Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 11, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 1577 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC., ETC. 1577 employment by the Consolidated Fruit and Produce Company, upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Uni- versal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate with the Regional Office of the Board, 327 Logan Building, 800 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No.. Mutual 2-3300, Extension 553, if they have any ques- tions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. and Hawaiian Dredging and Construction Company, a Division of Dillingham Corporation, a Joint Venture and Fred Crawford . Case No. 37-C11-1299. December 11, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On May 5, 1964, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Deci- sion 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 Decision.' Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCul- loch and Members Fanning and Brown]. The 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 has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,2 and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. 1 The Trial Examiner inadvertently found that on July 22 , 1963, the Respondent com- menced the operation of cleaning the culverts, and that day Watari Kuwada, the State inspector visited the Lower Kula Road project The cleaning operation and Kuwada's visit were both on July 23, 1963. The Trial Examiner also found that the compressor used on the cleaning job was a 600-pound -pressure -per-cubic -foot compressor The com- pressor generated 600 cubic feet of air per minute We correct the Decision accordingly. However , neither modification affects our finding herein 2 We do not adopt the conclusion that the working conditions of Michael Crawford were "abnormally dangerous" wthln the meaning of Section 502 of the Act Cf. Curtis Mathes Manufacturing Company, 145 NLRB 473 . We do concur , however, in the Trial Examiner ' s conclusion that the Crawfords were engaged in protected concerted activity and that their discharge was violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act _ 149 NLRB No. 140. 1578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondent, Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. and Hawai- ian Dredging and Construction Company, a Division of Dillingham Corporation, a Joint Venture, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order, with the following modification : Paragraphs 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), and 2(e) are redesignated 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), and 2(f), respectively, and a new paragraph 2(b) is included as follows : "Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstate- ment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces." TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge and an amended charge duly filed on October 28, and November 13, 1963,1 respectively, by Fred Crawford, herein called Fred, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , herein respectively called the General Counsel 2 and the Board , through the Regional Director for Region 20 (San Francisco, Cali- fornia ), issued a complaint , dated January 7, 1964, against Morrison -Knudsen Com- pany, Inc. and Hawaiian Dredging and Construction Company, a Division of Dilling- ham Corporation , a Joint Venture , herein called Respondent , alleging that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended from time to time, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges , complaint , and notice of hearing were duly served upon Respondent and copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon Fred. Specifically, the complaint alleges that on July 23 (1) Fred and his son Michael 3 engaged in concerted activity by refusing in good faith to perform work assigned them by Respondent because of the lack of necessary safety equipment needed to perform the assigned duties; (2) Respondent threatened Fred and Michael with loss of work if they did not continue to work even though the assigned work was in an abnormally hazardous area; and (3) Fred and Michael, because each of them refused to work under abnormally dangerous conditions , were discharged by Respondent. On January 15, 1964, Respondent duly filed an answer denying the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held at Wailuki, on the Island of Faui , Hawaii, on March 9, 1964, before Trial Examiner Howard Meyers. The General Counsel and Respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full and complete opportunity was afforded the parties to examine and cross -examine witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally on the record at the con- clusion of the taking of the evidence and to file briefs on or before March 31, 1964. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and from Respondent 's counsel which have been carefully considered. 1 Unless otherwise noted, all dates mentioned herein refer to 1963. 2 This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the hearing. 3 For the purpose of brevity and clarity, Fred Crawford will be referred to herein as Fred, and Michael Crawford as Michael. MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC., ETC. 1579 Upon the record as a whole and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. RESPONDENT 'S BUSINESS OPERATIONS Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation , with its principal offices in Boise, Idaho, and Hawaiian Dredging and Construction Company, a division of Dillingham Corporation , a Hawaiian corporation , with its principal offices in Honolulu , Hawaii , are general contractors and, as such , are engaged in, and during all times material were engaged in, the building and construction business in various States of the United States. Respondent is currently engaged in a joint venture under a contract valued in excess of $1,800,000 jointly with the United States Government and with the State of Hawaii for the construction of a road project , known as the Lower Kula Road located near Kula on the island of Maui. During the calendar year immediately preceding the issuance of the complaint herein , Respondent received gross revenues in excess of $500,000 for performing cer- tain work on said Kula project. During the same period, Respondent purchased mate- rials valued at $65,000 for use on said Kula job, which materials were transported and delivered to Respondent by Hawaiian Equipment Co., Ltd., which, in turn, purchased and received said materials directly from points located outside the State of Hawaii. Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, I find, in line with established Board authority , that Respondent is engaged in, and during all times material was engaged in, a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that its business operations meet the standards fixed by the Board for the assertion of juridsiction. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The pertinent facts 4 On July 22 Respondent commenced a new operation at the Lower Kula Road project, to wit: the cleaning of the culverts thereon. That day, July 22, Watari Kuwada, an engineer of the State department of trans- portation, highway division, and one of the inspectors assigned by the State of Hawaii to Respondent's project in question, visited the jobsite. There, Kuwada saw one of the workmen emerge from the culvert, which was in the process of being cleaned by means of an air compressor, so "full of dust" that Kuwada "couldn't recognize his face." Thereupon, Kuwada approached Raymond Guillot, Respondent's labor fore- man and the person then in charge of this particular cleaning job, and informed Guillot, among other things, that the men working in the culvert must wear goggles and respirators because of the dust. Guillot replied that he had no such equipment on the job but that he would immediately ascertain at the project office whether there were goggles and respirators available for those working in the culvert. Guillot then asked Kuwada whether he should stop the job, to which Kuwada replied that there was no need to stop the job if the men were supplied with goggles and respirators while clean- ing in the culvert, with a compressor.5 In the light of the Trial Examiner's observation of the conduct and deportment at the hearing of all the persons who testified herein, and after a very careful scrutiny of the entire record, all of which has been carefully read and parts of which have been reread and rechecked several times, and being mindful of the contentions of the parties with respect to the credibility problems here involved, of the fact that in many instances testimony was given regarding events which took place months prior to the opening of the hearing, and of the fact that very stiong feelings have been generated by the circum- stances of this case, coupled with the fact that it would unnecessarily protract this Decision to summarize all the testimony or to spell out fully the confusion and in- consistencies therein, the following is a composite picture of all the factual issues in- volved and the conclusions based thereon The parties may be assured that in reaching all resolutions, findings, and conclusions herein, the record as a whole has been care- fully considered, relevant cases have been studied, and each contention advanced has been weighed, even though not specifically discussed 50n that day's daily report, Kuwada made a notation to the effect that Respondent had men cleaning the culvert who did not wear goggles and respirators It is significant to here note that chapter 21-09 of the State of Hawaii, general safety code, entitled "Helinet, Goggles, and Respirators" reads, in part, as follows. Compressed air operations generally result in hazards and dust, vapors, and fly- ing debris Operators and workmen in the vicinity of these hazards shall wear appropriate helmets, goggles and respirators 1580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On July 23 Fred and Michael arrived at the jobsite at the usual starting time, 7 a.m. Fred went to work at his usual job as motor-blade operator. At about 10 o'clock that morning, General Foreman Ken Kineskie brought Michael to Guillot and inquired of Guillot whether he could use Michael on the culvert cleaning job. When Guillot replied in the affirmative, Michael was assigned by Kineskie to Guillot's crew which, in addition to Michael, consisted of Guillot and an employee named Suihesa. The equipment used on the aforementioned cleaning job was a 600-pound-pressure- per-cubic-foot compressor and a water tank. To each of these items a hose was con- nected which led into a nozzle. The persons assigned to this culvert-cleaning job took turns going into the culvert where they would remain for about 10 or 15 minutes at a time. The person working in the culvert wore a "hard hat" but no other safety device, such as goggles and respirators, and it was his function to clean the culvert by means of a shovel and by opening the nozzle so that water and air would simultaneously emit from the nozzle. When the nozzle was opened by one crewmember and emitting air and water, another member of the crew would hold the hoses, while the third member thereof would be in the open "catching fresh air" into his lungs. The first morning Michael worked on the culvert-cleaning job the only safety equip- ment given him , or to any other member of the crew for that matter, was a "hard hat." Because no respirators and/or goggles were given the crewmembers, Guillot and Suehisa remarked to each other that morning, in Michael's presence, that when- ever he used the compressor the dust in the culvert affected his breathing.- -They also remarked that morning, in Michael's presence, that goggles and respirators should be worn whenever the compressor was in operation in the culvert but the company was too cheap to buy them. Because Michael was not supplied with goggles and respirators, the following resulted whenever he operated the compressor in the culvert that morning: (1) his breathing became adversely affected; (2) he could not see very well because of the abnormal amount of dust flying around; (3) some of the dust got into his eyes; (4) he was hit on his arms, neck, legs, and face by flying stones; and (5) he got dizzy and almost "passed out" several times. When the culvert cleaning crew quit work at 11:30 that morning for lunch, Michael joined his father, Guillot, Suehisa, and a Respondent truckdriver alongside the road When Fred noticed his son not eating his lunch, he inquired why. Michael replied that he did not feel like eating lunch because he was not feeling well and that he had almost "passed out" a couple of times that morning while working in the culvert because of the dirt and dust therein. After advising his son to eat something because it might make him feel better, Fred turned to Guillot and Suehisa and inquired whether the culvert-cleaning crew had been wearing goggles and respirators while on the job. Guillot replied in the negative, adding that he knew that goggles and respi- rators were necessary while