Adams Construction Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 673 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

ADAMS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Adams Construction Corporation and United Mine
Workers of America . Case 9-CA-8965
September 25, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
Upon a charge filed on November 21, 1974, and
amended on January 6, 1975, and March 27, 1975,
by the United Mine Workers of America, herein
called the Union, and duly served on Adams Con-
struction Corporation, herein called the Respondent,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 9, issued
a complaint on January 31, 1975, and an amended
complaint on April 16, 1975, against Respondent al-
leging that Respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies
of the charge and amended charges, complaint and
notice of hearing, and amended complaint and no-
tice of hearing before an Administrative Law Judge
were duly served on the parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com-
plaint alleges in substance that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by threatening em-
ployees with discharge unless they signed dues
checkoff authorization cards for United Steelworkers
of America, AFL-CIO, and by discharging employ-
ees Hobie Castle and Dorsey Carty for refusing to
sign such authorization cards.
On February 7, 1975, Respondent filed an answer
to the complaint and an amended answer thereto in
which it admitted the factual allegations of the com-
plaint but contends in substance that, although its
conduct was in violation of the Act, it was uninten-
tional and was engaged in as a good-faith effort to
comply with the obligations of its contract with Unit-
ed Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO. The amend-
ed answer further alleged that both discharged em-
ployees had been reinstated on January 17, 1975. On
May 23, 1975, counsel for the General Counsel filed
directly with the Board a motion for judgment on the
pleadings . The Board, on June 3, 1975, issued an or-
der transferring the proceeding to the Board and a
Notice To Show Cause why the General Counsel's
motion should not be granted. In a letter dated May
27, 1975, Respondent's attorney stated that the mem-
orandum attached to counsel for the General
Counsel's motion was factually correct and that his
client had no desire to file a response to the motion.
673
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment 1
Although Respondent filed a timely answer which
admitted certain allegations and denied certain alle-
gations of the complaint, an amendment to its an-
swer admitted all factual allegations of the complaint
which constituted elements of the violations charged
therein and further admitted that Respondent's con-
duct was violative of the Act. After the General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment had been
served on Respondent, Respondent's attorney, in a
letter of May 27, 1975, conceded the accuracy of the
memorandum filed by counsel for the General Coun-
sel in support of the motion which substantially reit-
erated- the allegations of the complaint, and stated
that his client did not wish to file a response to the
Notice To Show Cause. Since there is thus no issue to
be litigated, we shall grant the General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Kentucky corporation with its place
of business in Allen, Kentucky, is engaged in the pro-
cessing of coal and gravel. During the past 12 months
Respondent sold goods valued in excess, of $50,000
directly to customers located outside the State of
Kentucky and shipped such goods from its place of
business in Allen, Kentucky.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re-
spondent is, and has been at all times material here-
in, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Mine Workers of America and United
Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO , are labor orga-
1 We shall treat General Counsel's motion for judgment on the pleadings
as a Motion for Summary Judgment and shall utilize such designation here-
inafter
220 NLRB No. 101
674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Independent 8(a)(1) Violations
Commencing on or about the last week in October
1974, and continuing through various dates thereaf-
ter, Respondent, through its supervisors , threatened
various and numerous employees with discharge if
they refused to sign dues checkoff authorization
cards for United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO. We find that by the aforesaid conduct Respon-
dent interfered with , restrained , and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act and that by such conduct Re-
spondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
B. The 8(a)(3) Violations
On or about November 2, 1974, and November 10,
1974, respectively, Respondent discharged its em-
ployees Hobie Castle and Dorsey Carty because of
their failure or refusal to sign dues-checkoff authori-
zation cards for United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO. We, accordingly, find that, by the afore-
said conduct, Respondent has engaged in unfair la-
bor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in sec-
tion III, above, occurring in connection with
Respondent's operations described in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, we shall order that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act by unlawfully discharging employ-
ees Hobie Castle and Dorsey Carty on November 2
and November 10, 1974, respectively, and by failing
and refusing to reinstate said employees until on or
about January 17, 1975, we shall order that Respon-
dent make whole said employees for any loss of earn-
ings suffered as a result of such unlawful conduct by
payment to each of them a sum of money equal to
that which each normally would have earned as wag-
es from the date of discharge to the date of reinstate-
ment, less net earnings during such period, with
backpay computed on a quarterly basis in the man-
ner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, 294 (1950), and with inter-
est thereon as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
The Board, on the basis of the foregoing facts and
the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Adams Construction Corporation is an employ-
er engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
and United Mine Workers of America are labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By threatening employees with discharge if they
failed to sign dues checkoff authorizations for United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discharging employees Hobie Castle and
Dorsey Carty on November 2 and November 10,
1974, respectively, and failing and refusing to rein-
state them until on or about January 17, 1975, Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Adams Construction Corporation, Allen, Kentucky,
its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with discharge for fail-
ure to sign union dues checkoff authorizations.
(b) Discharging and refusing to reinstate employ-
ees for failure or refusal to sign union dues checkoff
authorizations.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
ADAMS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole employees Hobie Castle and Dor-
sey Carty for loss of earnings caused by their unlaw-
ful discharge and delayed reinstatement in the man-
ner set forth in the Remedy section herein.
(b) Post at its Allen, Kentucky, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 9, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, timecards, personnel records and
reports, and all other records necessary to analyze
the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
675
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge unless they sign dues checkoff authoriza-
tions for United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO, or for any other Union.
WE WILL NOT discharge and refuse to reinstate
employees for failure or refusal to sign union
dues checkoff authorizations.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole employees Hobie Castle
and Dorsey Carty for loss of earnings caused by
their unlawful discharge and the delay in re-
instating them to their former jobs.
ADAMS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION