Riley Pleas, Inc. & T. O. Paddock Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1980

251 N.L.R.B. 591 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

RILEY PLEAS, INC. AND (). PAD)(DO)CK CO 59l Riley Pleas, Inc. and T. O. Paddock Co. engaged in a joint venture known as Paddock-Pleas Co., a Joint Venture and Arthur W. Bethke. Case 19- CA-I 1032 August 26, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELL O, AND TRUESDAI.E On May 8, 1980, Administrative Law Judge James M. Kennedy issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administra- tive Law Judge's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified herein, and to adopt his recom- mended Order. The Administrative Law Judge found, and we adopt his finding, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) by discharging Acting Steward Arthur Bethke for engaging in protected concerted activi- ty. That is, Respondent discharged him for insist- ing, on a number of different occasions, that Re- spondent abide by the current collective-bargaining agreement. In so finding, however, the Administra- tive Law Judge also concluded that the decision to discharge was made by Respondent's general su- perintendent, Kelly Pleas. Respondent excepts to this finding, and we find merit to its exception since the record evidence shows that the decision to discharge Bethke was made by General Fore- man Wilfred "Bill" Hatcher. On July 24, 1978,' consistent with normal union procedure, members of the pile-driving crew se- lected Bethke to act as steward during the absence of the regular steward. Around the same time, Hatcher was informed of Bethke's appointment. 2 Thereafter, in the 4 weeks between the appoint- ment and Bethke's discharge on August 19, Bethke complained several times to Respondent about its permitting a nonunion employee-K. C. Pleas, the I All dates herein refer tol 197. unless otherwise noted 2 Bethke and employee Taylor testified that Hatcher wa, at the meet- ing when Bethke was selected hile employee Hanlc, testified that Hatcher Was notl at the meeting he also lestriled that the employees later told Hatcher that Bethke was acting stesward Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports a finding. and Ae so find that Hatcher learned that Bethke was acting tes.ard around the time of Bethke's appointment 251 NLRB No. 103 owner's brother-to perform unit work and about its failure to provide safe transportation to and from the worksite.: t Respondent became hostile to Bethke because of these complaints. Hatcher told Foreman Blackie Rasmussen that "Art [Bethke] had no business reading the riot act to the kid [K. C. Pleas]" about doing union work, and, on another occasion, that Bethke wvas "complaining a lot," and that most of the complaints were unfounded. About a week and a half after these comments about Bethke's un- founded complaining, and only 3 days after one of the incidents involving the unsafe pickup truck, Hatcher went to Blackie Rasmussen and told him that he was going to do him a favor and lay off Bethke. Rasmussen said that if it had to be done, he would do it.4 The next day he told Bethke that "you don't work here anymore." When Bethke asked why, Rasmussen replied, "I don't know, I'm just doing what I'm told to do." Thereafter, Hatch- er, not Rasmussen, signed Bethke's termination papers. On this evidence, we conclude that Hatch- er made the decision to terminate Bethke, and that, as found by the Administrative Law Judge, he ter- minated him, in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, because of his efforts to enforce the collec- tive-bargaining agreement. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Riley Pleas, Inc. and T. O. Paddock Co., engaged in a joint venture known as Paddock-Pleas Co., a Joint Ven- ture, Seattle, Washington, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. :' He also complained about the absence of soap and clein Ios ek. the broken washing machine, and inadequate toilet facilities on the barge 4 Rasmussen had always found Bethke to be a satisfactory emplio.ee and therefore he was reluctant to la) him off DECISION STATEMENT OF THEI CASE JAMES M. KENNEDY, Administrative Law Judge: This case was tried before me at Anchorage, Alaska, on No- vember 6 and 7, 1979, pursuant to an amended complaint issued by the Regional Director for the National Labor Relations Board for Region 19 on August 3, 1979, and which is based upon a charge filed by Arthur W. Bethke (herein called Bethke) on January 11, 1979, as amended on July 25, 1979. The complaint alleges that Paddock- Pleas Co. (herein called Respondent) has engaged in cer- 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL I.AB()R RELATIONS BOARD tain violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act). Issue Whether or not Respondent on August 19, 1978,' dis- charged its employee Arthur W. Bethke because of the manner in which he attempted to maintain union bargain- ing unit work and maintaining safety and comfort levels. All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex- amine