Murphy Brothers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 1, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 516 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Murphy Brothers, Inc. and Laborers Local Union No.
267 affiliated with Laborers International Union
of North America , AFL-CIO. Case 19-CA-3815
November 1, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On August 12, 1968, Trial Examiner Stanley
Gilbert issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National 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 the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Exam-
iner.'
ORDER
herein was issued on November 27, 1967. The complaint
alleges that Murphy Brothers, Inc., hereinafter referred to as
Respondent or the Company, on or about September 16,
1967, terminated the employment of Ernest L. Harris because
of his activities on behalf of the Union, in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Respondent, by its answer, denies
that it committed the unfair labor practice alleged.
Pursuant to due notice a hearing was held in Pocatello,
Idaho, February 15, 1968, before the duly designated Trial
Examiner. At said hearing the General Counsel and the Re-
spondent were represented by counsel; no appearance was
entered on behalf of the Union. Briefs were submitted by the
General Counsel and the Respondent within the time des-
ignated therefor.
From my observation of the witnesses and upon the entire
record, I make the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Washington corporation engaged as a
contractor in general construction at various locations, in-
cluding Pocatello, Idaho. During its fiscal year preceding the
issuance of the complaint, which period is representative of its
annual operations generally, Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its business, purchased and caused to be trans-
ported to its Pocatello, Idaho, construction site directly from
points outside the State of Idaho materials valued in excess of
$50,000
As is conceded by Respondent, it is and at all times
material herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
As is conceded by Respondent, the Union is, and has been
at all times material herein, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent, Murphy Brothers, Inc.,
Pocatello, Idaho, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility resolutions
made by the Trial Examiner . It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions as to credibility unless the clear
preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are
incorrect Such a conclusion is not warranted here. Standard Dry Wall
Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3).
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STANLEY GILBERT , Trial Examiner : Based upon a charge
filed on Ocober 2, 1967, by Laborers Local Union No. 267,
affiliated with Laborers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Union, the complaint
173 NLRB No. 88
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
Background Information and Sequence
of Events
At all times material herein, the Union and Respondent were
parties to a collective-bargaining agreement covering the
"laborers" employed by Respondent in its construction of a
flood control project on the Portneuf River, Pocatello, Idaho.
This construction work is seasonal in nature and apparently
was commenced in 1966. Harris was first employed by
Respondent in 1966 and was laid off later that year because of
the seasonal shutdown. When the project was resumed in 1967,
the Union was requested by Respondent to dispatch laborers
to the jobsite and Harris was the first laborer requested by
name. Harris was employed by Respondent in 1967 on May
15. Shortly after he commenced work he was "stepped up"
from the classification of laborer to that of "pipe layer" and
continued to be paid at the scale of a pipe layer until the
termination of his employment on September 16, 1967.
Except for a leave of absence of approximately one week in
the beginning of August, Harris worked continuously for
Respondent between the aforesaid dates of May 15 and
MURPHY BROS., INC. 517
September 16, 1967. He returned from his leave of absence on
or about August 10, 1967, and a few days later, on August 14,
he was appointed as the Union's job steward. Prior to that
time, both in 1966 and 1967, the Union had no job steward on
the construction site.
The Issue
General Counsel contends that Harris was terminated on
September 16 because of his activities on behalf of the Union
as job steward. Respondent contends that he was discharged
because of the deterioration in his work performance after he
became job steward. The only issue in this proceeding is
whether the termination of Harris was for cause or was
discriminatorily motivated.
It appears from the record, and Respondent's witnesses so
testified, that Harris was a good worker prior to his appoint-
ment as job steward. However, certain of Respondent's
witnesses (particularly Paul Godsil, Respondent's grading
superintendent, and Delbert Barham, laborers' foreman who
was Harris' immediate supervisor for most of Harris' employ-
ment in 1967) testified that his work performance deteriorated
after he became job steward. It appears that Harris, as job
steward, did raise certain matters with Respondent involving
rights of the laborers under the Union's collective-bargaining
agreement with the Respondent Because of the type of work
Harris did, there are no objective means, such as amount of
production or level of quality, which would permit a compari-
son of Harris' work performance prior to his appointment as
job steward with his performance thereafter or a comparison
of his performance with that of others in like jobs Conse-
quently, to a large extent, the determination of the issue
herein depends upon the credibility of the testimony of Godsil
and Barham, and of the contrary testimony in the record,
principally of Harris, with regard to the latter's work perfor-
mance.
