Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 29, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 123 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC. 123
has held that it will not, in a representation proceeding, determine
whether the Employer has so violated the Act .5 We find, accordingly,
that this contention is without merit, and the Petitioner's motion is
hereby denied.
As we have overruled the Petitioner's objections and denied its
motion, we shall certify the Independent in accordance with the
tally of ballots.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that National Independent Union Council,
Independent Appliance Workers' Union, has been designated and
selected by a majority of the employees of The Coleman Company,
Inc., Wichita, Kansas, in the appropriate unit, described in paragraph
numbered 4, above, as their representative for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the
said organization is the exclusive representative of all the employees
in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment.
6 The Electric Auto-Lite Company, 89 NLRB 1407, 1410.
MORRISON -KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC. AND PETER KIEWIT SONS' COM-
PANY 1 and HADLEY WOODROW STEPHENS
OPERATIVE PLASTERERS AND CEMENT FINISHERS INTERNATIONAL Asso-
CIATION, LOCAL No. 867, AFL and HADLEY WOODROW STEPHENS.
Cases Nos. 19-CA-550 and 19-CB-175. October 29, 1952
Decision and Order
On February 19, 1952, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent
Company filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
brief. The General Counsel and the Respondent Union filed no
exceptions.
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
I Herein jointly called Respondent Company.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Chairman Herzog and
Members Styles and Peterson].
101 NLRB No. 40.
124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondent Company's exceptions, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that :
1. The Respondent Company, Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc.
and Peter Kiewit Sons' Company, 603 Hoge Building, Seattle, Wash-
ington, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
a. Cease and desist from :
(1) Encouraging membership in Operative Plasterers and Cement
Finishers International Association, Local No. 867, AFL, or in any
other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating against
its employees in any manner in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment except to the extent permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
(2) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to engage in any and all of
the activities guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from
engaging in any such activities, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
b. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Offer to Hadley Woodrow Stephens immediate and full rein-
statement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and jointly
and severally with the Respondent Union make him whole in the
manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled
"The Remedy" for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimi-
nation against him.
(2) Upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations
Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, time cards, personnel records and
reports, and all other records necessary for a determination of the
amount of back pay due and the right of reinstatement under the
terms of this Order.
(3) Post in conspicuous places at its office and construction projects
in the Anchorage, Alaska, area, copies of the notice attached to the
MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY , INC. 125
Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent Company's
representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent Company to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(4) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
it has taken to comply herewith.
2. The Respondent, Operative Plasterers and Cement Finishers
International Association, Local No. 867, AFL, its officers, repre-
sentatives, and agents, shall :
a. Cease and desist from :
(1) Causing or attempting to cause Respondent Company to dis-
criminate against its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act, in order to aid the Union in the enforcement of its rules and
regulations among its membership, or for any other purpose.
(2) In any manner restraining or coercing the employees of Re-
spondent Company in the exercise of their right to engage in any of
the activities guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from
engaging in any such activities, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
b. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Notify Respondent Company, in writing, that it withdraws all
objections to the employment of Hadley Woodrow Stephens and that
it requests said Company to offer Stephens immediate and full re-
instatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, with-
out prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges.
(2) Jointly and severally with Respondent Company make said
Stephens whole for any loss of pay that he may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in
the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(3) Post at its office at Anchorage, Alaska, and wherever notices
to its members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached
8 This notice is hereby amended to substitute the words "A Decision and Order" for
the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner ." In the event this Order is
enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the
words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix B." 4 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nine-
teenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent
Union's representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent Union to insure that such notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(4) Forthwith return to the Regional Director for the Nineteenth
Region copies of the aforesaid notice, furnished by the Regional Di-
rector, after signing such notices as provided in paragraph (b) (3)
above. The Respondent Company willing, these notices shall be
posted on the Company's bulletin boards where notices to employees
are customarily posted and maintained thereon for a period of sixty
(60) days thereafter.
(5) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
it has taken to comply herewith.
4 This notice is hereby amended to substitute the words "A Decision and Order" for
the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner." In the event this Order is
enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the
words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Hadley Woodrow Stephens , an individual , against
Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., and Peter Kiewit Sons ' Company, herein
jointly called Respondent Company, and against Operative Plasterers and Cement
Finishers International Association , Local No. 867 , AFL, herein called Respond-
ent Union , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the
Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region ( Seattle, Washington ), caused the
cases to be consolidated and issued a consolidated complaint dated November 28,
1951 , against Respondent Company and Respondent Union , also herein called
Respondents . The complaint alleged that Respondents had engaged in unfair
labor practices , Respondent Company within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
and (3 ) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7), and Respondent Union within the meaning
of Section 8 (b) (1) (A ) and (2 ) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of
the charges , consolidated complaint , and notice of hearing thereon were duly
served upon Respondents.