witnesses, to argue orally,2 and to file briefs. Briefs, which have been carefully considered, were filed on behalf of all parties. Upon the entire record of the case, and from my ob- servation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF: FAC'I I. RESPONDIENT'S BUSINESS Respondent admits it is a joint venture created by Riley Pleas, Inc., a Washington State corporation, and T. O. Paddock Co. is an Alaska corporation, both of which are engaged in the construction business. The joint ven- ture has its headquarters in Seattle, but was created for the sole purpose of constructing a dock at Cold Bay, Alaska. It further admits that during 1978, in the course and conduct of its business it purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers outside the State of Alaska. Accordingly, Re- spondent admits it is, and I find it to be, an employer en- gaged in commerce, and in a business affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVEI) Respondent admits, and I find, Piledrivers, Bridge, Dock Builders and Divers, Local Union No. 2520 (herein called the Piledrivers Union), to be a labor orga- nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. HE Al EGEI) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Participants As noted, Respondent was created for the sole purpose of constructing a 3,600-foot petroleum dock at Cold Bay, Alaska. Cold Bay is located at the end of the Alaska Peninsula and is very nearly the western-most portion of the North American continent before that land mass dis- solves into the Aleutian Islands. It is a remote area and even in the best of times is subject to heavy and raw weather. The dock in question is to be used by seagoing barges to offload petroleum products to supply the Cold Bay aircraft refueling base. The project was actually begun in 1977, although the incidents which will be re- counted here did not occur until the summer of 1978. All dates herein refer to 1978 unless otherwise indicated 2 In its brief, Respondent mistakenly argues that it was deprived of the right to make an oral argument In fact Respondent's counsel waied that right. Early in the hearing, counsel reconsidered his earlier expressed desire to orally argue. The dock appears to have been completed in December of that year. Respondent's general manager is Jasper "Jack" Howard His office is in Seattle, although he occasional- ly traveled to the Cold Bay site. At Cold Bay, Respond- ent's supervision during the pertinent period included General Superintendent Kelly Pleas, its general foreman, Wilfred "Bill" Hatcher, and its pile-driving crew fore- man, Ralph "Blackie" Rasmussen. The employee com- plement was divided into two crews, the pile-driving crew (known as "pile-bucks") and the welding crew. The pile-buck crew, including Rasmussen, ranged from between five to seven employees; the welding crew had only two employees, including its foreman, Kevin Hanley. These individuals were all represented by the Pi- ledrivers Union. Respondent was bound by a collective- bargaining contract with that Union, and for a large part of the 1978 summer construction period the Piledrivers Union steward was Mitch Fleming. The pile-driving crew was supplemented by a crane operator and an oiler. These individuals were represented by a local of the In- ternational Union of Operating Engineers. Respondent's job was to install and assemble a previ- ously manufactured dock, which consisted of an ap- proach and a trestle. In addition, Respondent was re- quired to remove an old dock which had been installed during the 1940's and which was in disrepair. To accomplish this work Respondent employed a con- struction barge and crane. The components of the trestle were shipped to Cold Bay by an oceangoing barge, and arrived on or about August 7. All of Respondent's employees, with the exception of management, lived in a portable bush camp operated by the Flying Tiger Airlines. The camp was located ap- proximately 2 miles from the construction site and housed employees of other firms as well. Respondent's management lived in a separate trailer immediately adja- cent to the camp. B. The Discharge of Arthur Bethke Arthur Bethke is a journeyman piledriver and in 1978 was 62 years old, having worked as a piledriver most of his life. He is a former business agent of the Piledrivers Union but has not held office since 1971. Bethke, like most of the other members of the crew, was dispatched to Respondent's job by the Piledrivers Union hiring hall. He was actually hired on April 13, and worked until his discharge on August 19. As a piledriver-rigger he was responsible to Foreman Blackie Rasmussen. As noted above, Mitch Fleming was the officially ap- pointed union steward for the project. However, in late July Fleming left the job for about 2 months. Having no steward, the crew on July 24 selected Bethke as the acting steward. There is some dispute regarding whether or not Respondent was aware of Bethke's selection, but there is no doubt that Bethke actually received the ap- pointment. 