Foster Wheeler Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 14, 1971

189 N.L.R.B. 747 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

FOSTER WHEELER CORP. 747
Foster Wheeler Corporation and Earl J. Lude and
Joseph Fender . Cases 6-CA-5045-1 and
6-CA-5045-2
April 14, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On November 24, 1970, Trial Examiner George
Turitz issued his Decision in the above-entitled cases,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
Respondent, Foster Wheeler Corporation, Cresap,
West Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order.'
I In footnote 10 of the Trial Examiner's Decision , substitute "20" for
"10" days.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE TuRITZ, Trial Examiner: Upon charges filed by
Earl J. Lude (Lude) in Case 6-CA-5045-1, and by Joseph
Fender (Fender) in Case 6-CA-5045-21 the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (the
Board), through the Regional Director for Region 6, on
I The original charges in both cases were filed and served on May 27,
1970. In Case 6-CA-5045-1 the amended charge was filed on July 27,
1970, and served on August 3, 1970; in Case 6-CA-5045-2 the amended
charge was filed and served on August 3, 1970.
August 3, 1970, issued and served an order consolidating
said cases and a consolidated complaint and notice of
hearing against Foster Wheeler Corporation (Respondent).
Respondent filed its answer in which it denied all
allegations of unfair labor practices. A hearing on the
complaint was held before me at Wheeling, West Virginia,
on October 7, 1970. The General Counsel and Respondent
were represented by counsel at the hearing, and both have
submitted briefs.
Upon the entire record 2 and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, Foster Wheeler Corporation, a New York
corporation having its principal office in Livingston, New
Jersey, is engaged in the design, engineering, and construc-
tion of steam-power plants, chemical plants, oil refineries,
and marine propulsion systems, and in research in
nuclear-power equipment. Its operations are nationwide
and worldwide, but this proceeding involves only certain
work at a construction site at Cresap, West Virginia, known
as the Mitchell Power Plant (the project). In the course of
its operations at the project Respondent annually purchases
goods and materials valued at in excess of $50,000 which it
causes to be shipped to the project directly from points
outside the State of West Virginia. I find that Respondent is
an employer engaged primarily in the building and
construction industry within the meaning of Sections 2(2)
and 8(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(the Act), and engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local Union 1830, AFL-CIO (Local 1830) is, and
at all times material has been, a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The principal issue litigated at the hearing was whether
Respondent's carpenter foreman, in making an economi-
cally motivated layoff on February 4, 1970, selected
employees on a discriminatory basis in order to favor
members of Local 1830. Respondent's primary contention
is that the foreman decided whom to retain on the basis of
affirmative, nondiscriminatory, reasons. Respondent also
contends that, even if the selection was made on the basis of
where the employees came from, there was no violation of
the Act because, while the contract provided for preference
of employment on a councilwide basis, a practice had been
established of giving such preference on a local basis.
Respondent, a member of National Contractors Associa-
tion (the Association), was a party signatory to an
agreement (the National Agreement), dated June 20, 1960,
2 Pursuant to General Counsel's unopposed motion, it is ordered that
the transcript be corrected as indicated by Appendix A [omitted from
publication 1.
189 NLRB No. 112
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
between the Association and the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (the
Brotherhood). The agreement provided that, with respect to
journeyman carpenters it employed, Respondent would
observe the working conditions established or agreed on by
the Brotherhood and the recognized bargaining agency of
the locality where Respondent was performing work and
would hire exclusively through registration facilities
maintained by the Brotherhood's district councils or local
unions, or any hiring provision or practice locally
applicable. Respondent was to have the right to hire on the
job if help was not furnished within 48 hours, and in all
events was to have the right to reject or accept applicants.
By virtue of the National Agreement Respondent was also
party to a labor agreement between Ohio Valley Builders
Exchange Incorporated, on the one hand, and the
Brotherhood and Steel Valley Carpenters District Council
(the Council) on the other. The Council was made up of
some half dozen locals of the Brotherhood, each having a
fixed geographical jurisdiction. That agreement (the
Council Agreement) was applicable to the aggregate
geographical jurisdiction of all the locals in the Council. It
was in effect with respect to the project at all times material
to this case. It provided as follows:
Carpenters living in the area covered by this Agreement
shall be given preference in employment without regard
to union membership, provided area carpenters are
qualified.
