A & B Zinman, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 1512 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stances existing conditioned upon his abandonment of any right secured to him by
contract. I find no reason to conclude that the Respondent was unwilling to have
the question of Harbin's entitlement to the banding machine rate resolved by means
of contract procedures.
I find that the discharge of Harbin was not in violation of Section 8(a)(1) or (3)
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2( 6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) 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 complaint be dismissed.
A & B Zinman, Inc. and Donald Hart
Horn Construction Company, Inc. and Donald Hart
General Building Laborers' Local 66, International Hod Carriers,
Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO
(A & B Zinman, Inc.; Horn Construction Company, Inc.) and
Donald Hart. Cases Nos. 29-CA-47 (formerly 2-CA-9823), 29-
CA-48 (formerly 2-CA-9824) , and 29-CB-19 (formerly 2-CB-
39444). June 15, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 5, 1965, Trial Examiner Sidney D. Goldberg issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent Union filed exceptions to the
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 [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 Decision,
the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
152 NLRB No. 140.
A & B ZINMAN, INC. 1513
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as
its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein, and orders that Respondents A & B Zinman, Inc., and Horn
Construction Company, Inc., Long Beach, New York, their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, and General Building Laborers' Local
66, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union
of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
as so modified :
1. Add the following at the end of paragraphs B, 2, (a), and C, 2,
(a), of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order relating to Re-
spondent A & B Zinman, Inc. :
"Notify Donald R. Hart if presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Mili-
tary Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
In these proceedings under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the consolidated complaint 1 alleges that Respondent General Building
Laborers' Local 66, herein called the Union, had caused Respondent Horn Construc-
tion Company, Inc., herein called Horn, and Respondent A & B Zinman, Inc.,
herein called Zinman, each to discharge the Charging Party, herein called Hart,
from their respective employment because he, Hart, had engaged in activities within
the organization of the Respondent Union contrary to the wishes of the officers
thereof and that Respondents had thereby engaged in unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) and 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
Respondents each answered, denying the commission of unfair labor practices.
A hearing upon the issues so raised was held before Trial Examiner Sidney D.
Goldberg, at New York, New York, on May 5, 6, and 7, 1964, at which all parties
were represented and afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence, cross-examine
witnesses, and argue upon the facts and the law. Briefs filed by counsel for the
Union and for Horn have been considered.
For the reasons set forth in detail below I find that the separate discharges of
Hart by Zinman and Horn were caused by the Union by reason of Hart's activities
in the affairs of the Union. Accordingly, I find that Zinman and Horn have engaged
in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and
that the Union has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)
(1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, and from my observation of the wit-
nesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED
Horn, a New York corporation with its principal office and place of business in
Nassau County, New York, is engaged in the business of heavy construction and
building construction. During the year prior to the issuance of the complaint,
Horn purchased and imported into the State of New York lumber, cement, and
other goods and materials valued at more than $50,000 and purchased goods and
I Issued March 31, 1964, on charges filed February 11, 1964.
1514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
materials valued at more than $50,000 from enterprises engaged in interstate com-
merce. Zinman. a New York corporation engaged in the business of performing
contracts for plumbing and heating in building construction, in 1963 imported into
the State of New York goods and materials valued at more than $50,000. Both
Zinman and Horn are engaged, with others, in the construction of a municipal
building for the city of Long Beach, New York, Horn as general contractor and
Zinman as prime contractor for the heating, air conditioning, and ventilating systems.
If THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Union is a labor organization whose territorial jurisdiction includes the city
of Long Beach.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Backgi ound and sequence of events
Construction of a municipal building for the city of Long Beach has been under
way since at least early 1963 By the latter part of that year , the skeleton of the
six story structure had been completed and internal masonry work and plastering
were being performed . To protect this work from damage by the low temperatures
of the winter-the permanent heating system being not yet operative-the city's
engineers directed that temporary heat be supplied . The customary method of
supplying such temporary heat is by the use of strategically placed portable heaters
called "salamanders ," which burn propane gas from individual tanks.
When the city 's engineers decided that temporary heat was required , they directed
Zinman to supply it. Zinman protested that it was not within the requirements of
its contract . Under protest , however, it began to supply heat for the first three
floors of the building-the area where needed-for two shifts ; i e , 8 a m. to 4 p m ,
and 4 p . m. to midnight , and this arrangement continued through most of December.
Donald Hart , a member of the Union for 4 years , had begun working on the
project as a laborer for Horn in March 1963. In October , the union steward on
the job went into the Army and Joseph F. Thompson , its assistant business repre-
sentative , appointed Hart as temporary shop steward . When Hart, who was then
doing concrete and cleanup work for Horn , saw the salamanders and tanks of
propane gas being delivered , he checked with Zinman 's construction superintendent,
Monroe Kolber, and then asked Thompson to have him shifted to the heating work.
This was done and Hart became an employee of Zinman, tending the heaters sup-
plied by Zinman for the lower three floors of the building and working from 8 a.m.
until 4 p .m. Another employee of Zinman, Edward Goodwin , tended these heaters
from 4 p.m. until midnight and Donald Thompson , son of the union official and an
employee of Horn, covered them from midnight until 8 a.m.