3 : Normally it is the Piledrisers Unrin's practice to advise contractors of the selection of a union te ard by sending a form letter contailing the name of the steward that occurred with respect to Fleming, but did Continued RII.EY PLEAS, INC. AND T. O PADDOCK CO SI) 3 In mid-June General Superintendent Kelly Pleas' younger brother, K. C. Pleas. a 19-year-old student, ar- rived at the site for summer work. He had not been dis- patched to the job by any union hiring hall but Respond- ent nonetheless put him to work as the son of the owner of Riley Pleas, Inc. General Manager Howard testified that sons of contractors are commonly permitted this courtesy. Sometime after his arrival at the site, the Pile- drivers Union issued K. C. Pleas a temporary work permit. It is not clear from the record exactly what the terms of the permit were, the date it began or the date it expired. but there was some testimony that the permit was only good for the duration of the barge unloading in early August; there is also evidence that temporary per- mits are good for 30 days. Whatever the case was, K. C. Pleas' presence at the site occasionally performing work normally performed by pile-bucks quickly caught Bethke's eye. Dave Amick, an apprentice who often worked with Bethke, recalled in a pretrial affidavit4 an incident occurring sometime before K. C. Pleas obtained his permit in which Bethke gave K. C. "a hard time about working on the job" because he had not been dis- patched by the union and wasn't "a hand." Later Amick listened to Superintendent Hatcher and Foreman Blackie Rasmussen discussing it one night at the local bar. Amick testified,"l don't know how we got on the sub- ject, but we got on the subject of Art hard-assing Kelly's brother. (Art was pretty good at protecting our work-if he saw anybody doing it he would go out and put the fear of God into them.) Bill said he felt that Art had no business reading the riot act to the kid, that he wasn't hurting anything, just trying to be useful." During Bethke's acting stewardship the barge was un- loaded. General Manager Howard testified that because of the "erector-set" manner of assembling the dock, the material had been loaded in a logical order by the barge- master. He was experienced with this particular type of bridging and with the connection sequences. The eve- ning before the barge was tied up Respondent's manage- ment consulted with its supervision, Hatcher and Blackie Rasmussen, and agreed that the bargemaster would give directions to the crew to unload it. Howard had fol- lowed a similar procedure a year or two before at a dif- ferent Alaskan site, and believed that with the concur- rence of those two the Union was acquiescing in the pro- cedure. Both Hatcher and Blackie Rasmussen are long- time members of the Piledrivers Union. On the following day, after having experienced some difficulty in berthing the barge, the procedure was ex- plained to the crew. Bethke announced that he did not intend to take instructions from a non-pile-buck. His as- sertion caused some confusion within management, and as a result Bethke was assigned a different duty, taking not ccur swith either Bethke or Hill Taylor, who succeeded Bethke Belhke concedes that he did not clearly adsise the union business repre- sentative (lf his selection; neither. apparently. did Taylor Thus, no leter, were sent on behalf of either, although nion Business Agent Robert Rasmussen says he would hase honored those selections and swould haslc sent a letter had he heen so informed 4 The General Counsel issued a suhpena for Amick's presence hut ii was returned b Ithe PIostal Serice as "unclairled " The parties there- upon agreed that Aickks affidiil coulid he used fior ,tlhitolllise pr- poes his instructions from Rasmussen rather than the barge- master. Later that day. according to Howard, the crew was unloading some concrete panels having rebar con- nectors onto the dock and building a small surface for storing the remainder of the load. One of the pile-bucks was attempting to connect two panels with the rebar but it became hung up. The bargemaster recognized the problem, assisted. and the connection was promptly made. Howard says Bethke then came over and grabbed a tool from the bargemaster's hand saying, "That's pile- bucks' work." The bargemaster replied he was just help- ing as he knew how the panels went together. Thereafter the bargemaster was inhibited from touching any tools to assist in the unloading procedure. Earnie Adamson, a member of the welding crew, testi- fied that sometime in August (apparently after the barge had left, but before Bethke was fired on August 19) Re- spondent as attempting to pull out an old creosote piling by using the winch on the back of a crawler trac- tor. He said K. C. Pleas had rigged a choker around the piling, but Bethke told K. C. that "he had no business rigging up the choker, it was pile-buck work and to leave it alone." Adamson says Superintendent Kelly Pleas observed the incident and expressed displeasure by giving Bethke a very