Bechtel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 18, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 975 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

BECHTEL CORPORATION 975
Bechtel Corporation and International Union of Oper-
ating Engineers , Local No 428 , AFL-CIO
Bechtel Corporation and International Union of
Operating Engineers , Local No 428 , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner Cases 28-CA-2472, 28-CA-2531, and
28-RC-2219
December 18, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On August 17, 1972, Administrative Law Judge i
Herman Corenman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed an answering 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
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,
fmdings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified below 3
motivated he is not persuaded that the demotion was tantamount to
discharge This Board has found that an employer may make conditions for
an employee so intolerable that no reasonable person could be expected to
remain in employment and under those circumstances we have bean willing
to find that the employee was constructively discharged and that he is
therefore entitled to full backpay reimbursement But even in these days
when the dollar is not worth what it once was the Chairman is not prepared
to say that a member of a survey crew who is offered continued
employment at $850 per month , and who is not shown by the evidence to
have suffered any other acts of harassment or been subjected to any
discriminatorily onerous working conditions has been placed in such an
untenable position that he must be regarded as having been forced out of
employment Nor apparently did John Kent Cloud so view the situation
He made no protest over his demotion nor did he give as his reason for
quitting that he found either the salary or the working conditions
intolerable Indeed even when he quit he failed to make known to
Respondent that he did so because of his demotion and loss of pay Instead
he falsely stated that he had a job elsewhere In these circumstances the
Chairman would find that the General Counsel has failed to prove that
John Kent Cloud was forced to quit his job by reason of his demotion and
reduction in pay He would therefore limit the findings with respect to him
to finding a discriminatory demotion but not a constructive discharge, and
would modify the remedial order accordingly
3 We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that a bargaining order is
warranted in this case for the reasons stated below Chairman Miller would
for reasons stated in his separate concurrence in United Packing Company of
Iowa Inc 187 NLRB 878 predicate this remedy solely on the serious
violation of Sec 8 (a)(1) and (3) committed by Respondent See also his
dissenting opinion in General Stencils Inc 195 NLRB No 173 Members
Fanning and Penello under the particular facts and circumstances of this
case would find that in the absence of a demand for recognition by the
Union there is insufficient basis to reach the issue of whether Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) however they would issue a bargaining order to
remedy the serious violations of Sec 8(a)(1) and (3) Accordingly the
conclusions of law of the Administrative Law Judge have been amended
and his recommended order modified to accord with these views
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Delete paragraph 6 and renumber the subse-
quent paragraphs accordingly
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge as
modified below and hereby orders that Respondent,
Bechtel Corporation , Page , Arizona, its officers,
agents , successors , and assigns , shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order as modified
Delete paragraph 1(d) of the recommended Order
and renumber the subsequent paragraphs according-
ly
i The title of Trial Examiner was changed to Administrative Law
Judge effective August 19 1972
2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative 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 were incorrect Standard Dry Wall
Products Inc 91 NLRB 544 enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
Chairman Miller dissents from finding that John Kent Cloud also
referred to as Kent was constructively discharged as a result of his unlawful
demotion and reduction in pay Although the Chairman finds a $180 per-
month pay cut to be substantial and to have been discriminatorily
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN CORENMAN, Trial Examiner A hearing in the
above-entitled proceeding was held before the Trial
Examiner on May 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, and 16 at Phoenix,
Arizona, on a complaint of the General Counsel against
Bechtel Corporation, herein called the Respondent An
order consolidating cases, complaint and notice of hearing
in Cases 28-CA-2472 and 28-CA-2531 issued on Febru-
ary 7,1972 , pursuant to charges filed by International Union
of Operating Engineers , Local No 428, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union, in Case 28-CA-2472 on November 23,
1971, and in Case 28-CA-2531 on February 2, 1972 The
consolidated complaint alleged violations of Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act Under date of February 14,
1972, the Regional Director of Region 28 of the Board
consolidated for hearing with the aforesaid unfair labor
practice cases, the issues presented by the Union's
objections 1 through 5 in Case 28-RC-2219
All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to
introduce evidence , to examine and cross -examine witness-
es, and to argue orally on the record Briefs , which have
been carefully considered , were filed by the General
Counsel and the Respondent
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the
witnesses , I make the following
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
its petition for representation of a unit of Respondent's
surveyors at the Page, Arizona, operation. By that date the
Union had signed authorization cards from 15 out of 21
employees in the unit, and on the following day, August 10,
1971, the Union received its 16th signed authorization
card.2
At the formal hearing before a Board Hearing Officer on
August 30, 1971, in Case 28-RC-2219 Respondent's
Counsel on the record formally refused to recognize the
Union; therefore under the circumstances , I find that a
recognition and bargaining request by the Union would
have been futile under the circumstances.
There is some evidence from a few of the card signers
that they were told by Dugan or John J. Cloud that the
card signing was for a vote, but there is no evidence that
any card signer was told by a card solicitor that the signing
of the card was only for an election and for no other
purpose.
The legend on the face of the card is clear and simple
and reads as follows:
I, the undersigned employee of hereby desig-
nate Local #428, International Union of Operating
Engineers, as my exclusive bargaining representative.
This does not obligate me financially in any manner.
The surveyors are in the main intelligent, literate, and
college-trained, and were in a position to comprehend the
simple obligation of the card.
I fully credit the testimony of J. J. Cloud and J. Kent
Cloud which shows without question that no one was told
expressly or by implication that the card was only for the
purpose of holding an election. Indeed the record is clear
that some of the employees whom Respondent relies upon
to invalidate their cards, also in addition to signing the
card, at the same time paid $25 to the Union to apply as
their initiation fee. These employees are Robert Bichard,
Martin D. Graef, and William Elkins.
In N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, the
Supreme Court expressly approved the Board's Cumber-
land Shoe doctrine which the Court described as follows:
Under the Cumberland Shoe doctrine, if the card is
unambiguous [i.e., states on its face that the signer
authorizes the Union to represent the employee for
collective-bargaining purposes and not to seek an
election], it will be counted unless it is proved that the
employee was told that the card was to be used solely
for the purpose of obtaining an election ... .
[Emphasis in original.]
The Supreme Court then stated:
In resolving the conflict among the circuits in favor of
approving the Board's Cumberland rule, we think it
sufficient to point out that employees should be bound
by the clear language of what they sign unless that
language is deliberately and clearly canceled by a
union adherent with words calculated to direct the
signer to disregard and forget the language above his
signature. There is nothing inconsistent in handing an
employee a card that says the signer authorizes the
2 Joseph Kleiner's failure to sign his authorization card does not vitiate
his authorization ; his failure to sign the card was inadvertent and
unintentional , it appearing that he had otherwise completed the card and
testified that his failure to sign was an oversight.
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
the Respondent is a California corporation qualified to do
business in the State of Arizona where it is engaged at
Page, Arizona, in the construction of a power generating
plant. During the past 12-month period, Respondent
purchased and had delivered directly from sources outside
the State of Arizona goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000 to its operations at Page, Arizona. Respondent
is now, and has been at all times material herein, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The pleadings establish, and I find, that the Union is
now, and has been at all times material herein, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
1. Whether the Respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of their Section 7
guaranteed rights by various alleged threats of reprisal and
alleged promises of benefits during a union organizational
drive;
2. Whether a general wage increase to all employees on
or about August 18, 1971, was intended to dissuade them
from supporting the Union;
3. Whether the Respondent engaged in certain acts of
discrimination in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of
the Act against employees J. J. Cloud, J. K. Cloud, and
Joseph Kleiner because of their union support and activity;
4. Whether the election in Case 28-RC-2219 conduct-
ed by the Board on November 10, 1971, should be set aside
on the basis of the Union's objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election, numbered 1 through 5; and
5. Whether the Respondent has refused to bargain with
the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
B. Union Organization
The Union, under the direction of its secretary-treasurer,
Larry Dugan, began its organizational drive among the
Respondent's surveyors in May 1971. The outstanding
employee-leader in the organizational drive was J. J. Cloud
who procured most of the signed union authorization
cards. Also recognized leaders in the union drive were J.
Kent Cloud (J. J. Cloud's son) and Joseph M. Kleiner. The
record establishes without question that the union leader-
ship of these three employees was known to chief of parties
(a conceded supervisor of the surveyors), Pete Outlaw,' as
early as June 1971.
On August 9, 1971, the Union in Case 28-RC-2219 filed
I Mr. Outlaw reported to Project Superintendent Donald R. Fountain
and to Civil Superintendent Robert H. DeVoto, and his recommendations
for hire , termination , or change of status of the surveyors were subject to
their approval.
