Aztech Electric, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 7, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 924 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Aztech Electric, Inc. and Herbert L. Buehler. Case
19-CA- 10641
September 7, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
On June 6, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Rich-
ard D. Taplitz issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision.
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.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision' in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified be-
low, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Aztech
Electric, Inc., Spokane, Washington, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modi-
fied:
I. Substitute the following for paragraph I(b):
"(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
I Pursuant to the General Counsel's motion to correct the Decision, we
hereby correct the following inadvertent error in the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision: the date "December 10" in the final paragraph of sec. III,
A, 3, is changed to "May 10."
2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products. Inc.. 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
'Pursuant to Hickmnott Foods, Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979), we find that a
narrow cease-and-desist order. rather than a broad order, is appropriate to
remedy the violations found herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to hire any applicant for
employment because of that applicant's internal
union activities that are protected by Section 7 of'
the Act.
WE WILL NOT in like or related manner inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section
7 of the Act.
WE WILL make Herbert L. Buehler whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits that he
suffered when we refused to hire him on May 10,
1978, by paying him backpay, plus interest.
AZTECH ELECTRIC, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD D. TAPLITZ, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Spokane, Washington, on February 27,
1979. The charge was filed on August 7, 1978, by Herbert
L. Buehler, an individual. The complaint issued on Septem-
ber 19, 1978, alleging that Aztech Electric. Inc., herein
called Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Issue
The primary issue is whether Respondent, through its
supervisor, R. Stuart Kirk, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act on May 10, 1978, by refusing to hire Herbert L.
Buehler because of Buehler's internal union activities,
which included Buehler's running against Kirk in an elec-
tion for business manager of a union.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to
introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs, which
have been carefully considered, were filed on behalf of the
General Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record of the case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Washington corporation with an office
and place of business in Spokane, Washington, is engaged
in the business of electrical contracting. During the year
preceding issuance of the complaint, Respondent had gross
244 NLRB No. 150
924
AZTECH ELECTRIC. INC.
sales of goods and services in excess of $500,000. During the
same period Respondent purchased and caused to be deliv-
ered to its facilities in Washington. goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside of
Washington or from suppliers within Washington which, in
turn, had obtained such goods and materials directly from
sources outside of Washington. The complaint alleges, the
answer admits, and I find that Respondent is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE L.ABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union No. 73, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, herein called the Union, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II1. THE A.LEGEI) UNFAIR ABOR PRACTIES
A. The Sequence of Events
1. Background
Respondent, an electrical contractor, is a member of the
Eastern Division, Inland Empire Chapter of the National
Electrical Contractors' Association. As such, Respondent is
bound by the 1977-80 contract between the Association
and the Union. Under that contract, the Union operates a
hiring hall and it is agreed that the Union is the sole and
exclusive source of referral of applicants for employment.
The contract also provides that the employer shall have the
right to reject any applicant for employment.
In late April or early May 1978, Respondent was prepar-
ing to begin certain electrical work for one of its customers,
Kaiser Aluminum. The word was to be performed at Kai-
ser's Trentwood mill and was known as the Kaiser-Trent-
wood job. In order for the electrical work to be performed,
a 132-inch rolling mill had to be put out of production, and
Kaiser put considerable pressure on Respondent to expe-
dite completion of the job. The job was scheduled to take
33 days, but because of difficulties with other contractors it
actually took 54 days to complete. The work itself was ar-
duous and required skilled journeymen wiremen.
On or shortly before May 10, 1978, Respondent re-
quested the union hiring hall to refer a journeyman wire-
man to work at the Kaiser-Trentwood job. On May 10,
1978, the hiring hall gave a referral slip to Herbert L. Bueh-
ler and dispatched him to Respondent's shop. At that time
R. Stuart Kirk was Respondent's project manager for the
Kaiser-Trentwood job. He was in charge of hiring.' When
Buehler reported on the job, Kirk refused to hire him. In
the past, both Kirk and Buehler had been officers of the
Union and there had been considerable intraunion friction
between them.