dirty look. Approximately 3 days after the barge departed. the pickup truck equipped with a camper shell and which normally transported the crew from the Flying Tiger camp to the site broke down. On that day some members of the crew were forced to ride in the back of Hatcher's pickup truck on which was mounted a 55-gallon gasoline drum. The drum leaked and Bethke complained that the situation was excessively dangerous. On the following day Respondent borrowed a Flying Tiger an. In the meantime, the drum was removed from Hatcher's truck and on the third day the crew resumed riding in it. On the morning of either August 15 or 16 it was rain- ing. After breakfast Bethke told Blackie Rasmussen that he did not believe the employees should ride in the open pickup truck. Rasmussen advised Hatcher and he agreed to ferry the crew to the site two by two in his truck's cab. There is some dispute regarding Hatcher's response to Bethke's request, 5 but I deem it unnecessary to re- solve that question. On the evening of August 18, according to Blackie Rasmussen, Hatcher came to him in his room about 6 p.m. Rasmussen says Hatcher told him he was "going to do me a favor" and lay Bethke off. Rasmussen says Hatcher did not say why Bethke was to be terminated. Rasmussen does say that there had been other occasions where the two had discussed the possibility of firing Bethke. The first occurred approximately 2 months before; Hatcher had stated Bethke was "messing up the crew," without being specific. Rasmussen said he did not Hatcher testified that the request s was made not b BeRlhke, hut hx Fleming uho sa n t at the site ilatcher's attribution orf he Iitcident to Fleming leads mre to behese he wtas trying It conceal par ,rf the rutll here ; Bethke cal reasonahl) he deenied II he enfilrcing art 1 2.sc li) c f the colleclisc-hargainilig agreemenit bol h occalilons That setclill re- quires thie colnractor to prolide fe and reuioniblh c mrfoirtahble trans portatioll Ilo the lbohite 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD discharge Bethke then because he was "an old union hand." Hatcher agreed it was Rasmussen's choice. Ras- mussen, however, concurred with Hatcher's assertion that Bethke was "messing up the crew," by "agitating"- telling other employees they were working too fast. Ras- mussen makes that claim even though he admits he never heard Bethke make such a remark; he learned it second- hand from Amick. Blackie Rasmussen also believed that while Bethke was "fine" if he worked by himself, others did not wish to work with him. He says those individuals included Amick and a John Williams who left the job in May. He admits, however, that he never told Hatcher about either man's view. Another incident involving Bethke's sup- posed "disruptive influence" was an earlier incident in- volving Bethke and Jack Sadusky, the crane operator. The two originally had roomed together at the Flying Tiger camp and the incident appears to have taken place earlier that summer. According to Bethke, Sadusky had the habit of taking an after-dinner nap and then staying up until midnight drinking. Bethke preferred to turn in earlier and one evening, annoyed at Sadusky, asked him to turn off his light. When Sadusky balked, Bethke threw open a vent and went back to bed. Within a day or two Sadusky moved to another room and each lived alone, though it was the camp practice to have two people per room. Blackie Rasmussen testified the Sadusky matter played no part in the decision to discharge Bethke: both Hatcher and Howard assert that it did. According to Hatcher, the event which actually trig- gered Bethke's discharge occurred a day or two before. Blackie Rasmussen had sent Bethke and Amick to obtain additional reinforcing steel bars from the deck on which they had been stored. They were to accomplish this by loading the bars aboard the 16-foot motorboat which doubled as a safety skiff. Blackie Rasmussen testified that it took much longer to accomplish that chore than it should have and that Bethke's tardiness "contributed" to the decision to lay him off. Hatcher says that while he was not aware of Blackie Rasmussen's actual instructions to the two, he observed them loading the wrong size steel. But, by the time he arrived at the dock, they had realized their error and were reloading. He did not speak to Bethke about the error. Bethke testified that no one ever told him there had been a problem with hauling the steel. His recollection is relatively sterile; understandably so, in view of the fact that neither Rasmussen nor Hatcher spoke to him after his alleged misconduct. Bethke remembers it was Hatch- er, not Blackie Rasmussen, who told him to get the rebar, and that Hatcher worked with him on the top of the dock. Bethke says the rebar was of the type to be used for clinching the precast concrete sections together. He remembers the bar had to be tied to a rope and low- ered 20 feet to the boat. He also recalls it was delayed to some extent by Amick who did not wish to tie up the boat. Amick's decision to leave it