George W. Kennedy Construction Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 28, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1775 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

GEORGE W. KENNEDY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 1775 George W. Kennedy Construction Company, Inc. and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150. Case 13-CA-8225 and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces." August 28, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On June 19, 1968, Trial Examiner William Sea- gle issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir- mative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex- aminer's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- ceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, Charging Party filed a brief in sup- port of the Trial Examiner's Decision, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no_ prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner as modified below. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that Respondent, George W. Kennedy Construction Company, Inc., Antioch, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order, as so modified. Add the following as paragraph 2(c) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and reletter the subsequent paragraphs as 2(d) and (e): "Notify the above-named employees, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstatement, upon applica- tion, in accordance with the Selective Service Act TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM SEAGLE, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed on January 22, 1968, a complaint issued by the Regional Director of Region 13 on March 29, 1968, in which it was alleged that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Gary W. Butz one of its employees; and the answer of the Respondent denying commission of any unfair labor practice, I, William Seagle, the duly designated Trial Examiner, heard this case at Chicago , Illinois , on May 22 and 23,1968. Subsequent to the hearing counsel for all parties filed briefs with the Trial Examiner. Upon the record so made, and in view of my ob- servation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I hereby make the following findings of fact. 1. THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, George W. Kennedy Construc- tion Company, Inc., of which George W. Kennedy is the president and Harold Achim is the vice pre- sident, is an Illinois corporation which, at all material times, has maintained its principal office and place of business at 1020 Anita Street, An- tioch, Illinois, ' and which has been engaged in the installation of sewer and pipe improvements and in the performance of related services for cities, towns, and villages in the State of Illinois and else- where in other States.2 During the period from May 1, 1967, to May 1, 1968, which is a representative period, the Respon- dent had gross annual earnings in the amount of $1,350,000, derived from work performed for the towns of Elmhurst, Franklin, and Lombard, Illinois. During the winter of 1967, the Respondent also did snow removal work for the city of Chicago for which it received approximately $22,000. It also plowed snow for Elmhurst and Phoenix, Illinois, receiving $12,000 from the former and $2,500 from the latter for these services. On occasion, the work performed by the Respon- dent involves sewer and water main installations along county and state roads, and in connection with the performance of this work, the Respondent has to obtain permits from the Illinois State Highway Department. During the representative period, the Respondent installed about 7,000 feet of pipe along state roads, and about 3,000 feet of I At the time of the hearing, the Respondent was working in Elmhurst, II- l,nois, and maintained a field office there at Second and West Streets 2 Thus, in 1964 or 1965, the Respondent performed work in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on a job involving approximately $143,000, and in 1965 or 1966 it performed work in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, on a lob involving ap- proximately $165,000 172 NLRB No. 196 1776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pipe along county roads. Of approximately $712,000 involved in the Respondent 's work for Elmhurst, Illinois, work along the state hi hway in- volved approximately $250,000; and ofgapproxi- mately $251,000 involved in the Respondent's work for Lombard, Illinois, work along the state highway involved approximately $14,000. During the representative period, the Respondent purchased three six-wheel dumptrucks for which it paid approximately $36,500. These trucks were manufactured by the Ford Motor Company at Detroit, Michigan. During the same period the Respondent also purchased at a cost of approxi- mately $18,000 a hydraulic bantam back hoe that was manufactured in Iowa. During the same period, the Respondent also purchased at a cost of approxi- mately $12,000 manhole frames and sewer covers that were manufactured by the Neenah Foundry in Wisconsin. The Respondent also spends approxi- mately $12,000 a year on fuel and the same amount on grease products. Although these pieces of equip- ment and supplies , which in the aggregate cost over $50,000, were purchased locally, it is evident that they originated outside the State of Illinois , and that they thus constituted an indirect inflow of goods sufficient to satisfy the Board 's jurisdictional stan- dard .3 In addition , it is evident