Traylor-Pamco

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 10, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 380 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
SOUTHWESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 609 Railway
Exchange Building, 17th and Champa Streets, Denver, Colorado, Telephone No.
297-3551.
Traylor-Pamco and Michael Cordisco . Case No. 19-CA-2808.
August 10, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 12, 1964, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. He further found that the Respondent had not engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter,
the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to certain
portions of the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. The
Respondent further filed a reply to General Counsel's exceptions to
Trial Examiner's Decision.
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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
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, Respondent's reply
to the General Counsel's exceptions, and the entire record in this 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 Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recommended
1 We agree with our dissenting colleague that the assertion of rights arising out of a
collective-bargaining agreement is within the scope of Section 7 of the Act However,
the Trial Examiner concluded, and properly so, in our opinion, that Respondent did not
discharge either Cordisco or Owen for such reason, but that it did discharge them for
insubordinate violation of instructions.
154 NLRB No. 24.
TRAYLOR-PAMCO 381
by the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondent, Traylor-
Pamco, Seattle, Washington, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recominended
Order .
MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting :
The Trial Examiner held that the evidence did not support a finding
that the Respondent discharged employees Michael Cordisco and Her-
bert Owen in violation of the Act. He found that the two were dis-
charged for generally unsatisfactory performance in that they were
slow at their work and, moreover, each refused to eat lunch in the
tunnel in violation of instructions of the Respondent's officials. My
colleagues accept the Trial Examiner's conclusion. I disagree.
Accepting the Trial Examiner's credibility findings, I would find
that a preponderance of the credible evidence amply demonstrates that
the discharges of Owen and Cordisco were violative of the Act for the
reasons hereinafter set forth 2
As noted in the Trial Examiner's Decision, Cordisco was rehired by
the Respondent on December 2, 1963, after an economic layoff of short
duration. When he reported for work on December 2, Cordisco
observed that the members of the work crews on his shift carried their
lunches into the tunnel in which they were working. He and Owen,
who was also hired on December 2, were the only employees who left
the tunnel that day to eat in the dry shack at the tunnel entrance, where
eating and rest facilities were provided. Cordisco considered requir-
ing employees to eat lunch in the tunnel to be a violation of a specific
provision of the collective-bargaining agreement between the Union
and the Respondent. Accordingly, he reported the matter to Union
Business Agent Johansen. The latter, agreeing with Cordisco, pro-
ceeded to the jobsite the following morning before the commencement
of work, and instructed the entire crew not to take their lunches into
the tunnel. The men followed Johansen's instructions that day. Also
on that day, Johansen appointed Cordisco shop steward.
The next morning, December 4, Foreman Stegriy ordered the crew
to take their lunches into the tunnel because concrete was to be poured
that day and Stegriy wanted the men present to work the concrete
until the pour was finished.3 After informing Stegriy of their refusal
to eat lunch in the tunnel, Cordisco and Owen noticed that some of the
crew were proceeding into the tunnel with their lunches and Cordisco
reminded the crew of Johansen's instructions of the preceding day.
One of the erewmembers complained of not being permitted to take
his lunch into the tunnel and carried his complaint to Douglas Scheu-
21 would find also that the refusals of employees Brown , Moceri , and O'Brien, on the
day of their discharge , to work in a smoke congested area were also factors which con-
tributed to their discharges
3 The pouring of concrete normally lasted through the lunch hour.
382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mann, the contractor's representative, whose position in the Respond-
ent's hierarchy was above that of Foreman Stegriy. Scheumann also
noticed the men were hesitating about entering the tunnel and inquired
of Stegriy as to the reason why the start of work was delayed. After
Stegriy told him that it was a question of whether the men should eat
in the tunnel or dry shack, Scheumann sought out Shop Steward Cor-
disco, who confirmed what Stegriy had told Scheumann.
In his conversation with Scheumann, Cordisco told Scheumann,
"We are going to eat in the dry shack." Scheumann answered to the
effect that he did not care where they ate, that his principal interest
was in getting the shift started. Also mentioned by Scheumann was a
meeting with Johansen scheduled for that afternoon or the next day
to discuss the problem of eating in the tunnel.
Following this conversation, the shift crew entered the tunnel and
concrete was poured. On that date, only Cordisco and Owen left the
tunnel to eat. However, Cordisco and Owen worked through the lunch
hour and did not leave to eat until work on the concrete pour had been
completed.
On Thursday, December 5, no concrete was poured and most of the
crew left the tunnel to eat lunch. On Monday, December 9, again con-
crete was poured and again only Cordisco and Owen left the tunnel
to eat lunch, but only after the concrete pour had been completed. The
following day, Tuesday, December 10, despite the fact that no con-
crete was poured, only Cordisco and Owen left the tunnel to eat.
After lunch on that day, shortly before Cordisco was notified of his
discharge, Foreman Stegriy summoned Cordisco and told him, "You
are going to find out who is running this job, us or the union ...."