unmoored required him to constantly maneuver the skiff under the rope as they lowered the iron bunches. Bethke says Hatcher ac- tually helped him tie the rods to the rope and to lower them to Amick. After completing the task, Bethke says he and Hatcher walked back along the dock to the barge while Amick drove the boat. Bethke also says the first time he heard there had been a problem with the loading was when he was so advised by the Board agent investi- gating the case. General Manager Howard testified he first learned Bethke was a problem early in the summer when his first superintendent, Owen Bond, quit and returned to Seattle. At that time Howard spoke to Bond and Bond told him he had quit over "dissension." Howard reported Bond also observed he had quit, among other reasons, because "you've got a guy like Bethke on the crew . . . they won't fire him because they say he fits into the crew al- right." Howard said he then assigned Kelly Pleas as su- perintendent and urged hi.n to get rid of those who were causing dissension. Later, in August when Howard came to supervise the barge unloading, he said Bethke's per- formance confirmed Bond's claim that Bethke was a problem. The evening after the unloading had been com- pleted he had a conversation with Kelly Pleas (and per- haps Hatcher) and told Pleas he "still had a problem here" and did not understand why Pleas continued to keep Bethke on. IV. ANAl YSIS ANI) CONCI USIONS After analyzing all of the above evidence I conclude that the General Counsel has proven that Respondent discharged Bethke because of Bethke's propensity to insist upon enforcement of union rules and conditions. I reach this conclusion even though it appears true that Bethke's activity in support of these aims was not par- ticularly great. Nonetheless, he had begun engaging in that activity even before his selection as acting steward, and upon accession to that position appears only to have done what stewards usually do. In many circumstances that would not be enough to carry the day, but here, in view of the fact that Respondent's assigned reasons for discharging Bethke are utterly hollow, it requires the conclusion that Bethke's insistence upon maintaining union negotiated conditions was the real reason for the discharge. There is no question that Bethke annoyed Kelly Pleas by insisting that Kelly's brother, K. C., not perform pile- buck work until permission had been granted by the Union. He continued to enforce his view that only union-referred employees should perform bargaining unit work during the barge unloading and when K. C. Pleas later rigged the choker. In fact, the incident which ap- pears to have triggered the discharge, his insistence on employees driving to work in a safe, weatherproof vehi- cle, in and of itself, was probably not sufficient to cause his discharge. Yet, taken together with the foregoing matters, it was. The manner of the discharge, too, is strange. It ap- pears Howard planted the seed with Kelly Pleas. Howard was quite angry with Bethke over his insistence that the bargemaster not perform pile-buck work and over Bethke's insistence that pile-bucks had the right to take orders from their foreman rather than the bargemas- ter. That insistence rekindled Howard's earlier doubt about Bethke planted by Bond, albeit the circumstances of Bond's complaints are vague. Nonetheless, Howard's RILEY PI.tAS. INC. AND) 1. 0 PAI)D()OCK (() . annoyance with Bethke's activity at the barge is clear. There is no question, however, that Section 7 gase Bethke the right to isist upon those matters. Thus, he was engaging in activity protected by the Act. Howard then told Kelly Pleas that he "still had a problem," and invited Pleas to discharge Bethke. Kelly Pleas did not o so immediately, but the choker incident involving his brother followed next. Even that might not have been enough, but when Bethke insisted upon a safe. weather- proof vehicle, Pleas accepted Howard's invitation. The only confusion with regard to Respondent's thought processes involves Kelly Pleas' failure to testify Even so, I do inot see a need to draw an adverse infer- ence against Respondent for that failure. (Respondent ex- plains its failure to call Kelly Pleas by saying he wvas in- volved in critical work at the time of the hearing. and could not be taken away from it.) Nonetheless. the ln- consistent testimony of Blackie Rasmussen and Hatche r with respect to who made the decision to discharge Bethke leads me to conclude that it was a decision made by higher management-i.e . Kelly Pleas. Rasmussen tes- tified at first that it was his decision. When pressed he conceded Hatcher had only consulted him and that Hatcher had made the decision. Because it is the crest foreman's duty to carry out disclharges. Rasmussen agreed to do it., simultaneously killing to let it appear as if it was his own decision Hatcher, however, claims he and Rasmussen made the decision together. That hardly seems likely in view of Rasmussen's testimony that Hatcher told him that he as going to do Rasmussen