BECHTEL CORPORATION
union to represent him and then telling him that the
card will probably be used first to get an election
The Board in Case 28-RC-2219 directed an election in a
unit found appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining as follows
All employees of the Company's field surveying and
engineering crews employed in the classifications of
instrument man, chamman, and party chief on the
977
Company's Page, Arizona, Navajo Power Generating
Station, excluding all office clericals, guards, watch-
men, and supervisors as defined by the Act
The appropriateness of the aforesaid unit is not disputed
The following is a list of the 21 employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit, which indicates those employees who
signed union authorization cards and the date each card
was signed
Employees Authorization Card Date Card Signed
1. Perry Albertson G.C. Exh. 34 8/4/71
2. Robert Baker G.C. Exh . 32 8/2/71
3. Robert E . Bichard G.C. Exh . 31 6/15/71
4. M. S. Bross
5. Edward Cervantes G.C. Exh. 36 8/4/71
6. John J. Cloud G.C. Exh. 29 5/13/71
7. John Kent Cloud G.C. Exh . 39 5/12/71
8. Mark A. Downey G.C. Exh. 35 8/4/71
9. William S. Elkins G.C. Exh . 42 8/9/71
10. Mark D . Fountain
11. S. M. Guaderrama
12. John Hoffman G.C. Exh. 41 5/12/71
13. Jack W. Huntley G.C. Exh. 33 8/3/71
14. James D. Jones G.C. Exh. 30 5/27/71
15. Joseph Kleiner G.C. Exh. 40 5/12/71
16. William B. Mancini G.C. Exh. 38 8/10/71
17. Jay Morgan G.C. Exh. 22 7/3/71
18. Darrel J. Outlaw
19. C. Reinhold G.C. Exh. 37 8/5/71
20. Patrick J. Stokes
21. Martin D. Graef G.C. Exh. 25 5/13/71
I find in accordance with the foregoing list that with the
filing of the petition on August 9, 1971, the Union
represented a majority of 15 of the 213 employees in the
unit herein found appropriate
The Union also represented a majority of 13 out of 16
employees at the time of the August 30, 1971, representa-
tion hearing at which time the Respondent formally
refused to recognize the Union as the exclusive representa-
tive of the surveyors, as Albertson, Mancini, Darrel
Outlaw, and Mark Fountain quit their employment on
August 27, 1961
C The Board Election and the Union 's Objections
to Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election
The Regional Director 's Decision and Direction of
Election issued on October 6, 1971, and the election was
conducted on November 10, 1971 The Union lost the
election by a count of 9 votes cast for union representation
and 12 against
The Union ' s objections to election upon which hearing
has been ordered in this matter are as follows
The Petitioner 's objections are as follows
Employer, acting through its proper officers and
servants, wrongfully and unlawfully discouraged labor
organization membership, or activity in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act By the above acts, Employer
has interferred with, restrained and coerced employees
in their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as
amended
1 28-RC-2219 was filed by Petitioner on August 9,
1971 On same date Petitioner advised Employer by
registered mail of Petitioners organizing efforts and
cautioned Employer against unfair labor practices
2 On or about August 17, 1971, Employer gave all
voting unit employees an $80 increase in pay per
month
3 Subsequent to filing of 28-RC-2219 Employer
interrogated voting unit employee George Alvarez
about his union affiliations and made promises and
inducements to him not to vote for or support
Petitioners Similar promises of monetary reward and
promotions for voting against Petitioner and threats of
reprisal for supporting Petitioner were also made by
Employer supervisor Peter Outlaw and other supervi-
sors to other voting unit employees
4 On August 26, 1971 Employer was notified by
3 If Reinhold is not considered in the unit because a student temporarily
employed for the summer the Union still had a majority of 15 out of the 20
employees in the unit on August 10 1971
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Petitioner by certified mail that J J Cloud would appear
as a witness for Petitioner at 28-RC-2219 hearing On
or about August 29, 1971, Employer supervisor Peter
Outlaw made threats of reprisal against said J J Cloud
to other voting unit employees After J J Cloud
appeared at 28-RC-2219 hearing for Petitioner Em-
ployer drastically reduced his and his sons ' (J K Cloud)
overtime work in reprisal for same
5 On October 29, 1971 Employer was mailed six
copies of election notice to be posted in conspicuous
places in and about Employers property along with
certificate of posting Employer did not post but one
notice after 8 20 AM on November 9, 1971
Inasmuch as the Union 's election objections are in part
embraced by the unfair labor practices alleged in the
consolidated complaint, I will consider them together But
initially I will overrule objection 5 concerning the Respon-
dent's alleged failure to post six copies of the election
notice In this connection, the evidence shows that at least
one notice was posted a day or two before the election in
the surveyors' shack which the surveyors frequent Addi-
tionally, in a letter directed to each of the surveyors on
October 10, 1971, the Respondent notified the employees
of the election date and urged them to vote Moreover,
assuming that the employer did not sufficiently observe the
notice posting requirements , no one was prejudiced, as out
of a unit of 22 eligible voters, 21 in fact did cast ballots,
and the Respondent's failure to fully comply with the
posting requirements did not affect the election results
Simultaneous with the filing of the representation
petition with the Board, the Union directed a letter on
August 9, 1971, to the Respondent notifying it that the
Union was conducting a union organizing campaign
among the surveyors and cautioning the Respondent
against committing unfair labor practices With the receipt
of the letter, Project Superintendent Fountain called a
meeting of the project supervisors DeVoto, Bross, Outlaw,
Anderson, and Henry and read them the Union's August 9
letter Fountain cautioned the supervisors not to get into
any discussions of the Union with the members of the
survey crews
On October 20, 1971, the Respondent, under the
signature of Project Superintendent Fountain, mailed
identical letters to each member of the survey crews
directing their attention to the approaching election
scheduled for November 10, 1971, and among other
matters, pointed out that the people affected could vote
against the Union even though they had already signed a
card to become a member and paid an initiation fee
Emphasizing the importance that everyone cast their vote,
the letter stated in part as follows
In conclusion, I would like to repeat this thought In no
way, shape or form is Bechtel "anti-union " The
Company's long history of good relations with the
building trade unions amply demonstrate this Bechtel
does feel, however, that with respect to the Page job, it
makes no sense for you to lay out your money to join
the Union We sincerely believe that the wage rates, the
living allowance , the opportunities for advancement
and the other employee benefits available to you now
are both fair and reasonable
D The August 18, 1971, General Wage Increase
Without advance notice, the Respondent , on August 18,
1971, a payday, handed to each member of the survey crew
two paychecks , one for the employees' regular pay, the
second check representing a pay increase of $50 to $80 a
month, according to the employees ' payroll classification
as party chief, instrument man, or chainman
The Union sets forth this August 18 wage increase as one
of the grounds for setting aside the election , and the
General Counsel alleges that this wage increase violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act The Respondent asserts that the
wage increase was initiated in the early spring of 1971,
through verbal discussions between Project Superintendent
Fountain and Construction Manager Charles Lacey whose
office was at Vernon , California Lacey testified that he
first talked to Fountain about a wage increase for the
survey crew in March or April 1971, at which time Lacey
testifies he told Fountain "We've got to program a salary
increase for our field and non-manual people " Testifying
further with respect to the Respondent 's policy with
respect to the frequency of wage increases to members of
the survey crew, Lacey testified that "standard policy
would allow us to give an increase each six months up to a
certain percentage amount, anything sooner than that
would be a policy exception " Mr Lacy testified further
that he gave verbal approval to Fountain for a wage
increase in July 1971 via a telephone conversation, "to go
ahead with the wage increases that we had discussed " Mr
Lacey further testified that on July 30, 1971 , Mr Fountain
at the Page jobsite personally handed him a memo to
which was attached status notices for the members of the
survey crews which he hand -carved back to Los Angeles,
California , for further processing and which was approved
by salary administration at San Francisco on August 16,
1971
Mr Lacey further testified that the Respondent was
having difficulty in locating experienced people for the
survey crews and he discussed with Fountain the possibili-
ty of subcontracting the survey work on the Page job
sometime in the spring of 1971 Lacey conceded that the
August 18, 1971, wage increases (effective August 7, 1971)
constituted in many cases a departure from the Respon-
dent's overall policy in that such employees received salary
increases less than 6 months after hire Lacey testified that
the salary increases to Baker, Albertsen , Cloud, Downey,
Elkins, Guaderrama , Hoffman , Jones, and a number of
other members of the survey crews represented an
exception to the Respondent 's policy because granted in
less than 6 month 's time from date of hire or previous
salary change
The Respondent ' s contention that the August 18, 1971,
wage increase had no relation to the unionization cam-