By the end of December or the beginning of January all six floors required tem-
porary heat , the number of heaters had grown to more than 25 and, under the safety
provisions in the Union 's collective -bargaining contract ( binding on both Horn and
Zmman ), two men were required on each watch . At this time , Zinman and Horn
modified their arrangement and thenceforth each of them supplied one of the men
on the two-man team for each shift which patrolled the entire building . During
January, Hart's partner on the day shift was Frederick Nusser.
On January 29, 1964, about 8 a.m., Abraham L. Zinman (also referred to as
"Al"), president of Respondent Zinman, came to the construction site, paid Hart
his accrued wages, and discharged him.
Before Hart left the site , however, Mendel 2 Bernstein , construction superintendent
for Horn, hired him as a general laborer and put him to work on the day shift. He
worked that day until 4 p.m at which time Bernstein told him to report at 4 p.m.
the next day to go to work for Horn on the 4 p.m . to midnight heat detail.
Shortly after noon the following day, Horn's labor foreman , Faustino Del Monte
(usually referred to as "Eddie"), handed Hart and Nusser checks for their accrued
wages and told them that they were discharged.
B. The issues
In addition to the foregoing outline of events, which is undisputed, the con-
solidated complaint alleges that the discharges of Hart, by both Zinman and Horn,
2 This is the name he used in signing his pretrial affidavit and it is accepted as his
true riven name The names Emmanuel and Manny also occur but only one Bernstein is
involved in this case
A & B ZINMAN, INC. 1515
resulted from demands therefor by the Union and that the Union's demand were
based upon Hart's activities in union affairs.
The Union denies that it knew of Hart's activities within its organization or that
it did anything to cause either Zinman or Horn to discharge him. Both Zinman
and Horn support the Union's denial of responsibility and each assigns a separate
incident of misconduct to Hart as its reason for discharging him.
C. Discussion and conclusionary findings
1. Preliminary
The foregoing statement of the issues indicates, and the Union concedes, that the
decision herein turns upon the credibility of the witnesses-mainly Hart and Nusser
in support of the complaint and, in defense, Abraham Zinman and Monroe Kolber,
officials of Respondent Zinman, Mendel Bernstein and Murray Fleischman, officials
of Respondent Horn, and Joseph F. Thompson, the representative of the Respondent
Union. These were all, of course, interested witnesses-as was Hart. However,
after giving due consideration to their interest in the outcome, these officials of the
respective Respondents impressed me by the internal inconsistencies in their testi-
mony,3 by their hesitancy and evasiveness,4 and by their demeanor on the stand, as
engaged in a common, if not joint, effort to conceal the actions they had taken and
their real motives for taking them. I find them not to be credible witnesses and
their testimony, except where against the interests of Respondents or credibly cor-
roborated, to be unreliable. Any testimony which they gave and to which no
reference is made herein, has been rejected as unworthy of belief.
2. Hart's union activities
Elections for officers of the Union are conducted at 2- or 3-year intervals. The
schedule called for one to be held in June 1964 and, under union rules, for nomina-
tions in May. In December 1963, according to Hart, a group including himself and
Frederick Nusser decided to propose and support Nusser for the office of assistant
business agent.
One day about the middle of January, according to the testimony of Hart and
Nusser, they were having lunch at a diner near the job when Thompson came in
and sat down at the table with them. Nusser asked Thompson whether he had any
idea about who might run for his job of assistant business agent of the Union in
the coming election. Thompson said he had not and Nusser said: "Well, I will be
the first one to tell you myself, I wanted you to know first that I am definitely run-
ning." 5 Thompson, they testified, looked surprised but said nothing.
They also testified that, some days earlier, a rough sign reading "Vote Fred Nusser
in for delegate" had been hung in a local bar; that among those who saw it before
it disappeared was Donald Thompson, son of the union agent and also a laborer on
the municipal building, and that Donald Thompson remarked that it would take
Nusser "about 99 years" to get that job.
A few days after the luncheon incident, Del Monte, labor foreman for Horn,
needed six laborers and asked Hart, who was the Laborers' union steward, to find them
for him Hart said he would call Thompson for them at the end of the day. At
4 p in., however, Hart and Del Monte went to the nearby diner and found four
members of the Union there. Hart, after satisfying himself that the men were in
good standing, recommended that Del Monte hire them and he did so. For the two
additional men needed, Hart called Thompson and two laborers reported at the job
in the morning. Later that day Thompson came to the job and, learning that six
men had been hired by Horn, asked Hart how it had happened. Hart told him and
Thompson said: "Why don't you just run for business agent this June since you
think you can hire all these men."
