B.E. & K., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 1, 1982

260 N.L.R.B. 574 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAl LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B.E. & K., Inc. and United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe
Fitting Industry, Local No. 366. Case 15-CA-
7668
March 1, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
On March 6, 1981, Administrative Law Judge
Lawrence W. Cullen 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.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge
that Ramos' discharge from his supervisory posi-
tion, without being given the opportunity to return
to a rank-and-file position, constituted a violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as well as Section
8(a)(3). However, under the facts of this case, we
decline to adopt his recommendation to reinstate
Ramos to his supervisory position. Rather, we find
that the purposes of the Act will best be served by
ordering Ramos' reinstatement to his former rank-
and-file position. 2
The evidence shows that Respondent's entire
course of conduct, beginning with its hiring of ad-
ditional pipe department employees on April 3
through 7, was aimed in part at Ramos and,
through him, at all the prounion employees.
Ramos' discharge just 10 days after his promotion
to supervisor over a newly formed crew was a
planned, integral, and necessary step of Respond-
ent's overall scheme to thwart its employees' exer-
cise of Section 7 rights and thus violated Section
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. it is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Prducrts,.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 In finding a violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) with respect to Ramos, we find
it unnecessary to rely on B.E. & K.. Inc., 252 NLRB 256 (1980), enfoirce-
ment denied in part, Docket No 80-1730) (4th Cir. 1981), and Vevis In-
dusiries, Inc. d/b/a FIresno Townehouse, 246 NLRB 1053 (1979)
260 NLRB No. 81
8(a)(1). However, as the Administrative Law Judge
found, Respondent's "scheme" began while Ramos
was a rank-and-file employee. The makeup of his
crew and his selection as foreman were part of that
scheme. Had Respondent not embarked on its un-
lawful course, it is unlikely that Ramos would have
become a foreman on April 7. Thus, the status quo
will be restored by Ramos' reinstatement to the po-
sition he was in before the unlawful scheme
began. 3
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, B.E. & K.,
Inc., Cantonment, Florida, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in said recommended Order.
MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting in part:
I would not rely on Wright Line, a Division of
Wright Line Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980). The Ad-
ministrative Law Judge correctly found that Re-
spondent's alleged lawful reasons for the April 17
layoffs were "pretextual" and not justified by any
business or economic considerations. Thus there
was no genuine lawful motive in existence here;
only the unlawful one was genuine. Wright Line
was directed only at resolving the causation issue
when a genuine lawful cause or purpose exists
along with a genuine unlawful cause; to use Wright
Line where only the unlawful cause is genuine is to
engage in a sham analysis which can have only one
outcome; and such sham application eventually
stultifies the analysis and its effectiveness in treat-
ing the real problem to which it was directed.
I Member Zimmerman agrees with his colleagues that Respondent vio-
lated Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Act by promoting employee Ramos to a supervi-
sory position and subsequently discriminatorily discharging him pursuant
to an unlawful plan designed to circumvent the Act. In such circum-
stances, the status quo will be properly restored by reinstating Ramos to
the rank-and-file position that he held prior to the start of Respondent's
unlawful scheme Accordingly, Member Zimmerman finds that it is un-
necessary to consider the allegations that Ramos' discharge violated Sec.
8(a)(1) of the Act Further, Member Zimmerman rejects the Administra-
tive L aw Judge's reliance on Aevis Industries. Inc., d/b/a Fresno lowne-
house, 246 NLRB 1053 (1979)
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LAWRENCE W. CULLEN, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard before me on November 17, 18, and
19, 1980, in Pensacola, Florida.' The hearing was held
' All dates are 198( unless otherwise stated
574
BE & K.. INC.
pursuant to a complaint issued by the Regional Director
for Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board on
May 27, 1980, and is based on a charge filed by the
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry, Local No. 366
(hereinafter referred to as the Charging Party or the
Union), on April 25, 1980, on behalf of alleged discrimin-
atees David Bridwell, Raymond E. Cobb, James G. Cur-
renton, Elbie M. Hutcherson, Joe Jordan, Jr., James P.
Parker, Eduardo Ramos, Mitchell W. Robbins, Paul F.
Schachle, and Chester Williams, Jr. The complaint al-
leges that Respondent B.E. & K., Inc. (hereinafter re-
ferred to as Respondent), engaged in violations of Sec-
tion 8(a)(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (hereinafter called the Act), by the interroga-
tion of its employees concerning their union activities, by
threats to close down the job and to discharge employ-
ees who engaged in union activities, and by the layoff of
and refusal to reinstate Foreman Ramos as part of a pat-
tern designed to interfere with its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the
Act. The complaint further alleges that Respondent en-
gaged in violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by reason of the discharge and refusal to reinstate al-
leged discriminatees Bridwell, Cobb, Currenton, Hut-
cherson, Jordan, Parker, Robbins, Schachle, and Wil-
liams. The issues in this matter were joined by Respond-
ent's answer of June 10, 1980, wherein it denied the com-
mission of the alleged unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record made in this proceeding, in-
cluding my observations of the witnesses who testified
herein, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
counsel for the General counsel, counsel for Respondent,
and counsel for the Charging Party, I make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS 01 FACT AND CONCI USIONS
I. JURISIICTION
It is admitted by Respondent, and I find, that Re-
spondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. STATUS OF IlABOR ORGANIZATION
It is admitted by Respondent, and I find, that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE AI.L.EGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTlICES
A. Background
Respondent is a Delaware corporation with its princi-
pal office in Birmingham, Alabama, and is engaged in the
engineering and construction of industrial plant facilities
throughout the United States and was engaged as a con-
tractor at the St. Regis Paper Company in Cantonment,
Florida, at all times material herein. In November 1979,
Respondent commenced work on a major plant expan-
sion of the St. Regis Paper Company facilities in Canton-
ment, Florida. This project involved the removal and re-
location of existing facilities and the installation of new
facilities including connecting pipework. Respondent em-
ployed several crafts on the project including carpenters,
ironworkers, laborers, and pipefitters. The alleged discri-
minatees were members of the pipefitters craft which in-
cludes the three classifications of pipefitters. welders, and
helpers. Much of the pipework consisted of removing ex-
isting pipe facilities to accommodate new pipe facilities
under construction. Additionally, the project involved
the installation of new pipes, drains, and related facilities.