that the Respondent constituted a link in commerce, since it performed work in the maintenance of instrumentalities of commerce in an amount far exceeding $50,000.4 I find, therefore, that the operations of the Respondent meet the Board 's jurisdictional stan- dards and that the Respondent is an employer en- gaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. There is in effect between Local 150 and the Illinois Road Builders Association, Excavators, Inc., Underground Con- tractors Association, Chicago Outer Belt Contrac- tors Association, Illinois Truck and Equipment Contractors Association, and Wreckers Associa- tion, Inc ., a collective-bargaining agreement known as the "Heavy and Highway Agreement," which is contained in a printed green-cover booklet. The Respondent has adhered to this agreement and made payments thereunder to the health and wel- fare fund of Local 150. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE Gary W. Butz, whose unlawful discharge is al- leged in the complaint, has been a menber of Local 150 for 6 years. Within this period, he had worked at three different times for Kennedy. In 1961, ap- parently, he worked for Kennedy for only about 2 or 3 months as an oiler, and he was laid off when the specific job for which he was employed had been completed. The second period of his employ- ment, which was from April 1966 to February 1967, commenced when he was sent out to the job by the local union, and he was on a snow removal job when he was laid off. He was employed by Ken- nedy for the third time in August 1967, but this time it was he who sought employment with Ken- nedy because he was not getting very many hours on the job on which he was then working. During this third period of employment, Butz operated mainly a front-end loader and Kennedy regarded him as an exceptionally good operator, and called him by his nickname , which was "Jerry." Neverthe- less, Butz was discharged by Kennedy on December 11, 1967. The discharge climaxed a series of in- cidents involving the violation of union work rules by Kennedy. The first of these incidents occurred at Carol Stream, Illinois, in October 1967. Butz then ob- served the operator of a back hoe, whose name was Harry Linden, move his machine without his oiler being present. The back hoe was an LS-98, and was being moved about 2 miles to another jobsite. The next day Butz talked to the oiler whose name was George Kline, and told the latter that he was enti- tled to a day's pay because his machine had been operated the previous day although he had not been present. Kline reported the violation to Wil- liam N. Anderson, the business agent of Local 150, who took it up with Kennedy the same day. In the conversation between Anderson and Kennedy, the union business agent would not reveal that Butz was the source of his information but Kennedy re- marked: "I suppose it's that god-dammed Butz hol- lering again " Nevertheless, Kennedy paid a day's wages to the oiler, although he attempted to justify himself by arguing that the machine was undergo- ing repair and did not dig "one pound of dirt that day. " A second incident occurred in November 1967. While he was operating his front-end loader, Butz observed Harry Linden, the operator of the back hoe, get down into a sewer excavation and perform laborer's work by attempting to fix a water service. Later that day Butz spoke to Linden and asked him whether he was aware that he had broken the union agreement by "going out of his line of work." Lin- den explained to Butz that he had gone down into the ditch to help his brother, and he could not see "why he couldn't do it." So 2 days later Butz also reported this incident to Anderson, the union busi- ness agent, and the latter said he would come down to the job and check on it. The next day Anderson ' See Siemons Mailing Service , 122 NLRB 81, 85 Sec H P 0 Service, Inc , 122 N LRB 394, Muc hell Concrete Products, 137 NLRB 504 , 511, and cases there cited GEORGE W. KENNEDY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 1777 visited the jobsite and reproved Linden for doing laborer 's work. He then spoke either to Kennedy himself or to Dominic , one of his foremen , and told either one or the other that it was improper for operating engineers to perform work that was nor- mally assigned to another craft 5 A third incident in which Butz himself was directly involved occurred on December 7, 1967, which was a Thursday. At or about 6 a.m. Butz received a telephone call from Tullio Ciotti, Ken- nedy's timekeeper and labor foreman, who told the former that since it was raining in Elmhurst, he did not think that they would be working that day, and that Butz would not be paid for showup time if he ap- peared . Although, according to Ciotti , he thus left it up to Butz to decide whether to come to work, he called the other employees and told them definitely not to report to work. Ciotti testified that he issued these different instructions pursuant to explicit or- ders which he had received from Kennedy. After receiving Ciotti 's telephone call, Butz left his home at or about 7:30 a. m. and did not return home until about 4 p.m. When he returned , he was informed by his wife that Kennedy had telephoned him and left a message that he would like Butz to come to work. According to Kennedy , what had happened was that it had stopped raining in Elmhurst , and the sun was shining brightly; a number of the em- ployees who were sufficient to form a crew had as- sembled at a nearby cafe, where they were ac- customed to go for coffee or meals; and