cleaning the culvert with the compressor and that the dust during that operation was affecting his breathing, but the crew was not supplied with goggles and respirators because Respondent was too cheap to buy them. Toward the conclusion of the luncheon period, 12 noon, Fred told-Guillot that'the previous afternoon, Roger Lefler, the grade foreman and Fred's immediate superior, had asked whether it would be agreeable to him if Michael worked on the labor crew the next morning, July 23, because there would not be any grade checking and cleaning work for Michael until the trucks hauling cinders arrived on the jobsite and that he assured Lefler that such an arrangement was agreeable to him and Michael Fred then inquired , after remarking that since the cinder-hauling trucks were com- mencing to arrive on the jobside, whether Guillot would release Michael from the labor crew and allow Michael to return to his usual job of picking trash out of the cinders. When Guillot replied in the affirmative, Michael returned to his usual trash- cleaning job. About 15 minutes after Michael had commenced working at his usual job, Lefler came along and told Fred that the newly hauled cinders had been condemned and that Michael would have to return to the culvert cleaning job. When Fred inquired whether the culvert-cleaning crew would be supplied goggles and respirators, Lefler, after replying that he would ascertain whether any were available, left Lefler then went to where Michael was working and told him to return to the culvert cleaning crew. When Michael remarked that it was his and his father's under- standing that he was to pick trash out of the cinders, Lefler said that he was the fore- man on the job and that Fred was only a blade man and that Michael should do what he, Lefler, told him to do. MORRISON -KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC., ETC. 1581 Michael then reported to Guillot and advised him that he had been sent there by Lefler and was ready to work on the culvert-cleaning job . While Michael was waiting to take his turn operating the compressor inside the culvert, Fred drove his grader near the culvert and asked Guillot whether Guillot's crew had been supplied with any safety equipment . When Guillot replied in the negative , Fred commented that the men should not work in the culvert without such equipment . Thereupon , Guillot, after instructing Michael to return to his trash -picking job , drove off in his truck. About 20 minutes after Michael had resumed his usual trash-picking job, Giullot returned to the jobsite and instructed Michael to get into the truck. Guillot and Michael then drove to where Fred was working and during this trip Guillot said to Michael that , although he did not like to do it, he had to take him and his father off the job. Upon arriving where Fred was working , Guillot descended from the truck and told Fred that Michael had to either work cleaning the culvert or both would have to quit their jobs ., Guillot then drove Fred and Michael to where Fred's car was parked . Fred and his son then drove in the former 's car to the project office. Upon arriving at the project office, Fred informed Office Manager Bonner that he would like to see Project Manager James Wylie. When Bonner stated that Wylie was not then at the office , Fred asked to see Stanley Kushi, Respondent 's registered engineer . When Bonner informed Fred that Kushi also was away from the office, Fred returned to his car and drove Michael home. - After depositing Michael at home, Fred returned to his own job. About 3 : 30 that afternoon , July 23, Wylie , after being informed by General Foie- man Kineskie that there was some trouble on the job and being requested by Kineskie to try to straighten out the trouble , Wylie went to where Fred was working and asked Fred what the trouble was Before Fred had a chance to explain, Wylie told Fred to park the motor blade because he was all thiough. Wylie then left the jobsite. Fred, however , continued to work until the usual quitting time, 4.30. About 6:45 the next morning, July 24, Fred reported . for work. Upon seeing Wylie at the project office , Fred inquired of him whether he should go to work, Wylie replied , "No, you are fired," adding that as soon as the office manager arrived, Fred should pick up his paycheck . When the office manager arrived, Fred was given three termination slips, two relative to his own termination and one respecting Mich- ael's termination . Fred was also given a check for wages due him plus 2 hours "show up time." B. Concluding findings The credited evidence , as epitomized above, clearly establishes that Fred and Michael Crawford were discharged on July 23, because they had engaged in protected concerted activities . This finding becomes inescapable when consideration is given to the facts that: ( 1) They in good faith protested to their superiors the dangerous and hazardous working conditions under which the culvert cleaning crew had to work because the members thereof were not given the required safety equipment; (2) Michael 's termination slip states as the reason for his discharge , "Refused to work because it was unsafe to work"; ( 3) Fred was given two termination slips, one stating that he was "discharged" for the stated reason, "Fired for work," and the other stating that Fred "quit" because he "Refused to work because it was unsafe to work"; (4) Kuwada's credible testimony which clearly establishes that the culvert cleaning job was dangerous to the workmen 's health if they did not wear goggles and respirators; (5) Guillot's testimony to the effect that his breathing was adversely affected when he worked in the culvert without using respirators ; ( 6) Guillot's testimony that gog- gles and respirators were necessary equipment for the men working the compressor in the culvert ; (7) Michael 's sickness on the morning of July 23, because he had to work the compressor in the culvert without goggles and respirators ; and (8) the Crawfords were acting concertedly in good faith in respect to "abnormally dangerous" working conditions for their mutual protection. Respondent seems to argue that the Crawfords ' July 23 actions were indefensible because they gave orders to their superiors instead of taking orders from them and thus their actions on said date were not protected by Section 7 of the Act. The said activities of the Crawfords cannot be classified as indefensible by any recognized standard of conduct . Indeed, concerted activities of employees for the purpose of trying to protect themselves from working conditions as dangerous and hazardous