paign does not withstand scrutiny The timing of the wage
increase announcement on August 18, 9 days after the
representation petition had been filed with the Board's
28th Regional Office is suspect Additionally , the following
circumstances show that the wage increase was hastily
planned and executed after the Respondent was aware of
the Union's campaign (1) the status notices accompanying
the July 30, 1971, memorandum hand-tamed back to Los
Angeles by Lacey were not signed by Fountain , contrary to
BECHTEL CORPORATION 979
established practice, (2) the payee's name on the pay
increase check was handwritten whereas this regular check
was typed, (3) the pay increase was unexpected, and
unannounced beforehand, (4) Lacey's testimony concern-
ing discussions for a salary increase in March and April
1971 is vague and recites merely that there was discussion
between himself and Fountain, without further amplifica-
tion, and the details of the discussions, if they occurred,
are entirely lacking, thereby casting doubt that there were
any discussions for a general wage increase in March or
April 1971, (5) moreover, it would appear to me that if the
Respondent was contemplating a general wage increase in
March or April, they would have granted the wage increase
then, as Lacey and Fountain concede they were having
difficulty recruiting experienced men at that time I am not
persuaded by the Respondents' claims that the August 18
wage increase was preplanned in March and April 1971
To the contrary, I am convinced and I find that the August
18 general wage increase was so tuned as to thwart
employee support of the union Accordingly, I find that the
August 18, 1971, general wage increase was made by the
Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act See
N L R B v Exchange Parts Co, 375 U S 405, where the
Supreme Court, at page 409, reiterated with approval what
it had previously stated in Medo Photo Supply Corp v
Labor Board, 321 U S 678, 686, namely "The action of
employees with respect to the choice of their bargaining
agents may be induced by favors bestowed by the
employer as well by his threats or domination "
E Other Acts of Interference, Coercion, and
Restraint in Violation of Section 8(a)(1)
Party Chief J M Morgan testified credibly that at one
conversation he held with Chief of Parties Pete Outlaw at
Morgan's home near the time of the NLRB Representation
Hearing (held August 30, 1971) Outlaw told him, among
other things, that it would be to his benefit if the Union did
not get in, and that he could expect a raise Morgan also
testified that Outlaw told him that he had heard that
Project Manager Fountain might subcontract out the
engineering in event that the job would go Union Morgan
testified credibly that Outlaw told him that it would be
advantageous to him without a union because if the job
were union, chances of advancement would be more
restricted because one would have trouble working as
steady as one would nonunion
Party Chief Joseph Kleiner credibly testified that on
May 12, 1971, during a conversation with Pete Outlaw at
the survey shack, Outlaw told him that if the Union came
in, Fountain would terminate all the surveyors and hire an
outside consulting firm to do the surveying
J J Cloud credibly testified that, in a conversation he
had with Outlaw a week or two after the August 30 NLRB
representation hearing, Outlaw called him aside and talked
to him privately, telling him that he, Outlaw, was doing
much better than if he was union and told him further,
"Well, if the Union comes in, take John Hoffman, for
example, he will never go any further than a party chief If
it don't, John will be moved into the office or be made a
superintendent and he will climb the ladder "
Robert E Bichard, party chief, called as a witness by the
Respondent, credibly testified that he had numerous
conversations with Pete Outlaw after August 9, 1971
Bichard testified that in his first conversation he asked
Outlaw what benefits the men would derive from union
membership and if he thought the men would get a
substantial wage increase out of it, and what the Respon-
dent's policy to the men would be if they were represented
by a union Bichard testified that Outlaw responded that
he felt that employees represented by a union did not have
as great a chance of advancement as nonmanual salaried
personnel
Bichard further testified credibly that in July or August
1971 there were rampant rumors on the job that the
Respondent might bring in a consultant group to replace
the surveyors if the union came in Bichard testified
credibly that he questioned Outlaw about this rumor, and
Outlaw replied "there's always a possibility "
Sabino Guaderrama, party chief, called as Respondent's
witness, credibly testified that after receiving the Respon-
dent's October 20 letter concerning the November 10
oncoming election, he questioned Outlaw concerning the
Union and the contents of the Respondent's letter
Guaderrama testified credibly that Outlaw told him "it
would seem like you could advance more rapidly with
Bechtel Corporation than you could with the Union and
from field engineering on up your chances were-advance-
ment was better with Bechtel "
Pete Outlaw, chief of Parties, called as a witness for the
Respondent, testified that he talked to members of the
survey crews about the Union between the dates of August
10 and the November 10, 1971, election date
Outlaw testified as follows
The guys would ask different questions about what
the company could do for you, and I set about
explaining
The company is a large company We've got a lot
of work going If you can show that you're
valuable to them, there's a lot of advancement
You could work the rest of your life with the
company, be transferred around, and not have to
worry about another job as long as you work
right " I also explained to them the Thrift and
Trust Plan which is a very good set up once
you've been with the company three years Then I
just explained the different benefits that were
more available to them by the company
Q As best you can recall, what did you say about
those various benefits9
A All right I said, as best I can recall, if you can
show yourself that you're doing a good job on this job,
I'm sure when they start cutting back they'll transfer
you into the office to a position in there Once you get
transferred into the office, I've never seen Bechtel
hardly ever let go of the office set up They transfer you
job to job and take care of their company employees
That it's a good set up You're getting a decent rate of
pay right now and you could advance up to making
darn decent money with the company and you've got a
good opportunity
With respect to the question of subcontracting survey
work, Outlaw testified at one point that he "mentioned that
980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
more-or-less there's a possibility if the union came in on
the jobsite and we was having any trouble it could be
sublet But at another point in his testimony, referring to a
conversation between himself and Party Chief Joseph
Klemer he "mentioned to Joe [Klemer] that if the union
came in or something like that, Bechtel aught sublet the
Job"
Outlaw testified that when members of the survey crews
asked him concerning the benefits of the Respondent
absent a union, he told them that "with the non-manual
status, you're considered a company employee and by
being a company employee, they more or less transfer you
around job to job, you're considered one of the Bechtel
personnel " Outlaw testified further that he told the
surveyors "that with the company as non-manual, that as
long they had something to offer the company, they stood
an awful good chance-that the better men they'll bring in
to the office and work them in testing or electrical or
mechanical work So I was just showing them that there
was an opportunity with the Company and, as far as with
the Union, as Bechtel's concerned, you're an hourly
person-craftsman, and there is a separation in terms of
Bechtel policy there "
I find on the basis of the foregoing evidence relating to
remarks made by Outlaw to members of the survey crews
that in essence Outlaw (1) threatened that if the employees
selected the Union, the Respondent would terminate the
surveyors and subcontract the survey work, and (2) that
the employees without a union would have opportunities
for retention of employment and promotion to better jobs,
whereas if they were represented by a union, such
opportunities for transfer' or promotion would not be
available to them I find that the foregoing remarks by
Outlaw constituted threats of reprisal if the employees
selected a union and promises of benefits if the employees
rejected the Union, all in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act
F Reduction in Overtime to J J Cloud and J
Kent Cloud
The Union's objection to election 4, as well as paragraph
10 of the complaint, alleges that the Respondent deprived
J J Cloud and J Kent Cloud of overtime work because
they supported the Union Objection 4 recites that after J
J Cloud appeared at the Board's representation hearing,
on August 30, 1971, the Respondent drastically reduced his
and his son's overtime work in reprisal for the same
Respondent's Exhibits 16(a) and (b) show the overtime
of all the members of the survey crews from the week
ending August 27, 1971, through the week ending January
28, 1972 The record discloses that J Kent Cloud received
2-1/2 hours overtime for the week ending August 27, 1971,
8 hours overtime for the week ending September 3, 7-1/2
hours overtime for the week ending September 10, 12
hours overtime for the week ending September 17, no
hours overtime for the week ending September 24, 12
hours overtime for the week ending October 1, no hours
for the week ending October 8, 4 hours overtime for the
4 The complaint also alleges that on November 11 1971 employees J
Kent Cloud and Joseph Klemer were simultaneously demoted with J J
Cloud
week ending October 15, 8 hours for the week ending