S Thompson, in his pretrial affidavit in evidence, stated that he had "no conversations
with anyone from Horn concerning Hart or Nusser prior to their being laid off " Both
Fleishman and Thompson testified in great detail concerning their conversation on Jan-
uary 30, dealing with Nusser, which led to the discharge of Hart and Nusser on that date
4 Zinman, when asked whether he had conferred with counsel for the Union, about
2 hours earlier, just before the opening of the hearing, and when shown some documents,
first evaded and then answered that lie could not remember.
6 The record does not definitely show that it was Thompson's position that Nusser was
seeking. Although Nusser indicated that it was, counsel at the hearing stipulated that
it was not The record, however, shows that there were two assistant business manager
positions in the Union. I see no necessity to make a finding on this point.
1516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Nusser and Hart also testified that they attended the regular Union meeting on
January 23, 1964, and discussed their plans for Nusser's candidacy with many of
the union members, including Joseph Thompson's two sons and his nephew.
Del Monte, who is not a member of Respondent Union and was not one of those
backing Nusser's candidacy, testified that he knew about it "a few weeks" after
Nusser started working for Horn at the end of December, or "before the end of
January." Bernstein, job superintendent for Horn, also testified that he knew of
Nusser's candidacy "before the end of January." It appears, therefore, that this
matter was far from secret.
When questioned about this matter, Thompson was evasive. He admitted that he
had eaten lunch with Hart and Nusser at the diner near the project but, when asked
whether he recalled "some occasion when you had a discussion with Mr Nusser
concerning the fact that he was going to run for an office in the Union," Thompson
answered, "Well, no and yes.' When the question was repeated, he answered,
"Directly, no." In his pretrial statement, however, Thompson stated that "prior to
the meeting [of February 27] Nusser mentioned to me about the elections and that
he was thinking about it."
Based upon the foregoing, I find that Assistant Business Agent Thompson knew,
prior to January 29, 1964, that Hart and Nusser were engaged in furthering the
candidacy of Nusser for office in the Union. If, therefore, the Union caused Zinman
or Horn to discharge Hart because of this activity, as the complaint alleges, it
engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and the
employers engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.°
3. Hart's discharge by Zinman
On Friday, January 24, Hart was informed that his grandmother had died and
that the funeral would be held on Monday. He told Edward Minikel, Zinman's
foreman on the job, about it and asked whether he might take off the necessary time
on Monday to attend the funeral. Minikel said it was all right as far as he was
concerned, just to let him know when he would be away.? At the end of work on
that day Hart telephoned Thompson to report on a union matter. He also told
Thompson about his grandmother's death and that he would be away part of the
day on Monday to attend the funeral.8
The funeral was postponed from Monday to Tuesday and Hart put in his regular
time that day-8 a.m. to 4 p.m.-on the heat detail with Nusser. He informed
Minikel of the change in plans and, during the day, Hart and Nusser moved gas
tanks to strategic locations so that Nusser could handle the work alone fox that part
of the next day when Hart would be away.
The next day, Tuesday, January 29, Hart came in at 8 a.m., starting time, looked
about the building with Nusser and, finding everything in order, left to go to his
grandmother's funeral. The service was held in Deer Park but internment was in
Brooklyn so that Hart did not return to duty until about 2 p.m. When he did,
Nusser told him that Thompson had been at the project and had asked for him;
Hart continued to work until quitting time and then called Thompson Thompson
said there had been "trouble on the job" 9 while Hart had been away without notify-
ing him and that he was removing him as steward.
According to Minikel, at about 1:30 or 2 p in , Thompson asked him whether
Hart was on the job; he first said "yes" but immediately recalled that Hart had gone
9 Associated Press v. N L R B , 301 U S 103 , Radio Officers' Union, etc. (A H. Bull
Steamship Company) v. N L.R.B, 347 US 17, 39; Local 138, International Union of
Operating Engineers, etc (Nassau and Suffolk Contractors' Association, Inc.), 123 NLRB
1393, 1398 ; Shear's Pharmacy, Inc., 137 NLRB 451
7 Minikel corroborated Hart's testimony concerning this conversation The record
shows that Minikel was Zinman's highest official constantly on the job and that he had
authority to grant employees reasonable amounts of time off, exercising his judgment
whether to notify the Zinman office so that an adjustment in wages might be made
Respondents declined to stipulate that Minikel was a supervisor with the foregoing powers
I find that he was.
5According to the credited testimony of Hart and Nusser. Thompson admitted having
had the telephone conversation with Hart and discussing union business but, in testifying
concerning his reason for removing Hart as steward, stated that Hart had failed to notify
him that he, Hart, would be away from the job Thompson's denial is rejected
O There was no independent evidence of trouble on the job that day
A & B ZINMAN, INC. 1517
to the funeral and he told Thompson so.10 Thompson said "don't pay him for that"
and asked for Zinman's office telephone number. Minikel pointed to it on the wall
and Thompson, after copying it, left. As he was leaving the project he met Nusser
and asked where Hart was. Nusser told him that Hart was at his grandmothers'
funeral and reminded Thompson that he had been informed about it. Thompson said
he had heard nothing about Hart's proposed absence and told Nusser to inform Hart
that he was "fired."
Later that day Thompson telephoned Zinman's office and talked with Kolber.
