WE Painters, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 964 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
WE Painters, Inc. and Richard Nesheim, and
WE Painters, Inc. and Harry E. Seidler. Cases
19-CA-4017 and 19-CA-4113
June 24, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZAGORIA
On March 5, 1969, Trial Examiner William E.
Spencer 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 General Counsel filed exceptions and
a memorandum in support of exceptions. The
Respondent filed cross-exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and an answer to the General
Counsel's exceptions, with a memorandum in
support thereof.
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 these cases 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, cross
exceptions and memoranda in support thereof, and
the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, with the limited modification as
set forth below.
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
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
WE Painters, Inc., Mount Vernon, Washington, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as so modified.
1. Delete paragraph 2(a) of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order and substitute the following:
"(a) Upon application, offer immediate and full
reinstatement to Richard Nesheim, Harold
Nesheim, Jr., Chuck Sprague , Walt Ingram, Bill
Kenny, Nicholas Berkovich, Harry Seidler, and
Russel J. Myers, Jr., provided work is then
available, or, in the event work is not then available,
place them on a preferential hiring list for
reinstatement at such time as work becomes
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
available, and make them whole for any loss of pay
they may suffer, if any, as a result of failure to
comply herewith from a date beginning 5 days from
the date of their application, backpay to be
computed as set forth in the Remedy section of this
Decision and Order."
2. Add the following as paragraph 2(b), and
reletter the following paragraphs accordingly:
"(b) Notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their 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."
3. Delete the second indented paragraph of the
notice and substitute the following:
WE WILL upon application , offer immediate and full
reinstatement to the employees named below provided
work is then available, or in the event work is not then
available , we will place their names on a preferential
hiring list for reinstatement at such time as work
becomes available , and we will make them whole for
any loss of pay they may suffer, if any, by reason of
our failure to comply herewith beginning 5 days
following their application for reinstatement. The
employees so designated are:
Richard Nesheim, Harold Nesheim, Jr., Chuck
Sprague , Walt Ingram, Bill Kenney, Nicholas
Berkovich, Harry Seidler, and Russel J. Myers,
Jr.
4. Add the following as the last indented
paragraph of the Appendix:
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
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM E. SPENCER, Trial Examiner : Pursuant to a
charge filed May 9 , 1968, and an amended charge filed
August 12, 1968, in Case 19-CA-4017 by Richard
Nesheim , an individual , and a charge filed August 19,
1968 in Case 19-CA-4113 by Harry E . Seidler, an
individual , the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, the latter hereinafter called the Board,
issued his consolidated complaint dated September 11,
1968, alleging that the Respondent herein engaged in
unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(aXl) and (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein
called the Act. Respondent in its duly filed answer denied
the Board 's jurisdiction and, in the alternative , denied that
it had engaged in any of the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing in this matter was
held before me in Seattle, Washington, on November 19,
20, 21, 22, 1968, with all parties represented and
participating.
Upon the entire record in the case , my observation of
witnesses , and consideration of briefs filed with me by the
176 NLRB No. 140
WE PAINTERS, INC. 965
General Counsel and the Respondent, respectively,' I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators & Paperhangers of
America, Local No. 300, AFL-CIO, a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act, at all material times
appointed District Council No. 5, AFL-CIO, an affiliate,
the Union herein , its agent for purposes of negotiating a
collective -bargaining agreement known as Western
Washington Area Agreement for the Painting Industry.
This Association and its members consented to such
appointment at all material times . Such appointment has
been the common practice of Local No. 300 and other
Western Washington Painters Local Unions for some 15
years, during which time five collective- bargaining
agreements have been executed.
II. JURISDICTION
It is alleged by the General Counsel that at all material
times the Respondent was a member of and had assigned
its collective - bargaining rights to a multiemployer
collective bargaining agent known as the King County
Chapter of the Painting and Decorating Contractors of
America, hereinafter called P.D.C.A. Respondent
admitted that at all times material prior to May 14, 1968,
it was a member of P.D.C.A. as alleged, but denied that
P.D.C.A. at any time subsequent thereto was its agent in
collective bargaining , or that it was thereafter affiliated
with P.D.C.A.
Admittedly, during the last fiscal or calendar year, the
combined dollar volume of sales and services of the
employer-members of P.D.C.A. exceeded $500,000, and
during the same period said members purchased material
and supplies used in the State of Washington valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers outside
Washington.