2. The intraunion friction between Kirk and Buehler
Both Kirk and Buehler have been members of the Union
for many years. Kirk passed the Union's journeyman wire-
i The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Kirk was a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act
man examination in 1961. and Buehler passed that exami-
nation in 1955. Both are carried on the Union's books as
journeymen wiremen. Both Kirk and Buehler were active
leaders within the Union. Buehler was appointed assistant
business manager in 1963 and he served in that capacity
until 1971 when he was appointed by the executive board to
be business manager for the remainder of an unexpired
term. He was then elected business manager and he served
in that capacity until August 1974. During contract nego-
tiations in 1973, Kirk was one of five union members who
vocally disagreed at union meetings with positions that
Buehler had taken concerning the Union's negotiating pos-
ture with regard to pensions. Sometime thereafter. Kirk in-
stituted a lawsuit against Buehler and others in a Federal
District Court relating to certain pension matters. While
that lawsuit was pending, Kirk ran against Buehler in an
election for the position of business manager. A runoff elec-
tion was held between Kirk and Buehler in 1974. Kirk won
the election and superseded Buehler as business manager.
Sometime after the election the lawsuit was dismissed.
Buehler then filed internal union charges against Kirk un-
der the Union's constitution, complaining that Kirk had
instituted a lawsuit without going through the Union's
grievance procedure and also alleging other violations of
the Union constitution. Those charges were later dismissed.
Kirk replaced Buehler as business manager in August
1974. From then through December 1974 Buehler remained
in the area and worked as a journeyman wireman. He was
referred to jobs through the union hiring hall. About Janu-
ary 1. 1975, Buehler left for Alaska where he worked in a
management position until April 1977 when he returned to
Spokane. Just before leaving for Alaska, Buehler told Kirk
that he was sorry he was going to Alaska because he would
not be able to keep an eye on Kirk and make sure that Kirk
did his job properly. Kirk glared at him. When Buehler
returned from Alaska in April 1977 he did not go back to
work immediately because of a broken wrist. He did attend
union meetings. At one meeting in May 1977 Buehler com-
plained about certain positions that Kirk was taking in ne-
gotiations. Kirk appeared upset.
Kirk was the Union's business manager from August
1974 through July 11, 1977. when he lost an election to
Glen Evans, who is presently business manager.
There is no indication that Kirk and Buehler ever worked
together as wiremen. Kirk credibly testified that he knew
Buehler only on a union basis and that was his only associ-
ation with Buehler.
Kirk was hired as a supervisor by Respondent in Novem-
ber 1977. On May 10, 1978, when Buehler was dispatched
by the hiring hall for the Respondent's Kaiser-Trentwood
job. Kirk refused to hire him.
3. The events of May 10. 1978
Buehler received his dispatch slip for Respondent's Kai-
ser-Trentwood job and was referred from the union hall at
about 8 a.m. on May 10, 1978. He drove to Respondent's
shop and told the woman in the office that he had been
dispatched from the hiring hall to the job. She went into
Kirk's office, and shortly thereafter Kirk came out and
spoke to Buehler. Kirk opened the conversation by saying.
925
I)DE('ISIONS OF NATIONALI. LABOR RELAIIONS BOARI)
"We are rejecting you." Buehler asked why, and Kirk re-
sponded by asking him if he wanted to talk to someone else.
Buehler said, "No, but you haven't even looked at my refer-
ral. how come yo,; are rejecting me, alrcadY?" Kirk then
said. "I don't like you." Buehler replied. "Well, I don't like
you, either, but I'm here to go to work. You don't know
how to run a job anyway." Buehler then left.
The above findings are based on the testimony of Bueh-
ler. Kirk acknowledged that he told Buehler that Buehler
was rejected, hut he denied giving Buehler any reason fbr
the rejection. Kirk's demeanor as he testified was such as to
raise questions concerning his credibility. e was evasive
when answering questions concerning possible contradic-
tions between his affidavit and his testimony. In addition.
his testimony on other matters was contradicted by credible
witnesses. For example, he averred that in 1976 he was told
by the Union's office girl, Donna Greene, that Buehler was
not paying journeyman's dues. Donna Greene testified that
she did not believe she ever called Kirk's attention to such a
matter. Kirk also testified that he never told Union Assist-
ant Business Manager Alvin Teller and Business Manager
Glen Evans not to dispatch certain employees to the Com-
pany. Teller credibly testified that at a prejob conference
with Kirk on the Kaiser-Trentwood job, Kirk told him not
to send Harold Brooker and said. "Do you understand why.
because the problem we have had with him before." eller
also credibly testified that the only problem he knew of
between Kirk and Brooker related to a confrontation at a
union meeting in which Kirk told Brooker that if Brooker
did not quiet down, charges would be brought against him.
