J. C. Boespflug Construction Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 27, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 330 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
J. C. Boespflug Construction Co. and Fred W. Hagel . Case No.-
19-CA-1153. July 27, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 17, 1955, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the Act and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and findings that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following amplification:
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent, by
General Foreman Boyd, unlawfully discharged employee Fred Hagel
because of the manner in which the latter performed his duties as union
job steward.
The Respondent concedes that Hagel was discharged for reasons
which in part concern his union activity. However, it asserts that.
"his discharge did not arise out of his function as a union steward,
but out of his abuse of this function." 2 The Respondent in effect
contends that Hagel misused his position as job steward to further his
own self-interest and that he was discharged for that reason.
The record shows that in April 1953, Hagel was elected job steward
by the carpenters working on the Respondent's project. In August
of the same year, following Hagel's representation to Boyd that he
would have to leave the job unless he received more pay, Hagel was
assigned the additional task of daily opening and closing the too]
shed, which gave him more pay. This extra assignment ended in
October 1953 and was not renewed in March 1954 when operations re-
sumed after the winter shutdown.
According to the Respondent, as the direct result of the discon-
tinuance of the tool shed assignment, Hagel began harassing Boyd
with complaints, the principal -object of which was to secure advan-
1 At the hearing , the Respondent moved to amend its answer to show that even- if not
discharged on June 9 , 1954, Hagel would have been laid off on October 17, 1954,,due to
a seasonal reduction in force. , The,Respondent made a similar offer of proof at the close
of the hearing.. We find that the Trial Examiner properly denied the . Respondent 's motion
to,amend and its offer of proof. The issue sought to be raised is a matter to be considered
only at the compliance stage of the proceeding.
2 Respondent 's brief to the Board, p. 11.
113 NLRB No. 30.
T. C. BOESPFLUG CONSTRUCTION CO. 331
Cages for Hagel by- way of additional compensation or more over-
,time.' Hagel denied that he had ever sought anything for himself
to which he was not entitled under the terms of either the existing
written collective-bargaining agreement or a supplemental oral un-
derstanding of the contracting parties. He further testified that in
filing grievances, he was acting on behalf of all carpenters on the
job, including himself. The Respondent's witness, General Foreman
Boyd, conceded that Hagel never had suggested that if he were given
-more money, he would stop filing grievances.4 Nor, before the dis-
,charge, did anyone complain to Superintendent Fellerhoff or to the
Union's business agent that Hagel was misusing his position for
-personal gain. Finally, the grievances processed by Hagel are not of
.such a nature as to justify the inference that Hagel was seeking only
to better his own financial position. Thus, Boyd specifically men-
tioned seven grievances pressed by Hagel before his discharge. Of
these Boyd acknowledged that 5 were substantial, justifiable grievances
and that 2 were "petty." The two "petty" grievances consisted of
Bagel's request that laborers clean the carpenters' lunchroom, and
Bagel's complaint that laborers rather than carpenters had nailed
ladders to wooden forms on concrete work.
Considering all the evidence, we agree with the Trial Examiner that
the Respondent has not established that Hagel misused his position as
a union official in order to better his own financial condition and that
he was discharged for that reason. We find, as did the Trial Exam-
iner, that the Respondent unlawfully discharged Fred Hagel in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) because of his activities in behalf of
the Union.5 However, whether the Respondent's conduct be regarded
3 The Trial Examiner represented the Respondent as contending that all of Bagel's
complaints were of a petty nature. This is not borne out by the record The Respondent
actually conceded that some of the complaints were legitimate and not petty. We there-
fore note and correct the Trial Examiner's misstatement which, in any event, does not
affect his conclusions nor our concurrence therein.
* Superintendent Fellerhoff did testify that in 1053 Bagel asked him for more money
and suggested that he was entitled to it because, in performing his steward's duties, he
had been overlooking many little things to the Respondent's advantage Fellerhoff re-
plied, according to his own account, that he was not looking for any favors Fellerhoff
also testified that he had given the tool shed assignment to Bagel as a result of the tat-
ter's request for this work made to Boyd who communicated it to Fellerhoff. Nagel spe-
cifically dewed all this testimony of Fellerhoff. The Trial Examiner found it unnecessary
to resolve this credibility issue. However, we note that Boyd corroborated Bagel's story
in many of its important aspects Thus, he confirmed that Bagel had told him of having
to look elsewhere for more remunerative employment and that he had referred Bagel to
Fellerhoff. Boyd also suported Bagel's testimony, contrary to that of Fellerhoff, that
Bagel had not asked him for the tool shed job Nor did Boyd testify that Bagel had inti-
mated to him that he was entitled to more money because of the way he was handling the
steward's job. This fact alone tends to throw some doubt on Fellerhoff's testimony that
Nagel did make such a suggestion to him, for the evidence is clear, at least as far as it
relates to the events of 1954, that Bagel always approached Boyd and not Fellerhoff when
allegedly seeking greater benefits for himself. To the extent that the above testimony
may have a bearing on the events of 1954, we credit Bagel's denial that he had told Feller-
hoff in 1953 that he was entitled to more money because he had been overlooking a num-
ber of minor grievances.