Shortly thereafter Cordisco was handed his discharge by General
Foreman Clark. When Cordisco asked Clark why he was being ter-
minated, Clark told him, "You are not happy here."
Owen's discharge followed later the same day. He did not ask, nor
was he told, the reason for his discharge.
The General Counsel contends that the Trial Examiner erred in his
conclusion that Cordisco and Owen were discharged for cause. I
would agree.
I note that the Respondent denies that the refusals of Cordisco and
Owen to eat in the tunnel entered into its consideration in arriving at
the decision to discharge them. Instead, the Respondent's answer to
the complaint herein alleges, and its witnesses maintained, that the
Respondent's dissatisfaction with the general work performance of
Cordisco and Owen was due entirely to their alleged slowness in per-
forming their work. Yet, only minutes before Cordisco was discharged
he was told by Foreman Stegriy that the Respondent was going to
show Cordisco that it was running the job, not the Union. And shortly
TRAYLOR-PAMCO 383
after that, when Cordisco was discharged by General Foreman Clark,
he was given as the reason that he was not happy working for the
Respondent.
These foregoing statements I would find to be inconsistent with the
Respondent's proffered reason for the discharges. This inconsistency
becomes even more apparent in light of the fact that Cordisco had
worked for the Respondent during a previous hiring, yet the Respond-
ent raised no objection to Cordisco's alleged lack of efficiency when he
was referred to the Respondent by the Union before the second hiring.
Moreover, neither Cordisco nor Owen was ever warned that his work
performance was unsatisfactory.
On the other hand, Stegriy's remark to Cordisco, made just before
Cordisco was discharged, indicates that the Respondent was displeased
with Cordisco and Owen's insistence on the right, which the Union had
obtained for the employees, to eat lunch outside the tunnel. Addition-
ally, it should be noted that Stegriy's superior, Contractor's Represent-
ative Scheumann, during his conversation with Cordisco on the morn-
ing of December 5, told Cordisco that Scheumann did not care if lunch
was eaten outside the tunnel. This, in effect, countermanded Stegriy's
order. Moreover, I further note the fact that Cordisco employed the
plural "we" in protesting to Scheumann the order to eat in the tunnel,
which clearly indicated that Cordisco was protesting in his capacity
as shop steward on behalf of all the employees in carrying out the
instructions of Business Agent Johansen and in seeking to enforce the
applicable provision of the bargaining agreement.
Accordingly, I would find, upon all the foregoing, that in refusing
to eat in the tunnel, Cordisco, with the active support of Owen, was
not violating any legitimate managerial instruction, nor were Cordisco
and Owen discharged for being inefficient workers. I would reject
this basis for the discharges as an afterthought. I would find that
Cordisco and Owen were discharged for asserting a lawful demand on
their own behalf and on behalf of the other employees on their shift.
The assertion of such demand or contract right is an implementation
of the collective-bargaining agreement applicable to the protesting
employees as well as others and such implementation is "but an exten-
sion of the concerted activity giving rise to that argreement." 4
Therefore, I would find, unlike the Trial Examiner and my col-
leagues, that Cordisco and Owen were engaged in protected, concerted
activities. Accordingly, I would find that the Respondent's discharge
of Cordisco and Owen for protesting eating in the tunnel interfered
with, restrained, and coerced them in the exercise of their right to
engage in such activity and, thereby, violated Section 8(a.) (1) of the
Act.
4 Merlyn Bunney and Clarence Bunney, Partners , d/b/a Bunney Bros. Construction
Company, 139 NLRB 1516, 1519; Gibbs Corporation, 124 NLRB 1320; Big Boy Rigging
Service, Inc., 148 NLRB 69.
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented , was heard before Trial Examiner Wil-
liam E. Spencer in Seattle , Washington , on May 26 , 27, and 28, 1964, upon a com-
plaint of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , the latter
herein called the Board , dated May 1, 1964 , and answer of Traylor -Pamco, the
Respondent herein. ' The issue litigated was whether the Respondent discharged
five named employees because of their union and/or concerted activities , in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Relations Act , as amended , herein
called the Act
Upon the entire record in the case , consideration of briefs filed with me by the Gen-
eral Counsel and the Respondent , respectively , and upon my observation of the wit-
nesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent , a joint venture of Traylor Construction Corp. of Evansville, Indi-
ana, and Pacific Mechanical Constructors , Inc , of Seattle , Washington , formed
in February 1963, is engaged in and has been engaged in, since June 1963,
the construction of a sewer tunnel under the municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, in
the vicinity of Seattle , Washington It is a member of the Mountain Pacific Chapter
of the Associated General Contractors of America , Inc. (AGC ), through which it
bargains with labor organizations representing its employees , and through which it
is a party to a labor agreement between AGC and Western District Council , Inter-
national Hod Carriers , Building and Common Laborers of America , herein called the
Council, in effect at all times material herein.