Thompson, according to his testimony, inquired concerning the collective-bargaining
contract covering laborers that Zinman was supposed to sign and Kolber promised
that this would be done as soon as possible." Thompson testified that he then
informed Kolber that Hart had not been on the heat detail that day, that he was
removing him as shop steward, but that Zinman could suit itself about continuing
Hart in its employ. Kolber testified similarly concerning their talk about Hart but,
on the basis of the evidence set forth below and the lack of credibility in the testi-
mony of these witnesses, I reject their account of the conversation.12
After his conversation with Thompson, Kolber called Zinman and asked whether
there was sufficient cash available to pay off Hart 13 because he wanted him dis-
charged He also told Zinman that the union agent had informed him that Hart
had not been on the job "that day" and that that was the reason he wanted to lay
him off. Zinman undertook to stop at the project the next morning and discharge
Hart.14
The next morning, at starting time, Zinman met Hart at the job, gave him his
money,13 and told him he was discharged. According to Zinman's testimony, all he
said to Hart was, "Here's your money, I don't know what it's all about but Kolber
instructed me to pay you off." He also testified that Hart was discharged "primarily"
because he had been off the job. Hart testified that, in addition to the foiegoing,
Zinman said to him, "I'm sorry, I have to let you go. I don't know what the friction is
between you and your business agent."
After completing his business with Hart, Zinman went into the shanty used as
his field office and, according to the credited testimony of Minikel,16 he said that
11 Thompson's testimony that Minikel said Hart had not been in and he did not know
where Hart was is not credited.
11 Kolber had no recollection that the contract matter had been discussed
12 In addition to my general disbelief in the testimony of these witnesses, I find this
story inherently unbelievable. Thompson's appointment or removal of Hart as union
steward pertained only to union business and did not affect his performance of work for
Zinman. That the testimony of Zinman, Kolber, and Thompson was in agreement does
not, in my opinion, bring credit to their story but, in view of my conclusion that they
are not reliable witnesses, convinces me that their account was a joint fabrication.
Thompson gave, as his reason for telling Zinman about Hart's absence, that union rules
required that someone be on the heat detail at all times. Thompson admitted that he
spoke to Musser, who said that he was taking care of the heat and there is evidence that,
during the day when construction workers were on the job, they often "looked after"
the salamanders Thompson also admitted meeting Hart and Nusser together at lunch
but that he had never reported this joint absence to either Horn or Zinman There are
several provisions in the union contract relating to laborers' work in connection with
temporary heat but I find that Thompson's assigned reason was an afterthought and that
his activities in having Hart discharged by Zimman were not motivated by his policing of
these provisions.
"The workweek normally ended on Wednesday and paychecks therefor were distributed
by Zinman on Friday.
14 Kolber and Zinman both testified to additional details of this conversation and Kolber
testified that he spoke with Minikel after he had decided to discharge Hart. This testi-
mony is replete with evasions and contradictions. Neither Kolber nor Zinman was a
credible witness and further analysis of their testimony on this matter would serve no
useful purpose. Moreover, had Kolber called Minikel on this matter after the close of
the day, I am convinced that Minikel, who told Hart about 2 pm that Thompson had
been there and was angry about his absence, would have remembered the unusual incident
and would have reported to Kolber that Hart had been away only part of the day.
ii Hart could not recall and the record does not show whether it included pay for
the 28th.
is In sharp contrast to the other officials of Respondents mentioned above, Minikel
testified clearly and convincingly He was not cross-examined. I regard his testimony
as completely credible and I accept it where relevant.
1518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he was sorry he had to let Don Hart go, that he "was told by the delegate to let
him go and that 's the story."
In view of this testimony which, in my opinion , completely demolishes the credi-
bility of Zinman , I also credit the testimony of Hart and find that Zinman admitted
to him, as he did to Mmikel , that he was acting under pressure from Thompson.
In view of these admissions , supported by the evasive manner in which Kolber,
Zinman, and Thompson testified, I find that Thompson demanded that Zinman
discharge Hart and that Zinman did so in compliance with the Union 's demand.
This conduct by Zmman violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act and the
Union violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and ( 2) thereof.
4. Hart's discharge by Horn
As Hart was leaving the project after his discharge by Zinman , he was intercepted
by Horn's superintendent , Bernstein , for whom he had formerly worked and for
whom he had been doing a considerable amount of overtime work after completing
his shift for Zinman . Bernstein sympathized with Hart, saying that it was "a dirty
trick that your delegate pulled on you yesterday ," 17 and that he, Hart , could go to
work for Horn "any day." Accordingly , Hart went to work on concrete for Horn
and worked that entire day.
Sometime during the day, Bernstein told Hart that , beginning the following day,
Thursday , he was to go back on the heat detail , this time in Horn 's employ and for
the shift beginning at 4 p . m.18 Bernstein testified that, to put Hart back on the heat
detail , he discharged Donald Thompson , son of the Union official, and gave his fore-
man, Del Monte , a check to pay off Thompson when he reported for work at 4 p.m.