Evans credibly testified that at a prejob conference Kirk
told him not to send Brooker to the job. As is set frth in
more detail below, much of Kirk's testimony relating to the
reason he did not hire Buehler was patently unbelievable.
As between Kirk and Buehler, I credit Buehler.
Respondent's president. David Balch, credibly testified
that Respondent's current as well as past practice is that all
applicants who have referral slips from the Union are given
the opportunity to fill out an application form which sets
forth the applicant's working experience. On May 10 Kirk
deviated from that standard practice by failing to give
Buehler an opportunity to fill out the application form.
Though Kirk may have had some knowledge of Buehler's
past work experience during the period when Kirk had ac-
cess to union records while he was business manager, it is
unlikely that he had a detailed recollection of the jobs that
Buehler had worked. Buehler's work experience after Kirk
lost his position as business manager could have only been
known to Kirk through rumor.
Though apparently Kirk did not know it. Buehler had in
fact worked for another contractor as a journeyman wire-
man at the Kaiser-Trentwood job in November and De-
cember 1977. He had worked on an electric oven at that
time, and the experience would have been particularly use-
ful to Respondent in Respondent's Kaiser-Trentwood job.
When Buehler left Respondent's shop on December 10,
he drove back to the hiring hall. When he arrived there, he
told Cora Edwards, the Union's bookkeeper, that Kirk had
told him that he (Buehler) was rejected because Kirk did
not like him. Edwards wrote on Buehler's referral slip
"Kirk rejected Herb because he doesn't like him."2
B. Respondent'sv A.sserled Reaisonlv r VNo IHiring Buehler
In an affidavit that Kirk gave to a Board agent on Sep-
tember 12, 1978. he stated: "The reason I did not hire
Buehler is because he is not a journeyman wireman, he
never took a journeyman's examination. I know that he
never took the examination and never paid the journeyman
dues because I saw the records when I was business man-
ager.
Buehler took and passed the journeyman-wireman's ex-
amination on February 22, 1955. A number of different
union records show that he was a journeyman wireman. It
is established by the records of the minutes of the examin-
ing board for February 22, 1955. The Union's work records
tor Buehler show that he was a journe man wireman since
February 22, 1955. the date he passed the examination. The
union dues ledger for Buehler shows that he was listed as a
helper in 1951, that he passed the journeyman examination
on February 22, 1955. and that he has been listed as a
journeyman wireman on that ledger at all times after that
date. Kirk's assertion in his affidavit that he knew that
Buehler was not a journeyman wireman and had not taken
the journeyman examination because he saw the Union's
records, is palpably unbelieveable. In his testimony at the
trial Kirk averred that he looked at the records because
Donna Greene brought to his attention that Buehler was
not paying the proper dues for journeymen. Greene cred-
ibly testified that she did not believe she ever called Kirk's
attention to that matter. There was much testimony con-
cerning what the proper dues for journeymen in different
categories should be. However, that evidence was so contra-
dictory and confusing that it is difficult to believe that Kirk
could determine Buehler's proper classifications simply
from looking at the dues. In any event. if he had looked at
the dues card he would have seen that Buehler had passed
the journeymen's examination and was a journeyman wire-
man. If Kirk believed that the wrong dues were being paid,
he could have asked for additional payments. Kirk did not
take any action to change Buehler's status from journey-
man wireman to some other classification.
At the hearing Kirk retreated from his position that
Buehler was not a journeyman wireman and averred that
he did not hire him because he thought Buehler was not
qualified in that Buehler had not worked with the tools of
the trade in all the years that he had known him. While
Buehler did not work with the tools of the trade while he
was a union officer, he did have substantial experience
working as a journeyman wireman. Before he became
assistant business manager in 1963 he worked thousands of
hours as a journeyman wireman working with the tools of
2 Edwards credibly testified to this incident. Though Edwards' testimony is
hearsay with regard t what Kirk actually told Buehler. it does establish that
Buehler's assertion with regard to his conversation with Kirk was not re-
cently fabricated but was made immediately after the incident. The Union's
standard practice is to put the reason why an applicant does not go to work
on the applicant's referral slip. If the applicant refuses three referrals he goes
to the bottom of the hiring list. hut if an employer rejects the applicant, that
person stays n the top of the list.