Harris' Activity as Job Steward
As indicated above, the Union appointed Harris as steward
on August 14, 1967. It appears that there were two occasions
when Harris raised matters involving the laborers' rights under
their collective-bargaining agreement.
The first occurred approximately 3 days after he had been
appointed. There is little dispute as to the material facts with
respect to this incident. According to the credited testimony
of Harris, Harold Charlton, business agent of the Union, was
on the jobsite and told Harris that an "oiler" was rigging
cement buckets and that such work belonged to the laborers.
Harris informed the machine operator that oilers could not rig
cement buckets and that the work would have to be stopped
until a laborer was assigned to do the rigging. Harris' testimony
as to what then occurred, which is credited, is as follows:
At this time Mr. Barham were coming towards me, and I
walked over to him, and he asked me what-asked me what
was I doing shutting his machine down. I explained to him
why the machine was to be shut off. He said, "Well, you
don't have any business shutting off my machines because
that's a bad reflection on me as a foreman." So I told him,
"Well, I'm sorry if this hurt your image as a foreman, but
this is the job I have to do. I'm responsible-I have
responsibilities for the union just like I have for the
company. It's not only for me or for the union, it's for the
company as well," so at this time he told me-he said, "Well,
you go and rig the buckets," and I did until he assigned a
man on that evening.
Barham's version of the incident is substantially in accord with
that of Harris. Harris further credibly testified that Barham
appeared to be angry and that his voice was louder than
normal. It is noted that Godsil testified that the first time
Barham complained to him about Harris' work performance
was about a week after Harris returned from his vacation. This
would place the complaint approximately at the same time
that Harris raised the issue with respect to the rigging of the
buckets.
The second incident occurred around the first of Septem-
ber. Harris was assigned to work in a crew under Corwin
Whitworth, a "general foreman." Early on the day he started
work under Whitworth, he raised a question with Whitworth of
the propriety (under the provisions of the collective-bargaining
agreement) of a crew of laborers being under the supervision of
nonlaborer foreman. It appears that there were six laborers in
the crew, including Harris.' Harris requested of Whitworth
that, if he got in touch with Godsil, he tell Godsil that he
would like to see him. About an hour and a half later Godsil
came to him and asked him what the problem was. He
explained his interpretation of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment and Godsil disagreed with him, contending that Whit-
worth was a superintendent and could supervise laborers.
Harris informed Godsil that he would see Charlton during his
lunch break. He was unable to do so, but left a message for
Charlton to contact him on the jobsite. It appears that
Charlton and Godsil discussed the matter later that day when
Charlton came to the jobsite, and agreed that a laborer
foreman would relay Whitworth's orders to the laborers. Harris
testified that Godsil informed him of his agreement with
Charlton and his testimony as to their conversation at that
point, which is credited, is as follows:
A [Godsil said] "I will have to-Pat will have to give
his orders to poor little George and have him run over to his
poor little laborers and give them the orders so that you can
get organized." So it was kind of funny to me at the time,
but I didn't pay any attention to his statement at that time.
So I just said, "If that's the agreement that you and Chuck
[Charlton] have, then that's the agreement that we'll go
by." He says, "This job was run much better last year
without a labor steward." Then he just left, and I resumed
working the rest of the day there-not the rest of the
day-until about four o'clock, which I was called back to
Mr. Barham's crew.
Q. You were called to Mr. Barham's crew.
A. That same day.
Q. How many days did you work for Mr. Whitworth?
A. Not a complete day.
Godsil denied that he made the statement as to the job
running better without a labor steward. However, Charlton
i It is noted that Godsil testified that there were only two laborers Harris' testimony that there were six laborers in the crew. Therefore,
in the crew under Whitworth , including Harris. However , Charleston the testimony of Harris and Brown as to the number of laborers on the
Brown testified that he was on the crew at the time and corroborated crew is credited.