a favor by firing Bethke. That it was not Hatcher's deci- sion alone is apparent by the lack of cogency in the rea- sons he cites. He says that Bethke was discharged for four reasons: (1) work performance, (2) dissension (3), in- ability to tolerate working with others, and (4) inability to tolerate living with others. None of the assigned reasons is demonstrably true. It is admitted that Bethke was never warned about his work performance. No one ever complained about it; indeed the opposite occurred on at least one occasion wheni Rasmussen complimented Bethke. With respect to his al- legedly causing dissension, the only dissension which anyone could point to was Bethke's occasional hazing the apprentice, Amick. That appears to be a standard practice among pile-buck crews and indeed there is testi- mony that both Hatcher and Rssmussen also engaged in the same conduct. At least one other journeyman ad- mitted doing the same thing. Even Amick's affidavit is not particularly critical of Bethke in this regard. The testimony regarding Bethke's alleged inability to tolerate working with others is vague at best. Hatcher says he observed Bethke working alone and not permit- ting the apprentice, Amick, to assist. That seems totally unlikely. Amick, though saying Bethke was hard to get along with, said nonetheless he was "an old hand and knew what he was doing." He doubts that Bethke's "on- eriness" interfered with production on the job. Amick does say he once told Blackie Rasmussen that he no longer wished to work with Bethke. but Rasmussen told him to relax and stay out of Bethke's way. If that is liter- ally true, it seems that Respondent placed Bethke in a no-win situation. Undoubtedly all that really happened ,,;as that lethke "rode" the apprenltice .ick to somni extent. but also well taught hinl the trade The fourth assigned reason. Bethke's alleged inabilitl to tolerate living with others, is palpably false 'The oril incident cited here is Sadusky's decision to nioxe to an- other room. That occurred early in the summer, ell before the discharge and even Blackie Rasmussen tesli- fied that it had nothing to do with the decision to let Bethke go. Moreover, even if that caused a departure from the normal "'t o to a room" practice. it is clear that the practice was maintained. Employees from other companies also shared those quarters and doubling up appears to have been common. 7 As the reasons given by Hatcher are doubtful, it is likely that he as merely covering for the individual ,s ho really made the decision. Kelly Pleas That being the case. P'leas had lo mroti' e hatsoe,,t r to discharge Bethlike unless it wras for Bethke's activities protected hb Section 7. Certainls the "rebar incident" of a day or tio before is of little or ito moment here. Had Hatcher been truly upset about it, he \would have said sometlhing di- rectly to either ethke. while they were on the dock, or to Rasmussen to relay to Bethke. Neither occurred. Moreover, Rasmussen says that what concerned him \was the length of time it took Bethke and Amick to acconi- plish the task. Hatcher says it was the error which conl- cerned him. Those are inconsistent reasons and taken to- gether with the other testimony lead me to believe that the accusation here is made of 'whole cloth. Tlhe only re- maining reason for firing Bethke is his Section 7 activitiy protecting unit work and seeking safe and comfortable transportation. Accordingly. I conclude that Bethke was discharged because of his propensity, hile engaged as acting ste- ward, to seek the preservation of bargaining unit work, and to insist upon certain safety and comfort matters, as set forth in the collective-bargaining agreement. It fol- lows, therefore. that the discharge eas unlawful and vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.' Bunltlce Bros. Conlstru(- fion Company, 139 NLRB 1516, 1519 (1962), aid .:L.R.B, v. Interboro ContractorS. Inc., 388 F.2d 45. 5X) (2d Cir. 1967). : A fifth reason, inl hinted at. ',as adsanced thriough the lnhilied guessork trestimon or Rasmusen. Hatcher. and ll\,ard It dealh ,,itll 3tlitke's alleged misdirection of Ine crane operator 'hte nllacc ,c- curred ol the "jillyhoard" (a crane-operated caffold ad durilg Ihc barge unloading Rasmussell claimed he ohsered elhke deihciallls direct [he crane operailor to tluing the occupied iily-h;oard" ig.a Illlst ith dock in a high-risk manner llatcher say; Behkc's igl.ll[ , med ".,l[lcLu sioll" At he barge unloading. Howa;rd claims ei hke g;a, slilllitlllnoI, . aind thereb\y confusig. hand sIgills Y'et. e conlicedc, that IhC operailt tas watclillg o1ll) the prinlilr) iglanalli Their tICist lll ',% ' agil and,. Itl ard',s cae, cOltradltlor. Mk1orci ,r. t) (l t' ('le cr Pcll'elltltd E1ii, Eli t Ottllg 1( Bietiket ld t',T tie, liIlIir [i hi , it. t s x liberalt" I% 5-, s'ecliOLs1 1 i i i cll rtlllll ur, Re5po dll' ce-rl bil il It ther areas T 'here is also lestillll th Ih t tIeithkl I olught [- obhaiti sIlap. Il tls, and aditilolal lifesasig gear for tle cre, That teslilloll Is .agle. t1il2 