The General Counsel and the Charging Party contend
that in January 1980 Respondent, by and through its
agents,2 commenced to interrogate and threaten its em-
ployees concerning an organizational campaign by the
Charging Party (Union), that said organizational cam-
paign commenced in March with the discriminatees
having all become members of the Union by late March
or early April, and that the pattern of interrogation and
threats by Respondent's agents continued until April 17
when the discriminatees were laid off by Respondent and
that Respondent has failed and refused to reinstate them
because of their having engaged in concerted union ac-
tivities. Nine of the discriminatees were employed as pi-
pefitters, welders, or helpers in the pipe department of
Respondent's St. Regis Paper Company project. The
10th discriminatee, Ramos, was a supervisor at the time
of his layoff. Respondent principally defends itself by a
general denial of knowledge of a union organization
campaign and a general denial of a vast amount of the
alleged incidents of interrogation and threats having
taken place with some limited specific denials. Respond-
ent contends that the layoff was caused by economic fac-
tors beyond its control because of lack of engineering
drawings and blueprints and materials necessary to con-
tinue the job.
Each of the 10 discriminatees testified in the General
Counsel's case. Project Superintendent E. D. Ruff, Pipe
Superintendent James F. Fincher, General Foreman
James T. McNeill, Foreman Roger Thompson, and Pro-
ject Planner and Scheduler Frederick D. McAlmond tes-
tified on behalf of Respondent.4 Foreman Roger Salter,
who was alleged in the complaint to have engaged in
acts of interrogation of employees, did not testify.
B. Organizational Activity
Currenton, a pipefitter hired by Respondent in Decem-
ber 1979 and assigned to Foreman Salter's crew, testified
that he became aware of the Union's organizing effort in
early' March when an old friend, Larry Guidy, asked him
2 It was stipulated by the parties, and I find, that at all times relevant
herein. James F Fincher. James T McNeill. Roger Thompson. and
Roger Salter were supervisors within the meaning of the Act I also find
that Project Manager E D. Ruff wvas a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act at all relevant times herein
It ,.as stipulated by the parties. and I find. that al the time of his
termination Ramois was a foreman and a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act It was further stipulated and I find that Ramos initially became a
foreman on January 21. and remained so until March 17 when he left his
foreman's position (when his crew was disbanded as a result of a reduc-
tion In force) and went hack io his tools (became a nonsupervisory em-
ployee) On April 7. he became a foreman again and retained that posi-
tion until his la off on April 17
4 All witnescss were sequestered except Currenton who was present on
behalf of ihe General Counsel and McNeill who was present for Re-
spondecnt
575
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. I.ABOR REI ATIONS BOARD
to join and Currenton told Guidy he was not interested.
Guidy contacted Currenton a week later and Currenton
changed his mind and said he wanted to join and did so
on March 28. On March 31, Currenton talked to Brid-
well on the way to work and, when they arrived on the
jobsite, they found their crew discussing the Union in the
presence of their foreman, Salter. At that time, Salter's
crew included four of the discriminatees (Currenton,
Bridwell, Paul Schachle, and Williams).5 Later that
morning, Randy Caylor (an acquaintance who had ini-
tially recommended Currenton to McNeill for a position
with Respondent) asked Currenton about the Union and
told Currenton that he was interested. Currenton told
Caylor that he was a union member and subsequently
that day Currenton, Bridwell, and Caylor clocked out
early to go to the union hall and Bridwell and Caylor
applied for membership.6
Bridwell testified that he was hired December 12.
1979, as a welder and worked in Salter's crew except for
a 2-week period. Bridwell was active in the Union's or-
ganizational campaign. He signed his application and
paid his dues for union membership at the end of March
or the first of April.
Schachle testified he was hired as a welder in Novem-
ber 1979 and assigned to Salter's crew. He became aware
of the union campaign in April, attended a union organi-
zational meeting held at Jimmy Arnold's house in April,
and joined the Union the next day. 7
Williams testified that he was hired as a welder in No-
vember 1979, was initially assigned to McNeill's crew,
was reassigned to Roger Thompson's crew, and was sub-
sequently reassigned to Salter's crew in January. He
became aware of the Union's campaign from Currenton,
attended the meeting at Jimmy Arnold's house, and
joined the Union the following day.
Cobb testified he was employed by Respondent in Jan-
uary as a welder and assigned to Roger Thompson's
crew. He attended the meeting at Jimmy Arnold's house
and joined the Union on April 4.
Hutcherson was employed by Respondent as a pipefit-
ter in January and assigned to Roger Thompson's crew.
He learned of the union campaign from Cobb and joined
the Union on April 4.
Robbins was employed by Respondent in December
1979 as a pipefitter's helper and was initially assigned to
Henry Randall's crew which was taken over by Ramos a
month later. He was allowed to transfer to the iron-
workers on the job in order to avoid a layoff when
Ramos' crew was disbanded in February. He worked
with the ironworkers for 2 months until he was trans-
ferred back to the pipe department on April 15 and was
assigned to a new crew which was under the direction of
Ramos. He became aware of the Union's campaign from
Cobb and from discussions from other employees. lie
b This crew also included employees Caylor, Hammond, and Cham-
bers who reported administratively to Foreman Salter but normally did
not work as a part of the crew. It also included Matthews who was also
laid off on April 17 but was not named as a discriminatee
6 Currenton testified that Caylor subsequently advised him that he had
canceled his check and Caylor did not become a member.
7 There was an organizational meeting held at Jimmy Arnold's house
on April 1. Arnold was a union supporter who was not employed by the
Respondent.
signed an application for union membership on April 1
and paid his dues on April 16.