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testified that when he worked out his agreement with Godsil
that day Godsil remarked that "it was funny that the company
was having umon trouble in 1967, when it didn't have any in
1966 without a shop steward on the job." Godsil was not
questioned as to whether he made such a statement to
Charlton, but he did testify as follows when asked whether he
discussed with anyone Harris being discharged for union
activities.
No, sir. I always go around stating- I cuss those unions.
They always give me a bad time-well, I shouldn't say they
always give me a bad time , but they're always hounding me
about something , and I say, "Gosh damn the unions
anyhow, they're always on me," but I'll turn around and
say in the same breath that we've got to have 'em. I mean,
I'm, of course , for management , but somebody might have
misinterpreted this statement , I don't know.
Based upon the above uncontradicted and credited testimony
of Charlton of the statement that Godsil made with regard to
"union trouble" and Godsil' s own testimony above quoted, as
to his tendency to "cuss" unions , Harris' testimony is credited
over the aforesaid denial of Godsil.
Harris' Work Performance
Considerable testimony was elicited with respect to Harris'
work performance . Barham and Godsil testified that after
Harris was appointed job steward they noticed that his work
performance deteriorated . The gist of their complaint was that
he worked more slowly rather than that the quality of his
work changed . Barham testified:
I think that as far as Mr. Harris was concerned he was
performing it properly. It was the speed of which he was
performing the job.
Harris denied that there was any change in his work
performance and a fellow worker, Charleston Brown, testified
that he observed Harris' work both before and after he was
steward and saw no change in his work performance. It is
recognized that, in the circumstances , particularly in view of
the nature of the work which Harris did , it is difficult to either
prove or disprove an allegation that he slowed down in his
work . However, there are a number of things in the record
which militate against crediting the testimony of Barham and
Godsil that Harris slowed down in his work.
Although there were two incidents of negligence on the
part of Harris, one involving the overloading of a trailer and
the other involving faulty signaling by Harris to a driver, it is
noted that neither of these incidents appears to have been of
any significance in the decision to discharge Harris. In both
incidents he was mildly admonished by Barham that he
"should know better," according to Barham's testimony.
Godsil testified that after Barham first complained to
him about Harris, he watched Harris more closely and observed
that he was not doing his job properly. However, it is noted
that some days after Barham complained to Godsil about
Harris, Godsil assigned to Harris the responsibility of repairing
flap gates . It is further noted that on this job Harris was
leadman when one or two other laborers were assigned to assist
him, and that he was without any immediate supervision.
There is no showing that any fault was found in the quality of
his work at the flap gate but there is testimony which is not
credited that he took too much time to accomplish the job. It
appears that at no time was any complaint made to him about
the amount of time he was taking, or took, to do the job.
Although Godsil testified that he talked to Barham on a
number of occasions about Harris' work under Barham's
supervision and instructed Barham to speak to Harris about it,
the record reveals that , at no time, did Barham do so.
According to Harris no mention was made to him about his
work performance until the day he was discharged . Godsil
testified that about 10 days before Harris was terminated,
Harris complained to him about being "shoved around" and
that he told Harris that he should know the reason for it, that
it was because he was not doing his work satisfactorily. This
testimony of Godsil is not credited . Godsil testified that he
tried moving Harris around to see if he could get better work
performance out of him and tried putting him on different
crews. The record reveals that there were only two occasions
when his crew assignment was changed . The first occurred
when he was made responsible for the repairing of the flap
gates and the second when he was placed on Whitworth's crew
for less than a day. It is inferred from the record that the
reason he was removed from Whitworth 's crew and assigned to
Barham was because of the afore-mentioned complaint that
Harris raised as job steward with respect to laborers being
under a nonlaborer foreman.
Further, Godsil testified that he tried to persuade other
foremen to take Harris on their crews and they refused to do
so. Godsil testified that he asked George Andrews, a labor
foreman, if he wanted Harris on his crew and that Andrews
said , "No, if he can't do the job for you , he can't do it for
me." When Godsil was asked whether Andrews said anything
to him about his observance of Harris' work , Godsil testified
that he never asked Andrews. However, it is noted that in his
pretrial statement to the Board, Godsil stated that Andrews
did tell him that he had observed Harris' work . When Godsil
was asked whether or not the reading of his pretrial statement
on that point refreshed his recollection , Godsil answered
evasively that Andrews did not remember the incident, and
finally admitted that Andrews "never come out-right out and
said that , but he could have." On the other hand, Andrews
categorically demed that Godsil had ever asked him to take
Harris on his crew. Moreover , Andrews testified that he would
not have had any objection to Harris being on his crew.