The threshold issue being one of jurisdiction, we
approach it first.
Negotiations between P.D.C.A. and the Union herein
beginning about December , 1967, came to a standstill or
impasse on about May 14. Thereafter , the Union, as a
lever for bringing P.D.C.A. to terms, sought out and
made individual contracts with certain members of
P.D.C.A., not including the Respondent . In October,
1968, P.D.C.A., acting on behalf of all its employer
members , ratified the Union contract. Respondent refused
to be bound by this contract, claiming that it had
withdrawn its authorization of P.D.C.A. to act for it on
May 14, the approximate date on which P.D.C.A. became
deadlocked in contract negotiations with the Union.
An impasse in bargaining having been reached a
withdrawal of bargaining authorization from P .D.C.A.
would in my opinion, have been timely . Respondent
claims to have made such a withdrawal by notification to
P.D.C.A., pursuant to which it received the following
communication , dated May 14, from the president of the
King County Chapter of P.D.C.A.
'The Respondent filed a reply brief which was rejected on motion of the
General Counsel , the time set by the Trial Examiner for the filing of briefs
having expired.
MOTION
RESOLVED: As a result of WE Painter's Claim
that the Union's refusal to bargain and unlawful
conduct in signing interim agreements has caused the
chaotic situation which has now resulted and is the
breach of faith and of contract of other employer
groups and individuals, PDCA of Seattle does hereby
release WE Painters, Inc., from its Assignment of
Bargaining Rights heretofore granted and reassigns the
same to it to negotiate for himself, in recognition of the
failure of consideration for WE Painter's Assignment of
Bargaining Rights.
Despite this purported withdrawal, on April 25, the day
before the Union engaged in a strike against P.D.C.A.
members not signing individual contracts P.D.C.A. sent
the Union a list of employers represented by P.D.C.A.
The Respondent was one of those named on this list.
Respondent never having notified the Union of an intent
to withdraw or actual withdrawal from P.D.C.A., the
Union would reasonably assume that P.D.C.A . continued
to represent Respondent in collective bargaining.
Respondent's president, Andrew Nesheim, attended the
final ratification of contract meeting in October, and
thereby, by his presence, ostensibly confirmed P.D.C.A.'s
April 25 listing of Respondent as an employer represented
by P.D.C.A. in collective bargaining.
In N.L.R.B. v. Sheridan Creations, Inc., 384 F.2d 696
(C.A. 2), it was held that an employer's withdrawal from
a multiemployer unit is untimely , absent union consent,
once negotiations on a new contract have started. Here,
negotiations had started. Here, not only did Respondent
not receive the Union's consent to or acquiescence in its
withdrawal, the Union received no notification of its
attempted withdrawal. Respondent, in its forceful
argument , would distinguish the situation encountered
here from that found in the cited case, on two grounds: (1)
the Union, by seeking and making contracts with
individual employers of the multiemployer unit,
abandoned the multiemployer unit and thereby rendered
nugatory any requirement that an employer desiring to
withdraw from the multiemployer unit serve the union
with a notice of its withdrawal or receive the Union's
acquiescence or consent; (2) here, unlike the situation in
the cited case , negotiations had reached an impasse and
because of that the employer was not required to give
notice to or obtain the Union's acquiescence or consent.
Respondent cites International Restaurant Associates, et
al, 133 NLRB 1088, and Pennsylvania Garment Mfrs.
Assn., 125 NLRB 185 among others, as authority for its
position.'