October 22 I find that J Kent Cloud's overtime in this
period was not dissimilar from that of most other
employees J J Cloud received no overtime for the weeks
ending August 27, 1971, through October 8, 1971, but
received overtime commensurate with the employees
generally after that But the record shows that 11 other
employees , about one-half of whom were nonunion
received virtually no overtime during the same period
Chief of Parties Outlaw, who assigns overtime , explained
that if an overtime situation arises the overtime goes to the
party chief who is familiar with the controls and the prints
in that area Outlaw also explained that he tees to give
overtime mainly to married men with children and he also
assigned overtime to some college kids when he learned
they were returning to school Outlaw also explained that
he would refrain from assigning overtime to people taking
other work after hours The record discloses that the two
Clouds were doing substantial moonlighting survey work
for the Selna Trailer Park during the period of time in
question Moreover, the record shows without dispute that
J Kent Cloud turned down proffered overtime on a
number of occasions , and there is no evidence that either
of the Clouds have requested and were refused overtime
Additionally, it would appear that if Outlaw intended to
discriminatorily deny J J Cloud of overtime, he would
have undoubtedly failed to assign him overtime in the
weeks preceding August 30, 1971, as it is established
without dispute that Outlaw was aware of Cloud's
leadership in the union organizational campaign as early as
June 1971
I find that the record does not support the contention
that the Clouds were discriminatorily denied overtime
because of their union support
G Discrimination with Respect to J J Cloud
The complaint alleges that on November 11, 1971, the
Respondent discriminatorily demoted J J Cloud4 and
terminated subsistence payments to him because of his
support for the Union It further alleges that J J Cloud
was discriminatorily discharged by the Respondent on
January 31, 1972, because of his support for the Union
J J Cloud is concededly a well qualified chainman
with more than 25 years of experience in that position He
was hired as a chainman by the Respondent in December
1970 and worked as a chainman until his discharge on
January 31, 1972 He was hired at a salary of $800 a month
and was additionally paid subsistence payments of $135 a
month at the recommendation of Chief of Parties Pete
Outlaw In April 1971, Cloud threatened to quit unless he
was paid more money and rather than lose Cloud's
services, Outlaw arranged that Cloud be increased to $950
a month, and he was reclassified as an instrument man but
in fact continued in the work of a chainman It is
undisputed that Cloud was the highest paid chainman on
the fob
Cloud was the recognized leader in the Union 's organiza-
tional drive and personally signed up most of the union
BECHTEL CORPORATION
authorization card signers He began his union organiza-
tional activity in May 1971, and his leadership in the union
campaign was known by Pete Outlaw and presumably
other management personnel at least since June 1971 By
letter dated August 26, 1971, Union Business Manager
Larry Dugan notified Mr Don Fountain, Project Manager
at Page, that Cloud had consented to be present and testify
at the NLRB hearing in Phoenix, Arizona, and requested
the Respondent to make arrangements for Cloud to be
absent from work Joseph Klemer credibly testified
without contradiction, that on the day before the scheduled
NLRB August 30 hearing Outlaw told Klemer who was
then Cloud's party chief that if Cloud failed to ask for the
next day off, to terminate him Klemer, who was a union
supporter, replied that he would make sure that Cloud
asked him
Cloud credibly testified that about a week or two after
the NLRB August 30 hearing he had a conversation with
Outlaw on the jobsite where he was working Cloud
credibly testified to the conversation as follows
Well, I was down in a footing hole and Klemer was
running the gun right up on the bank, and I walked in
behind him [Outlaw] or up to him, and he looked down
to where I was putting in control, and he said that
"Cloud is a good hand", but he said, "The son-of-a-
bitch will cut your throat if you turn your back to him",
and I looked up and I hear the deal, and I said, "Pete,
you're referring to my union activities", and I said, "If
we get a raise, you'll get a raise " He turned red and
said, "I'll talk to you later and walked off "
Outlaw returned later in the day He called Cloud aside
and talked to him alone, and after telling Cloud how much
better off he, Outlaw, was without a union and of the better
opportunities for promotion without a union, Outlaw told
Cloud, "There's going to be a layoff here," and "all single
men go first I take care of my married men and they've got
families and responsibilities and single men don't " Cloud
replied, "I'm a divorced man I still make payments into
the family, and that if he fired me, I figured that I'd take
you to the NLRB and bring charges on you" Outlaw
replied, according to Cloud's credible testimony, "I'm the
boss here I make the decisions and nobody else "
In the afternoon of November 10, 1971, the date of the
NLRB election which the union lost, Project Manager
Fountain and Outlaw called a meeting of the survey crews
and thanked the group for voting the Union down They
announced the Respondent was giving a party at the
country club that night and everything would be on the
Company In the course of the talk, Fountain announced
that there would be some changes made, some of the
people would not be happy with the changes, that the
changes were up to Outlaw who would make them as he
sees fit
On November 11, 1971, the day after the election,
Outlaw approached J J Cloud and told him he had been
"cut to a chamman" and was no longer to receive the $135
monthly subsistence pay Cloud's pay was cut from $1030
s Joseph W Stan Bechtel s supervisor of labor relations located at
Respondents headquarters at San Francisco testified that he advised
Project Manager Fountain that he had made a mistake in cutting Cloud s
pay from instrument man pay to chamman pay and in taking away his
981
to $850 a month Cloud testified he asked Outlaw "what
the deal was" and Outlaw's reply was "you do a
chairman's job, from now on you'll get chairman's pay "
Outlaw further said, "You're single and you'll no longer
draw subsistence " Cloud replied, "Pete, go in and check
on my insurance Since the day I have been on insurance, I
have paid your group family plan I still pay money for my
family which is a legal court deal I'm divorced but I'm not
classed as single " Outlaw replied, "I don't give a damn
what it is That's the way she stands You can either leave
or accept it "
Cloud credibly testified that later in the day he asked
Outlaw why he was being demoted and why his pay was
being cut Present on this occasion were the other members
of the survey crew, namely his son, Kent, Klemer, and
Hoffman Cloud credibly testified, "Well, we asked him
when he come with the deal and why Outlaw said,
"You slowed down, you're not doing the work for us Your
work is not good anymore, that's the way its going to be "
Cloud replied as follows, "I told him, did he bother to ask
the boys and he said, "No, I can't ask them, they're part of
your clique " When Cloud asked Outlaw if he had received
complaints about his work, Outlaw's reply was, "I'm
running it " Cloud later that same day confronted Project
Manager Fountain in the field and, among other things,
asked why his pay had been cut and subsistence eliminat-
ed Fountain's reply, among other things, was that Outlaw
had recommended it Ignoring statements by Party Chief
Hoffman and Kleiner praising Cloud's work as a chain-
man, Fountain refused to discuss the matter further and
turned around and walked off Cloud credibly testified that
prior to this salary cut to $850 a month he had never
received any criticism with respect to the quality of his
work from either Fountain or Outlaw or from any of the
party chiefs he had worked with
Apparently in response to the Union's unfair labor
practice charge filed with the NLRB on November 23,
1971, alleging among other things, Cloud's demotion and
elimination of his subsistence pay, the Respondent in the
last of December 1971 or in the first of January 1972
restored his salary to $1030 a month, reinstated his
subsistence pay, and reimbursed him for the money he had
lost by the previous pay cut and elimination of his
subsistence pay 5
Seeking to justify his action in reducing Cloud's pay
from that of instrument man to chairman and in
eliminating the granting of subsistence pay to Cloud,
Outlaw testified that (1) he had some complaints from
other crew members objecting to the Respondent's
favoritism to Cloud in paying him instrument man's pay
for chairman's work, and (2) as an unmarried man, Cloud
was not entitled to subsistence pay I am not impressed by
Outlaw's reasons for his action in reducing Cloud's pay
and in taking away his subsistence pay It is significant that
Cloud's family status on November 11, 1971, was no
different than on his date of hire in December 1970 when
his employment application showed he was a divorced
subsistence pay Stan also testified that in a telephone conversation with
Fountain after the November 10 NLRB elections he advised that it was not
a wise move at that particular point in time to let Cloud go
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
man Moreover, Outlaw was extremely cooperative in
procuring Cloud's moving expense by suggesting that
Cloud show his residence as Lakeside, Arizona, when that
was not the true fact I am satisfied that Outlaw's conduct
in reducing Cloud's monthly pay and in discontinuing his
subsistence payments beginning November 11, 1971, was
in reprisal for Cloud's leadership in the Union's organiza-
tional campaign and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act However, inasmuch as the Respondent