The Council Agreement also required that all foremen have
been members of the Council for not less than 2 years.
The project, which was started at sometime prior to May
6, 1968, was located in Marshall County, West Virginia,
which was within Local 1830's territorial jurisdiction. Local
1830 had its office in Moundsville and was known as the
Moundsville local. In a prejob conference Myers, an
official of the Council, instructed Respondent that it was to
have its "dealings for requests for personnel and so forth"
through the business agent of Local 1830.
On May 6, 1968, Respondent employed the first five
carpenters on the project, among them the two Charging
Parties. Thereafter the force of carpenters was built up as
more were needed, and from time to time various
carpenters quit or were laid off. By February 4, 1970, much
of the carpentry work on the project had been completed
and Respondent's field superintendent instructed Glover,
the carpenter foreman, to cut the crew down to eight,
including the foreman. The following is a list of the 13
carpenters employed on the project on February 4, 1970,
with their respective dates of hire; the names of the
employees laid off on that day are in capital letters:
Name Date of Hire
Keith Glover May 6, 1968
Harold L. Wilson May 6, 1968
EARL J. LUDE May 6, 1968
JOSEPH FENDER May 6, 1968
George Dague May 27, 1969
C.E. Darrah August 6, 1969
Andy Fecat August 7, 1969
R.L. McGary September 11, 1969
R.D. Jupinko December 17, 1969
J.L. ANTILL December 29, 1969
L.E. GILLESPIE December 30, 1969 9
W.R. HOWE January 13, 1970
G.G. Cox January 15, 1970
The dates of hire stated were the last prior to February 4,
1970. Fecat, Dague, and Cox had had prior employment on
the project, Fecat and Dague from October 7 to 16, 1968,
and Cox from March to August 1969. All 13 men on the
above list resided within the area covered by the Council
Agreement, pursuant to which they were for that reason
entitled to preference of employment without regard to
union membership. Of the five men laid off, one, Antill, was
a member of Local 1830; the other four were members of
other locals in the Council. All eight individuals retained
were members of Local 1830.
Upon being laid off Lude and Fender immediately went
to Guernsey and Samuel, Respondent's field superintend-
ent and project superintendent, respectively, and com-
plained that they had got a raw deal, since they had been on
the job for 2 years and newly hired men had been retained
in preference to them because they, Lude and Fender, were
not members of Local 1830. Gurnsey replied that layoffs
were up to the foreman and he did not interfere "in union
matters." They complained to Respondent's area labor
relations supervisor, Zinglersen, that they had been given
"a dirty deal." He disclaimed all knowledge about their
layoff and referred them to their field supervisors.
Lude also complained of unfairness to Fecat, the shop
steward, who replied that Lude had had a good year and
then asked whether Lude expected them to lay off
"Moundsville men." As Local 1830's area was not limited
to Moundsville but extended throughout the county, it is
plain that Fecat meant members of Local 1830. Lude's
business agent, Barron, referred him to Myers, an official of
the Council. Myers, having heard his complaint of
discrimination, advised Lude that he could file charges
against Glover in the Council, but he doubted that he
would get anywhere, since it would be one man's word
against the other's. Myers commented that this was nothing
new, that it was happening throughout the Council, that he
was completely opposed to it and did not like it, but he
could not control it. The Brotherhood assigned Sauer, a
general representative, to investigate the alleged discrimina-
tion. On March 19, 1970, he met with Zinglersen, Guernsey,
Glover, Fender, and Lude. The two employees said to
Glover, "You know you done us a dirty trick," to which
Glover replied that the only reason that he had laid them
off was lack of work. While the evidence is not clear, he
appears to have denied to Sauer that there was a rule
requiring that Local 1830 men be given preference of
retainment at layoffs. Sauer informed Fender and Lude
privately that there were "indications that there was some
foul play here," but that without some concrete evidence he
had nothing to go on.