Andrews further testified that he never told Godsil that he had
observed Harris' work performance . Andrews was a forthright
and convincing witness, and his testimony is credited. Other
than the testimony relating to the brief period Harris spent on
Whitworth's crew, detailed hereinabove , and that relating to
Andrews, there is nothing in the record to support Godsil's
testimony that foremen refused to have Harris on their crews.
Godsil testified that on Thursday , September 14, he
observed Harris dawdling at his job and decided to discharge
him. Harris was notified of his discharge by Barham on
Saturday , September 16. Hares' testimony with respect to
notification of his discharge is as follows:
A. Approximately four-fifteen Mr. Barham called me
off to the side-which was just two of us working there,
Jerry Brown and myself, but he called me off from Jerry
and says, "Well , Emie, I have bad news for you." I said,
"What is it?" He says, "Well , Paul and some of the other
guys got their heads together and decided it was best to let
you go." And I said, "For what reason?" at that time, and
he says-quote again : "Well, they say that your slacking off
on your work." I said , "Well, what do you think about it?"
He said, "Well , I have nothing to do with it." I said, "Well,
your my foreman and you don't have anything to do with
MURPHY BROS., INC. 519
my being terminated?" He said, "Well, as I say, it was Paul
and some other guys that got their heads together"
Barham testified as follows-
Q. On the day of termination do you recall any
conversation with Mr Harris on that day concerning his
termination?
A. Yes, I informed him that he was to be terminated,
and I also said to him that if it was up to me it would have
been different, and I indicated at this point that he
wouldn't have been there as long as he was if it had been-
TRIAL EXAMINER: What did you say to him? I don't-
just what were your words? You said you indicated
that-that's a conclusion. You may have thought you
indicated it to hum or you may not have. What I'd like to
know is what your language was.
THE WITNESS. Well, I told him it was decided that he
would be terminated, and that if it had been up to me that
it would have been different.
TRIAL EXAMINER: But you didn't say in what way it
would have been different?
THE WITNESS. No, sir.
It is concluded from Harris' credited testimony and the
testimony of Barham, after it had been clarified, that Barham
implied to Harris at that time that he did not agree with the
judgment as to Harris' work performance and the decision to
discharge hum. This is consistent with his failure to talk to
Harris at any time about slowing down in his work.
Based upon the foregoing appraisal of the testimony of
Barham and Godsil and observation of them on the stand, the
Trial Examiner is of the opinion that they were unconvincing
witnesses as to the work performance of Harris, as contrasted
with Harris and his corroborating witness, Brown. Therefore, it
is concluded that their testimony that Harris' work perfor-
mance deteriorated cannot be credited and that his work
performance did not, in fact, deteriorate.
Concluding Findings
While it is realized that the appointment of an employee to
the position of union steward may affect his attitude toward
his work, there is nothing of substance in the record, other
than the discredited testimony of Barham and Godsil, relating
to the contention that Harris' appointment as job steward
affected his attitude toward his work .2
Based upon the foregoing analysis of the record, parti-
cularly the credibility findings hereinabove with respect to the
testimony of Barham and Godsil, the credited testimony of
Harris and Brown, and Godsil's apparent resentment of union
interference evidenced by the credited testimony of Harris and
Charlton and Godsil's own testimony, it is concluded that
Harris' discharge was motivated by his activities as job steward
and not by poor work performance. Therefore, it is found that
Harris was discharged by Respondent in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practice of Respondent set forth in
Section III above, occurring in connection with its operations
set forth in Section I above, have a close, intimate and
substantial relation to trade, traffic and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent discharged
Ernest L. Harris in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act, it will be recommended that Respondent be ordered to
cease and desist from such conduct and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since
it is not known whether the flood control project in Pocatello,
Idaho, has or has not been completed, the Recommended
Order will be in the alternative.3
In the event that the project has not yet been completed, it
will be recommended that Respondent be ordered to offer
Harris immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially 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 as a result of the
discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he would have earned as wages
from the date of discharge to the date of reinstatement, less his
net earnings during such period, in accordance with the
formula prescribed in F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, together with interest on such sum, such interest to be
computed in accordance with the formula prescribed in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 715.
