Bechtel Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 17, 1980

248 N.L.R.B. 1222 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

1222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bechtel Incorporated and James L. Evans. Case 19-
CA-10715
April 17, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBER
PENELLO AND TRUESDALE
On April 3, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Richard J. Boyce issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in opposition to Respondent's
exceptions.
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 only to the extent consistent herewith.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
when it issued disciplinary warnings to employees
James Evans, Benjamin Blanchard, Curtis Tveit,
and Robert Worley and subsequently discharged
them for failing to comply with Respondent's work
rules and for refusing to sign warning slips. We do
not agree.
The pertinent facts are as follows: Respondent is
a general contractor engaged in construction at an
oil refinery project in Cherry Point, Washington.
During a prejob conference' on February 1, 1978,2
Norman Lanemann, Respondent's regional labor
relations manager, announced the work rules appli-
cable to all crafts on the construction project. One
of these work rules stated that employees were to
be at their "tool box or physical location of work
task" at the 7:30 a.m. starting time. Following the
prejob conference, Respondent sent copies of the
minutes of the conference, including copies of the
announced work rules, to all those who had attend-
ed. The accompanying cover letter stated that if
Respondent was not notified within 2 weeks of any
exceptions to the minutes, the minutes would be
considered correct. Although there is evidence that
the Whatcom County Building Trades Council ar-
ranged a followup meeting with Respondent on
March 28 and that at that meeting the schedule for
work whistles and work hours was discussed, there
The prejob conference was attended by officials of Respondent and
representatives of the various crafts on the project, known collectively as
the Whatcom County Building Trades Council.
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates herein refer to 1978X.
248 NLRB No. 158
is no evidence that employee placement at starting
time was discussed. At this meeting, however, the
Whatcom County Building Trades Council's repre-
sentative stated that the unions would "go along"
with the existing whistle system, provided that the
subject could be raised again if they felt it was
unfair.
Meanwhile, in mid-March, Respondent began
hiring electricians for its project through the
IBEW Local 191 hiring hall. Each electrician hired
by Respondent, like every other new employee,
signed an acknowledgment that he had received a
copy of Respondent's work rules. Soon thereafter,
a dispute arose between Respondent and the IBEW
over where the electricians were to be on the pro-
ject at the 7:30 a.m. starting time. Respondent con-
tended that, in accord with the work rules read by
Lanemann at the prejob conference, the electri-
cians were to be at the "tool box or physical loca-
tion of work task" at the starting time, and the
IBEW took the position that the electricians were
only required to be out of the change shack ready
to go to work.
Some time after the followup March 28 meeting
between the Whatcom County Building Trades
Council and Respondent, six of the seven electri-
cians at the project, including the four dischargees,
began the practice of staying in the change shack
each morning, syncronizing their watches, and then
at 30 seconds before the 7:30 a.m. starting time,
proceeding in a group to the foreman's shack to re-
ceive their assignments. The walk from the change
shack to the foreman's shack took about 20 sec-
onds. Despite almost daily verbal warnings from
their foreman, Ralph Haines, that they were not
complying with Respondent's work rule on em-
ployee location at starting time, the electricians
persisted in this practice. In response to the verbal
warnings, the electricians asserted that, under area
practice and their contract, 3 they were required
only to be outside the change shack, ready to go to
work, at the 7:30 a.m. starting time.
On June 26, during a labor-management meeting
concerning matters not relevant here, Respondent's
senior labor relations representative, Edward
Hearne, told Local 191's business representative,
Alfred Youngblood, that Local 191 was "putting
its members in a position where they were going to
get fired for violating the work rules." Hearne and
Respondent's project site manager, Tom Rowe,
urged Local 191 to grieve the issue if there was a
problem. Rowe also told Youngblood that if Local
3 The contract to which the electricians were referring is an agreement
between Local 191 and the Cascade Chapter of the National Electrical
Contractors Association, which does not specify where employees are to
be at starting time. Respondent is not a signatory to this agreement, but is
bound to it by virtue of its contract with the IBEW International Union.