Parker testified he was hired on January 15 and
worked until March 13 when he was laid off from
Ramos crew in a reduction in force. He was rehired as a
pipefitter on April 3, and was then assigned to Salter's
crew. He testified he was aware of some talk of a union
campaign prior to his layoff in March. He attended the
Union's organizational meeting at Jimmy Arnold's house
and joined the Union on April 2, the day before he re-
turned to work.
Jordan testified that he was employed by Respondent
as a welder assigned to Salter's crew on February 6, that
he was allowed to transfer to the ironworkers craft on
March 24 to avert being laid off, and that he was subse-
quently transferred back to the pipe department on April
8 and again assigned to Salter's crew. He was a union
member at the time of his initial employment in Febru-
ary.
C. The Alleged Unlawful Interrogation and Threats
1. The alleged unlawful interrogation and threats of
Currenton by General Foreman McNeill in January
Currenton testified that he was interrogated on three
occasions by General Foreman McNeill in January. The
first incident occurred the second week of January when
McNeill went to the area where Currenton and Rudy
Willis, the welder assigned to assist Currenton, were
working and asked Currenton whether he had heard
rumors concerning the Union's attempting to organize
the job to which Currenton replied he had heard rumors
but that as far as he was concerned they were just
rumors. McNeill "asked me if I was being on the level
with him, and I said, yes, I was. He said he believed me
and that was the end of that conversation."
About a week later (the third week in January) McNeill
again went to Currenton's work area and told Currenton
he knew about Rudy Willis' having been involved in an
organizational effort at Daniel's Construction Company.
Currenton assumed McNeill also knew about his own in-
volvement in that effort and told McNeill that both he
and Willis had been involved but that was in the past
and that he needed to work in the area to restore his
name as a nonunion contractor. McNeill told Currenton
"that he believed me, that I wasn't involved," and "as
long as I stayed out of it I would have a job," and "as
long as I stayed that way that I would be OK; that me
and Rudy both would have a job."
In the latter part of January, McNeill initiated a third
conversation with Currenton on the jobsite and told Cur-
renton that Willis who had failed a welding test would
not be rehired as a helper as a result of Project Manager
RufFs having found out that Willis and Currenton had
been involved in a prior union organizing effort at Dan-
iel's Construction Company's Pensacola job. McNeill
told Currenton he had told Ruff that Currenton had his
nose clean and that he (McNeill) would vouch for Cur-
renton and he (McNeill) said that "as long as I kept it
that way that I would have a job but I better keep my
nose clean." In this conversation, McNeill also said,
576
B.E. & K.. INC.
"Jim, you know if anything like that gets started on this
job there's going to be some people lose their jobs."
McNeill denied having discussed union activity in Jan-
uary 1980 on the job with Currenton or any other em-
ployee or having asked any other employee questions
concerning union activity or having told Currenton or
any other employee that he or any other employees
would be discharged if they engaged in union activities.
He testified that he heard rumors of union activity but
no more than on any other job. Project Manager Ruff
testified that he was not aware of any union activity on
the job and that he did not call Daniel's Construction
Company concerning employee Rudy Willis. I found
Currenton to be a credible witness who spoke with cer-
tainty and who spoke convincingly concerning the con-
versations between him and McNeill in January and I
credit his testimony. I do not credit the testimony of
McNeill which consisted of general denials that the con-
versations took place."
Accordingly, I find that McNeill's questioning of Cur-
renton in the second and third week of January was un-
lawful interrogation and that Respondent thereby violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I find that McNeill's state-
ments made to Currenton in the third wreek of January
and in the latter part of January constituted unlawful
threats and that Respondent thereby violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. McNeill's directions to his foremen
Ramos testified that, while employed as a foreman for
Respondent in February, McNeill called a meeting of his
foremen in the middle or latter part of February which
was attended by Foremen Salter, Roger Thompson, Og-
lesby, and Ramos and that McNeill told the foremen "if
we knew anybody that had anything to do with the
Union to carry them to the gate." Ramos testified this
meant to fire them. Ramos testified further that he subse-
quently attended a foremen's meeting attended by Fore-
men Salter, Oglesby, Roger Thompson, and Cliff
Thompson at which McNeill stated that he personally
would fire any foreman that had anything to do with the
Union. I credit Ramos' testimony concerning the events
of the two foremen's meetings.9 Ramos' testimony in this
regard was not rebutted by Respondent. McNeill did not
deny having made the statements attributed to him by
Ramos in these two meetings. Foremen Salter, Oglesby,
and Cliff Thompson were not called as witnesses by Re-
spondent. I also find that the failure by Respondent to
inquire of Foreman Roger Thompson concerning these
meetings compels an adverse inference.
