steward at the same time . Respondent is unwilling to take
the position that none of its leadmen may occupy both
positions and is confining its contentions solely to that of a
second-shift leadman over the maintenance electricians, the
position Baker regularly held. Although acknowledging
that the latter position is clearly within the bargaining unit
of maintenance electricians, Respondent takes an ambiva-
lent position with respect to whether Baker is an employee
or a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. For this
reason a description of his duties, as disclosed by the
record, is set forth below.
Respondent operates three shifts-the first one from 7
a.m. to 3 p.m., the second one from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m., and
the third one from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. Until October 1970
Baker was on the second shift.3 He worked as a crew with
two journeyman electricians, taking care of Respondent's
electrical equipment on a 500 acre tract. At one end of this
tract was the extrusion plant and at the other end, about
three-fourths of a mile away, was the roll mill. A substantial
part of the work of the crew was preventive maintenance
work. The journeyman electricians working with Baker
were skilled and responsible employees and on occasions
they as well as the electricians on the third shift had
performed their work without a leadman or supervisor
being present on the shift. Their supervisors were the
electrical foreman and the maintenance superintendent,
George F. White, both of whom regularly worked on the
first shift. The foreman usually worked about an hour or
half hour overtime and the maintenance superintendent
about 2 hours overtime each day. The foreman gave written
work assignments to Baker who would transmit the
assignments to the two journeyman electricians and work
with them in executing the orders. The three of them daily
inspected the whole electrical distribution system. As
leadman, Baker followed up on the job assignments to see
that they were performed and requisitioned needed
materials. If an emergency should arise when no supervisor
practice proceeding. The Union filed charges against Respondent on
October 20, 1970.
S On that date Baker was transferred for a 2-month period to the first
shift where he was leadman over six journeyman electricians This transfer
was part of a plan by Respondent to rotate its leadmen for the purpose of
evaluating their potentialities for a supervisory position.
172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was present, Baker was expected to get in touch with a
supervisor by phone to ascertain how the situation should
be handled.4 No occasion had ever arisen for Baker to
recommend the discipline of any journeyman electrician on
his crew, but Maintenance Superintendent White testified
that if Baker should ever make such a recommendation,
White would independently investigate the matter and
would weigh heavily the word of Baker over that of other
employees. Neither this or any other evidence in the record
warrants the conclusion stated in Respondent's brief that
Baker had authority to effectively recommend disciplinary
action-one of the indicia of supervisory status.
On the basis of all the evidence, I find that Baker was an
employee and not a supervisor during all periods relevant
herein. Under the statute employees are guaranteed the
right to engage in union and other concerted activities for
their mutual aid and protection and supervisors are
exempted from statutory protection for engaging in such
activities. There is no room for the creation of a category of
"quasi-supervisors," who are protected in their right to be
represented by a union but who may not themselves
participate in the role of representing themselves and fellow
employees. Baker, like many other highly skilled employees
with leadership qualities, may well have been especially
valuable to his employer but those same qualities may also
have made him the natural choice of employees for
leadership in a union representation role. He is just as much
protected in the exercise of his Section 7 rights as any other
employee and Respondent's demand that he give up his
union role as the price of retaining the responsible and
higher paying job which he now holds was manifestly an
interference with the exercise by Respondent's employees
of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
Respondent argues in its brief that the duties of Baker's
job on the second shift, where there is no supervisor present
during most of the time, require that he devote his full time
to his work and that his duties as union steward preclude
him from doing that. The testimony of Respondent's
representatives that Baker did in fact satisfactorily perform
his work as leadman at all times, even when the peak
number of grievances was being filed and processed,
appears inconsistent with Respondent's claim that Baker's
union duties conflicted with his performance of leadman
duties. Nevertheless, if a neglect by Baker of his leadman
duties to perform union-steward duties should ever become
a problem, there would appear to be no reason why
Respondent may not require a curtailment, of the use of
working time for the handling of union business. As the
Board has many times reiterated, working time is for work,
and "in the absence of contractual agreement permitting
the investigation and prosecution of complaints on working
time, the rights of employees and union stewards to
4 Although Baker was not expressly told that he had authority to bung
in employees from other shifts or leadmen from other crafts to help out in
emergency situations when management representatives could not be
reached, and he apparently never had occasion to do so, Maintenance
Superintendent White testified that Baker had authority to do this and that
some leadmen in the past had done this. White acknowledged , however,
that he would expect a journeyman electrician to do the same thing in an
emergency when his leadman and supervisors could not be reached.