'In Atlas Sheet Metal Works. Inc., 148 NLRB 27, cited by both parties,
the Board found that the Union acquiesced in the Respondent employer's
withdrawal from a multiemployer unit . In International Restaurant
Associates , citation supra, the Board held that the signing of individual
contracts by members of a multiemployer unit, took than out of the said
unit, but the multiemployer unit continued to exist as such, representing
members who did not sign individual contracts . No mutual consent and no
effective withdrawal was found with respect to the remaining members of
the multiemployer unit. Cf. Kroger Co.. 148 NLRB 569, where the Board
found no acquiescence by the Union in an employer 's withdrawal from a
multiemployer unit though there had been individual bargaining on one
phase of a contract . In Pennsylvania Garment Manufacturers Association,
citation supra, relied on by Respondent, the Board found an effective
withdrawal from a multiemployer unit by employers bargaining with and
executing contracts with the union on an individual basis. In Anderson
Lithograph Company , et at, the union 's solicitation of individual contracts
within the multiemployer unit neither destroyed the unit as a bargaining
entity, nor entitled employer members not executing such contracts to
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As to ( 1), the Union in its efforts to break the
bargaining impasse by seeking and obtaining individual
contracts and by striking, did not thereby yield its identity
as a bargaining principal vis-a-vis P . D.C.A., nor was
P.D.C.A . dissolved by such actions as a bargaining
principal in the multiemployer unit . It continued to hold
meetings and eventually ratified the union contract,
making it the contract governing the entire multiemployer
unit . By limited analogy, a union striking to break a
bargaining impasse does not free the affected employer of
his duty to bargain . Here, however , in view of the Union's
action in making individual contracts , it appears that
P.D.C.A . might have dissolved itself as a multiemployer
unit , or preferred charges against the Union. It did
neither . As to (2), while at the time Respondent attempted
to withdraw from the multiemployer unit , an impasse in
bargaining had been reached , this did not automatically
dissolve the bargaining relationship or mark an
abandonment of efforts to reach an agreement . As noted,
P.D.C.A . continued to hold itself out to the Union as a
bargaining entity, and eventually executed a contract with
it. As I read the decisions , from the time negotiations on
a contract begin until such time as it may be said that
they have been abandoned , an employer in a
multiemployer unit can effectively withdraw from such
unit only with the consent or acquiescence (actual or
implied ) of the union , or, if otherwise timely, after
notification of the union in clear, unequivocal language.
That the union involved solicits and obtains individual
contracts from some members of the multiemployer unit
in order to break an impasse in bargaining , does not
appear to constitute special or unusual circumstances such
as would require abandonment of the rule enunciated in
Sheridan Creations , Inc., supra. Accordingly , I hold that
Respondent' s attempted withdrawal from P.D.C.A.
though timely was ineffective.
Admittedly , the combined total of the business
operations of P.D .C.A. members far exceeds in value the
amounts required in the Board 's formula for asserting
jurisdiction . It is needless, therefore , for me to consider
the evidence taken on the individual business operations of
Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Discharges
The Union ' s contract with P.D.C.A. expired on April 1,
1968. The Union thereafter set a strike deadline of April
26. The effective date of the strike is in dispute, but it is
clear that Respondent ' s employees represented by the
Union learned of the strike deadline , either through
various news media or word of mouth , on or before April
26. At that time Respondent was working on a bridge
project near Mt. Vernon , Washington. Its work crew
normally worked seven days a week . Normal quitting time
was 6 : 30 p.m . On Friday, April 26, Respondent's
employees worked the full workday . On the following day,
none of them reported for work.
Foreman Harold Nesheim , Sr., observing that none of
the men were at work on the bridge Saturday morning,
telephoned Respondent' s president and Harold ' s brother,
Andrew (known as Andy ) Nesheim, at the latter' s home.
According to Harold , when he reported on the bridge
situation, Andy instructed him to inform the employees
withdraw from the unit during negotiations without the union 's consent or
acqulesaence. 124 NLRB 920.
involved that if they were not at work by 12 o 'clock they
were fired . Harold thereupon located certain of the
employees where they were staying at a motel near Mt.
Vernon , and informed them of Andy ' s ultimatum.
Employees so informed directly by Harold were his two
sons, Richard and Harold , Jr., Chuck Sprague, Walt
Ingram , and Bill Kenny . Employee Nicholas Berkovich,
staying at the same motel , heard of Andy's ultimatum
from the other employees. Later , Harold , Sr., on his way
home , stopped at a trailer court and informed employees
Harry Seidler and Russell J. Myers, Jr., that if they did
not report for work by noon they were fired.'
Andrew Nesheim , though admitting that Harold called
him at his home on the morning of April 27 and reported
that only one of the crew had reported for work , denied
that he issued Harold instructions to fire anyone. He
testified that he told Harold to get the other employees on
the job and he would meet Harold at the jobsite before
noon . Later, Andrew saw Harold driving toward Edmonds
where Harold lived and flagged him down . According to
him, he told Harold : "Let's go to the shop and straighten
up the men's time." Normally, the pay period ended on a
Sunday , and the checks were distributed the following
Tuesday.