926h
AZTECH ELECTRIC. INC
the trade. In a vast majority of those jobs he was referred
by the hiring hall. With regard to recent experience. Bueh-
ler worked for 19 hours in November 1977 and 305 hours in
December 1977. Kirk was in no position to accurately
evaluate Buehler's work experience because Kirk did not
give Buehler an opportunity to fill out an application form
which would have shown that experience. Kirk deviated
from Respondent's standard procedure by not giving Bueh-
ler an opportunity to fill out that application form. The
inference is clear that Kirk was not concerned with Bueh-
ler's work record and that that issue is now being raised
simply as a pretext. Kirk further testified that his review of
Buehler's work records while he (Kirk) was business man-
ager indicated that Buehler had difficulty in holding a job
anywhere he worked. Buehler credibly testified that he was
never fired from a job as a wireman. The union work rec-
ords do not support Kirk's contention.'
C. The Alleged Grievance
Respondent asserts as an affirmative defense in its an-
swer: "that the Board should defer this matter to the griev-
ance settlement procedures of the collective bargaining
agreement, which procedures upheld the acts and conduct
which occurred." However, neither Buehler nor the Union
ever filed a grievance on this matter. Buehler filed the un-
fair labor practice charge in the instant case on August 7.
1978. On about August 14, 1978. the National Electrical
Contractors' Association served a complaint under the con-
tract against the Union alleging in substance that a wire-
man filed a charge utilizing a grievance procedure other
than that set forth in the contract. At a meeting of a labor
management joint conference committee on August 17,
1978, the grievance complaint as well as the Board charge
were discussed, and it was decided that Respondent did not
violate the contract by rejecting Buehler. Buehler was not
invited to attend nor did he attend that meeting. Keith Eng-
lund, the association's manager, who was present at the
meeting, credibly testified that the committee did not con-
sider the question of whether the refusal to accept Buehler
was based on Buehler's internal union activities, and that
they only looked at the rights under the contract. The entire
procedure arose as a protest against Buehler's exercise of
his right under the Act to file a charge. In these circum-
stances there is no basis for a deferral. The unfair labor
practice issue was neither presented to nor considered by
the committee. Oakland Scavenger Company., 241 NLRB I
(1979); Grane Trucking Company. 241 NLRB 133 (1979).
No deferral can be based on the prospect of a future arbi-
tration as this case involves alleged violations of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. General Anmerican Transportation
Corporation, 228 NLRB 808 (1977).
It is also noted that it was unusual for Kirk to reluse to hire an applicant
who had been dispatched from the hall. In the I-I/2 years he had been
hinrng for the Company, he had failed to hire two to four applicants out of 50
or 60 who were dispatched.
4 The contract contains a grievance procedure which culminates in a bind-
ing decision by a council of industrial relations for the electrical contracting
industry.
D. A nOltv'.is and C(onclsion,,.
Buehler engaged in numerous activities described above
relating to internal union affairs. Mans of those activities
put him in a conflict situation with Kirk. They ran against
each other for election to office, and each igorousl op-
posed union policies of the other. Kirk filed a lawsuit and
internal union charges against Buehler. and Buehler filed
internal union charges against Kirk.
Buehler's internal union activities related to disputes over
union bargaining policies as well as the selection of union
officers. Such activities come within the ambit of protection
of Section 7 of the Act, and an employer violates Section
8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act if it discriminates against an em-
ployee or applicant for employment' because of' such activi-
ties. See, e.g., Timpie. Inc., 233 NLRB 1218. 1224 25
(1977): Samsonite Corporation, 206 NL.RB 343. 346 (1973).
As the Board held in General Motors (orporatrion. 211
NLRB 986. 988, enfd. as modified 512 F.2d 447 (6th Cir.
1975):
We have long held that the right to oppose the re-
election of incumbent union officials is protected ac-
tivity within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act. Fur-
thermore, in a very real sense, the identit\ of the
officers of a labor organization substantially influence
the nature of the organization as a bargaining agent.