subsequently restored Cloud's instrument man pay and his
subsistence retroactive to November 11 before complaint
issued herein, it becomes unnecessary to recommend a
make-whole remedy in this respect
H J J Cloud's January 31, 1972, Discharge
About 1 week before Christmas 1971, Hoffman and
Kleiner were called into Fountain's office and were told
they were being transferred into the office Cloud remained
outside with the equipment when Outlaw approached him
and told Cloud that Friday would be his last day, that he
was being terminated When Cloud asked the reason,
Outlaw replied, "Well, Kleiner and Hoffman are going into
the office and that's your crew There is no longer a place
for you and you will be terminated Friday But on Friday,
the order for Cloud's discharge were countermanded, and
Outlaw told Cloud he could stay on Cloud agreed to stay 6
Cloud was finally discharged from his employment with
the Respondent on January 31, 1972 About one o'clock of
that day Outlaw and Assistant Civil Superintendent Sherm
Bross drove up in the survey wagon to Cloud's work
location Outlaw handed Cloud an envelope and told him
"we're terminating you " When Cloud asked the reason,
Outlaw replied, "everything is in the letter and you're paid
in full-we want you off the job as soon as possible "
Cloud opened the letter and the discharge read, "No rehire,
reason, dilatory"" Outlaw told Cloud, "We want you off
the fob " Cloud's reply was, "Pete, my next stop will be the
NLRB again You've got no reason to run me off the job "
Sherm Bross then said, "Cloud, we want you off the job
now, and you can go some place else and do your little
thing "
Bross and Cloud then drove Cloud in the survey wagon
to the survey shack where he turned in his equipment, and
picked up his personal belongings and started walking to
his truck Bross and Outlaw followed Cloud in the survey
wagon After arriving at his truck, Cloud called the union
office to notify them of his discharge
The Respondent contends that Cloud was discharged for
deliberately slowing down on the job while he was working
in a survey crew headed by Ron Henton as party chief
Called as a witness for the Respondent, Henton testified
that Cloud worked as chainman in his crew about January
1, 1972, and continued until discharged on January 31,
1972 Henton testified that as a chainman Cloud "was very
slow, left the work and without saying where he was
going " Henton then testified he complained about Cloud's
work to Outlaw He testified that he made the first
complaint to Outlaw a week before Cloud was discharged
6 It appears that the decision of Fountain and Outlaw to reconsider their
December 1971 termination of Cloud was based on legal advice from
In this connection, Henton testified that, "I told Outlaw
that I want another chainman, that John [Cloud] wasn't
doing his job like I thought he should be and my
production was bad, and I went along with it about as far
as I could go because it was going to be a demotion for me
probably " Henton further testified that on January 31,
1972, the date of Cloud's discharge, he again told Outlaw
that Cloud was very slow, and he wanted another man
Henton testified that he and Outlaw went to Fountain's
office and discussed it further Henton recited again to
Fountain that Cloud was slow and he [Henton] "couldn't
get my work done" Henton testified that he said to
Fountain further, "I said that simple things as tying
flagging on lath and stuff that a chainman should do while
the party chief and instrument man are mapping out what
you're going to do, he wouldn't do that, he'd just stand
around and look out across the country and wasn't
interested and didn't know what was happening, just didn't
care " Henton also testified that he told Fountain and
Outlaw that on leaving the shack each morning, Cloud
refused to fill his chainman's bag with the necessary
equipment "anyway for two weeks I did this myself and
then after I'd go check the bag and have to tell him to go
do it and then continue " On cross-examination, Henton
testified that the first week Cloud worked "he was pretty
good and then he went down hill worse and worse"
Henton testified he did not individually criticize Cloud but
told both Cloud and Stokes, the instrument man, "we
weren't getting enough work done " Asked on cross-
examination to specify Cloud's shortcomings, Henton
testified that Cloud was "working too too slow " "When we
were ready to work, he wasn't He wasn't paying attention
He didn't know what to do-I would be getting work ready
to be done and he'd stand off gazing across the country
He could have cared less what we were doing "
Outlaw testified that sometime after Cloud had been
assigned to Henton's crew, Henton came up and told him
"John [Cloud] is hindering my work I cannot get him to
do much-he's dragging " Outlaw testified he told Henton
"Just see what you can do and see if you can stop him out
of it " Outlaw further testified that within the next week
Henton again came up and told him, "We're working out
in this area of the road I went back to get another number
and John [Cloud] just walked off without saying where he
was going I turned around, he just wandered off "
Outlaw places a third conversation with Henton about a
week later when he inquired of Henton how Cloud was
doing and Henton replied, "He's just dragging When we
go somewhere, we have to wait for him to get there He's
just walking real slow and poking around He's hindering
our work When we're ready to do something, we always
have to wait on him" In the day previous to Cloud's
discharge, Outlaw testified, Henton mentioned to him that
"he has to fill the stake bag up which is the chairman's job,
also Henton says, the only time after you drive stakes in
the ground, you have to stand there and watch The only
time I can get him to do the flagging, Henton says, that
Cloud, he'll stand there and watch Pat [Stokes] and myself
tie flagging, and I say, John why don't you tie flagging and
headquarters in San Francisco
BECHTEL CORPORATION 983
then he'll start flagging " Outlaw testified that "the flagging
is something an experienced chainman should never be
told because he knows better "
Concerning another complaint made by Henton to him,
Outlaw testified that Henton told him that on one occasion
when Henton told Cloud to get a site, Cloud dropped the
rod Outlaw testified that the rod is an expensive piece of
equipment costing about $85 and should be carefully
handled
Concerning his personal observation of Cloud, Outlaw
testified he observed that "true to what Ron [Henton] had
told me, he [Cloud] was meandering about as slow as a
man would walk that was healthy " Outlaw testified he
related "some of this stuff" to Bob DeVoto and Sherman
Bross and also to Fountain on the day before Cloud's
discharge Outlaw testified further that on the day Cloud
was discharged, he talked to Civil Engineer DeVoto and
Fountain and perhaps to Henton On January 31, 1972,
Outlaw and Bob DeVoto entered Fountain's office Outlaw
testified that he explained to Fountain the nature of
Henton's complaints, and then went out and brought
Henton in to let him talk to Fountain Outlaw testified that
Henton repeated roughly what he had previously told him
and among other things told the group that Cloud was
hurting Henton's work and he could take it no longer
Outlaw testified that the first complaint from Henton
concerning Cloud was about a week or 10 days after Cloud
was assigned to Henton's crew Outlaw testified that
Henton did report to him that Cloud was ill, but testified
he did not know that Cloud had been hospitalized Outlaw
conceded that he knew Cloud was absent from work
January 5, 6, and 7 but did not know the reason, nor did he
check with Cloud to learn why he was off work on those 3
days, nor did he check with Henton to ascertain the reason
for Cloud's absence from work Outlaw concedes that he
was aware that Cloud was absent from work on January
13, 14, and 15, but did not know that he was ill, nor did he
make any inquiry of Henton as to the reason for Cloud's
absence Outlaw also testified that he was not aware that
Cloud was ill and did not investigate that factor in
connection with Cloud's work weariness Although Outlaw
conceded that Henton told him that Cloud was feeling bad,
he testified he did not speak to Cloud concerning Henton's
complaints about his work, but instead "just watched him a
little closer "
Cloud testified that he started as chairman with
Henton's crew the first week in January 1972 Cloud
testified that on the morning of January 5 he experienced
pains in his chest and he told Henton, "I'm going in and
find out what the problem is " Henton replied, "Go
ahead " On his way out, Cloud testified he met Outlaw and
told him, "I've got a problem I don't know what it is, but
I'm going to the doctor and find out about it," and Outlaw
said, "Go ahead " Cloud went to the doctor that day and
he was hospitalized in the Page Hospital on January 5, 6,
and 7 and a diagnosis was made as disclosed by the
hospital records by Dr Washburn, MD of "Coronary
insufficiency, hypercholesterolemia angina" Cloud was
released from the hospital on January 7 or 8, and he
returned to work the following Monday Cloud testified
that when he returned to work the following Monday, he
discussed his hospitalization with Henton Cloud said the
following Wednesday, January 12, he became ill with the
flu and left the job that morning Cloud testified he told
Henton "I was so sick, I couldn't pick the hammer up
anymore," and Henton told Cloud, "Go home John, you
just look like hell " Cloud did not work the remainder of
the week and was under a doctor's care on on January 13,
14, and 15 He returned to work, Monday, January 17,
when he advised Henton that he had been out with the flu
Cloud testified further that he had no harsh words with
Henton during the time he worked with him, their relations
were friendly, and Henton at no time told him he was
working too slowly Cloud testified further that Henton
was very inexperienced and Cloud found it necessary to