ad I timake nt tihnlligs ilh resrpet I it " I i illlltcessi,%r to deIcrnifit I hi dli* .srgc ao w. l e d 11 slatc Sc. 8(1}( I )eor Th 3to I)ECISIONS OF NAIl()NAL LABOR REI.ATIONS B()ARD 5V. I1l R l-I)Y Having found that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it he ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirma- tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The affirmative action shall include an order requiring Respondent to immediately offer Bethke reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a suh- stantially equivalent job. In addition, Respondent shall be required to make ethke whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him in the manner prescribed by the Board in W 4'Koolworth C'ompany, 9(1 NLRB 289 (1950). Interest on the backpay shall be computed as set forth in Floridu Steel Corporution, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See, generally, Isis Plumbing and leuating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). CONCI USIONS Ot LAW I. Respondent Riley Pleas, Inc. and T. O. Paddock Co., engaged in a joint venture known as Paddock-Pleas Co.. a Joint Venture, is an employer engaged in com- merce and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Piledrivers, Bridge, Dock Builders and Divers, Local Union No. 2520 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging its employee Arthur W. Bethke on August 19, 1978, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact. con- clusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER"' The Respondent, Riley Pleas, Inc. and T.O. Paddock Co., engaged in a joint venture known as Paddock-Pleas Co., a Joint Venture, Cold Bay, Alaska, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging employees because they seek to pro- tect bargaining unit work and to maintain union-negotiat- ed working conditions relating to safety and comfort. (h) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Immediately offer Arthur W. Bethke full reinstate- ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make him whole, with interest, for lost earnings in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." '" In the e ent o elceplion are filed ad pro'.ided bh Sec 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations HBoard, the filndinllg. co(tclsions, and recommenlded Order herein hall as provided ih Sec 102 48 f the Rules arid Regulation', he adopted by the Board aind becomne its tindings. conclusionsl and Order, and all objections thereto shall he detlcrd a;lived for all purposes (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re- cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its Seattle, Washington, and Anchorage, Alaska, offices and at its jobsites copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being duly signed by its authorized representative, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall he taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 19 signed copies of said notice in sufficient numbers to be posted by Piledrivers, Bridge, Dock Builders and Divers, Local Union No. 2520, if willing. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. il In the event his Order is nlforced by a Judgment f a United States Court of Appeals, the wolds i the notice reading "P'osted by Order of the National abor Rl.llion, Board" hall read "Posted P'ursu- ant to a Judgment of the Uniled Sales Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order (of the Nalional t abor Relations Board" APPENDIX NorIC T EPI OYEES PosrED BY ORDI)R OF THE NATION,I LABOR R ATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all parties had an opportunity to present evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and we have been ordered to post this notice. The Act gives all employees the following rights: To organize themselves To form, join, or support unions To bargain as a group through representatives of their own choosing To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any or all such activity except to the extent that the employees' bargaining rep- resentative and employer have a collective-bar- gaining agreement which imposes a lawful re- quirement that employees become union mem- bers. WE WI. NOT discharge employees because they choose to protect bargaining unit work, or because they attempt to enforce certain safety and comfort clauses of our collective-bargaining agreement. 5 1) t RIlI.Y PI'I.AS. INC AND () PADDOC))K C() V '11 w I NOl in anv like or related manner in- terfere Mwith, restrain. or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec- tion 7 of the Act. Wrl wi I immediately offer to reinstate Arthur W. Bethke to his former job or, if it no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job and xuI wi1 I make him whole for any loss of pa, he may have suffered b reason of our discriminator! dis- charge of him on August 19. 1478. together with in- terest thereon RII it PI.+\S, INC., NI) .(). D.\D))O(K Co.. i N(, \(il) IN \ JIN I \ IN I tR KNO N AS P DI)I)OCK-[)I \S CO.. \ JOIN I V{NIU R . 1; Q