5 Trafford Coach Lines , 97 NLRB 938.
332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) or (3), or both sections of the Act,
we are of the opinion that full reinstatement of Hagel with back pay
is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that J. C. Boespflug Construction Co., Anchor-
age, Alaska, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, Local No. 1281, or in any other labor
organization, by discharging employees or by discriminating in any
other manner in regard to hire and tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, and to refrain from any or all of 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Fred W. Hagel immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make whole Fred W. Hagel for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him in
the manner provided in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled
"The Remedy."
(c) Upon request make available to the Board or its agents, for ex-
amination and copying, all payroll records, social-security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of back pay due and the right of re-
instatement under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its project at Anchorage, Alaska, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report Marked "Appendix." 6 Copies
9 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order ." In the event that this Order is
enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for
the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order " -
J. C. BOESPFLUG CONSTRUCTION CO. 333
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nine-
teenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the
Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be main-
tained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. The Respondent shall take reasonable steps to insure that
such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other ma-
terial.
(e) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director in writing, within ten
(10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed by Fred W. Hagel , an individual , the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint dated November 3, 1954, against
J. C. Boespflug Construction Co., herein called the Respondent , alleging that the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) and ( 3) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Labor Man-
agement Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat . 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the com-
plaint and the charge were duly served upon the Respondent , in response to which
the Respondent filed an answer denying the unfair labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held on November 18 and 19, 1954, at Anchorage,
Alaska, before the duly designated Trial Examiner . All parties were represented at
the hearing and were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues; they were also given opportunity
for oral argument at the close of the hearing and to file briefs as well.
Upon the record in the case , and upon observation of the demeanor of witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a California corporation engaged in the building and construction
business . Respondent has a contract with the United States Government to construct
a military hospital at Elmendorf Air Force Base in the vicinity of Anchorage , Alaska,
at an approximate cost of $8,500 ,000, for which the Respondent is furnishing mate-
rials and labor amounting to approximately $4,220,000; the estimated cost of such
materials shipped from outside Alaska is approximately $1,200,000.
' Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Jonesboro
Grain Drying Cooperative , 110 NLRB 481; Maytag Aircraft Corp., 110 NLRB 594.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
This case involves the discharge of Fred W. Hagel , a journeyman carpenter on
Respondent 's military hospital -project at Anchorage , Alaska. Hagel 's employment
with the Respondent began in April 1952 and continued , except for seasonal winter
layoffs and during a 10-day labor dispute in April 1954 , until his discharge in June
1954 by Jack Boyd, the general carpenter foreman . In April 1953 Hagel became job
steward of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Local No. 1281,
herein called the Union ; he occupied this position under Union Business Agent Grover
Fisher for the duration of his employment . It was the steward 's duty, among other
things, to "police" the parties' contract on the project.
The General Counsel contends that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Hagel
because Hagel zealously performed his duties as a steward . The Respondent, on
the other hand , asserts in its brief that it discharged Hagel because Hagel "was
attempting to take advantage of his position as union steward to further his own self-
interest , which created a lack of harmony on the project and resulted in clashes-
of personality , animosity and incompatibility between [ General Carpenter Foreman
Boyd and Hagel)." The Respondent alleges, by way of further explanation, that
from March 1954 until June 1954 Hagel was continuously "riding" Foreman Boyd
334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by complaining as to various matters, all of which it claims were "picayune in nature";
and it asserts that such alleged harassment was solely motivated by Hagel' s desire
to obtain financial benefits for himself on the project.