they had decided that they might as well work . In any event, they did work, and Butz ' machine was operated in the course of the day by one of the laborers, whose name was John Thompson. This was reported to Butz by John Olsen , a hoe operator , the morning of December 8, after Butz had come to work that day. Olsen not only told the latter that his machine had been operated but that Kennedy had come out to the job and told him ( Olsen ) that it would be all right for a laborer to operate Butz ' machine until Butz himself was able to get there . This conversa- tion between Butz and Olsen occurred after Butz had encountered Kennedy who had asked him where he had been the previous day and why he had not remained at home for a while , so that, presumably, he could have been reached. That same day Butz saw Anderson on the Elmhurst jobsite and reported to the latter that although he had been instructed to stay home the previous day, a laborer had run his machine . Anderson undertook to look into the matter , after he had spoken to Ol- sen, who had verified Butz' complaint. On Monday , December 11, during the morning, Anderson paid a visit to the jobsite trailer office, where he found Kennedy , and Achim , the vice pre- sident of the Kennedy corporation . Anderson ac- cused Kennedy of having a laborer on Butz' machine on a day that Butz had been told to stay home , and demanded a day 's pay for Butz. Ken- nedy's reply was. "All right If that's the way you want it I'll give him that eight hours but that'll be the last dime you ever get out of this outfit. He's fired as of right now. I'm sick and tired of him quoting that book to the men all the time and calling youall the time . He just gives me too many problems with this union business. He's fired as of right now." An- derson reminded Kennedy that under articles X and XI of the union agreement an employee could be discharged only for just cause , and that another employee could not be permitted to operate his machine unless he had been discharged for just cause , and that under the dispatch system used by the union local he would get Butz back. Kennedy declared that nothing Anderson could do would change his mind , and that he intended to meet Butz at the gate the following morning with his check. Achim added that the Union could send Butz back every day if they wanted to but that they would fire him every day, and that he would not be permitted to work for them under any circumstances Kennedy and Achim were spared the trouble of meeting Butz at the gate the following morning, for at or about noon on December 11, Butz came to the trailer office to ask Kennedy whether in view of the rain that was falling , they would be working the next day. Kennedy replied that they would be work- ing, weather permitting, but that he felt that "it would be best for all concerned " that "he got his last check ." Kennedy added that he was sick and tired of Butz quoting the union contract to his operators and reporting to Anderson every infrac- tion of the rules witnessed by him . Butz inquired from Kennedy whether he " required any more than what was in the written agreement that the Opera- tors had with him ," and Kennedy replied that he didn 't. Butz then remarked that he was sorry that they could not get along but that Kennedy would have more trouble than if he kept him on Kennedy then wrote out Butz' last check , and Butz left the trailer office . During this interview , Ciotti, Ken- nedy's timekeeper and labor foreman , was present. It seems obvious that Butz was discharged by Kennedy because of his persistence in seeking enforcement of the union work rules, and that by discharging him the Respondent violated both Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.'; It is significant that although Ciotti was present during Butz' discharge interview , and he was called as a witness , he was not invited by counsel for the Respondent to challenge the accuracy of Butz' testimony concerning the discharge interview. The sole purpose of the Respondent in calling Ciotti as a witness was to relate the story of a fracas in which 5 The testimony of Anderson and Kennedy is not in agreement on this point, and it may be that Anderson spoke to Dominic rather than Kennedy 6 See Bowman Transportation , Incorporated, 134 NLRB 1419 , enfd 314 F 2d 497 ( C A 5), Fast Texas Pulp and Paper Company , 143 NLRB 427, enfd 346 F 2d 686 (C A 5) 1778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Butz and Kennedy had been involved prior to his discharge. It seems that Kennedy accused Butz in the trailer office of falsifying his time so that he could get paid for an extra half hour. The argument over this became heated and a scuffle ensued in which Butz pushed Kennedy with the result that the tatter's elbow went through one of the office trailer's windows. The contestants were then separated by one of the employees who had hap- pened to come into the trailer office, and whose name was Norris. Ciotti testified that Kennedy levelled his accusation against Butz after he had complained to Kennedy that Butz had incorrectly entered his time one day. But the Kennedy workers, who numbered about 50, did not punch timeclocks, and there were no timecards to establish how long any one of them had worked. Each employee mere- ly entered the total number of hours that he had worked on a particular day in a little book. Since an employee did not even indicate when he had re- ported for work and when he had quit work, there was really no way of checking up on him, and squabbles about the amount of