5 To like effect ; Terry Poultry Co, 109 NLRB 1097, 1098 (1954),
undertake such activities may be limited." (Russell Packing
Co., 133 NLRB 192, 196 (1961)).5
Respohdent appears to rely upon the Board's decision in
Warner Gear Division, Borg-Warner Corporation, 102 NLRB
1223 (1953) as a precedent for its action in this case. I do
not regard that case as controlling here. There the Board
held that the employer did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act by refusing to promote a union steward to a
more responsible job which would have required full
attention to his duties. But the union contract in the Warner
case had expressly provided that union stewards could
perform union duties on the employer's time up to a
maximum of 5 hours a week without loss of pay and the
Board found that the employer was motivated by a business
need to have a full-time worker on the job to which it
refused to promote the union steward rather than by any
antiunion motivation, an element necessary to prove the
8(a)(3) violation alleged.
'Here, the Union's contract, with Respondent does not
provide for any use of working time for the handling of
union-steward duties. Although in practice Respondent
had permitted its own time to be utilized for this purpose,
this practice had never presented a problem because there
were normally not many grievances presented. Sometimes a
whole year would pass without the Union filing any
grievance . If Respondent feels it is necessary to change its
present practice of permitting working time to be used for
the processing of employee grievances in order to assure
itself that Baker will not neglect his leadman duties, there is
no reason to assume , in view of Respondent 's past amicable
relations with the Union, that appropriate arrangements
cannot be made with the Union to assure Respondent that
Baker, while a union steward, will continue to perform his
leadman duties satisfactorily.
Respondent is not charged with a violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act and it is not alleged that its action against
Baker was motivated by antiunion considerations, as was
alleged in the Warner case. At issue here is only whether
Respondent's action tended to interfere with the exercise by
employees of their Section 7 rights. It clearly did and was
therefore in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act .6
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By requiring employee Keith B. Baker to resign his
position as union steward as a condition to the retention of
his position as leadman, Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Northside >aectric Co., 151 NLRB 34, 42 ( 1965). See also NLRB. v.
Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S 105 (1956),
6 The presence of a discriminatory motivation is, of course, not
necessary in order to find an interference with employee rights in violation
of Sec 8(a)(1), as distinguished from discrimination in violation of Sec
8(a)(3) of the Act. Textile Workers Union v. Darlington Manufacturing
Company, 380 U.S. 263, 268-269; Robertshaw Controls Company v.
N.L R B., 386 F.2d 377, 383 (C.A. 4), Allegheny Beverage Corporation, 172
NLRB No 65, enfd. 424 F.2d 1366 (C.A 5).
CAMERON IRON WORKS, INC. 173
THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, my Recommended Order will
require that it cease and desist therefrom, that it notify
Baker and the Union that it will no longer require a
leadman in Baker's position to relinquish his position as
union steward as a condition to the continuation of his job
as leadman and that it post appropriate notices.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 7
ORDER
Respondent, Cameron Iron Works, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Requiring any employee, as a condition to holding the
position of leadman, to resign from or reject the position of
union steward.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify Keith B. Baker and International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 716, in
writing, that it will no longer require Baker or any other
employee serving as leadman to resign from or reject the
position of union steward as a condition to his occupying
the position of leadman.
(b) Post at its facilities at Cypress and at Katy copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 23, after being signed by an authorized representa-
tive of Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
'posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.9
T In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National 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.
8 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
9 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing , within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT require Keith B. Baker or any other
employee occupying the position of leadman to resign
from or reject the position of union steward as a
condition to his continuation in the position of
leadman.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
CAMERON IRON WORKS,
INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Dallas-
Brazos Building, 1125 Brazos Street, Fourth Floor,
Houston, Texas 77002, Telephone 713-226-4296.