Elco Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 796 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL. NOT threaten employees with loss or diminution of employment, loss
of paid holidays, a reduced workweek, or other economic reprisals, in the event
the employees selected the above-named or any other labor organization as their
collective-bargaining representative.
We WILL NOT promise to take care of employees, or offer or grant wage
increases or other economic benefits, to induce employees to reject the above-
named or any other labor organization.
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 the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL. offer to George Albright immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges, and will make him and Guy Moffitt whole for any
loss of earnings suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remain-
ing, members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
SHAPIRO PACKING COMPANY, INC.,
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528
Peachtree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia, Telephone No.
876-3311, Extension 5357.
Elco Corporation and William B. Perry. Case No. 01-CA--6'140.
November 15, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 12, 1965, Trial Examiner James R. Webster issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in certain unfair Libor practices within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decisi(s-i. He also found
that Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor
practices and recommended dismissal of these allegations of the com-
plaint. Thereafter, the Respondent filed certain exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member parcel [_Zembers Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the healing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Decision,
155 NLRB No. 85.
ELCO CORPORATION 797
the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , with all parties represented , was heard before Trial Examiner
James R. Webster in Los Angeles, California, on March 23 and 24, 1965, upon a com-
plaint of the General Counsel and answer of Elco Corporation , herein called Respond-
ent. The complaint was issued on January 18, 1965, upon a charge filed on August 27,
1964. The complaint alleges that Respondent discriminatorily discharged William B.
Perry, a union job steward , on or about August 18 , 1964, and, by a statement made
to Perry on that date thereby violated Section 8 ( a) (3) and ( 1) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act.
Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and by the Respondent and have
been carefully considered. Upon the entire record and my observation of the wit-
nesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a California corporation with its principal office and place of
business in Long Beach , California , and is an engineering contractor engaged in heavy
construction Since on or about April 20, 1964, Respondent has been engaged in the
performance of a construction contract for a new wharf at the U.S. Naval Station,
Seal Beach , California , for the U.S. Navy. Said contract is valued at approximately
$500,000 and at date of issuance of complaint herein, Respondent had completed
approximately 97 percent of said contract. The project is now completed.
I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act 1
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 2375 , Piledrivers , Bridge , Wharf and Dock-Builders , Rig Builders , Drillers,
and Rotary Helpers, Marine Divers and Tenders, herein called the Union , is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Piefatory statement
The wharf or dock that Respondent has constructed for the U.S. Navy is 855 feet
long and 35 feet wide , and is an extension of an existing wharf The construction
was divided into two phases: 500 feet of the wharf to be completed and turned over
to the Navy in phase one , and the remaining 355 feet to be completed and turned
over to the Navy in phase two. William P. Ellery is the president of Respondent;
Jim Scott is the job superintendent , Thomas Gilbert and J . W Smith are the foremen
of the piledrivers, and James Linehan is the foreman of the laborers.
As the need arose, Respondent , through its superintendent or foremen , called the
Union for piledrivers to do the various types of work performed by them. William
B Perry was employed on June 22, 1964, in this manner and worked under Foreman
Gilbert. Perry was designated by the Union as its job steward He was terminated
on August 18, 1964 The issue in this case is whether Perry was terminated because
of his activities as job steward or whether he was terminated for poor work
performance.
B Activities of Perry as job steward
During the time that Perry was job steward , he complained to Respondent about
two matters : one having to do with the performance by other employees of work
I Ready Maced Concrete & Materials, Inc., 122 NLRB 318.
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that comes within the jurisdiction of the piledrivers, and the other, the payment of
overtime to employee Glowacz. Also, Union Representative Coffin visited the job
on August 17, 1964, upon request by Perry on these matters.
During the week beginning August 3, 1964, Perry was absent from work because
of pleurisy; he worked 1 hour on August 3. He returned to work on Monday,
August 10, and on that day he noticed that prestressed cement beams for use in the
construction of the dock were being unloaded from a truck with a crane by employees
classified as operating engineers The Union asserts jurisdiction over the unloading
of these beams, and this claim is recognized by Respondent. (The driver of the truck
can and usually does assist in the unloading operation.) Perry called the matter to
the attention of the two operating engineers who were doing the work, and they ceased
unloading the beams; and a crew of piledrivers was then sent to the dock to complete
the unloading. This happened several times during the next several days and on one
occasion Perry observed employees classified as laborers unloading the beams. Some-
time between Wednesday and Friday of that week, Perry called the matter to the
attention of Superintendent Scott Scott made no reply but immediately replaced the
operating engineers with two piledrivers. The unloading operation took approxi-
mately half an hour in time on each occasion, and Scott testified that he did not know
the operating engineers were doing this work.