BECHTEL INCORPORATED 1223
191 adhered to its position without grieving the
issue, it "could result in termination."
On June 28, Hearne telephoned IBEW's district
representative, E. D. Cokeley, and Local 191's
business representative, Boyd McElroy, and
warned them that "if the electricians continued to
violate the work rules and report to work late and
quit early, they were going to be fired." The fol-
lowing morning, the electricians were not at their
"tool box or physical location of work task" at
starting time. Shortly before the 11:30 a.m. lunch-
break, the electricians were observed by Respon-
dent's officials congregating near what was known
as the prefab area. Shortly before the 3:55 quitting
whistle Respondent's officials again observed elec-
tricians congregating in the prefab area.
The next morning Haines informed John Norton,
Respondent's electrical superintendent, that the
four dischargees 4 were in the prefab area prior to
the quitting whistle. Norton prepared warning slips
for the four individuals which cited "early quit" as
the offense. Norton and Haines presented the warn-
ing slips to the four electricians, who refused to
sign them. Norton reported the four employees' re-
fusal to sign the slips to Rowe and Respondent's
field representative, George Hare. Subsequently,
Norton delivered termination slips to the employ-
ees which cited, as grounds for the discharges, the
"early quit" on June 29 and the refusal to sign the
warning slips on June 30.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
because the four electricians were discharged for
engaging in union and protected concerted activity.
For the reasons set forth below, we do not agree
with the Administrative Law Judge, and find that
Respondent's issuance of the warning and dis-
charges was not in violation of the Act.
In finding the violations, the Administrative Law
Judge concluded that there had been no "satisfac-
tory showing" that the Union's position and the
employees' activities in support thereof were such
as to be outside the protection of the Act. While
employee attempts to implement the terms of a col-
lective-bargaining agreement are protected under
the Act, the protection afforded such conduct by
the Act is not absolute. In our view the employees'
activity herein constituted deliberate defiance and
disregard for supervision and for Respondent's
work rules and, therefore, was clearly beyond the
scope of the Act's protection. Thus, these employ-
ees were not merely voicing or attempting to regis-
ter complaints to Respondent concerning the work
4 Haines also gave Norton the name of electrician Bill Converse, who
also was in the prefab area prior to the quitting whistle on June 29. Re-
spondent's officials were aware, however, that Converse was assigned to
work in that area on the afternoon of June 29
rules. Rather, they were engaged in action, repeat-
ed daily, which was contrary to the express
instructions of their supervisors and contrary to the
work rules which they admittedly had received.
Furthermore, neither the employees nor the Union
evidenced any interest in peaceful dispute resolu-
tion which was available under the collective-bar-
gaining agreement. Indeed, as found by the Admin-
istrative Law Judge, when Respondent, 2 days
prior to the discharges, urged the Union to grieve
the work rule dispute, the Union's representative
"scorned that idea and declared that the electri-
cians would not go beyond the change shack door
before starting time." Thus, it is clear that the em-
ployees and the Union, eschewing the grievance
machinery in the collective-bargaining agreements,
took the problem into their own hands and resort-
ed to self-help in an attempt to establish and
impose their own chosen terms and conditions of
employment. Such cnduct has not been accorded
the protection of the Act. 5
Furthermore, we cannot agree with the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's conclusion that Respondent's
conduct was unlawfully motivated because it was
designed solely to escalate its dispute with the
Union. Whatever the significance of such a conclu-
sion in some other context, here there is no evi-
dence that Respondent generally was opposed to
collective bargaining with the Union or to its em-
ployees' union activities. Nor were Respondent's
work rules alleged or shown to be antiunion in
scope, substance, or motivation. Furthermore, al-
though as of the time of the discharges the employ-
ees' conduct with respect to the starting time had
continued for some 3 months, Respondent had not
acquiesced in such conduct but rather had warned
the employees repeatedly that they were not in
compliance with the work rule concerning the
starting time. Indeed, shortly before the discharges,
Respondent advised the union officials that the em-
ployees' continued disregard for its work rules
would result in termination and, as noted above,
urged the Union to grieve the issue of the work
rules. Finally, Respondent's issuance of the warn-
ing slips and the subsequent discharges were preci-
pitated by what Respondent considered to be viola-
tions of the work rules by the electricians three
times in a single day. In our view, these facts,
coupled with the restraint exercised by Respondent
previously, are totally inconsistent with a finding
that Respondent's actions were unlawfully motivat-
ed.