During the last fiscal or calendar year, employer -members of AGC purchased
goods and equipment valued in excess of $500,000 directly from points outside the
State of Washington , and the Respondent purchased goods and equipment valued in
excess of $ 50,000 directly from points outside the State.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Council , referred to above, and Street Pavers , Sewer , Watermain and Tunnel
Workers, Local 440 , herein called Local 440 or the Union, one of Council's con-
stituent local unions , are, each of them, labor organizations within the meaning of
the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharge of Michael Cordisco and Herbert Owen
This case involves principally Respondent 's alleged discriminatory discharge of five
of its employees on various dates in December 1963 These employees at the time
of their respective discharges were members of Local 440 , dispatched to their jobs by
Local 440, and were engaged on Respondent 's Kennydale tunnel job , one of several
projects in sewer installation in or near Seattle. At all times material herein Respond-
ent was signatory to a contract negotiated between Associated General Contractors of
America ( AGC) and the Council and there is no dispute that Local 440 , a member
of the Council , was at all such times the bargaining representative of Respondent's
employees in an appropriate unit. Two of the dischargees , Michael Cordisco and
William O'Brien , were union shop stewards at the time of their respective discharges.
Local 440's business agent was Ernest Johansen ; business agent for the Council,
which embraces some 15 local unions including Local 440, and the signatory on
behalf of the Council to the AGC contract , was Louis W. Hashman. Manager of
the Mountain Pacific Chapter of AGC was Melvin R Hord. Officers and supervisors
of Respondent referred to in the evidence on the discharges were : Douglas Scheu-
mann, contractor 's representative ; Norris F Reineer, general superintendent; Henry
(Hank ) Clark, superintendent of the Kennydale project ; Gene H. Stegriy , foreman;
Wilbur R. (Phil) Clark, foreman; Jim Duck , foreman.
Cordisco was first employed by the Respondent about September 9, 1963, on a
mining operation at the Kennydale tunnel site. After some weeks on this job,
Cordisco observed that employees were entering the tunnel to report for work some
'The complaint was based on a charge dated January 15, 19G4, filed by Michael
Cordisco , an individual
TRAYLOR-PAMCO 385
15 to 20 minutes before actual shift starting time. Considering this a violation of
the AGC contract, he brought this to the attention of a Mr McLellan, then Local
440's business agent, and later a conversation concerning the matter occurred between
Johansen, McLellan's successor, Foreman Duck, Cordisco, and others. According
to Cordisco, Duck inquired concerning the identity of the employees who had called
the business agent about the matter, and he, Cordisco, had finally informed Duck
that he was the one who had reported the matter He asked Duck what he was going
to do about it. Further, according to Cordisco, after reporting to the business agent
on the matter, the business agent made hum a shop steward and thereafter he wore
his steward's button while at work. Foreman Duck commented on his wearing the
button, and, with other employees piesent, told Cordisco that by becoming a steward
he was putting himself "behind the eight ball," and "When they decide to get rid of
you, that's it." On further examination, Cordisco testified, "Yes, he said when they
get tired of using you, he didn't say who they were, he said they would get rid of me "
On November 14, Cordisco was laid off along with others, and it is not alleged that
this layoff was discriminatory. In laying off Cordisco Respondent did not, however,
follow the required procedure of advance notification to the Union of the layoff or
discharge of a union steward. Also, it appears that the Union had failed to follow
the required procedure in notifying the Respondent that Cordisco had been appointed
a job steward. Apparently because of Respondent's faliure to give the required
notice, AGC Representative Hord advised Respondent to recall Cordisco whenever
work was available and General Superintendent Scheumann agreed to do so. Fore-
man Clark, in requesting referrals when more laborers were needed, did not spe-
cifically request Cordisco's referral. Nevertheless, Cordisco was returned to Respond-
ent's employ on December 2. Also hired on this date was Herbert Owen, another
one of the five employees alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged. Both
were hired for pouring concrete into prepared forms, and related work, on the
Kennydale tunnel operation.
On the first day of his reemployment, Cordisco observed that the work crew was
eating lunch inside the tunnel and, considering this to be a violation of the AGC con-
tract, he reported the matter to Business Agent Johansen that day.2 The next morning
Johansen went to the jobsite and, without notice to or consultation with management,
instructed the crew not to take their lunches into the tunnel.; On that day the entire
crew, some with obvious reluctance, ate their lunches in the "dry shack" near the
portal to the tunnel On the following day, General Superintendent Scheumann and
Foreman Stegriy were at the jobsite and on observing that the work crew had not
entered the tunnel at starting time, Scheumann inquired of Stegriy concerning the
delay. Stegriy said it was a question of whether the men would eat their lunches in
the tunnel or in the dry shack On Cordisco being pointed out to him as job steward,
Scheumann approached Cordisco and was told by the latter that he would not eat his
lunch in the tunnel. Scheumann testified credibly that he explained to Cordisco that
a conference had been arranged with Johansen and AGC officials to explore the
matter and that inasmuch as concrete was being poured that day his chief interest was
to get the men to work. The crew then entered the tunnel and all except Cordisco
and Owen took their lunches into the tunnel and ate there Cordisco and Owen
came out of the tunnel at the lunch break and ate in the dry shack. Except for
December 3, when Johansen instructed the crew to eat in the dry shack, all except
2 The section of the AGC contract relied on by Cordisco read.
The employer, when necessary, will furnish warm, dry change rooms of ample size,
equipped with heat for drying clothing and with benches for use during lunch periods.