In the event the project has been completed, it will be
recommended that the foregoing be modified to the following
extent: The Respondent need not offer reinstatement to
Harris, but shall instead send a letter to him stating that,
notwithstanding his discharge, he will be considered eligible for
employment in the future at any of the Respondent's projects
if he should choose to apply for employment at any of them.
In addition, Respondent will be ordered to include in said
letter a copy of the notice which would otherwise have been
posted if the project had not been concluded. Also it will be
recommended that Respondent be ordered to marl copies of
the notice to all employees who were employed by the
Respondent at the Pocatello, Idaho, project on September 16,
1967.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2 Respondent points out in its brief testimony with respect to a
statement that Harris is supposed to have made at the time he gave a
faulty signal to a driver . This statement , purportedly made to a Mr.
Emehiser , was that Emehiser could not fire him because he is the
steward . There is no showing that Emehiser was a supervisor at the time
and, furthermore , the testimony with regard to the statement was
stricken from the record with the consent of the parties. Moreover,
counsel for Respondent represented that there was no significance to
the testimony about the statement Therefore , the matter of the
statement was not litigated and said stricken testimony cannot be
considered as a basis for a finding that Harris made such a statement or
that his appointment as steward affected his attitude toward his work.
3lnterboro Contractors, Inc, 157 NLRB 1295, 1302.
4 This does not mean, however, that Respondent is required to offer
Harris employment at other projects ; Respondent is only to consider
him for employment on a nondiscriminatory basis.
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent discharged Ernest L. Harris for activities on
behalf of the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and upon the foregoing findings of fact, and
conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case, it is
ordered that Murphy Brothers, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment of any
employee for engaging in activities on behalf of Laborers Local
Union No 267, affiliated with Laborers International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to
engage in , or to refrain from engaging in, any or all of the
activities specified in Section 7 of the Act, except to the
extent such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified
by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) In the event the Respondent's operations at the flood
control project in Pocatello, Idaho, are still in progress, offer
to Ernest L. Harris immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make him
whole for any loss he may have suffered by reason of his
discharge in the manner and to the extent set forth in the
section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) In the event Respondent's operations at its flood
control project in Pocatello, Idaho, have been completed,
make Ernest L. Harris whole for any loss-of pay he may have
suffered by reason of his discharge and assure him of his future
eligibility for employment by the Respondent in the manner
and to the extent set forth in the section entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Notify Harris if he is presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records and reports and all other records necessary or useful to
determine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Recommended Order.
(e) In the event that the Respondent's operations at the
flood control project in Pocatello, Idaho, are still in progress,
post at such project copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 19, shall, after being duly signed
by the Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and remain
posted as long as operations on the project are in progress, but
for a period of no longer than 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other
material.
(f) In the event the Respondent's operations at the
Pocatello, Idaho, project have been completed, mail copies of
the aforesaid notice to the employees specified in the section
entitled "The Remedy."
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.'
5 In 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 Decision and Order."
6 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 the 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 any of our employees or
otherwise discriminate in regard to their here or tenure of
employment, or any terms or conditions of employment,
because they have engaged in activities on behalf of
Laborers Local Union No. 267, affiliated with Laborers
International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their
right to engage in, or to refrain from engaging in, any or all
of the activities specified in Section 7 of the Act, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act,
as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer Ernest L. Harris immediate and full
reinstatment to his former or substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges previously enjoyed if we have not completed
our operations at the flood control project at Pocatello,
Idaho.
WE WILL, in the event that the flood control project at
Pocatello, Idaho, has been completed, assure Ernest L.
Harris that he is eligible for future employment by us.
MURPHY BROS., INC. 521
WE WILL make Ernest L. Harris whole for any loss of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
against him. Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
MURPHY BROTHERS, INC This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
(Employer) from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
Dated By If employees have any question concerning this notice or
(Representative) (Title) compliance with its provisions, they may communicate direct-
ly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Union Street, Seattle,
Note: We will notify the above-named employee, if he is Washington 98101, Telephone 583-7473.
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of