I do not credit Andrew Nesheim ' s testimony to the
effect that he did not direct his foreman , Harold, to
discharge all the employees engaged on the bridge project
if they did not report for work by noon , Saturday. It
seems entirely improbable that Harold would have issued
such an ultimatum to the employees had he not been
instructed to do so . That he did relay such instructions to
the employees is clearly established , not only in his own
credible testimony but in the testimony of the employees
to whom he issued the instructions . A further
corroborating circumstance is Andrew 's instruction to him
to fill out the time sheets for the men , though normally
they would have been filled out only at the end of the pay
period.'
On all the evidence , I find that Respondent , through its
president, Andrew Nesheim , discharged Richard and
Harold Nesheim , Jr., Chuck Sprague , Walt Ingram, Bill
Kenny, Nicholas Berkovich , Harry Seidler , and Russell J.
Myers, Jr ., because of their failure to report for work on
Saturday , April 27. Any doubt that Andrew Nesheim may
have had that the strike was already effective of that date,
is immaterial. It was clear that the employees had
concertedly stayed away from the job, and with Nesheim's
knowledge that a strike had been called, he could hardly
have concluded that the men had just individually decided
to take the day off.
'Seidler testified that he understood from Harold that if "we do not get
our asses on the bridge by 12:00 o'clock we have all had it." This was
corroborated by Myers.
'1 can find no merit in Respondent 's contention that Harold Nesheim,
Sr., was not Respondent's agent on Saturday , April 27 . Presumably,
because Nesheim was a strong union man, favored the strike, and may
have been instrumental in getting the men to stay away from their jobs,
Respondent would have us believe he had quit his employment with
Respondent at the time be informed the employees of Andrew' s ultimatum.
Respondent did not regard him as having quit when Andrew instructed hun
to make out the time cards for the employees; Respondent is not shown to
have discharged him; and Andrew would not have issued his instructions to
the employees through Harold , Sr., as he did, had he regarded Harold as
no longer in his employ.
WE PAINTERS, INC. 967
B. The Reinstatements Offers
Olaf Nesheim , Jr., brother to Andy and Harold, Sr.,
testified that on Saturday , April 27 , at Respondent's shop
and office in Lynnwood , Washington , Sprague , Ingram,
and one unidentified employee came in to get their checks
and were asked by Andrew to come back to work and
told that they had a job if they wanted it. The employees
replied in substance that they did not want to get in
trouble with the Union . Andrew testified that he told the
employees who came to the office to get their checks on
this occasion , "At least go back to work until the union
stops you ." Andrew saw Employee Berkovich at the
bridge project on Sunday , April 28 , asked him why he was
not working , and Berkovich replied that it was because of
the strike . Andrew then suggested that Berkovich work on
the job as a foreman. Berkovich worked briefly on the
following Monday , and on Tuesday about half a day.
Later he was persuaded to join in the strike and did not
thereafter report for work . I find that because of the
brevity of his return to work and because Olaf Nesheim
was the actual foreman on the job , over Berkovich, that
Berkovich never qualified as a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act, and is entitled to the same
reinstatement rights as other striking employees.
Berkovich admitted that Andrew Nesheim asked him to
request the other employees to return to work , and that he
did tell them that they could work , that "It is O.K. to
work ." ' He did not recall that he told them he was
speaking for Andrew Nesheim.
By letters dated September 11, 1968, after the charges
had been filed in this case , Andrew Nesheim addressed
letters bearing the following text to Myers , Ingram,
Seidler , and Sprague:
I was baffled to learn the charge was filed, but in any
event have no objection to, am willing to and at all
times was willing to employ you , which I thought had
been made perfectly clear to all concerned.
You are unequivocally offered reemployment . Please
report to 3631 Interlake North , Seattle on or before
Monday , September 16 at 8 :00 A.M.
On all the evidence , I am convinced and find that all
the employees named in the complaint who went on strike
on Saturday , April 27 , were informed or had reason to
believe that if they wished to break the strike and return
to work their jobs were open to them . They chose to
remain on strike. Any further effort by Respondent to get
them to return to their jobs during the strike would have
been futile and might well have been construed as an
unlawful effort to break the strike . Respondent ' s contract
with the Union through P.D.C.A . had expired , the Union
was on strike , and if they had accepted Respondent's
offers of reinstatement , they obviously would thereby have
signified agreement to work under nonunion conditions of
employment . I do not know just how the General Counsel
would have had Respondent qualify its offer of
reinstatement in order to make it "legal ." The refusal of
the employees to break the strike by accepting
Respondent ' s offers of reinstatement does not, however,
'I find no merit in General Counsel's contention that Berkovich was
constructively discharged when , while he was on the picket line, Olaf
Nesheim , according to credible testimony , pointed a hunting rifle at the
picketing employees . Nesheim testified of his possession of the rifle, "I
wanted them to quit tampering with the men and didn't want any
tampering with the [bridgel rigging ." Just why we are asked to find in this
incident a discharge , limited to Berkovich , I haven ' t the slightest idea -
obtuse , no doubt.