Del Monte testified that when he tendered the check to Donald Thompson and told
him he was being laid off, Thompson at first refused to accept it and said he wanted
to call his father to find out whether to do so. Del Monte also testified that young
Thompson made the call and then decided to take the check . I accept the foregoing
as a true account of the incident.
About noon the next day, Nusser , who had also been transferred to the 4 p.m.
to midnight shift by Horn , learned that he and Hart were being discharged. He
picked up Hart at his apartment and they went to the construction site where Horn's
foreman , Del Monte , gave them their checks and told them that they were discharged.
Respondent 's explanation for Horn 's discharge of Hart was supplied by testimony
of Bernstein , Horn 's job superintendent , Fleischman , its supervising engineer, and
Joseph Thompson , assistant business representative of the Union . The factual frame
work of this incident , to the extent that it is undisputed , is as follows: just prior to
January 3, 1964 , Fred Nusser , on the 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. shift for Horn at the project,
was asked by a former employer to do some work for it on that date . Nusser agreed
and, with the approval of Hart, made an arrangement with Edward Goodwin, an
employee of Zinman who regularly worked from midnight to 8 a.m ., whereby Good-
win continued working after the end of his own shift through the day until 4 p.m.
in place of Nusser ; Nusser then came to work that night at midnight , worked Good-
win's shift until 8 a.m., and continued with his own that next day. There is no
claim that any shift was not adequately covered ; both men were paid by their
respective employers as though there had been no change and no money passed
between Nusser and Goodwin.
Either very late in the day on January 29, or during the morning on January 30,
1964, after Hart had been discharged by Zinman and hired by Horn , Fleischman
received a telephone call from Joseph Thompson who told him that Fred Nusser
had worked at a different jobsite on January 3. Fleischman confirmed this with
17 Hart testified that he had informed Bernstein of his grandmother 's death and had
told Bernstein he would be away attending her funeral . Bernstein did not deny making
the above statement and I find that he made it. The Union objected to Hart ' s testimony
on this matter as not binding upon it . I agree that it is not proof that Thompson cause
Zinman to discharge Hart and I have given it no weight in reaching that conclusion. It
does constitute evidence , however, that Horn thereafter knew that Thompson was engaged
in an effort to interfere with Hart ' s tenure of employment
11 Nusser testified that , after Hart was hired , he, Nusser , pointed out to Bernstein how
well Hart had managed the heat detail, ordering gas for Horn and doing extra work
around the job. Bernstein agreed and said he had always been "very much satisfied"
with Hart ' s work and he wished he could keep him on it Nusser then pointed out that
all Bernstein need do to keep Hart on the heat detail was to shift people around, and he
offered himself as one who could be shifted.
G A & B ZINMAN, INC. 1519
the other contractor and checked with his payroll clerk who informed him that
Nusser had been paid for working January 3; he called Bernstein and asked him
"to investigate ." Bernstein asked Nusser about the incident and Nusser explained
that he had exchanged shifts with Goodwin after receiving the approval of Hart.
Bernstein reported these facts to Fleischman and Fleischman directed him to dis-
charge both Nusser and Hart. Bernstein prepared terminal paychecks for Nusser
and Hart and gave them to his foreman , Del Monte, for delivery. At about the same
time in the morning, Bernstein hired Donald Thompson for the 4 p .m. to midnight
heat shift.
As stated , the foregoing factual outline is not disputed . Hart, however , added an
element of great importance , that Bernstein had approved the Nusser-Goodwin
switch of shifts , and this Bernstein denied.
Hart's testimony on the point was simple : under cross -examination by counsel for
the Union early in the case , he twice testified that he considered that he had no
power to transfer an employee from one shift to another and that to do so he
always checked with the superintendent on the job. After so testifying , however,
Hart continued , "I know what you are getting to, yes, and he said it was all right " 10
On rebuttal , after the importance of this matter had become apparent , Hart testified
that, when Nusser sought permission to switch shifts with Goodwin on January 3,20
he, Hart, first checked with Bernstein and that Bernstein said, "You are in charge.
That's up to you . Go ahead."
Bernstein 's contrary testimony on this subject was in his account of a conversa-
tion he claimed to have had with Hart on January 30. He first testified that, having
been directed by Fleischman to "investigate " Nusser's "moonlighting," he questioned
Nusser about the events of January 3, and then , on being informed by Nusser that
Hart had approved his switch of shifts with Goodwin , he called upon Hart for an
explanation . According to Bernstein:
I asked Donald Hart if he was aware of the fact that Nusser had worked for
another job while ostensibly he was employed on this job.
He said yes, he had permitted Nusser to do that.
I asked him why I hadn 't been informed and I said to him , "Don't you think
you should have told me of it or spoken of it to me?"
He said he should have . However, he admitted that he hadn't.