. In August 1953, and after Hagel became job steward, the Respondent assigned
Hagel the additional task of opening and closing the tool shed at the beginning and
end of each day's work; this meant an extra half hour compensation for Hagel on an
overtime basis for a few minutes' work daily. There is a dispute as to the origin of
this assignment. Hagel's version is that he advised Foreman Boyd on one occasion
that he was quitting his job because of an opportunity for greater earnings elsewhere;
that Boyd asked Hagel not to leave until Boyd could first discuss the situation with
Project Superintendent John A. Fellerhoff; that later that week Boyd informed Hagel
that the Respondent was going to assign the tool shed task to Hagel; and that Hagel
thereupon assured Boyd that Hagel would remain on the job. Hagel testified that he
did not request the tool shed assignment . Fellerhoff testified, on the other hand, that
Hagel had advised Fellerhoff that he was entitled to additional money because, in
performing his stewardship, he had been overlooking many things to Respondent's
advantage; that Fellerhoff informed Hagel that the Respondent was not seeking
any such favors; and that Hagel mentioned the tool shed matter to Boyd who in
turn mentioned it to Fellerhoff who then decided to assign the task to Hagel. Fore-
man Boyd testified that Hagel had told Boyd that Hagel would have to look else-
where for more remunerative employment and that Boyd then referred Hagel to
Fellerhoff; Boyd testified, contrary to Fellerhoff's version, that Hagel had not men-
tioned the possibility of the tool shed job to Boyd. In any event, Hagel was given
the task of locking and unlocking the tool shed; in October 1953, however, Feller-
hoff informed Hagel that such assignment was ended.'
The project had a seasonal shutdown in, the winter, of 1953-54, ,and operations
resumed on March 8, .1954. 'Boyd testified that during the period from March until
his discharge of Hagel on or about June 9, 1954, Hagel frequently asked Boyd for
more money for himself, leaving it up to Boyd to devise the method for deriving
such additional earnings, and that Hagel engaged in "continual bickering" about
various "petty" matters when Boyd refused Hagel's requests. Hagel denied that
he sought overtime or extra-pay work or other advantages for himself, and he
further testified that he sought to represent all the carpenters, without special
favoritism for himself.
The Respondent claims that Hagel's pattern of "petty" complaints is directly
ielated to the discontinuance of the tool shed assignment. In other words, says the
Respondent, Hagel did not harass the Respondent with "picayune" matters until
the tool shed income was ended.
Although, as indicated above, the Respondent contended that there were "no
serious violations [of prescribed working conditions]" in 1954, the record shows
that Nagel did take up various matters with Boyd during this period which Boyd
admitted were not "petty." Thus in April 1954, Hagel filed a grievance to the
effect that the men -were not receiving the prescribed wage scale while operating
power tools; Business Agent Fisher went to the project in that connection, and the
matter was finally resolved; Hagel's grievance in this connection, Boyd testified, was
not "petty." Also during this period, Hagel lodged a grievance "because the rigging
of lumber was being done by laborers"; this was not "petty," according to Boyd.
There was an occasion when Hagel called Boyd's attention to "inadequate tool house
facilities," which Boyd testified was "essential." Hagel also took up with Boyd
during this period the matter of a carpenter, one Augustine, who was performing
foreman work but not receiving the prescribed foreman wage scale; Augustine was
given the foreman rate as a result of Hagel's protest; this was not a "petty griev-
ance," Boyd testified. Another complaint by Hagel, which Boyd also said was not
petty, was that the job was not always covered by a steward as required by the
contract. As to matters which Boyd did consider petty, Boyd mentioned an occa-
sion when Hagel requested that laborers clean the eating quarters used by carpenters,
at a time, according to Boyd, when no laborers were available for such purposes;
Boyd also mentioned a situation when Hagel complained that laborers, rather than
carpenters, had nailed ladders to wooden forms on concrete work.
I Sometime after his discharge, Nagel filed a claim with the Territorial Labor Commis-
sioner alleging that Respondent owed him compensation for tending the tool shed from
March 1954 until June 1954. Nagel had not made such claim upon Respondent during
the March-June period under consideration, and Respondent contends that Nagel did not
perform and was not authorized to perform such work during said period. I consider it
unnecessary: to resolve .these specific issues, as being immaterial and irrelevant to the
issues in the present case.
J. C; BOESPFLUG CONSTRUCTION CO. 335
It had been Hagel's weekly practice to check at the project office on the car-
penters' job classifications and wage rates, a practice to which stewards are entitled,
according to Business Agent Fisher. When Hagel brought up the aforementioned
Augustine matter on the occasion of such visit to the project office, Superintendent
Fellerhoff became "very upset" with Hagel, according to Hagel's credible testimony.