Glover, who had been referred to the job by Local 1830
FOSTER WHEELER CORP. 749
as the foreman and who had frequently been an officer of
Local 1830,3 testified that he retained the seven men besides
himself on February 4 for various reasons, among them,
generally superior skill, ability to weld, need of work, the
fact that a man was job steward or assistant steward, and
relationship to himself or other union officials. Lude
testified that a week or 10 days before the layoff Glover told
him that there was to be a layoff and then said, "It looks to
me like Jim [Darrah] is going to force me to lay off all but
local men." He testified, further, "I said that I was local, it
wasn't right," and that a short time later Glover told him to
forget what he had said. Fender testified that the first time a
layoff was about to take place on the project Glover
assured him, "you don't have nothing to worry about, if we
lay [off ] down to three men, I am going to keep you, myself
and Wilson." Fender also testified that on February 2,
1970, Glover told him there was going to be a layoff, but he
was not going to lay off Fender or Lude, but would lay off
five others, whom he named. Then, he testified, Glover
came back later that day and said that he would have to lay
him off; he said to Glover, "you know doggone well that it
is not right, I was buddies with you in our area for a year,
and you got laid off the same day I did"; whereupon Glover
said, "dammit, I am going to change it." Glover denied
Fender and Lude's testimony.
James Darrah, business agent of Local 1830, testified that
prior to the information of the Council in 1954, if members
of other locals came to work in Local 1830's territory, they
were required to obtain permits. As to layoffs, he testified,
"The practice was that local 1830 men was kept on the job,
and what we called permit men was laid off." He stated
that, after the Council was formed, the only change was
that men from other locals were no longer required to get
permits.
CONCLUDING FINDINGS
Glover was Respondent's designated agent for the
purpose of selecting employees for layoff. Even if he had
made the layoffs on February 4 in a manner directly
contrary to Respondent's instructions, Respondent would
have been responsible for his actions since layoffs were
plainly within the scope of his authority. See Grove
Shepherd Wilson & Kruge, Inc., et al, 109 NLRB 209, 215.
However, there were no such contrary instructions. Indeed,
when Respondent's higher officials were informed that
Glover had discriminated against the Charging Parties
because of nonmembership in Local 1830, they said that
they did not interfere in "union matters." Respondent
thereby expressly ratified Glover's action. It is found that
Respondent was responsible for Glover's layoff of Lude
and Fender.
The General Counsel established that six of the seven
employees retained on February 4 had never worked on the
project until at least 6 months after Lude and Fender had
started He also established that the six had started their
last employment a year or more later than Lude and
Fender, one, Jupinko, only about 7 weeks before the layoff,
and another, Cox, only about 3 weeks before the layoff. He
also proved that, whereas on February 4 all employees on
the payroll were equally entitled to preference of employ-
ment so far as the applicable contract was concerned, four
of the five laid off, including Lude and Fender, were not
members of Local 1830, but all seven retained were
members. The Act does not, of course, require that
employers follow seniority in making layoffs; nevertheless,
it is a fact of industrial life that normally they give weight to
long service on such occasions. It is noted that Antill, the
sole member of Local 1830 whom Glover laid off, was the
one with the least employment on the project. I do not
credit Glover's testimony that he took no account at all of
seniority; and I credit Lude's testimony that length of
service was a factor usually taken into consideration in the
industry. I have also credited the testimony that Glover told
Lude and Fender, who had been on the job with him since
the first day, that he would keep them; and that when
Darrah ordered him not to and Fender protested the
unfairness, he said, "dammit, I am going to change it." I
infer from these facts that Glover did normally take into
account service on the job when making layoffs.
Respondent's primary defense is that Glover selected the
employees for layoff on the basis of the various affirmative
individual considerations referred to above in the evidenti-
ary findings .4 Glover's testimony in this respect was
unconvincing, and I have given it no credit. On the basis of
Samuels' and Guernsey's testimony in reference to the
layoff that they did not interfere in "union matters," and of
Glover's statement that Darrah was forcing him to lay off
all but local men, I find that in selecting employees for
layoff of February 4, 1970, Glover did not act on the basis
of any of the employees' skills or needs but was following
policy established by Local 1830. I also find that
Respondent approved of Glover's following such policy.