Specifically , the complaint alleged that on June 7 and 25, 1951, Respondent
Company had discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate Hadley Woodrow
Stephens pursuant to the request and compulsion of Respondent Union. Re-
spondent Company's answer denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.'
1 As stated below, Respondent Union was not represented herein by counsel , and it filed
no answer . The General Counsel announced at the hearing that he was satisfied with Its
oral denial of the commission of any unfair labor practices and this was accepted by the
undersigned.
MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC. 127
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Anchorage, Alaska, on February 19,
1952, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, Martin S. Bennett. The General
Counsel and Respondent Company were represented by counsel and Respondent
Union by its representative. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing
on the issues. At the close of the hearing, the undersigned reserved ruling on
a motion by Respondent Company to dismiss the complaint against it ; this is
disposed of by the findings hereinafter made. The parties waived the right to
argue orally and to file briefs and/or proposed findings and conclusions with the
undersigned'
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT COMPANY
Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., and Peter Kiewit Sons' Company are engaged
in the joint venture of construction of buildings for the United States Army in
the Territory of Alaska. Morrison-Knudsen, Inc., is the manager of the joint
venture in the Anchorage area, which is the only construction operation involved
in this proceeding. The construction contracts currently being carried out by
Respondent Company in the Territory of Alaska involve construction valued in
excess of one million dollars. The undersigned finds that Respondent Company
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Roy C. Kelley, 95 NLRB
6, and Panaderia Sucesion Alonso, 87 NLRB 877.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Operative Plasterers and Cement Finishers International Association, Local
No. 867, AFL, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of
Respondent Company.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issue: the facts
The findings herein are based upon testimony which is not in conflict on any
matter of substance. The sole issue presented is whether Respondent Company
unlawfully discharged Hadley Stephens at the unlawful request of Respondent
Union. At the time of the alleged discriminatory discharge, June 7, 1951, Re-
spondents were bound by a collective bargaining agreement between the Alaska
chapter of the Associated General Contractors and the various members of the
area building trades council including Respondent Union. Although this con-
tract contains language relative to union referral of employees which is of
doubtful legality, the General Counsel does not attack same. His case is spe-
cifically predicated upon the purported existence of a discriminatory policy favor-
ing union members over nonmembers.
Respondent Union has an established policy of admitting a workman to member-
ship only after he has worked for 150 working days and has paid what is in
effect an initiation fee of $150; at that point, union membership is acquired and
2 The transcript does not reflect the ruling of the undersigned admitting General Counsel's
Exhibit No. 1 which contains the formal papers of the proceeding. The transcript is
hereby ordered corrected accordingly.
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the employee is known as a "book member." Prior to the expiration of this
150-day period, the applicant is considered and known as a "permit man" in
recognition of the fact that he is issued a daily permit to work by the Union. For
each of the ensuing 150 working days he must pay $1 per day for the permit and,
as described above, he is admitted to union membership as a "book" member only
after the expiration of the 150-day period and the payment of $150. A so-called
"permit" man is never dispatched to a job by the Union unless no book members
are available for such assignment.
Sometime during May of 1951, Hadley Stephens for the first time sought employ-
ment through Respondent Union. Respondent Company was then in need of
cement masons and, there being no union or "book" members available for dis-
patch, Stephens was dispatched by Respondent Union as a "permit" man for work
on a current project at Respondent Company. He worked for 17 working days
and during that period paid into the Union $17 at the rate of $1 per day until his
employment terminated on or about June 7.
During this latter period, Clarence Pearson, who was the business representa-
tive and financial secretary of Respondent Union, was actively engaged in work
as a cement mason and his union duties were being carried on, at least during
working hours, by his wife. Insofar as the record indicates, Respondent Com-
pany, as well as Pearson, recognized her de facto status as business representative
and in no way questioned her authority to represent and act in behalf of
Respondent Union ; in fact, no contention of this nature is made. Shortly before
June 7, a number of book members of Respondent Union became available for
employment and sought same through the Union. Mrs. Pearson proceeded to
telephone Personnel Manager Jack Webster of Respondent Company, stated that
she had a number of book men available for employment, and announced that
she proposed to send them to the Company for employment. Webster informed
her that he could not hire employees without an order from the field supervisory
staff. Mrs. Pearson replied, according to Webster, that he "would have to get
those permit men off the job."