assist him, and he helped Henton "slope stake" the
switchyard Cloud denied that he ever dropped the rod
while working with Henton Concerning carrying the
essential instruments in his stake bag, Cloud testified as
follows "I've got a custom made vest that I carry my
equipment in, and I think its been a deal on the job that I
carry more equipment than any other man on the job My
vest probably weighs from 15 to 20 pounds The vest
probably weighs three pounds and the rest is equipment
Some of that equipment may be used only once a year, but
when I need it, I've got it Most of it is my own private
stuff"Cloud testified that Henton never mentioned to him
that he had had a problem with him Cloud also testified
that he had no arguments with instrument man Stokes and
no problems with him, and that Stokes never complained
to Cloud that he was not doing his job correctly, but Cloud
testified that although Stokes tried hard, he was quite
inexperienced and lacking in knowledge how to proceed
Concerning filling his stake bag, Cloud testified that
Henton wanted him to fill the bag before 8 o'clock in the
morning, and he refused because his pay did not start till 8
a in Cloud admitted on cross-examination that at no time
did he tell either Outlaw or Henton the precise nature of
his illness
I Analysis and Conclusionary Findings Regarding
J J Cloud's January 31, 1972, Discharge
I am satisfied upon the basis of the testimony of Henton,
Outlaw, and Cloud that Cloud had slowed down in the 2d,
3d, and 4th weeks of January 1972 It is established
without dispute and is documented from the Respondent's
own records that Cloud was so ill in January that he was
hospitalized 3 days on January 3, 4, and 5 for a heart
condition and visited a clinic for injections 3 days on
January 13, 14, and 15 for a respiratory ailment It is
established without dispute that Cloud was the most
experienced and highest paid chamman on the job When
Henton complained to Outlaw that Cloud by his slowness
and inattention was hindering the work of the crew,
Outlaw, contrary to his usual and normal practice, did not
endeavor to ascertain the reason for the problem He did
not speak to Cloud„ he made no investigation, he did not
afford Cloud an opportunity to explain his conduct,
instead he and his superior, Fountain, abruptly discharged
Cloud, the most experienced and highest paid chamman on
the job I find that this conduct on its face was arbitrary
and capricious and sufficient to raise a suspicion that it
984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was discriminatorily motivated Viewing this arbitrary
action in the context of its background , I am convinced,
and I find that John J Cloud was discharged on January
31, 1972, because of his leadership in the union's
organizational campaign Were it not for his union activity,
I am satisfied that the Respondent would have treated and
resolved the problem resulting from Cloud's illness by
some action other than the discharge of Cloud Other
factors that compel me to this conclusion are the
Respondent 's hostility to the union organizational cam-
paign,7 the hostility of Outlaw against Cloud because of his
union leadership,8 and the Respondent's unfair labor
practices previously found herein, consisting, among other
things, of the conduct of Outlaw and Fountain in cutting
Cloud's pay and eliminating his subsistence allowance on
November 11, 1971
I find that by discharging John J Cloud, the Respondent
discriminated with respect to his tenure of employment
because of his union activity, thereby discouraging
membership in the union , all in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act
J The Demotion of Klemer, J J Cloud, and J
Kent Cloud
Joseph Klemer was hired as a party chief at a salary of
$1,000 a month, January 11, 1971 Kleiner signed a union
authorization card on May 12, 1971 Near the date Klemer
had signed the card, Pete Outlaw engaged him in a
conversation in the survey shack and told Kleiner that if
the Union came in Fountain would terminate all the
surveyors and hire an outside consulting firm to do the
surveying Outlaw also told Kleiner to take a withdrawal
on his Local 303 Operating Engineers' card instead of
retaining an active card Klemer replied that he didn't
think he should take a withdrawal Kleiner credibly
testified that on the day previous to this conversation with
Outlaw he had been seen by Civil Engineer Sherm Bross,
Mr Outlaw's immediate superior, conversing with union
Secretary-Treasurer Larry Dugan on thejobsite
In addition to signing a union authorization card on
May 12, 1971, Klemer attended all the union meetings and
urged other members of the survey crews to join the
Union Management personnel at Page were aware that
Klemer was an active union supporter It is a curious
coincidence that the four active union supporters were
placed in the same crew in November 1971 They were
Hoffman9 as party chief, Klemer (demoted from party
chief) as instrument man,10 and Kent Cloud (demoted
from instrument man) and his father, J J Cloud, both
acting as chammen
Kleiner was demoted on November 11, 1971, from party
chief to instrument man and his pay was cut $50 from
$1080 to $1030 a month At the time Klemer was demoted,
Outlaw told Kleiner that his production was down Kleiner
7 For example several weeks after the NLRB representation hearing and
before the election Project Engineer Fountain confronted Union Secretary
Treasurer Dugan in a hostile manner on the jobsite and said to him Look
Dugan I don t want you talking to these tech engineers I want you to stay
away from them
8 For example Outlaw s remark concerning Cloud made a week or two
after the August 30 NLRB representation hearing as follows Cloud is a
good hand but the son of a bitch will cut your throat if you turn your back
to him
credibly testified that he told Outlaw he was working at
that time with and securing two basic crafts, the carpenters
and the pipefitters , that "we were giving them surveying
services as required and needed , "and you just proceed at
the same pace that the crafts proceed , and we were always
ahead of them, and I told him at the time that he could ask
any of the craft that I worked with , the foreman or the
general foreman , and they would all tell him that they
thought I was a pretty good man " Outlaw responded,
Klemer testified credibly, "that he was the boss and that he
made the decisions " Klemer testified he had on occasion
received normal supervisor's criticism but had never been
reprimanded for anything, and his work had always been
praised by the crafts he was working with
About 3 weeks before the NLRB November 10 election,
Outlaw approached Klemer and told him he had dust
recommended him for a $100 a month raise When Outlaw
notified Klemer after the election that he had been
demoted, Klemer asked what happened to the $100 raise,
he had never received it, but was now getting a $50 cut
Klemer told Outlaw he didn't think he was telling him the
truth when he told him about the $100 recommended
raise Outlaw replied he had told him the truth and had
made the request to Bob DeVoto , the civil superintendent
DeVoto confirmed to Klemer that Outlaw had in fact
made the recommendation for the $100 pay increase for
Kleiner, but that it had not been acted on because of the
price-wage freeze
In the latter part of December 1971, Kleiner and
Hoffman were called into the office and told by Fountain
that they were being taken out of surveying and being
transferred into the office , Klemer as field engineer in the
boiler department and Hoffman into cost engineering
The General Counsel contends that Klemer's demotion
from party chief to instrument man and his $50-per-month
pay cut constituted discrimination against him in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
In support of its denial of the violation , the Respondent
seeks to show through the testimony of Outlaw that the
demotion of Klemer was delayed until after the November
10 election as the Respondent did not want to make any
changes before the election which could possibly interfere
with the election Outlaw testified that he had an
opportunity to observe Klemer's work as a party chief,
prior to the November 10 election , and he was of the
opinion that Klemer in general had trouble adjusting to
different situations that would apse Outlaw testified
concerning Klemer, "I kept him mainly on repetition-do-
ing the work over and over If I pulled him out of that area
to put him on something, he floundered quite a lot in doing
it " He recalled discussing his opinion of Klemer's
capability with DeVoto, Bross, and Fountain, and testified,
"it would have been more or less not too long after he
started working there " Outlaw further testified that he had
9 Hoffman had testified for the Union at the NLRB representation
hearing in August 30 1971
io When Klemer was assigned to Hoffman s crew as instrument man
after November 10 NLRB election by Outlaw Hoffman told Outlaw he was
objecting because he considered Kleiner better qualified as a party chief
than himself Outlaw replied that he had made the decision Hoffman could
take it or quit
BECHTEL CORPORATION 985
discussions with Klemer about his work, but "only in an
around about way whenever something wouldn't come up
exactly right, I'd tell him he had to do it over again or
something like that " In this connection, Outlaw recalled
one incident in the summer of 1971, sometime before the
August 30 NLRB hearing, where he had assigned Klemer's
crew to lay out four circulating water lines and 5 hours
later Outlaw returned to check Kleier's work progress and
found "he had five hubs in the ground" which Outlaw felt
"could have been accomplished in 20 minutes " Outlaw
testified he told Klemer at the time, "men were waiting on
him and that this couldn't go "
Project Superintendent Fountain testified that after
Klemer received notice of his demotion, Klemer ap-
proached him and wanted to know the reason Fountain
testified he told Kleiner "that's the way we saw it "