This vital issue of fact must be resolved upon the comparative credibility of these
two witnesses . Hart 's testimony was clear and unequivocal . Bernstein , however,
shortly after relating the conversation he claimed to have had with Hart, testified
that he had not checked Nusser's story with Hart .21 It also, satisfactorily , appears
that Hart was at home, asleep , until awakened by Nusser with the news that they
had both been discharged and that Hart's first conversation of that day with Bern-
stein was shortly after noon when Hart asked him why he and Nusser had been
discharged.
After carefully considering the conflicting testimony of Hart and Bernstein on
this matter, in the light of all other testimony in the case and the demeanor of the
witnesses while testifying , I accept Hart 's testimony that he cleared the Nusser-
Goodwin switch with Bernstein and I conclude that Bernstein 's contrary testimony
is untrue.
In view of this conclusion , the reason assigned by Horn for the discharge of Hart
and Nusser loses all substance and I find that they did not engage in the misconduct
claimed . Fleischman 's direction that they be discharged , therefore , must be attributed
to some other factor or factors . Even if Bernstein , forgetting or suppressing the fact
ii The relevance of this statement was not apparent at that point and, when the Union's
counsel was asked how Hart 's power to transfer employees was ielevant, he answered
"credibility ." The subject was not further pursued at that time
2' In the transcript of testimony this date appears as January 30 but I am convinced
that it is either a typographical error or a slip of the tongue by Hart since the context
clearly shows that Hart was referring to the time just before the switch of shifts occuried.
A few pages later this conversation is correctly referred to as having occurred on Jan-
uary 3, and reference is made to a later conversation on this subject between Hart and
Bernstein , on January 30, after Hart' s discharge.
a The question put to Bernstein was whether he had checked with Hart "on that day."
Since it seems that all of Bernstein 's "investigation" occurred on January 30, these woids
do not alter the import of Bernstein ' s testimony . Bernstein testified at another point
that he could not recall talking with Hart before his discharge
1520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he had approved the Nusser-Goodwin switch, failed to inform Fleischman that
the incident reported by Thompson was without substance as a reason for discharging
Hart, Bernstein's knowledge of this fact and of the fact that the Union had an
animus against Hart that had cost him his job with Zinman only a day earlier is
attributable to Horn, since Bernstein was its managing agent. Under these circum-
stances, its discharge of Hart violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act 22
However, both Thompson and Fleischman admitted that they had discussed Nusser,
and Fleischman and Bernstein admitted that they had discussed Nusser and Hart.
Their own testimony shows that Thompson's purpose was to injure Nusser and, from
the facts disclosed, I conclude that it included Hart.23 On the basis of these facts
and the otherwise unexplained discharge of Hart by Horn, I find that Thompson was
the source of the pressure on Horn that caused Fleischman to order Bernstein to
discharge Hart. Accordingly, I find that the Union, in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A)
and (2) of the Act, caused Horn to discharge Hart for his union activities and thereby
to violate Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
5. Hart's credibility
In making the foregoing findings, I have credited Hart's testimony on several points
where it was opposed to testimony by Zinman, Kolber, Bernstein, or Thompson. In
each of these instances a strong factor in my determination was the lack of credi-
bility in the testimony of Respondent's representatives, based upon their demeanor
while testifying, their evasiveness, their own self-contradictions, or because refuted
by credible testimony by disinterested witnesses. Hart's testimony, on the con-
trary, was given in a straightforward manner and contains a minimum of internal
contradictions.
The Union's brief makes a strong attack on Hart's credibility based upon a claim
which he made for disability benefits and in which, it is alleged, he made a
fraudulent statement.
Hart admitted that, in March 1964, he broke his hand in a fight and that, in
filing a claim for benefits under a disability insurance system maintained pursuant
to law,24 he stated that he had suffered the injury while changing a tire. For this
misstatement the Union's brief declares him "guilty of a misdemeanor for wilfully
making a false statement or representation" because, it continues, he would not
have been eligible for such benefits if injured in a fight. The applicable provision
of the law 25 makes an employee ineligible for benefits under it-
(4) for any disability occasioned by the wilful intention of the employee to
bring about injury to or the sickness of himself or another or resulting from
any injury or sickness sustained in the perpetration by the employee of an
illegal act.
The Union's conclusion that Hart was "not eligible to receive benefits if he broke
his hand in a fight" is not, on these facts, one that necessarily follows from the terms
of the statute since Hart's participation in the fisticuffs could have been limited to
self-defense. His suppression, however, of the origin of his injury prevented any
investigation on this relevant point and was, therefore, improper conduct on his
part 26 Accordingly, consideration has been given to this incident in evaluating
Hart's testimony in this proceeding.
22 See N L R B. v Burnup and Sinis, Inc., 379 U.S. 21, affg. 137 NLRB 766, 771-773.
z3 The testimony of Fleischman and Thompson that Hart was not mentioned in their
telephone conversation is rejected and I find that Thompson conveyed his desire that Hart,
as well as Nusser, be discharged I also find that Thompson's position, as an official of
the Union representing the laborer employees of both Zinman and Horn, made it
unnecessary for him to request or demand, in haec verba, Hart's discharge but that, how-
ever, he conveyed his desire, it was sufficient to coerce these employers into discharging
Hart. See Bricklayers, Masons, and Plasterers' International Local Union No 18 (Fer-
guson Tile and Marble Co ), 151 NLRB 160
24 Workmen's Compensation Law of the State of New York, Sec 200-242 (McKinney's
Consolidated Laws, vol. 64, part 2).