In sum, the employees were attempting simulta-
neously to remain on the job and to determine for
5 See Riviera Manufacturing Co., 167 NLRB 772, 775 (1967); Tech-
Craft. Inc., 152 NLRB 1508 (1965).
BECHTEL INCORPORTE
1224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
themselves the terms and conditions of their em-
ployment. In so doing, they eschewed the available
contractual grievance process and refused to obey
direct orders of supervisors that they comply with
the work rules. Lawful discipline, in the form of
written warnings, and discharges followed. 6 Ac-
cordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint in its en-
tirety. 7
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the complaint
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
6 In our view, the employees' refusal to sign their warning slips does
not constitute protected activity in the circumstances here. There is no
evidence that the employees, after such a lengthy disregard for the griev-
ance process, expressly sought to invoke the process, nor has it been
shown that the refusal to sign was intended to be the initial "step" in the
grievance process. The facts here demonstrate that the employees' refusal
to sign was merely in support of, and inseparable from, their prior insub-
ordinate conduct. Cf. Pacific Coast Utilities Service, Inc., 238 NLRB No.
82 (1978). See also Hanover Industries, Inc., 246 NLRB No. 105 (1979).
7 See Jos. Schlitz Brewing Company, 240 NLRB No. 100 (1979). See
also Chevron Chemical Company, 191 NLRB 292 (1971); Tech-Craft, Inc.,
supra.
DECISION
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD J. BOYCE, Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard before me in Bellingham, Washington,
on February 1, 1979. The charge was filed on September
1, 1978, by James Evans, acting in his individual capac-
ity. The complaint issued on October 27, 1978, was
amended on December 12, and alleges that Bechtel In-
corporated herein called (Respondent) has violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a Nevada corporation, is a general con-
tractor in the construction industry. Its annual gross
income exceeds $500,000, and it annually causes goods
and materials of a value exceeding $50,000 to be shipped
across state lines.
Respondent is an employer engaged in and affecting
commerce within Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
III. LABOR ORGANIZATION
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 191, AFL-CIO (herein called IBEW Local 191) is
a labor organization within Section 2(5) of the Act.
IV. ISSUES
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) by issuing written warnings to and
then discharging Benjamin Blanchard, James Evans,
Curtis Tveit, and Robert Worley on June 30, 1978. The
answer denies any wrongdoing.
V. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
Respondent is engaged in the construction of a coke
calciner at an Atlantic Richfield oil refinery in Cherry
Point, Washington.' The project, which began in Febru-
ary 1978, is scheduled for completion in October 1979,
and involves 10 construction crafts, including electri-
cians.
On February 1, 1978, a prejob conference was held be-
tween officials of Respondent and of the several craft
unions that would be representing employees on the pro-
ject. Norman Lanemann, Respondent's regional labor re-
lations manager, presided. Others there for Respondent
included Tom Rowe, project site manager, and George
Hare, field superintendent. Among the union officials
present were E. D. Cokeley, IBEW district representa-
tive, and two business representatives of IBEW Local
191, Boyd McElroy and Alfred Youngblood.
Regarding hours of work, the minutes of the confer-
ence reflect Lanemann's announcing:
[A]ll employees will be at their work location at
7:30 a.m. and again at 12:00 Noon and will work
until the authorized quitting time at both the lunch
break and shift end. Allowances will be made to
pick up tools at quitting time. Loitering in the
change houses or other late starting and early quit-
ting habits will be subject to disciplinary action.