They will be situated as close as practical to the site of the work and will not be
used for storage or material or equipment.
8 Johansen on cross-examination:
Q. After Mr. Cordisco reported to you that the men were eating in the tunnel,
did you complain to any Company personnel of Traylor-Pamco about that fact?
A Yes, I did
Q. All right, now, what day'
A. After December 5.
Q. After December 5?
A. Yes.
Q. All right , what day after December 5'
A. I was over there in person December 9.
206-446-66-vol 154 26
386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cordisco and Owen ate in the tunnel on days when concrete was poured .4 While
Respondent's supervisors testified that neither Cordisco nor Owen were required to
eat in the tunnel, or prevented from eating in the dry shack, and Scheumann testified
that on December 4 he told Cordisco it made no difference to him whether he ate in
the tunnel or in the dry shack, I think there is no question that on days when concrete
was poured, it was Respondent's preference and direction that the crew take lunches
into the tunnel and eat there. Owen specifically testified that his foreman directed
him to take his lunch into the tunnel and he refused to do so. And while the Respond-
ent denies that the discharge of Cordisco and Owen resulted from their refusals to
eat in the tunnel, the matters are sufficiently interrelated that some exposition on the
operation of the Respondent is required.
During times material to the discharges under consideration, the Respondent was
running a three-shift operation at the Kennydale tunnel The first shift beginning at
8 a.m., on which both Cordisco and Owen were engaged, was engaged chiefly in
pouring concrete. The swing shift was chiefly a cleanup operation and preparation
for the next pour The third or graveyard shift completed the preparation for the next
pour, moving the form into its new position, fitting the top panels back in and con-
necting up the concrete line so that the next pour could begin on the 8 a.m. shift.
Thus, the work of the second and third shifts was correlated in a manner to prepare
for the next pour and any delay on any one shift would delay the entire operation
Some 12 employees were employed on each shift. The Kennydale tunnel is about
2,600 feet in depth, with a portal at one end. According to Scheumann's credited
testimony, the usual concrete pour of a hundred feet required an average of about 5
hours and usually ran past the noon hour. Once started the pour could not be inter-
rupted, and for that reason most of the men engaged in this operation apparently
preferred to take their lunches into the tunnel rather than to postpone eating to the
end of the pour, which would be required if they ate their lunches in the dry shack.
When the pour extended beyond the lunch hour, as it usually did, time-and-a-half
pay was allowed for this period, in accordance with a provision of the AGC agree-
ment Owen, who refused to eat in the tunnel, testified that some 15 to 20 minutes
was required each way to the dry shack and back which was additional to the 30
minutes allowed for actually eating lunch. The dry shack admittedly was modern,
had shower stalls, benches, toilet accommodations, etc. In contrast there were prac-
tically no accommodations for eating in the tunnel
To return to the discharges, on December 10 again, of the entire crew, only
Cordisco and Owen had their lunch in the dry shack. Shortly after finishing his lunch
and returning to work in the tunnel, Cordisco, according to his undisputed testimony,
was told by Foreman Stegriy, "You are going to find out who is running this job, us
or the union. A few minutes later, Stegriy was summoned to the phone and,
after answering it, told Cordisco that Superintendent Clark wanted to see him outside.
After giving Cordisco a temporary assignment, Clark told him he was being laid off
and gave him his check. Cordisco asked Clark why he was being laid off and Clark
said, "You are not happy here." Owen's discharge followed on the same day He
did not ask the reason for his discharge and was given none.
Stegriy, who recommended the discharge of Owen and Cordisco to his superior,
Clark, testified that Owen, because of his age and infirm physique, was slow and
unable to keep up with the work that was assigned to him. Owen did his work "as
good as he could do it, which was very slow," Stegriy testified. "He did try to do it.
He was in the way, he was slow, he moved slow." Concerning Cordisco, Stegriy
testified that he also was slow, "every chance he got he would like to talk and that
is why he didn't pull enough." Stegriy explained that "pulling studs you have to keep
up or your concrete is going to set up and you leave a big hole in there, then you have
to finish or come back, and if you keep pulling them fast enough, you won't have that,
you have good-looking concrete." Questioned whether the fact that Owen and
Cordisco ate their lunch in the dry shack instead of in the tunnel along with the
rest of the men affected their work, Stegriy testified, "It would take them an hour
to go out and come back in and the other men would be working a half-hour more
than they would ... it slowed the job down."