Fountain further testified that he told Klemer that he
"personally thought that he was a good employee, but that
maybe as a party chief he may not have been the best, that
I [Fountain] really have no reason to know one way or
another " Further with respect to Klemer's demotion and
the reason for it, Fountain testified, "he [Klemer] wasn't
supposedly the most qualified party chief " But Fountain
added, he did not know this of his own knowledge, the
recommendation was made by DeVoto or Outlaw
Concerning Joe Klemer's work as party chief, Civil
Superintendent Bob DeVoto testified that he does recall
that he discussed Joe Klemer with Outlaw within a month
after he was first hired DeVoto testified further that on
that occasion Outlaw mentioned that Klemer seemed to be
slow at orienting himself to new work, but that he appeared
to be trying DeVoto testified that he had subsequent
conversations regarding Joe Klemer with Outlaw periodi-
cally and Outlaw would come to him and basically say the
same thing DeVoto estimated that he had possibly five or
six conversations with Outlaw concerning Klemer over the
whole time of Klemer's employment as a surveyor ii
K Analysis and Conclusionary Finding Regarding
the Demotion of Joseph Kleiner
Initially it is noted that although Kleiner supported the
Union his union activity was not outstanding but neverthe-
less substantial Outlaw testified Klemer was known only
as a person in favor of the Union 12 Bearing in mind that
Kleiner began his employment with the Respondent in
January 1971, as a party chief, it is difficult to understand
why Outlaw suffered him to remain in that position until
November 1971, a period of 10 months if he was in fact
unqualified It is also difficult to advance any reason
except a discriminatory one why Outlaw demoted Kleiner
and cut his pay after the November election, in the face of
inconsistent action taken by him 1 month earlier when he
recommended Klemer for a $100 a month raise in October
1971 The problems which Outlaw testified he had with
11 On one occasion before the August 30 NLRB election DeVoto
recollected that Outlaw mentioned that Kleiner requested that he be placed
on the first reduction in force as he wanted to return to school
12 Civil Superintendent DeVoto testified that Outlaw did tell him
concerning the union activities of Kent Cloud but he recalls nothing ever
being said about Joe Klemer s union activity Outlaw testified that it was
common knowledge that J J Cloud was the prime organizer for the Union
Klemer's work occurred before he recommended Klemer's
pay raise The $100 pay raise recommendation refutes
Outlaw's contention that Kleiner was unqualified as a
party chief Moreover, the testimonial description by
Outlaw of Kleier's shortcomings on their face shows the
insignificance of his dissatisfaction Additionally Project
Superintendent Fountain who approved the demotion
admitted by his testimony that he "personally thought that
he [Kleiner] was a good employee, but maybe as a party
chief, he may not have been the best " This statement of
opinion by Fountain is hardly the expression of an opinion
that Klemer was not qualified to be a party chief, a
position he had held with the Respondent for 10 months
Moreover , the Respondent 's high regard for Kleier's work
is manifested by his promotion to the office as field
engineer in December 1971 It is further appropriate to
consider that the only three surveyors who were demoted
and their pay cut on the day following the November 10
election were the three most active union supporters,
namely the two Clouds and Kleiner As I have noted
heretofore in analyzing the discrimination practiced
against J J Cloud, Klemer's demotion was accomplished
in a background of antiumon hostility and other unfair
labor practices engaged in by the Respondent, for example,
the threat to terminate the surveyor work force and to
subcontract the work elsewhere , and the statements that
promotions and job retention would be present without a
union and absent with a union
I am persuaded that the action of Respondent's
management at Page was intended to impress on Kleiner
that his future with the Respondent would best be assured
by shunning unionism This was accomplished by his 4- or
5-week demotion from party chief to instrument man in
November 1971 The punishment terminated with Klein-
er's promotion to the office in December 1971
I find therefore that this demotion of Klemer on or about
November 11, 1971 from party chief to instrument man
with its attendant $50 monthly pay cut violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
L John Kent Cloud's Constructive Discharge
John Kent Cloud (called Kent) is the son of J J Cloud
He was hired by Outlaw as an instrument man February
16, 1971, at a salary of $950 a month Kent and his father
were known by management to be the leaders in the union
organizational drive On or about November 12, 1971,
Kent was notified by Outlaw that he was being demoted
from instrument man to chainman , and his salary cut from
$1030 to $850 a month When Outlaw notified Kent of the
demotion, Kent inquired the reason but Outlaw gave him
none and refused to respond About 3 days later Kent
talked to Fountain about his demotion This conversation
took place in the field in the presence of his father, Joe
Klemer, and Party Chief Hoffman When Kent asked
he also suspected that Kent Cloud was involved in union organization but
he could not say it was common knowledge that Joe Kleiner was involved in
the union campaign Outlaw further testified that he really didn t expect
Joe [Kleiner ] to be involved Outlaw conceded however, that he did hear
that Joe Klemer was in favor of the union but does not recall the
circumstances
986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Fountain the reason for his demotion, Fountain replied
that he and Outlaw had gotten together and determined
that Kent was not qualified to do thejob any longer Kent
testified he then said, "Well, I have been doing the job for
months and I have had no complaints, so it is kind of
funny being demoted after working that long at the fob "
Fountain did not reply On that same day Kent
approached Outlaw to ascertain what Outlaw had to say
about this demotion Kent credibly testified that Outlaw
couldn't tell him anything other than "he told me to keep
my mouth shut and not spread any gossip anymore or he
was going to run me off " Then Outlaw turned and left
Kent quit the job on November 19, 1971 Kent testified he
walked up to Outlaw in the office that morning and told
him he wanted his check, he was going back to Washing-
ton Kent concedes that he told Outlaw he had a job in
Washington, but in fact he did not Kent testified he told
Outlaw he had another job in order to "save face " He
further testified that the real reason he quit was, "I got
tired of being harassed by the things that were being done
to us there, and being shut off like we was, so I couldn't
take it any longer, so I up and left " Kent affirmed that he
was referring in the previous quote to his demotion and
reduction in pay Other than Kent's face saving statement
to Outlaw and some others, there is no evidence that Kent
had a job in Washington To others, such as his father and
Kleiner, Kent gave the true reason, namely his demotion
and pay cut 13
Concerning Kent's work history with the Respondent,
Outlaw testified that he hired Kent at his father's [J J
Cloud's] request He was hired as an instrument man and
worked in Don Graef's crew for 6 weeks, then for 2 or 3
months in Dave Jones' crew, then 6 weeks in Guaderra-
ma's crew, and at the time he was demoted in November,
in John Hoffman's crew Outlaw testified he had opportu-
nities to observe Kent's work and found him to be "quite
inexperienced " Outlaw further testified he received com-
plaints from Kent's first party chief, Don Graef, who
reported to him that Kent "wasn't too good a helper He's
quite inexperienced and really doesn't know what to do
He can't leave him He just couldn't trust his work"
Outlaw testified that Kent's second party chief, namely
Dave Jones, told him that "Kent was inexperienced and
wasn't too good a help when he needed him " Outlaw
testified that the third party chief Kent worked with,
namely Guaderrama, told him Kent "works OK, but he
doesn't help him with the prints and stuff like that"
Outlaw testified that he probably mentioned something
about Kent to DeVoto and Sherm Bross in March 1971
Outlaw further testified that he had discussed terminating
Kent while he was working in Jones' crew, probably in
April or May 1971, but decided to retain him because of
the difficulty in recruiting personnel in the early part of the
year Outlaw further testified that in May or June 1971,
while Kent was still in Dave Jones' crew, Kent's father, J
J Cloud, reported to him that he had to go to pick up some
of Kent's stuff and move some of his stuff back from
13 Thus Joseph Kleiner testified that Kent told him at his home before
he had quit of his intention to leave because he was unhappy with his pay
cut and because of the harassment and back biting Kent s father credibly
testified that directly after Kent was demoted Kent told him I in going
back to Washington where I can work on my union card This $850 a month
Washington At that time, according to Outlaw's testimo-
ny, he told Cloud "Don't bring any of Kent's stuff, he
won't be here too long " Outlaw testified further that
immediately after the November 10 NLRB election he
discussed with DeVoto and Fountain Kent's demotion
Outlaw testified that he told DeVoto the day after the
election that he was going to send Kent back to chainman
and put Joe Kleiner in his place as instrument man Outlaw
testified that immediately before discussing Kent's demo-
tion with DeVoto, he talked the matter over with Fountain
Outlaw testified he told Fountain, "We waited and we had
to go ahead and make these changes now And so he says
OK 1114
In corroboration of Outlaw's testimony concerning
Kent's inexperience as an instrument man, Martin Graef,