On Monday, August 17, 1964, Perry spoke with Scott about another complaint
against Respondent. This concerned the matter of overtime pay for employee John
Glowacz. Perry told Scott that Glowacz had an additional half-hour of overtime pay
coming; he had this verified by another employee, and Scott stated that he did not
know about it at the time but would pay it 2
C. Respondent's complaints as to Perry's workmanship
The Union maintains an out-of-work list for piledrivers on which piledrivers can
indicate the type of piledriving work they are qualified to do There are the follow-
ing types of piledrivers- rig men, form men, heavy timber men, divers, welders, and
frame men. Perry indicated on the Union's out-of-work list that he was qualified to
perform each of these types of work except that of welder. On large jobs Respondent
calls for piledrivers to do certain types of work; that is, it will call for rig men, form
men, heavy timber men, or other types of piledrivers as men of the various classifica-
tions are required. The navy job involved in this case is not a large job and there
has not been strict adherence to the separation of the men by types of work. Gener-
ally, however, they were divided into crews of "rig men" and "form men" with Fore-
man Gilbert in charge of the first and Foreman Smith in charge of the second crew.
2 Glowacz' overtime complaint arose as follows In July 1964, Glowacz operated a skiff
periodically to pick up the piledriver crew under Foreman Gilbert and to bring the men
to the dock, on one occasion they were delayed 15 minutes in finishing for the day
Glowacz told Foreman Gilbert to put him in for overtime when he put it in for his clew
(According to the union contract, this constitutes a half-hour's pay ) When the next
payday came around, Glowacz did not receive the half-hour overtime pay Perry, who
was a member of this crew, testified that none of the ciewmemhers received this overtime
pay on the following payday, which was either July 24 or 31 , and he reminded his foreman
of the overtime and the foreman, in turn, reminded Scott who agreed to pay it
In the early part of August 1964 Glowacz was asked by Foreman Smith to work over-
time. He did so and was paid for 11/ hours overtime ; he claimed that lie worked an hour
and 45 minutes, entitling him to 2 hours of overtime He took the matter up with Fore-
man Smith, and Smith told him that he did not keep the time and Glowacz would have to
talk to Scott. The following Monday, August 17, Glowacz told Perry that he was going
to talk to Scott about this half-hour and the half-hour lie was due for overtime in July
Perry told him that a union business agent was coining out to the job that day Glowacz,
however, took the matter up directly with Scott, and Scott told him that the incident in
July was too far back and that on the second occasion they had worked only 11/ hours
overtime and not the hour and 45 minutes claimed by Glowacz. Glowacz then went to
Foreman Gilbert and asked him, "Tommy, what about this? Jun [Scott] says he isn't
going to pay the half hour " Gilbert then talked to Scott about the matter and reported
back to Glowacz that he would get the half-hour for the overtime in July. Glowacz asked
about the other overtime (for the time in August), and Gilbert replied that Scott had said
nothing about that. Perry, as found above, also talked with Scott on Monday, August 17,
about this overtime and Scott agreed to pay it. Perry placed his conversation with Scott
on this matter as having occurred during the week of August 10, but Glowacz' recital of
the sequence of events leads me to the conclusion that it occurred on Monday, August 17
ELCO CORPORATION 799
Respondent was satisfied with Perry's work as a rig man which he performed under
Foreman Gilbert during the early part of his employment. When the driving of piles,
or rig work , was completed on phase one of the construction , and rig men were
assigned to other types of work, Scott began to notice that Perry was "lagging in his
work." On one occasion, about July 29, 1964, when they were hanging some rigging
strips to bolt on piling, Scott observed that Perry was not doing his work and repri-
manded him to get rid of his coffee and sandwich and get to work. The other two
men in the crew had already returned to work but Perry was still with his coffee and
sandwich . Scott complained several times to Respondent 's president , Ellery, about
Perry's poor work performance. Ellery observed Perry at work and concluded that
he was not cooperating to get the work done, He (Ellery) was looking for the "bad
apple in the barrel" and felt that he had found it in Perry He was "doing too much
talking, too much side stuff . He wasn 't watching for the crane hook when it came
over. He was not cooperating ... with the foreman." On July 29, 1964, he and
Scott decided that something had to be done. They expected to complete the rigging
of strips by July 31, the union contract requires a 2-day notice before termination
of a steward prior to other employees. On that day, July 29, Respondent sent notice
to the Union of its intention to terminate Perry in 48 hours-at the end of the work-
day on Friday, July 31, 1964.