Except for Stegriy's statement to Cordisco shortly before the latter's discharge
I would have little hesitancy in finding that the discharge of Cordisco and Owen was
for cause During the first period of his employment Cordisco doubtless caused the
Respondent some discomfiture by reporting that the men were entering the tunnel
on their way back to work a few minutes before starting time. Also, something
4Cordisco testified: "There was just one day where the whole crew went out to eat but
all the other days I was there the only one was me and Owen went out to eat our lunch
in the dry shack."
TRAYLOR-PAMCO 387
might be made of Foreman Duck's comment that in becoming a job steward Cordisco
was "putting himself behind the eight ball," and that when "they " got tired of using
him "they" would get rid of him. Cordisco 's testimony on this incident , though
undisputed , was so confused and inconclusive as to leave in doubt just what Duck
meant by his statement and there is no sound basis for inferring that he necessarily
meant that Cordisco was putting himself behind the "eight ball ' with management,
or that "they" referred to management . In any event Cordisco was kept on until
that part of the tunneling operation was finished, was laid off with others of the crew,
and Duck was no longer his foreman . Nor am I able to read any great significance
into Respondent 's failure to give the Union advance notification of Cordisco 's layoff.
The Union had not given it official notification of Cordisco 's appointment and except
for Duck's observation of his shop steward button there was nothing official at that
time to identify him as a shop steward. Respondent 's failure, when work was
resumed, to ask specifically that Cordisco be referred does not appear to have been
required since Respondent , on advice of AGC Manager Hord, had already agreed
to his recall , and the Union was aware of this.
The General Counsel argues that Respondent 's defense to the December 10 dis-
charges should have been more specific as to cause if cause and not pretext was the
reason for the discharges . It appears to me, however , that Stegriy and Clark in
testifying that they personally observed Cordisco and Owen at work and that both
were slow , Owen because of infirmity , Cordisco because of inattention , thereby hold-
ing back the work of others , was about as specific as it could be under the circum-
stances. As previously observed, the three shifts were coordinated in a way that
any delay in any part of the operation would be reflected in the entire operation, and
there is no reason to doubt Scheumann 's testimony that the work was not proceeding
satisfactorily .5 The testimony of Respondent 's witnesses as to Owen was borne out,
not by his age but by his physical appearance which was that of a man frail in
physique , nervous, and with a very low boiling point. Stegriy 's testimony that Owen
did his work "as good as he could do it," and "he did try to do it," did not impress
me as the testimony of one biased in his appraisal of Owen's work . Owen admitted
that on an occasion Stegriy told him "something about I should quit work or find
some easier or different work." The testimony that Cordisco moved slow, thereby
not taking on his full workload, partially because of talking on the job, also did not
impress me as being too farfetched for credence.
Cordisco is not, of course , to be censured or prejudiced by his alertness both before
and after he became a job steward in reporting to Johansen on what he considered
to be contract violations, but his designation as steward did not privilege him to
shirk in the performance of the work assigned to him, make a unilateral determina-
tion that the labor contract was not being followed and act in violation of managerial
instructions on the basis of such a determination ,e or generally to refuse to follow
the instructions of his supervisors . The extent to which his refusal, and Owen's
refusal , to eat their lunches in the tunnel on days that concrete was being poured,
entered into Respondent 's appraisal of their overall satisfactoriness as employees,
cannot be gauged with any degree of certainty . Each lost at least 30 minutes of
IIn addition to Scheumann ' s testimony there is the testimony of AGC Manager Hord
that Scheumann reported to him that they were "Having quite a problem with time loss
on the job ; that they were getting about six hours a day work out of the men for eight
hours pay ," and "asked if there were some way we could alleviate this problem."
Scheumann asked Hord to get a meeting set up with union officials , and such a meeting,
to be referred to in detail later , was set up and had on December 5.
O That portion of the contract relied on , quoted in footnote 2, supra, besides qualify-
ing language-" if necessary"-did not necessarily apply to the situation that existed in
the tunnel on days that concrete was being poured , and throughout the period that
Cordisco and Owen were refusing to eat in the tunnel the Respondent was attempting to
work out an agreement with their bargaining representative which would afford a solu-
tion to this particular problem. In my opinion these factors distinguish this case from
Merlyn Bunney and Clarence Bunney, Partners, d/b/a Bunney Bros. Construction Com-
pany, 139 NLRB 1516 , relied on by the General Counsel. If , as the Board reasoned in
that case, an employee ' s insistence on rights granted him under a collective -bargaining
agreement is an extension of concerted activities in getting the agreement and for that
reason protected , It must follow that the right asserted by the employee is clearly em-
bodied in the agreement . Otherwise, normal managerial disciplines could be thwarted,
with impunity , anytime any employee working under a bargaining agreement decided
unilaterally that he was denied rights guaranteed him under the agreement whether or
not the agreement , properly construed, clearly gave him such rights.