Whistle will be at: Start: 7:30 a.m., Lunch: 11:30
a.m. and 12:00 Noon; Tool Pickup: 3:50 p.m.; Quit-
ting: 3:55 p.m.; Gate Check Out Time: 4:00 p.m.
The minutes disclose that Lanemann "then read the job
work rules which will be applied to all crafts working on
the project." Those rules state in relevant part:
WORKING HOURS: 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. with
one-half hour lunch break. All employees are re-
quired to be at their work location (tool box or phys-
ical location of work task, by 7:30 a.m. and 12:00
Noon and will work until the authorized quitting
time at the end of the shift. Loitering in the change
house or other areas during working hours, or
ganging up prior to quitting time, will be cause for
termination. [Emphasis supplied.] 2
The minutes indicate, finally, that Lanemann and Rowe
"both commented that if the starting and quitting times
caused any problems, they would call a meeting of the
Building Trades to discuss the problem." 3
A coke calciner converts "green" coke to a purer form.
2 Rowe testified that this provision is modeled after a clause in the
Work Rules Agreement between the National Constructors Association
and the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO. That
clause states:
Workmen shall be at their place of work at the starting time and
shall remain at their place of work performing their assigned func-
tions . . . until quitting time. The parties reaffirm their policy of a
fair day's work for a fair day's wage.
3 The standard IBEW labor agreement for the area, to which Respon-
dent is bound by virtue of an agreement with the IBEW International,
states that a "normal workday" is to run from 8:00 to 4:30, with lunch
Continued
BECHTEL INCORPORATED 1225
Meanwhile, in about mid-March, Respondent began
hiring electricians for the project, using the hiring hall of
IBEW Local 191. The Company and IBEW promptly
began wrangling over employee whereabouts at the 7:30
starting time. Respondent contended, in keeping with the
parenthesized and underscored portion of the work rules
read by Lanemann at the prejob conference, that they
were to be at the "tool box or physical location of work
task." The IBEW countered, citing the undoubted area
practice, that they need only be out of the change shack,
ready to go to work.
The quarrel gained impetus on April 3, when one of
the four later to be warned and discharged, Blanchard,
was given a warning slip for not being at his assigned
work place at 7:30. Blanchard protested to Ralph Haines,
Respondent's general foreman, that he had been in com-
pliance with the area practice, and that his getting the
warning "was a crock." Haines did not dispute the area
practice, instead citing company policy to the contrary.
Respondent's crew of electricians eventually grew to
seven. Six of the seven-including the four later to be
warned and discharged-developed the practice each
morning of staying in the change shack until about 30
seconds to 7:30, synchronizing their watches with a 7:25
"alert whistle" to be certain of their timing, 4 and then
proceeding in a group to the foremen's shack to receive
their assignments. This was a walk of about 20 seconds.
The electricians adopted this procedure, seemingly, in an
effort to strike a balance between the rival contentions of
Respondent and their union.5
The result, as Rowe recalled, was that "the electri-
cians . . . continually appeared to be significantly later
than the other crafts in coming out of the building
[change shack] and being in their respective assigned
work area."6 Hare, regarding the electricians as being
consistently "a minute or two" late, frequently spoke to
the electrical superintendent, John Norton, about the sit-
uation, and Norton repeatedly spoke to Haines. Haines in
turn complained to Evans, as IBEW's project steward, at
least "a couple times a week." Haines mentioned to
Evans at one point that he was "tired of" the situation,
and "of having [my] ass chewed out constantly" over it.
Despite all, no formal warnings issued, except for Blan-
chard's of April 3.
The dispute reached new levels of intensity on June
26, following a labor-management meeting over matters
not here relevant. Hare accused Youngblood of provok-
ing the members "to go against the 7:30 starting time,"
and of "inciting the people to be a little militant and not
go along with" Respondent's policy. Rowe and Edward
Hearne, a senior labor relations representative for Re-
from 12 to 12:30, unless changed "by mutual consent." It does not specify
where employees are to be at starting and quitting times.