On the following day, she again contacted Webster who referred her to Carl
Haglund, assistant general manager of Respondent Company for Alaska. Mrs.
Pearson conferred with Haglund and informed him that she wished to replace
some cement masons then in the Company's employ, who were permit men, with
book men who had become available for work. She claimed that she had such
an understanding with Foreman William Stephens of the Company. According
to Haglund, he replied that the Company would not remove the permit men from
the construction job.
On or about June 6, Mrs. Pearson appeared at the construction site in question
and spoke to Foreman Stephens. She was accompanied by two men and informed
Stephens that they were book men who desired employment. She told Stephens
that she desired him to hire these two book men. Stephens, who had a full crew
at the time, acceded to her demand and on the following day replaced Hadley
Stephens and another permit man with the two book men' Hadley Stephens
was issued a termination notice by Foreman Stephens which stated that he had
been terminated "to make room for book man." According to Assistant General
Manager Haglund, this particular project lasted until September 1951, save for a
shutdown of approximately 1 week during July which was brought about by a
strike, the reasons for which are not disclosed by the record.
Haglund further testified he had been informed that Mrs. Pearson had removed
the permit men from the construction job and that he, Haglund, directed that
they be returned to work. However, Stephens was not returned to work on that
3 The two Stephenses are brothers.
MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC . 129
construction job and there is no evidence that he was offered reinstatement.
While Personnel Manager Webster testified that Stephens was carried on the
payroll for the following 2 weeks, the fact is that he was terminated on June 7
and was not offered subsequent employment , except as indicated below. More-
over , Foreman Stephens ' conduct in discharging Hadley Stephens was never
disavowed or repudiated . The record also indicates that Stephens was called
in by Respondent on June 25 and assigned work on another construction project
under a different foreman , but that at the end of the day he was released due to
lack of work . The record does not provide the completion date of this latter
project . It further appears that the Union did dispatch Stephens in August to
a job with another employer which lasted until December ; this, however, is a
matter for consideration at such time as this proceeding may reach the com-
pliance stage.
B. Contentions and conclusions
Some testimony was developed at the hearing to the effect that Stephens was
not a skilled cement mason and that Respondent Union had a practice of replac-
ing less skilled masons with men of more ability when the latter became avail-
able. On the other hand, assuming the existence of such a policy, the work to
which Stephens had been assigned was not of a skilled nature and , according
to Foreman Stephens , Hadley Stephens was a satisfactory employee on this work.
It is further conceded that he would not have been replaced by a more skilled
"permit" man , thus demonstrating that the Union equated a less skilled cement
mason with being a "permit man." It is therefore apparent that , absent the
desire to replace Stephens , a permit man , with a book member of Respondent
Union , he would not have lost his employment on June 7.`
It is clear from the foregoing that Respondent Union caused Respondent
Company to terminate the employment of Hadley Stephens on June 7, 1951. This
type of discharge in effect constituted the application of closed -shop conditions,
a type of union security barred by the Act. Von's Grocery Co., 91 NLRB 504.
The undersigned therefore finds that the conduct of Respondent Company in
discriminating against Stephens on June 7, 1951, was violative of Section 8 (a)
(1) and (3) of the Act in that it encouraged membership in the Union and
interfered with, restrained , and coerced Stephens in the exercise of his right
to refrain from engaging in the activities guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
It is further found that Respondent Union unquestionably caused Respondent
Company to discriminate against Stephens, thereby violating Section 8 (b) (2)
of the Act, and restraining and coercing employees because of their lack of
membership in Respondent Union, in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the
Act. N. L. R. B. v. Newspaper Dealers' Union, 192 F. 2d 654 (C. A. 2) ; N. L. R. B.
v. Acme Mattress Co., 192 F. 2d 524 (C. A. 7) ; Union Starch and Refining Co. v.
N. L. R. B., 186 F. 2d 1008 (0. A. 7), cert. denied 342 U. S. 815; G. W. Hume Co. v.
N. L. R. B., 180 F. 2d 445 (C. A. 9) ; N. L. R. B. v. Peerless Quarries, Inc., 193 F.
2d 419 (C. A. 10) ; and Alaska Steamship Co., 98 NLRB 22.