388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
working time engaged in by their fellow employees by their respective refusals. I am
doubtful that the said refusals can properly be characterized as either concerted or
protected . There is not even the proverbial iota of evidence that there was any con-
sultation between the two in the matter , that either relied in any measure on the other
in making his refusal , or that their association in refusing to eat in the tunnel was
anything but accidental The crew as a whole obviously preferred to eat in the
tunnel on days that concrete was poured, and except on the one day when specifi-
cally told by Johansen not to, did so. But assuming that all you need to establish
"concert" is that 2 out of some 12 individuals act in protest over the same thing at
about the same time, we still do not have a situation here such as existed in N.L R.B.
v. Washington Aluminum Company, Inc, 370 U.S. 9, and kindred cases. Owen's
description of the lack of sanitation in the tunnel was graphic but a little too "hopped
up" for complete credence . T Granting there was lack of complete comfort and sani-
tation , this could hardly be expected in an operation of this sort where mud and
seepage from the concrete would unavoidably occur, and it is unbelievable that had
the situation been as foul as Owen portrayed it that all the employees except Owen
and Cordisco , including Foreman Stegriy , apparently preferred eating there to the
inconveniences of waiting to the end of the pour to have their lunches in the dry
shack. Furthermore, Cordisco knew that the Respondent was attempting to work
out a satisfactory solution to this particular problem through bargaining between the
AGC and the employees ' union representatives , but nevertheless persisted in his
refusal to comply with managerial directives in the matter . For these several reasons,
though the Respondent has defended on other grounds , I would find that even if
the refusals of Cordisco and Owen to eat in the tunnel contributed to their general
unsatisfactoriness as employees and therefore constituted at least one element in
the discharge decision , the said discharges were not discriminatory but for cause.
Stegriy's statement to Cordisco shortly before the latter 's discharge , subject to several
interpretations as it is, does not rise to a degree of evidentiary importance sufficient
to cause me to reverse conclusions I have reached on the basis of overall factors
canvassed above.
B. The Brown, Moceri, and O'Brien discharges
The discharges of William Brown , Sam Moceri , and William O'Brien, occurring
on December 17, also involved to some degree the matter of employees eating their
lunches inside the tunnel and therefore requires further reference to the matter. As
indicated in Foreman Stegriy's statement to Cordisco , referred to above, relating to
Respondent 's efforts to reach some agreement with the Union resolving the problem
of lunches in the tunnel , a meeting attended by Johansen , Hashman, Hord, and offi-
cers of the Respondent was held on December 5, and at this meeting a tentative
agreement was reached , an agreement which was put into writing and executed by
all parties on December 18.8
The agreement , insofar as it is material and applicable here , provides:
The men working in the tunnels would eat their lunch in the tunnel after they
were working 1000 feet or more from the portal provided the Company would
furnish a warm , dry place within the tunnel , equipped with benches or chairs,
lights and, if necessary, heat and a place for the men to wash their hands. Also
no muck cars are to be run through eating area while crew is at bench. Where
these facilities are not provided , the men would be allowed time to go out to the
change shack to eat. The men who are working less than 1000 feet from the
portal would be allowed to go to the change shack for lunch . The only excep-
tion to this would be where the men were required to work through the lunch
hour and were paid according to the Agreement for this time. The men then
would be expected to eat at their place of work.
7 Owen described the tunnel as highly unsanitary , without toilet facilities , reeking with
urine-"men walking through it and scattering it all over every thing"-and generally
filthy. It is noted, however , that the agreement ultimately reached by Respondent and
the Union for providing facilities in the tunnel for eating, made no provision for the
installation of toilet facilities Such facilities were provided at the portal to the
tunnel and there is no evidence that any employee was denied permission for leaving the
tunnel as the need arose
B Johansen denied that there was an agreement reached at the December 5 meeting
He testified that he was opposed to employees eating in the tunnel under any circum-
stances . Council Business Agent Hashman , AGC Manager Hord, and officers of the Re-
spondent testified that an oral agreement was reached on that date and they are credited
The written agreement of December 18, to which Johansen was one of the signatories,
specifically states that it is the verbal agreement of December 5, put into writing
TRAYLOR-PAMCO 389
It is noted that this agreement is not restricted to days when concrete is being
poured or to shifts on which this operation is accomplished. Obviously, Respondent
considered it to its advantage to have the employees eat in the tunnel at all times
they are at work there, though its earlier insistence, in the situation involving Cordisco
and Owen, on eating in the tunnel had particular reference to the concrete pouring
operation
Coming now to the second group of discharges. O'Brien was hired on December 9,
William Brown and Sam Moceri the following day. All were hired on the second
or swing shift. Foreman on this shift was Wilbur (Phil) Clark. The main functions
of the swing shift were stripping forms, moving pipe, timber, railroad tracks, etc.,
preparatory to the next pour, and cleaning up what is normally something like a foot
of mud and concrete spillage. On December 9 and 10 the employees apparently ate
in the dry shack, but on December 11, Foreman Clark instructed them to take their
lunches into the tunnel. O'Brien protested that such a practice was "unheard of." He
testified, "I questioned the legality of his move because we have never under any
circumstances eaten underground." Moceri also protested Clark's instructions and
spoke of seeing the Union's business agent next day. Clark replied that it was accord-
ing to arrangements made with the Union, whereupon O'Brien said that the "main
thing was to maintain harmony" and the men would comply with instructions to eat
in the tunnel until he, O'Brien, saw Johansen, the business agent. O'Brien testified
that there were no accommodations for eating in the tunnel, no benches for the men to
sit on, no sanitary facilities, no running water for cleanup purposes On December 12,
O'Brien saw Johansen and got a letter from him appointing O'Brien shop steward
and directing that lunches be eaten in the dry shack. On reporting to work, O'Brien
showed this letter to his foreman, Hank Clark, and Scheumann. On reading the let-
ter, Scheumann remarked, "Well, I thought this thing had been all settled," but did
not protest the action of the employees in complying with Johansen's instructions.