As a secondary defense Respondent apparently contends
that even if Glover, in laying off Fender and Lude, did
follow union policy rather than the individual considera-
tions referred to, there was no illegal discrimination. In
support of this contention Respondent attempted to
establish that, while the Council contract provided for
preference of employment on the basis of Council-area
residence, a practice had been established of giving
preference on the basis of Local-area residence. However,
that is not the issue here. First, Glover did not testify that
he selected employees on the basis of their residence. The
existence of a legitimate ground for layoff proves nothing
by itself; the question is whether such ground motivated the
layoff. See N.L.R.B. v. Symons Mfg. Co., 328 F.2d 835 (C.A.
7), enfg. 141 NLRB 558. Second, the General Counsel has
not contended that mere departure from the contractual
provisions as to preference of employment, standing alone,
would give rise to an unfair labor practice.5 What he
contends is that Respondent retained the seven employees
in preference to Lude and Fender because they were
3 He was an officer at the time he testified, but not at the time of the 1830 Cf Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, 146 NLRB 1492, 1495 The
layoff contract did not give stewards supersenionty
4 Some of these considerations, such as the fact that men retained had 5 Distinguish Miranda Fuel Company, Inc, 140 NLRB 181, enforcement
occupied union office or were related to such persons, would have been denied 326 F 2d 172 (C A 2), where contract terms were disregarded for
plainly discriminatory and illegally encouraging of membership in Local reasons found by the Board to be arbitrary and invidious
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
members of Local 1830 and Lude and Fender were not, and
that is the issue to be decided.
Respondent attempted to establish that Local 1830's
policy was that preference of employment was given on the
basis of residence and/or work experience in Local 1830's
area rather than on the basis of membership in Local 1830.
No evidence was offered of any actual instance where
preference of employment was granted to a nonmember
Local-area resident over a nonresident member of the
Local, or, for that matter, where a nonresident's Local
membership resulted in the preference of employment at
the expense of a Local-area resident. The same is true with
respect to Local-area work history. Respondent's witnesses
testified only in general terms. Prodded by counsel for
Respondent, Darrah stated that members of other locals
residing in Local 1830's jurisdiction were referred to jobs
"the same as an 1830 man;" and that on several
unidentified occasions Local 1830 men were laid off from
the project while Local 3 men were retained .6 However, I
was more impressed by Darrah's original, forthright,
testimony that before 1954 "the practice was that Local
1830 men was kept on the job, and what we call permit men
was laid off," and that after 1954 the only change was that
men from other locals were no longer required to get
permits. Also significant was the shop steward's question to
Lude, when he complained, whether Lude expected them to
lay off "Moundsville men," i.e., members of Local 1830.
Upon consideration of all the foregoing facts, I am
convinced, and I find, that Local 1830's policy was that on
layoffs its members were to be retained in preference to
nonmembers.
I have found that, in making the layoffs on February 4,
Glover did not select employees for retention on the basis
of their individual skills or needs but was following Local
1830's policy. I have also found that Glover did normally
take into account service on the job when making layoffs,
and that he stated on several occasions that he intended to
retain Lude and Fender, who were among the four
carpenter employees hired on the project the first day. I
have found, further, that Local 1830's policy was that on
layoffs its members were to receive preference over others;
Glover made statements that he was under pressure from
Local 1830 to prefer local men; on February 4 he did follow
Local 1830 policy; and all seven employees retained were
members of Local 1830, whereas four of the five laid off
were not. In view of these facts, I am convinced, and I find,
that but for the fact that they were not members of Local
1830, Respondent would have retained Lude and Fender
on February 4.
I find that Respondent laid off Fender and Lude because
they were not members of Local 1830 and that by doing so
Respondent discriminated against them, thereby encourag-
e The record does show that prior employment on the project of Fecat,
Dague, and G G Cox, all members of Local 1830, was terminated while
Lude and Fender continued to work. However, as to Fecat and Dague, the
record does not show the circumstances, or even whether they quit on
those occasions Glover testified that Cox had quit for a supposedly better
job
7 Respondent contends that, if Glover did do anything wrong, it had
nothing to do with his decision, and it points to the fact the contract
required that Glover be a member of the Council My finding of violation
ing membership in Local 1830 in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.7 See Norman Fromme, an Individual,
d/b/a Norman Fromme Masonry Contractor, et al., 183
NLRB No. 83. See also Daugherty Company, Inc., 147
NLRB 1295, 1298. I further find that by the above conduct
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
I find that the activities of Respondent set forth above in
section III, occurring in connection with its operations
described in section I, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
As I have found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I am recommending that the Board
issue the Order set forth below requiring Respondent to
cease and desist from said unfair labor practices and to take
certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies
of the Act.