Fellerhoff thereupon advised Hagel that he (Fellerhoff) didn't want Hagel going
into the office to check the mentioned job and wage data, that Hagel should obtain
such information from Boyd, and that Fellerhoff "wasn't going to be told by
[Hagel] or any other union representative what rate of pay he had to pay these
men." (Boyd testified, as mentioned above, that the Augustine matter was not
"petty.") On this same occasion,2 Foreman Boyd suggested to Hagel, according
to Hagel's credible testimony, that Hagel should resign as steward "for the best
interest of all concerned." Hagel reported the matter to Business Agent Fisher
who in turn instructed Hagel to continue as steward. Boyd testified that he had
asked Hagel to resign for the sake of "happiness or harmony on the job"; and he
testified that his reason for the request was Hagel's participation in the Union's
causing the layoff of two carpenters. The termination of these 2 men was litigated
before the Board in an unfair labor practice action against the Union; and in Feb-
ruary 1954, Trial Examiner David Doyle recommended that the Union withdraw
objection to the employment of the 2 men and that the Union reimburse them for
earnings lost as a result of the Union's unlawful conduct against them (J. C. Boespflug
Company, 109 NLRB 874). Boyd testified that he believed the men on the project
"would have like it better" if Hagel withdrew as steward in view of the Trial Exam-
iner's recommended order. I do not credit Boyd's explanation of this incident.
On June 7, to come to the discharge, the carpenters were engaged in building
runways, and that same day Hagel had claimed that certain work he was perform-
ing was layout work which carried with it a higher rate than the base scale. The
following morning, the carpenters found the runway work to have been completed
by laborers the night before. Although, when approached by Hagel on this occa-
sion , Boyd said he was busy at the moment, Hagel informed Boyd that he wanted
to straighten out the matter immediately with Boyd and Fellerhoff as well as the
matter of steward coverage (which Boyd said was not petty); Hagel protested in
that connection that carpenters were losing work to the laborers. Boyd told Hagel,
according to the latter's credible testimony, that Hagel was "running right into a
buzz saw," whereupon Hagel remarked that he and Boyd "aren't going to get any-
where" and that he would summon Fisher to the project to "straighten out" the
matter. Boyd's response to Hagel was a 24-hour notice of discharge with the
explanation that the job wasn't "big enough" for both men. Boyd informed Feller-
hoff later that day that either Hagel or Boyd would have to leave and that Boyd
"didn't want [Hagell any longer as a steward" because Hagel was "forever bicker-
ing" about "little pretty grievances" and "always wanting more money."
Fisher came out to the project that same day and he obtained Fellerhoff's permis-
sion to have Respondent's carpenters meet at the project during the lunch hour to
discuss the situation. All carpenters and carpenter foremen, presumably all of
whom were union members, attended the meeting and Fisher designated one of the
carpenters, Thomas J. Moore, to preside. Both Boyd and Hagel addressed the group.
Speaking first, Boyd stated in effect that Hagel had been making too many "petty
beefs" and was attempting to use his stewardship for personal gain; Boyd told the
men that he "would abide by your decision." Hagel then replied to Boyd's remarks
by telling the men, in effect, that his discharge was in retaliation for "carrying out the
duties of his [steward's] job." Hagel and Boyd- each spoke again and then left the
group. Fisher then cautioned the men not to make any speeches because there were
"too many company men in the room" and he suggested that they vote on whether
Bovd had discriminated aeainst Hagel.
Before the vote was taken, Fisher informed the group that, while it was a serious
matter not to support their steward, a vote in favor of Hagel would "possibly" result
in the men not working on the project the next day. Fisher explained this latter strike
alternative by telling the group that they couldn't really rely on Boyd's remark to
"abide by their decision" because, as Fisher further told the men, Boyd's own supe-
riors might not also be willing to accept their decision Fisher also mentioned on
this occasion, the seriousness of striking a military hospital project. Fisher testified
that he didn 't want to see the project shut down and that he was well aware that his
remarks to the men "weakened that vote [for Hagel] considerably." The men then
2I'age 193, line 25, of the transcript is hereby corrected to read "in April" Instead of
"in August."
336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL,LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
voted against the discrimination proposition, by a vote of 25 to 22, and they also
,then'elected another job steward.
After this meeting, Fisher asked Boyd to retain Hagel, a steward no longer, as a
regular journeyman carpenter, which Boyd refused;,and at the hearing Boyd explained
,,that he felt that Hagel, if retained, would devote "considerable time explaining his
... own personal case against me_" The Respondent gave Hagel a written termi-
nation notice the next day, the notice stating that the discharge was "For advancement
of better relations between management and Union."