According to O'Brien, the employees were assured that facilities for eating would be
provided for in the tunnel. "He [Phil Clark] said during the weekend the company
was going to straighten out the conditions in the tunnel and provide proper facilities
so that Monday we could bring our lunches in."
On the following Monday, when the men reported for work, Clark told them that
Johansen had approved the facilities for eating in the tunnel. O'Brien said, "Well, if
it has been approved, we will take them in." Accordingly, all the employees took
their lunches into the tunnel. O'Brien testified that the facilities for eating were
inadequate, not enough benches for all the men to sit while eating, no heat, no toilet
facilities, etc He, Brown, and Moceri sat together while eating and nearby, having
his lunch, was Foreman Clark. The three employees, while eating. complained among
themselves about the inadequacy of the accommodations provided by the Company.
On the following day, O'Brien talked to Johansen and Johansen told him "The com-
pany has promised faithfully that they will rectify any bad features," and O'Brien
was to disregard the letter Johansen had previously given him instructing the men not
to eat in the tunnel. Acting on this advice, O'Brien and the other employees there-
after took their lunches into the tunnel. They testified that after their having pro-
tested eating conditions in the tunnel, Foreman Clark's attitude toward them changed
from friendly to unfriendly.
O'Brien testified that on reporting for work in the tunnel on December 17, he found
that there was a congestion of smoke in the tunnel sufficient to make eyes smart and to
cause coughing. Moceri and Brown testified to the same effect. The smoke fumes
appear to have been caused by a welding operation Brown told Foreman Clark to
get rid of the fumes or he "would call the state safety division." According to him,
Clark said, in reply, "never mind the smoke, just grab ahold of the timber and run,"
or words to that effect. O'Brien, Brown, and Moceri refused to work in the smoke
and so informed Clark. He put them to work elsewhere. There is no evidence that
employees other than O'Brien, Moceri, and Brown protested the smoke condition or
pany has promised faithfully that they will rectify any bad features," and O'Brien
the smoke fumes cleared up and after that he, Moceri, and Brown resumed working
wherever directed. All employees had their lunches in the tunnel although, accord-
ing to O'Brien, adequate facilities had still not been provided. At the end of the shift,
Clark handed O'Brien his check and informed him that he was discharged. To
O'Brien's inquiry as to the cause, Clark said, "You are not qualified " O'Brien
replied, "The only one on this job not qualified is you." Brown and Moceri were
discharged at the same time The Respondent claims that it gave Johansen advance
notice, by telephone, of O'Brien's discharge, but Johansen denied receiving such a
call. I found Johansen unreliable as to dates and incidents and find that such a call
was made.
390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's defense to the discharges is that the three employees were slow work-
ers, negligent in the performance of their duties, and no matter where assigned to
work in the tunnel always contrived to get together and in being together, presum-
ably, compounded the slackness of their individual work performances. It is by no
means clear to me from Foreman Clark's testimony just how the three, regardless of
individual work assignments, managed always to get together during their working
time, contrary to his directions, but otherwise their association is clear They jointly
protested being required to eat in the tunnel; through them their protest was carried
to the Union and as a result O'Brien was appointed steward and the men were
instructed by Johansen's letter not to eat in the tunnel. Upon installation of certain
facilities for eating, these instructions were withdrawn, but the three, in Clark's
presence, were critical of the facilities afforded by the Respondent. I think there can
be no doubt therefore that not only were they regarded by the Respondent as associ-
ated in their work habits but also in their protests over lack of facilities for eating in
the tunnel. This was a matter of considerable concern to the Respondent and a mat-
ter that was under discussion for weeks between company and union representatives,
and I have no doubt that the Respondent was sensitive to criticism in this area.
Somewhat the same situation existed with respect to the previous discharge of
Cordisco and Owen, both of whom, also, had protested eating in the tunnel under the
existing circumstances. There are significant differences, however, in the two situa-
tions. (1) Here the protected concerted nature of the protests is clear. The Respond-
ent, at the time the protests were made, had not lived up to its oral agreement with
the Union of December 5, which called for it to supply seating and other facilities
for eating in the tunnel. Foreman Clark's testimony that benches had been provided
is not credited. O'Brien, in making the protests, and Moceri and Brown in joining
with him, were therefore engaged in legitimate concerted and union activities. (2)
Here there was no refusal, individually or collectively, of the three dischargees to
comply with instructions of their supervisors with respect to eating in the tunnel,
nothing in their conduct constituting or bordering on insubordination or disrespect.