I I did not find McNeill or Ruff to he credible witnesses fior reasons
which will be set out infra in this Decision. To the extent that their testi-
mony conflicts with any of the discriminatees (each of whom I found to
be credible witnesses). I credit the testimony of the dicriminatees over
that of either McNeill or Ruff
I9 found Ramos to be a credible witness w'ho testified in a believable
and convincing manner There were some minor inconsistencles hetieen
Ramos' testimony and information supplied in his affidavit covering the
posting of the list on April 17 tlowe.er, I did not find these to he essen-
lial to his credibility
3. Alleged unlawful interrogation by Foreman
Salter
Currenton testified that, on the morning of April 1
(which was the day after he and Bridwell and Caylor
went to the union hall), Salter approached him and Brid-
well at the lime kiln area where they were working and
said, "I heard they were selling books for $325," where-
upon Currenton said, "[Y]eah Roger, that's what I
heard" and Salter said, "[Y]ou know, I heard some guys
in my crew might have a book." Salter then said, "[A]s a
matter of fact I heard Randy (Caylor) had one; maybe
two more." And Currenton then acknowledged that
Caylor, Bridwell, and he each had a book and Salter said
that he (Salter) had tried to get a book previously. Cur-
renton then informed Salter of the union meeting at
Jimmy Arnold's house that night. Salter declined to
attend because of his status as a foreman but asked Cur-
renton to tell him the next day about the meeting. Cur-
renton testified that the union meeting was attended by
himself, Bridwell, Caylor, Williams, Paul and Vince
Schachle, Cobb, Troy Bledsoe, Ronnie White, Parker,
and some others whom Currenton could not remember
in addition to some union officials. The next morning
Bridwell and Currenton were the first two men in their
crew to get to their reporting place. Salter was already
there and Currenton asked Salter whether he (Salter)
was ready to join the Union and Salter laughed and said,
"[Y]eah, tell me all about it." Bridwell and Currenton
did so. The following day, April 3, Salter came to the
area where Currenton was working and said "that they
had a list of the people who were at the meeting and a
list of people who had union books already. It was one
list, but they knew who had books and who had been at
the meeting." On inquiry from Currenton, Salter said, "I
know they've got a list." Salter said the list was about
80-percent accurate. Currenton then inquired whether
certain names were on the list and Salter told him
whether or not the particular name was on the list. He
also told Currenton that Hammond and Caylor were not
on the list. Currenton testified on cross-examination that
Salter had estimated that a dozen or more names were
on the list. Bridwell's testimony was generally corrobo-
rative of Currenton's with respect to the discussions with
Salter. Bridwell added that, when Salter told Currenton
and Bridwell about the list, he also told them to "walk
the straight and narrow and if we were caught doing
anything wrong we would be terminated." He warned
them not to discuss the Union. Ramos testified that
Salter told him about the list which Salter said had been
shown to him by McNeill and which included Ramos',
Currenton's, and Williams' names and had also included
Glen Hammond's and White's names but that these two
names had been erased.
Williams testified that Salter had told him and Curren-
ton about the list and that he (Williams) was at the top
of the list and to be careful on the job or they could be
discharged. Parker who was assigned to Salter's crew on
April 3 after he returned to work from his layoff of
March 13 testified that Salter told him on April 3 that he
was glad Parker was in his crew which was the only
union crew. He also testified that, on the afternoon of
577
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
April 3, Salter approached him and Paul Schachle in the
old "Fab" (fabrication) shop and showed him a list with
their names on it and said that "they" knew we were at
the meeting and might have our books. Paul Schachle
corroborated Parker's testimony in this regard but testi-
fied that he himself, however, had not seen the list al-
though he had seen some papers. Jordan also testified to
a conversation with Salter wherein Salter inquired
whether Jordan was in the Union. Jordan fixed the time
of the conversation as sometime before he was trans-
ferred to the ironworkers.
I credit the testimony of Currenton, Bridwell, Wil-
liams, Parker, Paul Schachle, and Jordan concerning
their conversations with Salter." 0 Respondent did not
call on Salter to testify. The credited testimony of these
discriminatees with respect to their conversations with
Salter thus stands unrebutted on the record.
I find that Salter's questioning of Currenton and Brid-
well, on April I and 2, constituted unlawful interroga-
tion. I find Salter's statement to Bridwell on April 3 that
he should walk the straight and narrow or risk termina-
tion constituted an unlawful threat. I find Salter's state-
ment to Williams that his name was on the top of the list
and to be careful or he would be discharged constituted
an unlawful threat. Accordingly, I find that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by reason of the acts
of interrogation and threats of the discriminatees en-
gaged in by Respondent's agent, Salter, as set out above.
4. Alleged unlawful interrogation and threats by
Foreman Roger Thompson
There were also allegations of 8(a)( ) violations in-
volving Foreman Roger Thompson. Hutcherson and
Cobb who were assigned to Roger Thompson's crew tes-
tified as follows concerning them. Hutcherson testified
that in the first week of April, Roger Thompson ap-
proached him at his worktable at the new demineralizing
area and asked him whether he had any knowledge of
the Union's attempting to organize the job to which Hut-
cherson replied he had only heard rumors. Thompson
then stated, "Elbie, if you know of anybody that joined
the Union, or talks about the Union, you let us know and
we'll get them fired." Hutcherson testified further that,
on April 8 or 9, Roger Thompson stated that it looked as
if the Union were trying to organize the job (come in) to
which Hutcherson replied, "[W]ell, they'll probably try."
Cobb testified that, in the first week of April, Roger
Thompson approached him and asked if he had obtained
a union book to which Cobb replied, "no." Additionally,
Paul Schachle testified that, on April 8 or 9, Roger
Thompson asked him "what's this about the Union" and
inquired what he (Schachle) knew about the Union. Wil-
liams also testified that on the following week after the
union meeting Thompson told him his name was on the
top of the "list."
Roger Thompson testified on behalf of Respondent
and denied having made any inquiry of Hutcherson re-
garding the Union. He admitted to having asked Cobb
whether he had joined the Union and that Cobb had told
'o I found Bridwell. Williams, Parker, Paul Schachle, and Jordan to he
credible witnesses as well as Currenton whom I previously credited
him "no." He denied telling Williams or any other em-
ployees that their names were on a list. He also denied
having any knowledge of a list. He denied having in-
quired of Schachle concerning his knowledge of the
Union or any union activity.
I credit the testimony of Hutcherson, Cobb, Paul
Schachle, and Williams concerning their conversations
with Roger Thompson. I found their testimony to be
positive, clear, and convincing. Conversely, I found
Roger Thompson to be hesitant in his answers on cross-
examination and do not credit his denials that these con-
versations even took place as testified to by discrimina-
tees. As noted above, Thompson admitted to having in-
quired of Cobb as to whether he was a union member.