time worked by a particular employee on any given day could hardly be definitively settled. As a matter of fact, Butz was the only operator whose time Ciotti had ever questioned. In any event, despite the dispute and despite the scuffle, Kennedy did not discharge Butz on this occasion, and the incident had in fact no connection with Butz' ultimate discharge, which oc- curred several weeks later 7 Kennedy attempted to explain his failure to discharge Butz after the scuf- fle by paying him the compliment that he was ex- ceptional as an operator, "better than most of them in the union," and by declaring that he could not have obtained anyone as good. 8 But this was, of course, just as true several weeks later when he finally discharged Butz It is evident that by then his patience had simply run out. Kennedy made indeed a sorry spectacle of him- self at the hearing. During the first day of the hear- ing, he attempted to sham illness in an effort to get the hearing postponed and when finally took the stand on the second day of the hearing, he engaged in the presentation of a farrago of nonsense, con- tradictions, and plain falsities. He actually denied that he had ever fired Butz. Yet in almost the same breath he testified that he told "Jerry," "You've worked for me for three different times and we just couldn't get along . I think it would be best for both sides that we part ways. You can't see eye to eye with me and I can't see eye to eye with you. So I think this is the nicest way of doing it. And I will park your rig." This came also only moments after Kennedy had admitted that Achim had declared that they would keep sending Butz back to the' Union if he was sent out to them, although Ken- nedy sought to soften the admission by pretending that he told Anderson that Butz would be laid off! At one point in his testimony Kennedy exclaimed that "Jerry" had "just walked out," in other words that he had quit voluntarily. Kennedy also achieved the feat during his direct examination of both ad- mitting and denying that he had ever complained to Anderson about Butz ' union activities. Incredibly, he testified: 0. Mr. Kennedy, have you at anytime com- plained to Mr. Anderson about Mr. Butz' al- leged union activities') A. No. I did, yes, when he came in on the 11th. I had maybe mentioned- No, I didn't. That 's wrong. Yes, I did, I think. I think maybe one day he came around and I said, " Jesus , this guy has caused me trouble." I think. Then on the 1 1 th I told him the whole story on the matter I said : "This guy is impossible." And then Mr. Achim spoke up. During his cross-examination , Kennedy admitted, moreover, that it was "true absolutely" that he had had a lot of trouble with Butz and the union con- tract and that Butz talked about the union contract to the operators in the coffeeshop who had told him that Butz was "a watchdog or whatever it is, and they didn't appreciate it." After this Kennedy declared that he liked to live up to the union con- tract, and that he respected organized labor! At this point, counsel for the General Counsel asked Ken- nedy whether it was not true that Butz "used to carry around that little contract in his back pocket"-referring to the green-cover booklet enti- tled "Heavy and Highway Agreement"-and Ken- nedy answered by saying: "I couldn't answer that. I think that he had that in his truck probably. If he carried it around he did not show it to me." Coun- sel for the General Counsel then showed Kennedy his prehearing affidavit in which Kennedy had deposed: " Butz used to carry arount the union con- tract." Indeed, in this same paragraph of his af- fidavit, Kennedy had virtually confessed to getting rid of Butz because of his insistence on observing the union contract, for he had deposed as follows. The next Monday, December 11, 1967, Ander- son came out to the jobsite about noon. We were not working that day because of the ' Ciotti testified on direct examination that the incident occurred during the first workweek in December , which began on December 6, while Ken- nedy himself testified that it occurred "the first week in December - Butz could not recall when the particular incident occurred because, apparently, he was involved in so many fracases with Kennedy Ciotti and Kennedy were seeking , it is apparent , to time the incident so as to relate it more im- mediately to Butz' discharge But it probably occurred at least several weeks before this event On cross-examination Ciotti was forced to con- cede that he did not really remember when the incident occured, he con- ceded that it could have occurred during the workweek beginning November 29, or even during the workweek before that In his preheanng affidavit Kennedy fixed the time of the incident at "a couple of weeks be- fore Butz was let go " " It is not true, as counsel for the Respondent contends in his brief, that Kennedy testified that "the reason Butz was not thereupon fired im- mediately was because there were no other machine operators available " GEORGE W. KENNEDY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 1779 weather . Anderson told me "You can't fire this man." Mr . Achim, an estimator and vice pre- sident of the Company, was present and said "Then we're going to shut down the rig for 48 hours." Anderson said that he would just send Butz back out to the job. Achim said that he would keep the rig shut down or else get another man from another local. Achim went on to say that it was the Company's preroga- tive to say who would work-"We're not going to have this guy; we will just lay him off