Whenever the rest of the crew on their shift ate in the tunnel they followed suit. (3)
There was no time differential between them and the rest of the crew with respect
to actual time spent on the job, as was the case with Owen and Cordisco, and there-
fore any complaint with respect to their lack of production could not be traced to
such a time differential. (4) Finally, though as in the case of Cardisco and Owen
their foreman would be hard put to it in the short time they were employed to be
specific as to actual time and deed in describing their slowness as employees, I found
here no objective factors, such as existed in the case of Owen, and to a lesser degree,
Cordisco, which tended to substantiate Respondent's claim that they slowed down
the work of their crew, and the testimony of Foreman Clark on their work habits
was not convincing.9 In short, on the basis of the entire evidence, I find that the
preponderance of the credible testimony supports the General Counsel's allegations
with respect to the discharge of O'Brien, Brown, and Moceri, but falls short of a
preponderance in the case of Owen and Cordisco.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent discharged William O'Brien, William Brown,
and Sam Moceri because of their union and concerted activities, I shall recommend
that the Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered because of
the discrimination against them, by payment to them of a sum of money equal to
that which they normally would have been paid in Respondent's employ from the
date of the discharge to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less their net
9 No reference has been made to the refusal of the three on the date of their discharge
to work in a smoke congested area for the reason that Respondent contends that the dis-
charge decision preceded that incident, and the Incident therefore had no bearing on it.
TRAYLOR-PAMCO 391
earnings , if any, during said period , provided Respondent 's project with the muni-
cipality of Metropolitan Seattle on which it was engaged at the time the discharges
occurred is in operation . If work on the project has been terminated , it will be
recommended that the backpay order, as stated above, run from the date of the dis-
criminatory discharge to the date on which the dischargees ' work on the project
would have been terminated , absent discrimination , and that in lieu of an offer of
reinstatement , as specified above, the Respondent send written notices to each of
the discriminatees advising them that it will consider them for employment at any
of the Respondent 's projects on a nondiscriminatory basis. Alabama Roofing & Metal
Co., Inc., 142 NLRB 882. Loss of pay under the backpay order recommended above
shall be computed upon a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and shall include the payment of interest
at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 440 and the Council are, each of them, labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of its
employees , William O'Brien, William Brown, and Sam Moceri , thereby discouraging
membership in Local 440, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a)(3) of the Act.
3. By the said discriminatory discharges , the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, it is recommended that the Respondent , Traylor-Pamco,
its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Local 440 or any other labor organization of
its employees , by discharging its employees or by discriminating in any other manner
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment , or any term or condition of
employment.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its
employees in the right to self -organization , to form labor organizations , to join or
assist Local 440, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from
any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Offer William O'Brien , William Brown , and Sam Moceri immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or equivalent positions if work is continuing on the
project on which they were employed at the time of their discriminatory discharge,
or, in the alternative , if work on the project has been discontinued , send them written
notices forthwith advising them that it will consider them for employment at any of
Respondent 's construction projects on a nondiscriminatory basis , and make them
whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them , in the manner set forth in the section above entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying , all payroll records , social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Notify William O'Brien, William Brown, and Sam Moceri if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of their rights of reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948 , as amended , provided the project on which they
were employed at the time of their discriminatory discharge has not been completed.
392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Post at its operations in or near Seattle , Washington , copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix ." 10 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 19, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent 's authorized
representative , be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing , within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision , what steps it has taken to comply herewith 11
"In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Boaid , the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words " the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board ' s Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order".
ii In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read . "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from
the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act , as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Street Pavers, Sewer , Watermain
and Tunnel Workers , Local 440 , or any other labor organization , by discharg-
ing any of our employees because of their concerted or union activities or in any
other manner discriminate in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form, join,
or assist the above-named Union, or any other laboi organization , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing , or to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection , or to refrain from any or all of such activities.
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to William O ' Brien, William
Brown , and Sam Moceri , provided work on the project on which they were
employed at the time of their discharge has not been completed, or, in the
alternate if work on said project has been completed , will forthwith notify them
in writing that their application for employment on any of our projects will be
considered on a nondiscriminatory basis, and will make them whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered because of the discrimination against them
WE WILL notify William O 'Brien, William Brown , and Sam Moceri if pres-
ently 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 of 1948 , as amended, after
discharge from the Armed Forces, provided work on the project on which they
were employed at the time of their discharge has not been completed
All of our employees are free to become or remain , or refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of the above -named or any other labor organization We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment , or any term or condition of
employment , against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf
of any labor organization.
TRAYLOR-PAMCO.
Employer.
Dated----------------- -- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Reeional Office , 327 Logan
Building , Seattle , Washington , Telephone 682-4553, if they have any questions con-
cerning this notice or compliance with its provisions