On the following week, as noted in paragraph B of section III, Perry was absent
from work due to pleurisy When he reported on Monday, August 10, no action was
taken with reference to the letter of intention to discharge him sent to the Union on
July 29. Respondent's reason for this was that (1) it did not know the current status
of its letter of July 29, since the discharge did not take place immediately after the
48-hour period, (2) there was work that week that Perry could be put to; (3) there
was the thought that he might improve in his work. Respondent also stated that it
has been its policy not to terminate a man immediately upon return from an-illness.
On the days following Perry's return to work on August 1'0, Scott and Ellery
observed his work performance They both testified to occasions when they observed
him lagging in his work On one occasion Scott observed Perry and the two other
men in the same crew unloading wood pilings from a truck . When the unloading
was completed, the other two men returned to their other work and Perry remained
behind talking to the truckdriver. Scott went down from the dock and, asked Perry
to go back up on the dock where the work was. On another occasion, on August 17,
he observed Perry with a three-man crew doing "rafting." He observed the three
men off the crane , the engine running, the men having coffee and no work being done,
This was work that Perry was performing immediately before his termination on
August 18 and Scott testified that following the termination of Perry the other two
members of the crew completed the work in much better time than the three including
Perry.
The General Counsel called employee James Drake and Foreman Gilbert to testify
regarding Perry's work performance. Gilbert testified that Perry did "everything I
asked him to do. There was times when he might have worked faster. I will say
that." He also stated that Scott told him at the time they were rigging strips (before
the July 29 letter) that he "didn't seem to think he [Periy] was doing his share of
work, because he was eating a sandwich and drinking a cup of coffee " Drake testi-
fied as follows:
Q. Did you have-did you form any opinion about Mr. Perry's efficiency?
A. Well, no, sir. I never had no cause to.
Q. Did you ever hear his work being criticized by any foreman or superin-'
tendent7
A. No.
A. Well, while he was working with me he did.
I find that Perry was in fact lagging on the job and as Gilbert expressed it "he might.
have worked faster." Drake's testimony on the point is ineffective
D. Visit of union business agent to jobsite on August-17-
On Friday, after the employees received their pay,,Glowacz noted, that he dld.not,
receive the extra half-hour of overtime he expected for his work with Foreman Smith.
That evening Perry called the union office and talked with one of the business agents
and reported that they "had an overtime beef, and, also, a jurisdictional dispute,,down,
there over loading and unloading, and other little things." On the following Monday,
Business Agent Keith Coffin came to the jobsite, and Perry showed him around the
Q. Did he appear to be doing his share of the work all the time?
S00 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
job and pointed out an operating engineer (oiler) threading and cutting bolts. Ellery
joined them, and he and Coffin had a discussion about the threading and cutting of
the bolts. Coffin stated that this was piledrivers' work, and Ellery stated that on a
previous job this work had been done by millwrights. Coffin stated that it was pile-
drivers' work on this job, and this settled the matter Coffin then asked Perry if that
was the only problem. Perry then told him about laborers unloading the dock sec-
tions. Coffin talked with Ellery about this, but as this work was limited, he made
no particular issue over it.