again." Achim also said "We just don't like his at- titude." Although Butz was a good operator, he could not keep his mouth shut He was al- ways trying to tell me how to run the opera- tion . He was an agitator ; everything that the Company did was wrong He was a disturbing element. Most of the operators would look after their own interest and the interest of the Company but Butz was just out for Gary Butz. I had heard from some of the other operators that Butz had been quoting the contract to them and generally disturbing things. It is my position that Butz was fired for two reasons. First , I had no work and , secondly, his attitude. By his attitude, I am referring to his fighting with me when I questioned his time and the way he was attempting to interfere with the way I was running the Company. Butz used to carry around the union contract . I always thought he was lying about not being home the morning I called and tried to get him to come in to work . Butz and his activities among the other employees put a crimp in our style of operation, no doubt about it. Butz, on occa- sion , had pulled out the contract and tried to show me where I was wrong. IV. THE REMEDY In view of the limited nature of the violation in- volved in the discharge of Gary W. Butz, I shall recommend only a form of cease -and-desist order restraining the Respondent from discharging or otherwise discriminating against its employees because they may present grievances to the Respondent. To remedy the discharge of Gary W. Butz, I shall also recommend, by way of affirmative relief, that the Respondent offer to him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed by him, discharging , if necessary , any new employee hired subsequent to the date of his discharge in order to replace him. I shall also recommend that the Respondent make Gary W. Butz whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of his discharge by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during the said period. The amount of backpay is to be determined in accordance with the formula prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and interest is to be computed on the amount so determined in ac- cordance with Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc , 138 NLRB 716 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent, George W. Kennedy Con- struction Company, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Gary W. Butz on December 11, 1967, because he persisted in attempting to en- force union work rules, the Respondent committed an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that the Respon- dent, George W. Kennedy Construction Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 150, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging any of its employees , or in any other manner , discriminating against them with respect to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employment because they may present grievances to the Respondent. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer to Gary W. Butz immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniori- ty or other rights and privileges and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner and to the extent set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board, or its agents , for examination and copying, all payroll records and other data necessa- ry to give effect to the backpay requirement. (c) Post at its principle office and place of busi- ness at 1020 Anita Street , Antioch, Illinois, and 1780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL also at any field office which it may now be main- taining copies of the attached notice marked "Ap- pendix. "s Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be 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 Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify said Regional Director , in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.10 Y In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words 'a Decision and Order" shall he substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall he substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " 10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall he modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith - LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner Interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act W E WILL offer to Gary W. Butz immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substan- tially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against him. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requir- ing membership in a labor organization as a condi- tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. GEORGE W KENNEDY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) 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 Na- tional l.,thor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WF W11.1 NOT discourage membership in In- ternational Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, or in any other labor organization of our employees, by discriminating with respect to the hire or tenure of their employ- ment, or any term or condition of their em- ployment, because they may present grievances to us. Note: We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Ser- vice Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive 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, 881 U.S Courthouse and Federal Office Building , 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Il- linois , Telephone 353-7572.