4 Shortly after the March 28 meeting, Respondent instituted a 7:25
"alert whistle" in lieu of the 7:30 starting whistle.
5 When Evans, one of the eventual dischargees, was referred to the job
and asked if he would consider serving as steward, McElroy explained
the starting time dispute to him and recommended that the electricians
"try to conform to the contract as best [they] can without getting into a
problem, and give them time to get the problem solved."
6 The other crafts generally left the change shack when the 7:25 whis-
tle blew
spondent, urged that the Union grieve the issue.7 Coke-
ley scorned that idea and declared that the electricians
would not go beyond the change shack door before
starting time. Hearne replied that the IBEW "was put-
ting the members in a position where they were going to
get fired by violating the work rules." Rowe, echoing
Hearne, stated that, if the IBEW adhered to its position,
without grieving, it "could result in termination." This
exchange, by all accounts, was "heated."
On June 28, "concerned as to the outburst that took
place" on the 26th, and deeming it essential that Respon-
dent "clearly establish [its] rights within the agreements,"
Rowe asked that Hearne seek a solution through the in-
tercession of higher level IBEW officials. Rowe told
Hearne that the situation was "going to hell in a hand-
basket." Hearne called Lanemann, who suggested that he
appeal to Cokeley to "go along with" the other crafts on
the project until the dispute could be peaceably settled.
Hearne accordingly called not only Cokeley, but McEI-
roy. Receiving no satisfaction, Hearne cautioned both
that "if the electricians continued to violate the work
rules and report to work late and quit early they were
going to be fired."
On the morning of June 29, according to Rowe, he
and Hare observed that the electricians "had a very late
start . . . coming out of the change shack approximately
a minute after what we considered to be the starting
time." Rowe consequently directed Hare to meet with
Haines "and determine what the problem was." The
record does not indicate what followed.
Later that same morning, in furtherance of the IBEW
position in the on-going dispute, McElroy and Youngb-
lood visited the project to clock the time needed to walk
from the change house to the perimeter of the work
area, and from the perimeter to the parking lot. After
doing that, they talked to Evans, as steward, about the
matter; and the three of them spoke with Blanchard and
another electrician, Bill Converse, who were working in
the prefab area. Rowe and Hare saw this assemblage
about 11:15, which was 15 minutes before the scheduled
lunch break. It "appeared to be suspicious," in Rowe's
view-"an organized early quit." He described himself as
"quite distraught."
Rowe again directed Hare to check with Haines, to
find out "if it was an authorized situation or an unautho-
rized situation." Hare told Haines "to go take care of it."
Haines approached the group and asked that they "step
inside" to continue their discussion, explaining that man-
agement "seems to think" there is a union meeting when-
ever there is "a group of three or four men." Haines re-
ported back to Hare that he had warned the group and
that it "would not happen again." Although aware that
McElroy and Youngblood were on the site, Hare pro-
fessedly did not know that they were part of this gather-
ing. After McElroy and Youngblood left the site, how-
' The prevailing labor agreement contains a grievance/arbitration pro-
cedure, and provides for maintenance of the status quo pending settle-
ment or ruling to the contrary.
BECHTEL INCORPORATED
1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ever, Haines reported to Evans that Hare had said he
would never again permit them to the premises. 8
At 3:40 on the 29th-i.e., 10 minutes before the em-
ployees were to leave their work stations-Rowe asser-
tedly saw "a gathering of people," two sitting and two
standing, in the prefab area. He testified that, while he
could not recognize any of them, he knew they were
electricians because each had a blue stripe on his hard
hat. Similarly, Norton testified that he saw four or five
electricians "sitting around" in the prefab area at 3:45,
and Haines testified that he saw five or six there at that
time; and both testified, as had Rowe, that they were
unable to make individual identifications.