Coffin testified that Ellery said nothing to him about Perry's work, or anything
specifically about Perry, but did say "he was getting tired of this sort of nonsense
going on, or words to that effect." 3
E. Surveillance of Perry by Ellery on August 17
On Monday, August 17, Ellery made a special point to observe Perry and the crew
he was in from a vantage point in his automobile. The record does not clearly estab-
lish the time of day that this surveillance occurred in relation to Coffin's visit; but,
since Ellery made no comment to Coffin of any intention to discharge Perry or of
any dissatisfaction with Perry's work, I find that after Coffin's visit, Ellery made a
concentrated effort to observe Perry lagging at his work. He testified that the crew
did not have the hustle and bustle that he expected; they seemed to be "dogging it"-
working in slow motion with conversation and horseplay. Perry seemed to be
the prime offender. That afternoon he observed Perry and employee Drake sitting
and doing nothing for better than 30 minutes. Ellery then called his office and had
his accountant, Albert Leves, dispatch another letter to the Union giving the required
advance notice of intention to terminate a job steward (Perry). Ellery also told the
accountant to prepare to pay oft Perry the following morning, giving him pay for the
2 following days. He also planned to move Drake from Gilbert's crew to Smith's
crew to improve production, and this was done the following day.
F. The dischaige of Perry on August 18, 1964
When Ellery got to the project on the morning of August 18, he learned that Scott
was laying off two men as certain aspects of the work were being completed, and
Scott and Foreman Smith had selected employees Melton and Glowacz. These two
employees and Perry were called to the office and told of their terminations. Perry
was told by Ellery that he was being paid for 2 extra days. Ellery was then called
to the telephone, and when the conversation was completed, he saw Perry on the dock
about 50 feet from the office waving his hands, and he assumed that he was "raising
heck." He shouted to Perry "to get the hell off the dock," and he stated that Perry
had cost the company enough money and had caused enough trouble. He went over
toward the dock; they met between the dock and office and started walking back to
the office. Perry stated, "I am going to have this job shut down. You can't fire a
steward." Ellery then called him a "union agitating son-of-a-bitch." Perry stated,
"Well, you bastard, you come around the back of the shack and we'll settle this right
S On the issue of union animus, the General Counsel offered the testimony of employee
Lawrence Campbell to an incident occurring in May 1964. Campbell was a piledriver
welder, and for 1 day a welder who was not a member of the piledrivers' union was em-
ployed. Campbell complained to Ellery about this Ellery explained to him that he had
tried to obtain a piledriver-welder but had been unable to do so, and Campbell accepted
his explanation. Approximately 2 weeks later, Ellery called Campbell into his office and
told him he had reports that Campbell had been dictating to the men as to what they could
do and what they could not do, and he asked Campbell if this was true. Campbell denied
it. Ellery also complained to Campbell about the fact that he was spending too much
time getting set up to weld and that he was not accomplishing what he should. From these
complaints, Campbell concluded that Respondent would not tolerate "union agitation" or
"disruption of the work." Campbell testified on direct and cross-examination that Ellery
"let me to understand" and "dismissed me with the understanding" that he would not
tolerate union agitation or disruption of the work When pressed with several questions
for the words of the conversation rather than his "understanding," he then testified that
Ellery said "be would tolerate no union agitation or dictating to the men." Ellery denied
telling Campbell that he would not tolerate any union activities or union agitation. From
an evaluation of the testimony and demeanor of these two witnesses, I credit Ellery's
denial and find that there was no mention of the Union in the conversation and that the
conversation was as set forth above.
ELCO CORPORATION 801
now." Ellery stated, "Why the hell don't you grow up and act like a man." Perry
then asked for his termination slip so that he could draw unemployment. Ellery told
him he was not laid off; that he was fired and that he wanted him off the job.4
G. Concluswns
Salient features of the case are the following: (1) the surveillance of Perry by
Ellery on August 17 and the discharge of Perry on August 18, immediately following
the visit to the jobsite by Union Agent Coffin, whose visit was solicited by Perry;
(2) the precipitate nature of the discharge, without waiting for the expiration of the
2-day notice period; (3) the evidence of Respondent's animus toward complaints or
interference by job steward; (4) the evidence that Perry was "dogging it" and not
working with proper dispatch on the job; and (5) the fact that Respondent started
action (unconsummated) to terminate Perry and dispatched a letter to this effect to
the Union on July 29, before Perry had approached Scott or Ellery about any
complaints.