qualify their right at the time they cease in their concerted
or strike activity to seek and obtain reinstatement. As a
matter of fact , it appears to me that Andrew Nesheim's
orders to employees remaining away from work to return
or consider themselves discharged , was a tactical
maneuver to get them back to work and was never
intended as an actual discharge . It was nevertheless
interference with and restraint on their right to engage in
a strike or other concerted activity and as such was
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I have very carefully reviewed all the evidence proffered
by the Respondent on alleged misconduct on the picket
line by which the Respondent would have certain of the
striking employees disqualified for reinstatement, and I
find that in every instance picket line disorders were either
provoked by agents of Respondent or employees who
resumed or remained at work during the strike , or were of
an inconsequential nature . I do not credit testimony which
would give rise to an inference that striking employees in
any way impaired bridge construction , perpetrated
damage at the bridge site , or threatened to do so.
W. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above , occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described 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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
The Respondent having discharged certain of its
employees as a tactical measure to discourage and prevent
their engaging in a strike and other concerted activities,
thereby interfering with , coercing , and restraining them in
the exercise of rights guaranteed them under the Act, it
will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist
from this or any like or related activity , and on their
application and request offer the employees named below
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions , provided work is then available for them,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they
may suffer, if any, from the date of their unconditional
application and request for reinstatement , to the date they
are offered reinstatement , by payment to them of a sum
of money equal to that they normally would earn in
Respondent's employ during said period less their net
earnings , if any , during said period . The pay due them, if
any, shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. If, at the time the
employees named below apply for reinstatement, there is
no work available for them , Respondent shall place them
on a preferential hiring list for reinstatement at such time
as work becomes available , and make them whole for any
loss of pay suffered by them from the date that work
becomes available to the date they are offered
reinstatement, in the manner stated above. The employees
are:
Richard Nesheim , Harold Nesheim , Jr., Chuck
Sprague , Walt Ingram , Bill Kenny, Nicholas Berkovich,
Harry Seidler , Russel J. Myers, Jr.
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and a
business affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its
employees in their right to engage in strike or other
protected union and concerted activities, the Respondent
has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(axl) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, as amended, it is hereby ordered
that Respondent , its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from discharging or in any other
manner discriminating against any employee for the
purpose of. preventing or discouraging his participation in
any protected strike or other concerted activity, or in any
like or related manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing its employees in the right to self-organization, to
form their own labor organization , to join or assist the
Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively with representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or for other mutual aid or
protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities
except to the extent that such right may be affected by
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon application , offer reinstatement to, and make
whole in the manner and to the extent set forth in the
section above entitled "The Remedy," the following
employees: Richard Nesheim , Harold Nesheim, Jr.,
Chuck Sprague, Walt Ingram , Bill Kenney , Nicholas
Berkovich , Harry Seidler, and Russql J. Myers, Jr.
(b) Post at its office and place of business in
Lynnwood , Washington , 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 maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps it has taken to comply herewith.'
'In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 is 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 "
'In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 or in any other manner
discriminate against any employee for the purpose of
preventing or discouraging his participation in any
protected strike or other concerted activity, or in any
like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organ ization , to form, join , or assist Brotherhood
of Painters , Decorators & Paperhangers of America,
District Council No . 5, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , or to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL, upon application , offer immediate and full
reinstatement to employees named below provided work
is then available, or, in the event work is not then
available, we will place them on a preferential hiring
list for reinstatement at such time as work becomes
available, and will make them whole for any loss of pay
they may suffer , if any, because of discrimination
against them in the order or timing of their
reinstatement . Employees thus designated are:
Richard Nesheim, Harold Nesheim , Jr., Chuck
Sprague , Walt Ingram , Bill Kenney , Nicholas
Berkovich , Harry Seidler , and Russel J. Myers, Jr.
Dated By
WE PAINTERS, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
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 provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, Republic
Building , 10th Floor, 1511 Third Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101, Telephone 583-7473.