The Union's brief cites section 205(3) but, since this section deals with disability
due to pregnancy, it may safely be assumed that the reference is an error and that the
succeeding section, 205(4), was intended
"The Union's statement that Hart "was guilty of a misdemeanor" is, strictly speak-
ing, only the opinion of its counsel since this matter was established by Hart's admission
and not by a conviction.
0
A & B ZINMAN, INC. 1521
In making this evaluation, however, it is to be noted that Hart's testimony con-
cerning the incident in which Thompson was told about Nusser's candidacy was
corroborated by Nusser and admitted, in part, by Thompson; his testimony concern-
ing his conversation with Zinman was corroborated by Minikel's revelation of
Zinman's admission in almost identical terms and his testimony concerning Bern-
stein's approval of the Nusser-Goodwin switch in shifts is made credible by Bern-
stein's testimony that he relied on Hart to arrange the heat details. Hart's testimony
was, moreover, generally consistent with the other credible evidence in the case and,
therefore, notwithstanding the foregoing,27 I find it credible.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Horn and Zinman, 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
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor
practices as set forth above, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent Union having caused Zinman and Horn to discharge Donald R. Hart,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and from like conduct in the
future. I shall also recommend that it notify Zinman and Horn, in writing, with
copies thereof to Hart, that it withdraws the request that it had made for that pur-
pose and that it has no objection to the employment of Hart by either of them.
I shall also recommend that Zinman and Horn, if still engaged in the construction
of the Long Beach Municipal Building,28 each offer reinstatement to Donald R.
Hart to the same or a substantially equivalent position to that which he held when
discharged by each of them and that each of them, jointly and severally with the
Union, make Hart whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion practiced by each of them against him I shall also recommend that the Union's
said liability terminate 5 days after notifying Zinman and Horn that it has no
objection to Hart's employment. I shall also recommend that Hart's loss of pay,
as aforesaid, be computed in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and bear interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum, as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record, I reach
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents Zinman and Horn are employers engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By discharging Donald R. Hart because of his activities within the Union,
Zinman engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By causing Zinman to discharge Hart in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
5. By discharging Donald R. Hart because of his actiivties within the Union,
Horn engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
6. By causing Horn to discharge Hart in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
aT Even proof that a witness was actually convicted of a crime would not require rejec-
tion of his testimony if it is otherwise credible. (See Harrah's Club, 150 NLRB 1702,
Trial Examiner's Decision footnote 41.)
"s See Rusciano Construction Corporation-Del Balso Construction Corporation, 136
NLRB 1332; Bechtel Corporation, 141 NLRB 844; Alabama Roofing d Metal Co., Inc.,
142 NLRB 882.
789-730-66-vol. 152-97
1522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7. 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 foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law and the entire record in
the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , it is recommended that.
A. Respondent General Building Laborers ' Local 66, International Hod Carriers,
Building and Common Laborers Union of America , AFL-CIO, its officers , agents,
and representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause A & B Zinman , Inc., Horn Construction
Company, Inc., or any other employer , to discriminate against Donald R. Hart, in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , except to the extent that such
rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify A & B Zinman , Inc., and Horn Construction Company, Inc., in
writing, with copies to Donald R. Hart , that it has no objection to the employment
of Donald R . Hart at the Long Beach Municipal Building project or any other proj-
ect within its territorial jurisdiction and requests said Employers to reinstate him
as recommended herein. Also notify Donald R. Hart, if he is presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States, that it has no objection to his full reinstate-
ment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Univer-
sal Military Training and Service Act of 1948 , as amended , after his discharge from
the Armed Forces.
(b) Jointly and severally with A & B Zinman , Inc., and Horn Construction Com-
pany, Inc., make Donald R. Hart whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of
the discrimination practiced against him in the manner set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post at its offices, meeting halls, and hiring halls, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A." 29 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 29, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative , be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to members and other employees using its hiring hall
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said
notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Additional copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A" shall be
signed by an authorized representative and forthwith returned to the aforesaid
Regional Director for posting by A & B Zinman , Inc., and Horn Construction Com-
pany, Inc., the said Employers being willing , at their business offices and construc-
tion projects , where notices to their employees are customarily posted.
(e) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director , in writing , within 20 days from the
date of this Recommended Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith 30
B. Respondent A & B Zinman, Inc., its officers , agents, successors , and assigns,
shall:
1 Cease and desist from:
( a) Encouraging or discouraging membership or activities in General Building
Laborers ' Local 66, International Hod Carriers , Building and Common Laborers
Union of America , AFL-CIO, by discriminatorily discharging Donald R . Hart or
any other employees , or by discriminating against them in any other manner in
2' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , 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 is 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 "
so In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read' "Notify the aforesaid Regional Director , in writing , within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith."