Accordingly, I find that Thompson's questioning of Hut-
cherson concerning his knowledge of union activity con-
stituted unlawful interrogation in violation of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act and his statement to Hutcherson that
employees who joined the Union would be fired consti-
tuted an unlawful threat and that Respondent thereby
violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. I also find that
Thompson's questioning of Cobb and Schachle constitut-
ed unlawful interrogation and that Respondent thereby
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. Additional allegations of 8(a)(l) violations
involving General Foreman McNeill
Currenton testified that on a Tuesday or Wednesday
of the week following the week of the union meeting
(April 8 or 9) McNeill approached him and Paul
Schachle as they were working on the steam trap in the
corner of the building. At that time Currenton asked
McNeill concerning rumors that the Company was going
to be unionized to which McNeill replied, "[D]on't be-
lieve a word of it. Ted Kennedy will never go union on
this job or any other job; he'll close the job down before
he ever works union." Ted Kennedy was identified by
Currenton and subsequently by McNeill as either an offi-
cial or part owner of the Company. Currenton then told
McNeill he had been wondering about the rumor. Cur-
renton testified that McNeill replied, "[D]on't worry
about it. As long as I've got a job out here, you'll have a
job. We'll lock the gate together when we leave. You
just keep your nose clean." No inquiry was made of
Schachle concerning this conversation. McNeill denied
making the statements attributed to him by Currenton. I
credit the testimony of Currenton, I do not credit the
denial of McNeill.
Hutcherson testified that, on or about April 10,
McNeill approached him and said, "Elbie, I want to ask
you a question." Hutcherson anticipated the question and
told McNeill he thought he knew what the question was
and asked whether the matter was between them which
McNeill assured him it was. Hutcherson then told
McNeill that he was going to get a union book. Hutcher-
son testified that McNeill then stated "that's what I was
going to ask you." At that time Jordan approached and
Hutcherson told McNeill that "Joe's a union man, too"
and McNeill replied that was what he wanted to know.
Jordan testified that he heard Hutcherson tell McNeill
that he (Jordan) was in the Union also. Jordan further
578
B.E. & K., INC.
testified that McNeill inquired of him whether this was
correct and Jordan replied, "yes." McNeill testified that
this discussion related to membership in a masonic lodge
to which he and Hutcherson belong and that Hutcherson
told him that Jordan was a member of the lodge also. I
credit the testimony of Hutcherson and Jordan and do
not credit the testimony of McNeill.
Currenton testified that he initiated a meeting with
McNeill at a softball field on the evening of April 10 and
told McNeill that he was a union member and that the
Union was organizing the job. McNeill asked Currenton
to reconsider his decision and asked Currenton how
strong the Union was on the job. Currenton replied that
the Union was strong and gaining strength. I credit the
testimony of Currenton in this regard which stands on
the record as not being specifically rebutted by McNeill.
To the extent that McNeill's general denial of having
had conversations concerning the Union with Currenton
and other employees may constitute a possible rebuttal of
his testimony, I do not credit McNeill's denial.
Williams testified that, on the day before the layoff,
McNeill came to where he was working and drove him
in a pickup truck from the site and discussed the Union
and told Williams that the Union was pricing itself out of
work and offered to show Williams paperwork from the
Company's attorney to substantiate that no union con-
tractor had ever bid on the job. Williams was laid off the
next day (April 17) and the paperwork was never shown
to him. McNeill acknowledged that he had driven Wil-
liams around the project but stated that the conversation
concerned an inquiry by Williams whether he would be
terminated because he was a diabetic. McNeill stated he
did not discuss anything else on the truck ride. I credit
Williams' testimony in this regard; I do not credit
McNeill's testimony or denials.
I find that McNeill's statement to Currenton on the
Tuesday or Wednesday of the week following the union
meeting (April 8 or 9) that Ted Kennedy would shut
down the job if it were unionized and that Currenton
should keep his nose clean was an unlawful threat and
that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act.
I find that McNeill's questioning of Hutcherson and
Jordan on or about April 10 constituted unlawful interro-
gation and that Respondent thereby violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
I find that McNeill's questioning of Currenton on the
evening of April 10 concerning the strength of the Union
constituted unlawful interrogation and that Respondent
thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I find that McNeill's offer of April 16 to show Wil-
liams paperwork from the Company's attorney to show
that no union contractor had ever bid on the job and his
assertion that the Union was pricing itself out of work
constituted an unlawful threat and that Respondent
thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
D. The Layoffs of April 17
On April 17, the 10 discriminatees and 2 other employ-
ees not involved in this case were laid off by Respond-
ent. " At the time of their layoff each discriminatee re-
ceived a termination form with an identical marking of
"fair" as an evaluation of their job performance out of
four listed categories on the termination forms of "excel-
lent," "good," "fair," and "poor." The termination forms
were marked by McNeill, the general foreman, although
they were normally marked by the foremen. Two of the
discriminatees were subsequently reemployed by Re-
spondent. Paul Schachle was reemployed on July 28 and
was terminated shortly thereafter on August 6 or 7.
Jordan was reemployed July 28 and was working on the
site at the time of the hearing in this case. The General
Counsel contends that the layoff was pretextual and un-
necessary and that Respondent's sole motivation for the
layoff and for the selection of the discriminatees for the
layoff was their having engaged in protected concerted
activity. As stated previously in this Decision the Gener-
al Counsel alleges violations of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of
the Act with respect to the nine nonsupervisory discri-
minatees and alleges a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act with respect to Ramos who was a supervisor under
the Act at the time of the layoff. The General Counsel
also contends that the rating of the 10 discriminatees as
fair by McNeill constituted a part of Respondent's effort
to finally rid itself of union adherents. Respondent denies
that the layoff of the discriminatees was motivated by
unlawful discriminatory purposes proscribed by the Act
but rather contends that the layoffs were necessitated by
economical considerations caused by the lack of suffi-
cient engineering drawings and blueprints and the lack of
materials needed to continue the job. Respondent con-
tends that the layoff, itself, was not unusual with respect
to this particular project, and that the selection of the
discriminatees for layoff was normal under the circum-
stances as well as their having been rated fair by
McNeill.
The discriminatees were selected for layoff from three
crews. Ramos and Robbins were selected from the crew
which had been made up on April 7 with Ramos then
being made a foreman again. The other members of
Ramos' crew were reassigned to other crews and were
not laid off. Hutcherson and Cobb were selected from
Roger Thompson's crew and the entire crew of Roger
Salter except for employees Hammond, Caylor, Cham-
bers, and Foreman Salter were laid off. In the case of
Supervisor Ramos, Respondent contends that he was
given the option to "return to his tools" as a rank-and-
file employee when his crew was disbanded on April 17
but that he refused to do so. Ramos testified that he was
not given this option. Neither Jordan nor Robbins was
permitted to return to the ironworkers as they had been
allowed to do to avert a layoff in a previous reduction of
force.
The discriminatees testified at length that there was
sufficient work to continue the job, that Respondent had
hired additional pipefitters, welders, and helpers shortly
before the layoff of April 17, that they had been given
assurances by Respondent's supervisors and management
] It 'as stipulated by the parties that one of the other employees,
Steven Barrington, volunteered for the layoff The other employee, Scott
Matthews, "was not named as a discriminatee in the complaint
579
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representatives that there was a great deal of work to be
done, and that they had survived previous reduction of
force layoffs with the exception of Parker who was laid
off and subsequently rehired on April 3. They testified
that they had been complimented on their work. At the
time of the layoff on April 17, virtually all of the discri-
minatees were engaged in unfinished projects and a
major project of an underground 42-inch line was sched-
uled to commence the following week. In addition, a
new crew had been set up on April 7 and Ramos had
been returned to the position of foreman to lead that
crew. Robbins had been transferred back from the iron-
workers department to Ramos' crew only 2 days prior to
the layoff. Jordan was transferred back to Salter's crew
from the ironworkers on April 8. Furthermore, in early
April after the union meeting of April 1, Salter informed
several discriminatees that Respondent had a list of those
employees who had attended the union meeting of April
I and specifically named several of the discriminatees.
Roger Thompson had also spoken of the existence of a
list and told Williams that his name was on the top of the
list. Ramos testified that during the week of April 17 he
asked McNeill whether it was okay for him to join the
Union and McNeill said to "go ahead." Subsequently
that week Ramos inquired of McNeill whether there was
going to be a layoff and McNeill told him that a big
change was going to occur that week.' 2
Ramos testified that, on April 17, McNeill called all
the foremen into his office and announced the layoff.
Ramos testified that McNeill had a list similar to the one
he had been told about by Salter and that his and Rob-
bin's names were on the list. Ramos asked McNeill why
he was not put back to his tools as before rather than be
laid off and McNeill replied he could not help it as the
list came from Birmingham (the home office of Respond-
ent). Ramos testified he did not refuse to go back to his
tools. Ramos further testified that the normal practice
was for the foreman, rather than the general foreman, to
select the men for a layoff. Ramos informed Robbins of
the layoff. Hutcherson and Cobb were informed by
Roger Thompson that they were to be laid off. Cobb tes-
tified at the time of the layoff he was on the scaffold pre-
paring to make some welds and Roger Thompson called
him down and upon questioning by Cobb as to the
reason for the layoff initially said he was "out of work,"
and then said that he (Roger Thompson) had nothing to
do with the layoff as it had come from Birmingham.
Salter informed the members of his crew of the layoff.
Currenton testified that Salter walked up and said,
"[W]ell, they got most of you."
When the discriminatees received their termination
slips, each was marked fair on his job performance and
the slips were signed by McNeill. That evening Curren-
ton, Schachle, Bridwell, and Parker went to see McNeill
at his home and were informed he was coaching a ball-
game at a nearby ballfield. They went to see him at the
ballfield and McNeill and Roger Thompson were both at
the game which was in progress. The discriminatees tes-
tified that, when they inquired as to the reason for their
Iz The above is a composite of Ihe credited testimony of the discrimin-
atees.
layoff and their rating of fair, McNeill told them that the
list of the employees to be laid off had come from Bir-
mingham and he was told what to put on the termination
slips and he had nothing personally to do with the deci-
sion.
Respondent's witnesses McNeill, Fincher, and Ruff
denied knowledge of the union campaign. 13 Respond-
ent's witnesses testified that the layoff of April 17 was
normal and occasioned by a lack of engineering draw-
ings and blueprints and material and that the selection of
the men was made by General Foreman McNeill which
was normal under the circumstances. Ruff testified that
the job had been occasioned by several layoffs as a result
of the need for relocation of existing facilities and that
the majority of the pipework was not scheduled to com-
mence until the first of 1981. Ruff testified that two
major projects had been completed and there was no ma-
terial for the 42-inch underground pipe. He testified fur-
ther that he attended a Monday meeting conducted by
Planner and Scheduler McAlmond in the week of the
layoff and that McAlmond indicated to him that there
was not sufficient work for the number of men who
were employed and that he (Ruff) thereafter informed
Fincher that there would be a layoff. Ruff testified fur-
ther that he met Fincher and McNeill on Wednesday
afternoon, April 16, and that they recommended that 20
employees in the pipe department be laid off on that
Thursday afternoon but he reduced the number to 12.
Fincher and McNeill testified similarly concerning these
discussions. McAlmond testified that at the Monday
meeting (April 14) his schedule indicated that there was
not sufficient work for the number of men on the pro-
ject. Fincher and McNeill denied having told employees
that the jobs would be of considerable length.
As to the selection of the particular men for layoff,
Respondent's witnesses denied having any knowledge of
the existence of a list from Birmingham. McNeill ac-
knowledged that he had not consulted Roger Salter with
respect to his recommendations for which men to lay off
in his crew, although he considered Roger Salter as one
of his best foremen. McNeill testified that he selected the
men in Ramos' crew since the crew was to be disbanded.