The evidence establishes that Perry "might have worked faster," 5 and that Respond-
ent had previously started action (unconsummated) to terminate Perry prior to the
time of his complaints; on the other hand, the timing of the surveillance of Perry and
of his discharge, the precipitate nature of the discharge, and the evidence of Respond-
ent's displeasure with the complaints of Perry or employees, leads me to the conclu-
sion that the discharge was brought about by his activities as job steward rather than
by his work performance. By this conduct, I find that Respondent has violated Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
The complaint alleges (paragraph 7), as an independent violation of Section
8(a) (1), that Ellery told Perry, in the presence of other employees, that he was being
discharged because he was a union agitator. Since I have found that the use of the
phrase "union agitating" was not used in this context, I shall recommend that this
allegation of the complaint be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of 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 burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of
Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
In view of the fact that the project on which Perry was employed by Respondent
has now been completed, reinstatement will not be recommended; but it will be recom-
mended that Respondent make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the date of the dis-
crimination against him to the date he would have been terminated upon completion
of the project in accordance with the terms of the agreement between Respondent and
the Union, and in a manner consistent with the Board policy set out in F. W. Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest on backpay computed as set forth in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
4 Ellery, Perry, Glowacz, and Melton testified about the conversation on August 18
between Ellery and Perry. At first Perry did not remember the details of the conver-
sation occurring before they got back to the office, except that they were mad and there
were Insults ; he was later recalled to the stand after hearing Ellery testify and gave
more details, corroborated part of Ellery's testimony. He also changed the time of the
utterance of Ellery's expletives from a point near the end of their conversation to a
point before he invited Ellery to the back of the shack. Glowacz and Melton heard only
parts of the conversation as they were standing at the office, some distance away from
the point where the conversation began Carefully evaluating the witnesses and their
respective versions of the conversation, I find that it occuried as recited above.
5 Foreman Gilbert, no longer in the employ of Respondent and called as a witness by
the General Counsel, corroborates Respondent witnesses on this point Drake, the other
General Counsel witness on this point, gave very ineffective testimony on this point.
802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS o F LAW
1. Elco Corporation, Respondent herein,' is an employer engagedin ,commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 2375, Piledrivers, Bridge, Wharf and Dock-Builders, Rig Builders, Drillers,
and Rotary Helpers, Marine Divers and Tenders is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) .of the Act. i ' , 1
3. By discriminatorily discharging Perry, as found above, Respondent'hds engaged
in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of,theAct."'
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, by the discriminatory discharge of,
Perry as found above, Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 1 1 ,
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting coma
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent did not engage in an unfair labor practice as alleged in paragraph 7
of the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and„ the
entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, it is recommended that F1co'
Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the Union, or in any other labor organization,
by discharging, refusing to reinstate, or in any manner discriminating against employ-
ees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition, of
employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its emp(oyee§ in,
the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the, extent,
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition, of employment as authorized in, Section 8(a) (3) of
the Act.
2 Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Make William B. Perry whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of Respondent's discrimination against him, in the manner set forth'in theysbc-
tion of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other' records necessary or useful to
determine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its offices and project sites copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 21, shall, after being signed by Repsondent's representatives, be' posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material, '' ,
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.? ' ^ ' '
It is recommended that paragraph 7 of the complaint be dismissed
It is further recommended that, unless within 20 days from the date of the receipt
of the Trial Examiner's Decision herein, the Respondent shall notif' the said Regional
Director, in writing, that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondent to take' the
aforesaid action.
' In the event that this Recommended order be adopted by the Board, 'Ihe"word's "a'
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the ReeoiVmended Oidet^of 'a,
Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the'Board's Order bc' enfhreed
by a, decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of$he United" Stat6S'
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the' words 'a Decision
rsiand' Order".,
17 In' the event that this Recommended Order' be adopted' by the'Board;"t6isi p?6visioh!
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director; in Writing,'Wi'tliin 10'daj- 'frbdi
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
CENTRALIA BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL SQ3
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 membership in Local 2375, Pile-Drivers, Bridge,
Wharf and Dock-Builders, Rig Builders, Drillers, and Rotary Helpers, Marine
Divers and Tenders, or in any other labor organization, by discharging or refus-
ing to reinstate any of our employees, or in any manner discriminating in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to join or assist the aforesaid
union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment as authorized in Section 8'(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL make William B. Perry whole for any loss of pay suffered by him as
a result of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
ELCO CORPORATION,
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 849 South
Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5204.
Centralia Building & Construction Trades Council and Pacific
Sign & Steel Building Co ., Inc. Case No. 19-CP-83. Novem-
ber 15, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 2, 1965, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Decision 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 Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision with
a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has reviewed the rulings made
by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error, was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
155 NLRB No. 80.
212-809-t6-vol 15552