as the credited evidence in this proceeding shows are unquestionably activities to cor- rect conditions which modern labor-management legislation treats as too bad to have to be tolerated in a humane and civilized society like ours. 1582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in the case, I am convinced, and find that the activities which Fred and Michael Crawford engaged in on July 23, 1963, were concerted activities protected within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Accord- ingly, I find that by discharging Fred and Michael Crawford on July 23, 1963, for engaging in said protected concerted activities, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I also find that by such acts and conduct, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent as described in section I, above, have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and , such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, it is recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment , and the terms and conditions of employment , of Fred and Michael Crawford , it is recommended that Respondent offer them immediate and full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges . It is also recommended that Respondent make Fred and Michael Crawford whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent 's discrimination against them , by payment to each of them a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum , less his net earnings during that period. Loss of pay shall be computed and paid in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. The unfair labor practices found to have been engaged in by Respondent are of such a character and scope that in order to insure Respondent 's employees of their full rights guaranteed them by the Act , it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the record as a whole, I make the following: CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. Respondent is, and has been at all times material, an employer within the mean- ing of Section 2(2) of the Act , and is, and during all times material has been , engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. By discharging Fred and Michael Crawford on July 23, 1963, and thereafter refusing to reinstate them , Respondent has engaged in, and during all times material was engaged in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment and the terms and conditions of employment of Fred and Michael Crawford, thereby discouraging protected , concerted activity , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engag- ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC., ETC. 1583 RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law , and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that Respondent , its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging any employee or in any other manner discriminating against any individual in regard to his hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment except as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that those rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organ- ization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Fred and Michael Crawford immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. (b) Make Fred and Michael Crawford whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by payment to them of a sum of money equal to the amount each would have normally earned as wages from July 23, 1963, to the date Respondent offers them full and complete reinstatement , together with interest on said amount at the rate of 6 percent per annum. Backpay and interest are to be computed and paid in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and in Isis Plumb- ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, less their net earnings during the aforesaid period. (c) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents, upon request , for exam- ination and copying , all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to an analysis of the amount of backpay due. (d) Post at its Lower Kula Road project and at all other places of business , copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall, after being signed by Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive 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. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken' to comply therewith.? It is further recommended that, unless on or before 20 days from the date of its receipt of this Decision Respondent notify the said Regional Director that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations , the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondent to take the action aforesaid. 6In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Deci- sion and Order" 7 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment for engaging in any activity protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. 1584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, except to the extent that those rights 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 aforesaid Act. WE WILL offer to Fred Crawford and Michael Crawford immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without preju- dice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC. AND HAWAIIAN DREDGING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A DIVISION OF DILLINGHAM CORPORATION, A JOINT VENTURE, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE.-We will 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 and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. 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 provi- sions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Subregional Office, 680 Ala Moana Boulevard, Honolulu, Hawaii, Telephone No. 58831, Extension 408. Currie Machinery Company and International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, District Lodge No. 93. Case No. 20-CA- 2785. December 11, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On August 12, 1964, Trial Examiner George L. Powell issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent 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 his Decision attached hereto. There- after, the Respondent filed exceptions to his Decision and a support- ing brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in answer thereto and in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins]. 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 and the entire record in this case, including the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, 149 NLRB No. 133.