Fisher testified, in effect, that none of Hagel's complaints or grievances during ,the
March-June period under consideration were unnecessary, and Boyd testified that,
so far as he could recall, all grievances during this period were "satisfactorily settled"
between Respondent and the Union. Fellerhoff testified that Hagel had made no
requests of him for favorite treatment during the March-June period and that, except
at the time of the discharge incident, Boyd had never informed Fellerhoff during said
period that Hagel was seeking preferred treatment. Boyd also testified that Hagel
had never expressly told him that grievances or complaints would cease if Boyd
would arrange greater earnings for Hagel; rather, the nexus between the alleged
"petty" grievances and Hagel's alleged requests for additional compensation was,
;according to Boyd, "only by inference that [Boyd] gathered."
Conclusions
Respondent's contention, in recapitulation, is that Hagel made many complaints
during the March-June 1954 period, that all such complaints were of a petty nature,
and that the pettiness of the complaints demonstrates within the factual context
that Hagel's reason for making the complaints was to advance his personal financial
situation on the job. It is admitted by Boyd, however, that many of the mentioned
complaints were not picayune, and Fisher testified, in effect, that -no complaint was.
Moreover, even were all the complaints as petty as Respondent contended them to
be, it does not necessarily follow that the job steward making such complaints was
mot acting in the -honest performance of his stewardship, and certainly an employer
may not lawfully discharge a steward solely because he files petty grievances. It is
not at all unusual that one party to a grievance does not believe his opponent's posi-
tion to be completely lacking in merit. Considering all the circumstances present
:here, the record does not support Respondent's contention that Hagel badgered Boyd
with groundless complaints in order to aggrandize his financial position.
Respondent further contends, however, that its discharge of Hagel may not be con-
sidered as discriminatory in view of the fact that Boyd permitted the final decision in
the matter to be made by the Union itself, rather than by Boyd, on the occasion of
-the meeting at which the men voted on the proposition of Hagel's alleged discrimina-
tion. It is the Board's function, scarcely a labor organization's, to determine viola-
tions under the Act. Moreover, if an employer discharged an employee at the behest
of a labor organization for reasons other than initiation fees and union dues, such cir-
cumstance is itself independent basis for sustaining a finding of discrimination. See
Turner Construction Company, 110 NLRB 1860. Respondent also claims that
'Hagel is estopped from maintaining the present action because he agreed at the
aforementioned meeting that the other carpenters on the job would resolve the issue
-of alleged discrimination. The record does not show that Hagel agreed to be bound
conclusively by the action taken at that meeting; even if he had, moreover, such
'circumstance would still not constitute an estoppel to the instant proceeding. 'See
Dant & Russell, Ltd., 92 NLRB 307, 312, 207 F. 2d 165 (C. A. 9), 344 U. S.
'375; N. L. R. B. v. Walt Disney Productions, 146 F. 2d 44, 47-49 (C. A. 9), cent:
denied 324 U. S. 877; N L. R. B. v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., 120 F. 2d 262,
"265-266 (C. A. 3), cert. denied 314 U. S 693.
I conclude, accordingly, that, by discharging Hagel because of Hagel's stewardship
-conduct, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within "the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. See Trafford Coach
Lines, 97 NLRB 938.
III. THE REMEDY
I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from the unfair labor
practices found; and I shall also recommend such affirmative relief as I consider
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act, including the reinstatement of Hagel
with back pay for loss of earnings he may have suffered during the period of dis-
-crimination against him, less his net earnings during that period, all to be computed
and otherwise in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-
"299. Such back-pay order does not, of course, require reimbursement for any sea-
sonal layoff periods, if any, during which Hagel would have been reduced in force
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 337
for nondiscriminatory reasons; and the Company's liability will, in no event, con-
tinue beyond the date of the Company's Anchorage project. See Turner Construc-
lion Company, supra. -
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in, or activities on behalf of, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 1281, or in any
other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of em-
ployment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employess in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organ-
izations, to join or assist United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local No. 1281, or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, 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 organi-
zation as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to Fred W. Hagel to his for-
mer or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any seniority or
other rights and privileges and make Hagel whole for any loss of earnings suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination against him.
J. C. BOESPFLUO CONSTRUCTION Co.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By----------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Association of Westing-
house Salaried Employees affiliated with the Federation of
Westinghouse Independent Salaried " Unions, Petitioner. Cases
Nos. 6-RC-15541 and 6-RC-1555. July 27, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herbert Schutzman, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within "the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
I After Case No. 6-RC-1554 was consolidated with Case No. 6-RC-1555, the parties
agreed to a consent election in the former, whereupon the cases were severed.
113 NLR$ No. 38.