Kirk was hostile toward Buehler because of Buehler's
protected activity. That hostility was demonstrated when
Buehler asked why he was being rejected without Kirk even
looking at his referral, and Kirk answered "I don't like
you." Kirk acknowledged in his testimony that he only
knew Buehler on a union basis. In the context of all the
facts set forth above. I find that Kirk's expressed hostility
toward Buehler was based on Buehler's protected, internal
union activities. Kirk did not like Buehler because of Bueh-
ler's protected activity, and because Kirk did not like Bueh-
ler, Buehler was not hired. There is a direct causal connec-
tion between Buehler's protected activity and Kirk's refusal
to hire him. Kirk's deviation from the standard company
practice of allowing applicants to fill out an application
form establishes that Kirk was not using ordinary business
practices with regard to Buehler. It appears that Kirk was
not interested in Buehler's work experience. He would have
nothing to do with Buehler because of their prior intra-
union contacts.
For the reasons set forth above, I find that Respondent's
defenses were merely pretexts to disguise the real reason for
discharge, and that reason was Buehler's protected. internal
union activities. By refusing to hire Buehler for those rea-
sons. Respondent violated Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRA(T'I('.S UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III.
above, occurring in connection with the operations of Re-
I Job applicants are employees within the meaning of the Act. .4uromari.n
& Measurement Disisiwn. The Bendit Corporalion. 242 NL.RB 62 (19791
927
DE('ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent described in section I. above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. IlE RtMFI)Y
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair la-
bor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As found above, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(I) of the Act by refusing to hire Buehler on May 10, 1978,
when he was referred from the hiring hall for work at the
Kaiser-Trentwood job. That job lasted about 54 days, and
it is not clear from the record whether Buehler was denied
employment before or after that job began. It does appear
that the job has been completed. This is construction indus-
try work, and referrals are made from the hall for work on
a particular job. When the work on that job ceases, the
employee returns to the hall for another referral.6 There is
no indication in the record that referrals are for permanent
employment with an employer.7 As the job in question is
now completed, I shall not recommend that Respondent be
ordered to offer Buehler employment. I do recommend that
Respondent be ordered to make Buehler whole for any loss
of earnings and other benefits resulting from Respondent's
refusal to hire him on May 10, 1978, by payment to him of'
a sum of money equal to the amount he would have earned
as wages and other benefits from May 10. 1978, until the
date that he would in the normal course of business have
been laid off from Respondent's Kaiser-Trentwood job, less
net earnings during that period. The amount of backpay
shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon
to be computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel
Corporation. 231 NLRB 651 (1977).8
In view of the seriousness of Respondent's violations, I
recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
in Section 7 of the Act.9
It is recommended that Respondent be order to preserve
and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records.
social security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
6 There is no evidence in the record that the Union refused to refer or that
Respondent refused to hire Buehler for any other jobs. Since July 1978
Buehler had been employed as secretary of north eastern Washington and
northern Idaho building and construction trades.
' In referring to numerous jobs for other employers that Buehler had
worked on. counsel for the General Counsel states in his brief:
And it must be remembered that the work involved is electrical con-
struction for electrical contractors and subcontractors, obtained through
the Union's hiring hall.... It is the very nature of these types of jobs to
be temporary and short-lived. This undeniable feature of the construc-
tion industry has prompted Congress and the Board to fashion a whole
panoply of special rules (including exclusive hiring halls) for the con-
struction industry.
SSee, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962):
W. Carter Maxwell d/b/a Pioneer Concrete Co., 241 NLRB 264 (1979).
N.1..R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532. 536 (4th Cir. 1941): Boston
Pet Supply. Inc.. 227 NLRB 1891 (1977).
ords and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze
the amount of backpay due.
CON( I.USI(NS ()1 LAW
I. 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. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( I ) of the Act
on May 10, 1978 by refusing to hire Buehler because of
Buehler's internal union activities that were protected un-
der Section 7 of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER T'
The Respondent, Aztech Electric, Inc.., Spokane, Wash-
ington, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to hire any applicant for employment be-
cause of that applicant's internal union activities that are
protected by Section 7 of the Act.
(b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the
policies of' the Act:
(a) Make Herbert L. Buehler whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits in the manner set forth in the section
of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due.
(c) Post at each of its offices copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix.""' Copies of the notice on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being
duly signed by its authorized representative, shall be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees 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) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
it has taken to comply herewith.
10 In the eent no exceptions are filed as provided in Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, he adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
" 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tionlal Labor Relations Board."
928