McNeill and Fincher testified that Ramos refused to go
back to his tools but that he gave no reason and they did
not inquire further. McNeill stated that he did ask Roger
Thompson for his recommendation and that Roger
a3 I did not find McNeill, Fincher, or Ruff to be credible witnesses for
several reasons. Initially all three of these witnesses denied having any
knowledge of the existence of the union organizational campaign and
only admitted to having heard rumors of union activities. In the face of
the credited testimony of the discriminatees who testified to several inci-
dents of unlawful interrogation and threats by McNeill, Salter, and Roger
Thompson, I find the denials by Fincher, Ruff, and McNeill that they
even had knowledge of the Union's campaign to be unbelievable I also
found Ruff to be argumentative on the stand and his answers on cross-
examination to be unresponsive; I found Fincher's answers on cross-ex-
amination to be unresponsive. Additionally, McNeill's credibility was also
severely damaged by his testimony on the stand that Robbins was select-
ed for the layoff on April 17 because he (McNeill) had been told by Iron-
workers Superintendent McCue that Robbins would not climb and his
subsequent admission on cross-examination that he had never been told
this by McCue after the General Counsel confronted him with his state-
ment in his affidavit that McCue had never told him Robbins would not
climb.
580
B.E. & K., INC
Thompson gave him his recommendation of Cobb and
Hutcherson for layoff and that these happened to coin-
cide with the recommendations that he himself was
making for layoffs from Thompson's crew. McNeill testi-
fied on cross-examination that he rated all the discrimina-
tees fair because the job had been slowing down and he
would want to talk to them prior to rehiring them. He
also acknowledged the slowdown might have resulted
from the fault of management as much as the men. He
acknowledged that he had not consulted with any of the
men or advised them of any failure of performance on
their part. Thompson testified that he told McNeill that
he would be losing some good men from his crew by
reason of the layoff. He would have rated Hutcherson as
good and Cobb as fair on their job performance. Fincher
acknowledged on cross-examination that Salter's crew
was the most efficient crew on the job at the time of the
layoff. Fincher and Ruff both testified that fair would
mean at least the men would have to be talked to prior
to coming back to work, and that excellent or good
would mean that they would automatically be eligible
for rehire. McNeill and Thompson also acknowledged
that the four employees came to the ballgame in progress
the evening of April 17 and inquired as to why they had
been laid off and rated fair, but testified that McNeill had
told them that he was busy with the ballgame and did
not have time to talk to them. Both denied that McNeill
had told them that the layoff and the marking of their
performance as fair was a result of a list or instructions
that had come from Birmingham.
I credit the testimony of the discriminatees regarding
the layoffs of April 17 as set out above. I find that Re-
spondent engaged in an unlawful campaign against the
Union's organizational efforts through unlawful interro-
gation and threats of its employees concerning their
union activities and that Respondent compiled a list of
union supporters and utilized that list to select them for
the layoff of April 17 which layoff I find was pretextual
and was not justified by economic or business reasons.
There were numerous incidents of demonstrated union
animus on the part of Respondent including acts of inter-
rogation, threats, and instructions to its foremen to termi-
nate union supporters. I conclude that the April 17 layoff
was not justified by economic considerations for several
reasons in addition to the demonstrated union animus on
the part of Respondent. The hiring of new employees
shortly prior to the layoff of discriminatees, the transfer
of Robbins and Jordan back to the pipe department, the
makeup of a new crew to be headed by Ramos as fore-
man on April 7, the instructions to Ramos concerning
new work to be performed, and the numerous assurances
to the discriminatees that there was a great deal of work
available are all actions taken by Respondent which are
simply inconsistent with an impending layoff. I do not
find Respondent's exhibits with respect to a shortage of
engineering drawings, blueprints, and material to be de-
terminative in this case. I find that the marking of all of
the discriminatees as fair on their job performances in-
cluding Parker who had previously been marked as good
in a prior layoff is further evidence of Respondent's
intent to assure that the discriminatees were not rehired
as borne out by the additional hire of a number of new
employees in the pipe department subsequent to the
April 17 layoff with the rehire of only Schachle and
Jordan.
I find that under the rationale of the Board's decision
in Wright Line, a Division of Wright Line. Inc., 251
NLRB 1083 (1980), the General Counsel has made a
prima facie case of violations of the Act by reason of the
April 17 layoffs and the refusal to reinstate the discrimin-
atees and that Respondent has failed to rebut this case by
a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, I find
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act by the April 17 layoff and discharge of the nine non-
supervisory discriminatees.
With respect to the layoff of Foreman Ramos, Ramos
testified that he filed an application to join the Union
either the end of March or the first of April at a time
when he was a rank-and-file employee, that he communi-
cated his interest in the Union to other employees, and
that he was informed by Salter at the end of March or
the first of April while a rank-and-file employee that
McNeill had a list of employees who belonged to the
Union and that Ramos' name was on the list. On April 7
(10 days prior to the layoff of April 17) a new crew was
made up and Ramos was again selected to become a
foreman. At this time he was told by Fincher that there
was a great deal of work to be performed and that his
crew was to finish the work at the digester and that his
crew would be assigned to the 42-inch underground pipe
job when it began. Ramos testified that there was an-
other month of work left for his crew to do on the di-
gester and the necessary materials and fittings were
available to complete this job as of the date of the layoff.
Ramos testified that, when he and the other foremen
were called to McNeill's and Fincher's office on April
17, he was shown a list of people to be laid off by
McNeill which included his name and that of Robbins
from his crew whereas a recently hired employee in
Ramos' crew was not laid off. When Ramos inquired as
to why he was not permitted to return to his tools as a
rank-and-file employee as before, he was told by McNeill
that the list had came from Birmingham. Ramos testified
that he had previously been complimented on his work.
His job performance was also marked as fair on his ter-
mination form by McNeill. I credit the testimony of
Ramos over that of Respondent's witnesses including
McNeill and Fincher who testified he refused to return
to his tools but that they did not inquire further.
Accordingly, I conclude that the makeup of Ramos'
crew, his selection as foreman, his subsequent discharge
from his supervisory position from a list made up by Re-
spondent of known union supporters without being given
the opportunity to return to his rank-and-file position as
he had previously, and the marking of his job perform-
ance as fair on his termination form were part of an
overall scheme by Respondent to rid itself of all union
adherents and constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. See Nevis Industries. Inc., d/b/a Fresno Towne-
house, 246 NLRB 1053 (1979), and B. E. & K., Inc., 252
NLRB 256 (1980), cited by counsel for the General
Counsel which I find are directly in point.