Rowe testified that he "was concerned" about what he
had seen-" I felt I had to react to the situation." He
continued that, at 3:43 or 3:44, he instructed Haines to
find out which employees were away from their assigned
work areas; and to give their names to Norton the next
morning so that warning slips could be issued. Haines re-
called that Rowe also instructed him to tell those gath-
ered that "if they didn't like it there [on the project], not
to come back in the morning."
With that, Haines returned to the prefab area and as-
certained the identity of those there as they left to go to
the change shack. They were the four later warned and
discharged, plus Converse, who had been working in the
area all day.9 Although conceding that "people come in
and out of prefab gathering up stuff," the implication
being that an electrician might have legitimate business
there whether or not assigned a task in the area, Haines
did not bother to ask the four why they had been there.
He explained that the whistle by then had blown and
they "were on their own time."' °
The next morning, June 30, before the start of the
shift, Haines gave Norton the names of Blanchard,
8 Testimony concerning when McElroy and Youngblood were on the
premises is confused. A gate log maintained by Respondent, which
doubtless is the best evidence, reveals that they entered at 10:34 and left
at 11:37.
9 Blanchard, who worked with Converse in the prefab area that morn-
ing, had been assigned elsewhere in the afternoon.
10 That it was after 3:50 by the time of Haines' return to the prefab
area to ascertain identities would indicate that it was well after 3:43 or
3:44 when Rowe instructed him to do so, and that Respondent's officials
perhaps exaggerated the prematurity of the employee gathering general-
ly. It nevertheless appears, even from the employees' testimony, that they
were in the prefab area ahead of the 3:50 whistle, albeit reasonably and
with innocence of purpose.
Blanchard testified that he ran out of things to do well ahead of time,
and so whiled away 10 to 15 minutes in the prefab area before the whis-
tle. The remaining three testified that they got there about 3:48. Evans
and Tveit credibly testified that they had worked together that day, using
a company pickup truck, and that they were under orders to have it
cleaned up and returned to the project office by 3:50, to enable some of
Respondent's staff to commute home in it. They and Worley credibly tes-
tified that, on their way in with the truck, they loaded up a jackhammer,
ladders, and hoses that Worley had been using that day, to return them
to overnight storage.
After that, according to Worley's believable testimony, Haines told
him to repair some extension cords at the warehouse, which was some
distance away. Because it was then almost 3:50, Worley continued, he as-
sumed Haines to be making the next day's assignment, and so went to the
prefab area to await the whistle. Respondent's contention that Worley
was insubordinate by failing then to carry out Haines' assignment is re-
jected as contrary to the probabilities of the situation. Beyond that, it
smacks of self-serving afterthought, Haines having testified that he could
not remeber if he made such an assignment to Worley that afternoon.
Evans, Tveit, and Worley. Norton prepared warning
slips for them, which he reviewed with Hare. During
this time, he and Hare discussed what Respondent should
do if the employees refused to sign their slips. Hare de-
creed discharge. The slips, after being approved by Hare,
were given to Haines for issuance. Haines, accompanied
by Norton, showed them to the four at the start of the
shift and asked that they sign. Each slip cited "early
quit" as the offense, giving 3:45 as the time. The four re-
fused to sign, objecting to the stated time.
Norton, "pretty much" knowing that this would lead
to discharge because of his earlier conversation with
Hare, promptly reported the refusal to Rowe and Hare,
taking blank termination notices with him. Hare directed
him to fire the four. All presently were told of that deci-
sion, and all but Evans left the payroll that day. Evans
remained until July 5, his steward's status requiring 48
hours' notice under the union contract. The termination
notices cited as grounds the "early quit" on the 29th and
the refusal to sign the warning slips. The four were not
warned, when refusing to sign, that discharge might
result.
Hare testified, consistently with the termination no-
tices, that the four were discharged "because they quit
early and they refused to sign the . . . warning sheet."