I recommend that Respondent reinstate Lude and
Fender to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges, and that they
be made whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason
of the discrimination against them. The amount of backpay
shall be a sum of money equal to what they would have
earned from February 4, 1970, to the date of Respondent's
offer to reinstate them, less their net earnings during said
period, computed in accordance with the formula stated in
F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest
thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum, to be computed
in the manner described in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716. I have found that Lude and Fender were not
laid off because they could not weld, but this finding shall
not preclude Respondent, in the compliance stage of this
proceeding, from establishing that at some point or points
during the backpay period its backpay liability to Lude
and/or Fender was suspended or terminated because of
their inability to weld. I recommend also that Respondent
preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board
and its agents, all payroll, work, and other records to
facilitate the computation of backpay.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and of
the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Respondent, Foster Wheeler Corporation, is engaged
of the Act is based on the findings, already made, first that Glover, in
making the selections for layoff, was an agent of Respondent acting within
the scope of his authority, and, second, that Respondent approved of
Glover's following Local 1830's discriminatory policy in making the
selections for layoff However, the same result would be reached if Glover
were regarded as an agent of Local 1830 causing Respondent to
discriminate Cf Miranda Fuel Company, Inc, 140 NLRB 181, 188,
enforcement denied on other grounds 326 F 2d 172 (C A 2)
FOSTER WHEELER CORP. 751
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Respondent is, and at all times material has been, an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
3. Local Union 1830, United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. By discriminatorily discharging Earl J. Lude and
Joseph Fender Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act.
5. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. The unfair labor practices described above are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law , and of the entire record , and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDERS
Respondent, Foster Wheeler Corporation, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or laying off employees because of lack
of membership in Local Union 1830, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization , except as permitted by Section
8(a)(3) and Section 8(f) of the Act.
(b) Encouraging membership in Local Union 1830,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, by discharging, laying off, or otherwise
discriminating against employees for not being members of
said Local 1830, except as permitted by Section 8(a)(3) and
Section 8(f) of the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is
found, will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Earl J. Lude and Joseph Fender immediate and
full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist , to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Make Earl J. Lude and Joseph Fender whole for any
loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them, in the manner described in
section V of this Decision, entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records, work records, timecards, and all other data
necessary to analyze and compute the backpay required by
this order.
(d) Notify Earl J. Lude and Joseph Fender if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their
right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from
the Armed Forces.
(e) Post in its offices and other facilities on the Mitchell
Power Plant project at Cresap, West Virginia, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix B."9 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 6, shall, after being duly signed by a representative,
be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees on the project are customarily posted. Reasona-
ble steps shall be taken to ensure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify said Regional Director for Region 6, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.10
8 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 , recommendations , and recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations,
automatically become the findings , conclusions , decision and order of the
Board, and, all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
9 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
io In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify said Regional Director for Region 6, in wasting , within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you as
follows:
WE WILL offer Earl J. Lude and Joseph Fender
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs,
or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
and other rights and privileges.
WE WILL pay Earl J. Lude and Joseph Fender for any
loss of wages they suffered as a result of the
discrimination which it has been found we practiced
against them. If either of them is in the Armed Forces,
we will notify him of his right to have his former job
back after discharge from the Armed Forces.
WE WILL NOT lay off, discharge, or refuse to hire,
employees, or discriminate against employees in any
other manner, because they are not members of Local
Union 1830 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, except as permitted by
Section 8(a)(3) and Section 8(f) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
their right toself-organization, to form, join and assist a
labor organization, and to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities , except insofar as
these rights might be affected by a contract with a labor
organization , if validly made in conformity with
Sections 8(a)(3) and 8(f) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
FOSTER WHEELER
CORPORATION
(Employer)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1536
Federal Building , 1000 Liberty , Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania
15222, Telephone 412-644-2977.