5R81
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I also find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act by refusing to permit Ramos to return to his
rank-and-file position. Respondent had work available for
Ramos on April 17 but he was nevertheless denied the
opportunity to return to his rank-and-file position as a
result of his having applied for union membership while
a rank-and-file employee. The desire of Respondent to
rid itself of Ramos based on his union activity engaged in
as a rank-and-file member is demonstrated by its upgrad-
ing him to a foreman's position on April 7 and then dis-
charging him with an unexplained rating of fair by
McNeill on April 17. This is particularly evident in view
of his having been identified by Respondent as a union
supporter. Although the General Counsel alleged and
argued only an 8(a)(1) violation with respect to Ramos, I
find the facts of the 8(a)(3) violation to be intertwined
with those which give rise to the 8(a)(l) violation. See
Carbonex Coal Company, 248 NLRB 779 (1980).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR I.ABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of Respondent as found
herein, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent as found in section I have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to dis-
putes burdening and obstructing the flow of commerce.
CONCL USIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, B.E. & K., Inc., is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry, Local No. 366,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By coercively interrogating its employees concern-
ing their union activities and the union activities of other
employees, by threatening them that it would close
down the St. Regis Paper Company project if they se-
lected the Union to represent them, and by threatening
its employees with discharge if they engaged in union ac-
tivities, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act.
4. By discharging and thereafter failing and refusing to
reinstate its employees David Bridwell, Raymond E.
Cobb, James G. Currenton, Elbie M. Hutcherson, Joe
Jordan, Jr., James P. Parker, Mitchell W. Robbins, Paul
F. Schachle, and Chester Williams, Jr.; by refusing to
permit Eduardo Ramos to return to a nonsupervisory
job; and by designating their job performance as fair on
their termination forms, Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. By discharging and thereafter failing and refusing to
reinstate its employee Eduardo Ramos, a foreman and a
supervisory employee under the Act, and by designating
his job performance as fair on his termination form, Re-
spondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has committed acts in
violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act, it shall be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and from any
other unlawful activity and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Ac-
cordingly, I recommend that Respondent be required to
post the appropriate informational notice to employees in
appropriate places in the pipe department and in any
area under Respondent's control on the St. Regis project
in Cantonment, Florida, where employees of the pipe de-
partment may report to work and I recommend the rein-
statement of all unlawfully discharged employees, includ-
ing supervisory employee Eduardo Ramos and that Re-
spondent make them whole for losses due to discrimina-
tion against them and cease and desist from any other
unfair labor practices. All loss of earnings and other
benefits due under this Order shall be computed with in-
terest in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716 (1962), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record in this case and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I issue the following recom-
mended:
ORDER 1 4
The Respondent, B.E. & K., Inc., Cantonment, Flor-
ida, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning
their union activities and the union activities of other em-
ployees.
(b) Threatening its employees with discharge, loss of
jobs, or a shutdown of its project at the St. Regis Paper
Company in Cantonment, Florida, in order to discourage
their support of the United Association of Journeymen
and Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Indus-
try, Local No. 366, or any other labor organization.
(c) Discouraging membership in a labor organization
by discharging or refusing to reinstate in a timely fashion
or reinstate at all or otherwise discriminating against em-
ployees in their hire and tenure.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them under SectIon 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the purposes and policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to David Bridwell, Raymond E. Cobb, James
G. Currenton, Elbie M. Hutcherson, Joe Jordan, Jr.,
James P. Parker, Eduardo Ramos, Mitchell W. Robbins,
Paul F. Schachle, and Chester Williams, Jr., immediate
and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if
those positions are no longer available, to substantially
'4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
582
B.E. & K., INC.
equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority
and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed. '
(b) Make the employees named above in section (a)
whole for any loss of pay or any other benefits they
have sustained by reason of the discrimination against
them in the manner set forth in this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(c) 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 recommended Order.
(d) Post copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix" 16 on all bulletin boards and meeting places and
work headquarters of the pipe department of the B.E. &
K. portion of the St. Regis Paper Company project.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Hi Ramos is to be reinstated to his former supervisory position in the
event the Board agrees with the finding of an 8(a)(1) violation or to his
rank-and-file position in the event the Board agrees only with a finding of
an 8(aX3) violation
16 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in this notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board"
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPI.OYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity to
present evidence and state their positions, the National
Labor Relations Board found that we have violated the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has or-
dered us to post this notice.
The Act gives employees the following rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choice
To engage in activities together for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection
To refrain from the exercise of any or all such
activities.
WI Wil. NOT discharge employees because of
their union activities.
WE WIL.L NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge, loss of job, loss of benefits, or other repri-
sals because of their union activities, membership,
or support.
WE WIl. NOT threaten to close down our oper-
ations at the St. Regis Paper Company project in
Cantonment, Florida, to prevent union activities
among our employees.
WE Wll.L NOT coercively interrogate employees
concerning their union membership, activities, or
support.
WE WILL. NOT discourage membership or activi-
ties on behalf of the United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fit-
ting Industry, Local No. 366, or any other labor or-
ganization by discharging employees or discriminat-
ing against them in their hire and tenure.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
WE wiL.I offer David Bridwell, Raymond E.
Cobb, James G. Currenton, Elbie M. Hutcherson,
Joe Jordan, Jr., James P. Parker, Eduardo Ramos,
Mitchell W. Robbins, Paul F. Schachle, and Chester
Williams, Jr., immediate and full reinstatement to
their former positions, or, if those positions no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions
without loss of seniority and other rights and privi-
leges previously enjoyed.
WE WIL.L make whole the employees named
above for any loss of pay or other benefits sustained
by them by reason of our discrimination against
them, with interest upon any moneys due them.
B.E. & K., INC.
583