They would not have been discharged, he stated, but for
their refusal to sign slips, which he regarded as insubor-
dination. I I
Rowe, who claimed to have shared the discharge deci-
sion with Hare, testified that his motivation was "two
part." One factor was the "early quit incident," which he
saw as the third infraction on the 29th "of a similar
nature." '2 The other factor, Rowe went on, was his feel-
ing, based on the "outburst" after the June 26 meeting,
that the IBEW "was encouraging the members on the
job to create a situation of their own notion of the start-
ing and quitting times that we had specific rules govern-
ing," and that lesser measures-"talking to people"-
were not solving the problem. In a memorandum to Lan-
demann dated June 30, Rowe stated that the employees'
refusal to sign the warning slips also influenced his deci-
sion.
B. Conclusions
It is concluded, in agreement with the General Coun-
sel, that the issuance of the warning slips and the subse-
quent discharges violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) as al-
leged.
That Respondent was approaching a flash-point in its
dealings with the Union is evident from the events imme-
diately preceding these actions. Thus, on June 26, Hare
accused Youngblood of "inciting the people to be a little
militant and not go along with" Respondent's policy, and
both Hearne and Rowe raised the prospect of discharges
11 Hare testified that Blanchard would have been fired even if he had
signed, because of the prior warning against him, only to concede that
the earlier warning had not come to mind when the discharge decision
was made. Respondent's work rules provide for discharge on the second
instance of "late starts, early quits."
12 The other two infractions, in Rowe's eyes being the "very late
start" that morning and the "organized early quit" before the lunch
break
BECHTEL INCORPORATED 1227
unless the union stance was softened. Then, on the 28th,
still reacting to "the outburst" on the 26th, Rowe told
Hearne that the situation was "going to hell in a hand-
basket"; and that it was necessary that Respondent
"clearly establish [its] rights within the agreements."
Hearne in turn warned Cokeley and McElroy that "if
the electricians continued to violate the work rules and
report to work late and quit early they were going to be
fired."
The very next day, Rowe chose to view the electri-
cians as having "a very late start" in the morning; as par-
ticipating in "an organized early quit" when three of
them conferred with McElroy and Youngblood before
lunch; and as leaving their work areas so prematurely in
the afternoon that "I felt I had to react to the situation."
Rowe instructed Haines, moreover, to tell those in the
prefab area that "if they didn't like it there, not to come
back in the morning"; and Hare apparently told Haines,
after McElroy and Youngblood had left the site that day,
that he would never again permit them on the premises.
All of this-Respondent's frustration with the Union
and its members, the discharge threats, and Rowe's ea-
gerness to depict the employees' June 29 conduct ad-
versely based on only token investigation (if that), coup-
led with Rowe's earlier professed "common sense" ap-
proach to leaving work areas before the 3:50 whistle and
the doubtful seriousness of the so-called early quits on
the 29th-compels the conclusion that the warning slips
were issued and the discharges effected in calculated es-
calation of the conflict with the Union. Rowe admitted
as much concerning the discharges, testifying that a
factor in the decision was his feeling, derived from the
June 26 "outburst," that the Union "was encouraging its
members on the job to create a situation" regarding start-
ing and quitting times, and that lesser measures were not
solving the problem. It follows that the warnings and the
discharges violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3). 3
Even had the warnings not been unlawful, the four
employees' refusal to sign was a concerted activity in
connection with their terms and conditions of employ-
ment, and thus was protected by the Act. The dis-
charges, if not triggered because of that refusal, therefore
violated Section 8(a)(l) in any event. And, even if the
discharges truly and solely were motivated by the refusal
to sign, they were no less unlawful than the warnings
from which they flowed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. By issuing disciplinary warnings to Benjamin Blan-
chard, James Evans, Curtis Tveit, and Robert Worley on
June 30, 1978, and by subsequently discharging them, as
found herein, Respondent in each instance violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
2. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
13 There has been no satisfactory showing that the Union's position
and its and the employees' activities in aid of that position were such as
to be outside the customary protection of the Act.
BECHTEL INCORPORATED 227