Iv. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the activities of Respondent Company set forth in section I,
4 While Pearson elsewhere testified that the Union would not replace a skilled "permit"
man, who had previously been dispatched , by a less skilled "book" member , he conceded
that this situation had never arisen. Moreover , in view of the admitted policy to give
priority in dispatching to book men , this latter testimony is not credited.
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce in the Territory of Alaska and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been
found that Respondent Company has discriminated with respect to the hire and
tenure of employment of Hadley Stephens, and it will be recommended that it
offer him full and immediate reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privi-
leges. See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto
Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827. Having also found that Respondent Union caused
Respondent Company to discharge Hadley Stephens, it will be recommended that
the Union notify the Company, in writing, that it has withdrawn any and all
objections to the employment of Stephens, and that it request the Company to
offer Stephens immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges.
Inasmuch as it has been found that both Respondents are responsible for the
discrimination suffered by Stephens, it will be recommended that they jointly and
severally make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against him. Squirt Distributing Co., 92 NLRB 1667. The liability of the
Union for back pay shall be tolled 5 days after it notifies the Company, in writing,
that it has withdrawn its objections to the employment of Stephens. Pinkerton's
National Detective Agency, Inc., 90 NLRB 205. Said loss of pay, based upon
earnings which Stephens would normally have earned from the date of the dis-
crimination to the date of the Company's offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings, shall be computed on a quarterly calendar basis in accordance with
the formula adopted by the Board in F. 11'. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289. See
Crossett Lumber Co., 8 NLRB 440.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices, the commission of similar
unfair labor practices may be anticipated ; the undersigned will therefore recom-
mend that Respondents cease and desist froin infringing in any manner upon
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Operative Plasterers and Cement Finishers International Association, Local
No. 867, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of
Hadley Woodrow Stephens, thereby encouraging membership in Respondent
Union, Respondent Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent Company has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC . 131
4. By attempting to cause and causing Respondent Company to discriminate
against Hadley Woodrow Stephens in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act,
Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
5. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations 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 that :
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in OPERATIVE PLASTERERS AND CEMENT
FINISHERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL No. 867, AFL, or in any other
labor organization of our employees, by discriminating against our employ-
ees in any manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment, except to the extent permitted by an agree-
ment executed in accordance with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement exe-
cuted in accordance with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to HADLEY WOODROW STEPHENS immediate and full rein-
statement to his former or substantially equivalent position without preju-
dice to any seniority, or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and
make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him.
All of our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becom-
ing or remaining, members of Local No. 867 or any other labor organization,
except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement exe-
cuted in accordance with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC.,
AND PETER KIEWET SONS' COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated -------------------- By -----------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Appendix B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF OPERATIVE PLASTERERS AND CEMENT FINISHERS IN-
TERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL No. 867, AFL, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF MOR-
RISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC., AND PETER KIEWET SONS' COMPANY
Pursuant to the recommendations 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 that:
242305--53-10
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause MomusoN -KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC.,
AND PETER KIEWIT SONS ' COMPANY, their officers , agents, successors, or as-
signs, to discriminate against any of its employees in violation of Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act, in order to aid our organization in the enforcement of its
rules and regulations , or for any other purpose, except to the extent per-
mitted by an agreement executed in accordance with Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner restrain or coerce the employees of the afore-
said companies , their successors or assigns , in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent permitted by an
agreement executed in accordance with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL make whole HADLEY WOODROW STEPHENS for any loss of pay he
may have suffered because of the discrimination against him.
OPERATIVE PLASTERERS AND CEMENT
FINISHERS INTERNATIONAL ASsoCIA-
TION, LocAL No. 867, AFL,
Union.
Dated -------------------- By -----------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not
be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
BELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION and LAWRENCE W. CARPENTIER AND
MELVIN D. FINCH
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICUL-
TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL 501, CIO and
LAWRENCE W. CARPENTIER AND MELVIN D. FINCH . Cases Nos.
3-CA-447 and 3-CB-119. October 29,1952
Decision and Order
On March 14, 1952, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his
Intermediate Report in this consolidated proceeding, finding that
Respondent Bell Aircraft Corporation, herein referred to as Respond-
ent Bell, and Respondent International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 501,
CIO, herein referred to as Respondent Union, had engaged in and
were engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of the
National Labor Relations Act, and recommending that the Respond-
ents cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as
set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The
Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents had not engaged in
unfair labor practices with regard to Lawrence W. Carpentier and
recommended dismissal of that portion of the complaint.' Thereafter,
1 No exception was taken to the findings and recommendation with regard to Carpentier.
101 NLRB No. 41.