A & B ZINMAN, INC. 1523
regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employ-
ment , except to the extent permitted under Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) In the event it has not yet completed its work at the Long Beach Municipal
Building project, offer to Donald R. Hart immediate reinstatement to his former
or a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges.
(b) Jointly and severally with Respondent Local 66, International Hod Carriers,
Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO, make Donald R.
Hart whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the discrim-
ination against him since January 29, 1964, in the manner set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination or copying, all records necessary for the determination of the amount
of backpay due and the right of reinstatement or seniority under this Recommended
Order.
(d) Post at the office of its Long Beach Municipal Building project at Long
Beach, New York, if still engaged thereon, copies of the attached notices marked
"Appendix A" and "Appendix B." 31 Copies of said notices, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 29, shall, after being signed by it and the
Respondent Union, respectively, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 29, signed copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix B," for posting by the Respondent Union. Copies of
said notice will be furnished by the Regional Director and shall, after being signed,
be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for posting.
(f) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the
date of this Recommended Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith 32
C. Respondent Horn Construction Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from-
(a) Encouraging or discouraging membership or activities in General Building
Laborers' Local 66, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers
Union of America, AFL-CIO, by discriminatorily discharging Donald R. Hart, or
any other employees, or by discriminating against them in any other manner in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employ-
ment, except to the extent permitted under Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) In the event that it has not yet completed its work at the Long Beach Munici-
pal Building project, offer to Donald R. Hart immediate reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges.
(b) Jointly and severally with Respondent Local 66, International Hod Carriers,
Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO, make Donald R. Hart
whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him since January 30, 1964, in the manner set forth in the section of this Deci-
sion entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination or copying, all records necessary for the determination of the amount of
backpay due and the right of reinstatement or seniority under this Recommended
Order.
(d) Post at the office of its Long Beach Municipal Building project at Long Beach,
New York, if still engaged thereon, copies of the attached notices marked "Appendix
A" and "Appendix C." 33 Copies of said notices, to be furnished by the Regional
ss See footnote 29, .supra.
12 See footnote 30, supra.
81 See footnote 29, supra.
1524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Director for Region 29, shall, after being respectively signed by it and by the Respond-
ent Union, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for at
least 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) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 29 signed copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix C," for posting by Respondent Union. Copies of said
notice will be furnished by the said Regional Director and shall, after being signed, be
forthwith returned to the said Regional Director for posting.
(f) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the
date of this Recommended Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.34
u See footnote 30, supra.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL MEMBERS, TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF A & B ZINMAN,
INC., HORN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
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 you that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause A & B Zinman, Inc., Horn Construc-
tion Company, Inc., or any other employer, to discharge employees or discrimi-
nate in any other manner in regard to employees' hire or tenure of employment,
or any other term or condition of employment, except to the extent permitted
under Section 8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, restrain or coerce employees of
A & B Zmman, Inc., Horn Construction Company, Inc., or any other employer,
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with A & B Zinman, Inc. and Horn Construc-
tion Company, Inc., make Donald R. Hart whole for any loss of earnings he may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him since January 29, 1964.
We have no objection to the employment of Donald R. Hart at the Long
Beach Municipal Building project or any other project within our territorial
jurisdiction.
GENERAL BUILDING LABORERS' LOCAL 66, INTERNATIONAL
HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS
UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By---------------------------------- --------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States that we have withdrawn our objection to his
employment and that we have no objection to his reinstatement and employment
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.
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 Regional Office, 16 Court
Street, Brooklyn, New York, Telephone No. 596-3751, if they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX B
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 you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership or activities in General Building
Laborers' Local 66, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers
Union of America, AFL-CIO, by discriminatorily discharging any of our
employees, or by discriminating against them in any other manner in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment,
except as permitted under Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
A & B ZINMAN, INC. 1525
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, in the event we have not yet completed our work at the Long
Beach Municipal Building project, offer to Donald R. Hart reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights and privileges.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with General Building Laborers' Local 66,
International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America,
AFL-CIO, make Donald R. Hart whole for any loss of earnings he may lave
suffered as a result of the discrimination against him since January 29, 1964.
A & B ZINMAN, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his 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.
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 Regional Office, 16 Court
Street, Brooklyn, New York, Telephone No. 596-3751, if they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX C
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 you that.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership or activities in General Building
Laborers' Local 66, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers
Union of America, AFL-CIO, by discriminatorily discharging any of our
employees, or by discriminating against them in any other manner in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment,
except as permitted under Section 8 (a)(3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended.
,WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, in the event we have not yet completed our work at the Long Beach
Municipal Building project, offer to Donald R. Hart reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with General Building Laborers' Local 66,
International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America,
AFL-CIO, make Donald R. Hart whole for any loss of earnings he may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against him since January 30, 1964.
HORN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of his 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.
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 Regional Office, 16 Court
Street, Brooklyn, New York, Telephone No. 596-3751, if they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.