called as a witness for the Respondent, testified that when
Kent served as instrument man in his crew he reported to
Outlaw in February or March 1971 that "Kent was
inexperienced and was not much help " At that time,
according to Graef's testimony, Outlaw told him that the
company was short-handed and "they just couldn't put
anybody else up there " Graef testified that he never told
Outlaw that Kent was "no good," merely that he was
somewhat inexperienced Graef testified further that Kent
worked with him from the middle of February to the end
of May, that "Kent worked hard, he was just too
inexperienced " But Graef conceded that Kent was not less
experienced than Mark Fountain [Project Superintendent's
son ] Graef also testified that he had a lot of problems with
Mark Fountain and tried to have him fired Graef further
testified he never spoke to Kent about his work problems
Graef further testified that he never talked to Kent about
his inexperience and that with Kent in his crew as
instrument man, he was able to complete the work within a
fairly reasonable time
Called as a witness for the Respondent, Dave Jones
testified that, as party chief, he worked with Kent for about
2 months Jones testified to his opinion of Kent's work as
follows "I thought that Kent Cloud had knowledge of the
instruments, he was a hard-working fellow, but there were
certain areas where he was short in which he and I had
talks the time he and I worked together " Jones testified he
so advised Outlaw of his opinion
Robert Bichard, a party chief, called as a witness by the
Respondent testified he worked about 6 weeks with Kent
as instrument man Bichard testified that Kent "seemed
quite capable " He was familiar with the instruments and
he seemed able to function as an instrument man " Bichard
testified that on a couple of occasions, Outlaw asked him
how Kent was doing and he told Outlaw "he seems to be
doing all right "
John Hoffman, presently employed by the Respondent
and called as a witness by the General Counsel, was Kent's
party chief in the last 2 or 3 weeks of his employment
Hoffman testified that he observed Kent's work at first as
an instrument man and later as a chainman, and that he
found Kent's work satisfactory in all respects Hoffman
isn t worth staying for
14 Outlaw was referring to the period preceding the November 10 NLRB
election where as he testified We could make no changes that conflict
with the procedures that was happening on thejob [Making reference to
the November 10 election ]
BECHTEL CORPORATION 987
further testified that he never complained to Outlaw about
Kent's work
In refutation of Outlaw's testimony concerning Kent's
inexperience as an instrument man, Kent testified he had
never received any criticism of his work prior to his
demotion Kent testified he got along very well with Graef
when he worked with him and Graef never criticized his
work Although Kent conceded that when he was hired
Outlaw told him he was "most likely just hired for 90
days," sometime later Party Chief Graef, in whose crew he
was working as instrument man, told him that he had
talked to Outlaw and Outlaw told him that both Graef and
Kent would be permanent hands
Kent's father, J J Cloud, testified that sometime in early
spring 1971, Outlaw told him that "Kent had turned out
good That he was going to keep him on "
Concerning his qualifications before coming to work for
the Respondent, Kent testified that he took three quarters
of a survey course in college and previous to his
employment by the Respondent last worked for Clear
Granite Contractors in Pomeroy, Washington, and was a
member of Local 303 of the Operators Union in Washing-
ton
was intended as a punishment for their leadership in the
union organizational campaign I do not credit Outlaw's
testimony that he demoted Kent in November 1971
because of his "inexperience " Indeed, I find to the
contrary, on the basis of Hoffman's testimony, who I
credit, and who was Kent's party "satisfactory in all
respects" as an instrument man and as a chainman, chief at
the time of Kent's discharge, that he found Kent's work
and that he had never complained to Outlaw about Kent's
work I find that in the 10 months of Kent's employment
with the Respondent, he had become quite experienced
and proficient in the instrument man's duties, and that
there was no legitimate reason for the Respondent to
demote him I find, therefore, that Kent's demotion
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act I further find
that as a consequence of his demotion and reduction in
pay, Kent quit his employment with the Respondent I
further find that the Respondent thereby constructively
discharged Kent in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act Associated Mills, Inc, 190 NLRB No 8, slip op
pp 12-14, Capital Electric Power Association, 171 NLRB
No 42, Century Broadcasting Corp, 419 F 2d 771, 780
(C A 8, 1969)
M Analysis and Conclusionary Finding Respecting
Kent's Demotion
Kent's demotion occurred at the same time as the
demotions of his father and Joe Kleiner, namely after the
November 10 election Significantly the three demotees
were the known leaders of the union movement The
Respondent explains the delay in the demotions so as not
to engage in conduct which might result in setting aside the
NLRB election Also significant is the fact that the only
three members of the survey crews demoted at this time
were these three union leaders It is understandable that
Kent who started working for the Respondent as an
instrument man in February 1971 may have been regarded
by Graef and by Outlaw as somewhat inexperienced in
February, March, and April, as they have testified, but
nevertheless, he was considered to be a hard worker and he
was retained His experience became more evident when he
worked under Dave Jones in the summer of 1971, when
Jones advised Outlaw that Kent had "knowledge of the
instruments and was a "hard-working fellow " To be sure,
so pleased was Outlaw with Kent's progress that in spring
he told Kent's father "that Kent had turned out good, he
was going to keep him " Moreover, Hoffman, still in
Respondent's employ, who was Kent's party chief at the
time of his demotion, testified he found Kent's work as an
instrument man satisfactory in all respects, and that he
never complained to Outlaw about Kent's work I am
persuaded that the Respondent's local management at
Page were under a misconception that what they should
not do that might nullify the NLRB election, they could do
with impunity after the election Indeed they frankly
announced to the survey crews after the Respondent's
November 10 election victory not only that they were
throwing a party in celebration of the victory, but also that
certain people were not going to be happy with changes to
be made I am satisfied and I find, that the demotion of
Kent, like the demotions of his father and Joseph Klemer,
N The Objections to the Election Are Sustained
As I have found heretofore in this decision that between
August 9, 1971, the date the representation petition was
filed in Case 28-RC-2219 and the November 10, 1971,
election, the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices,
namely in granting the August 18 general wage increase, in
threatening to terminate the survey crews and subcontract
the survey work to an outside firm, and in representing to
the employees that promotions and job tenure were present
without a union and absent with a union, it is my further
finding that the aforesaid conduct by the Respondent
interfered with the employee exercise of a free and
untrammeled choice in the election and therefore constitut-
ed conduct sufficient to affect the results of the election I
therefore recommend that the November 10, 1971, election
should be set aside
0 The Refusal to Bargain
I have already found that the Union represented a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit during
the month of August 1971, and that the Respondent at the
August 30, 1971, NLRB representation hearing refused to
recognize the Union as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit
I find that the unfair labor practices heretofore outlined
in this Decision were so pervasive, aggravated, and serious
as to render impossible a free and fair election under the
teaching of the Supreme Court in N L R B v Gissel
Packing Company, 394 U S 575 I find that by engaging in
the violations heretofore described in this Decision and by
refusing to recognize or bargain with the Union, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act See
Skaggs Drug Centers, Inc, 197 NLRB No 171, slip op, p
13, General Stencils, Inc, 195 NLRB No 173, United
Packing Co, 187 NLRB No 132, Pure Chemical Corp, 192
NLRB No 88, Yazoo Valley Electric Power Assn, 163
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NLRB 777, 790, L B Foster, 168 NLRB No 15, J C
Penney Co, 384 F 2d 479 (C A 10), Northwest Engineering
Co, 158 NLRB 624, enfd 376 F 2d 770 (C A D C) I find
that under all the circumstances in the record that the
union authorization cards should be accredited as evidenc-
ing the Union 's majority status and that a bargaining order
should issue requiring the Respondent to bargain with the
Union on request It is so recommended
IV THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act, it will be
recommended that it be required to cease and desist
therefrom and take appropriate affirmative action Such
action shall include a proper offer of immediate reinstate-
ment to J J Cloud and J Kent Cloud and their
reimbursement , as well as reimbursement to Joseph
Klemer, for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of
discrimination against them Backpay will be computed in
accordance with the formula stated in F W Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, interest shall be added to
backpay at the rate of 6 percent per annum Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716
It will also be recommended that the election of
November 10, 1971, in Case 28-RC-2219 be set aside and
the Respondent ordered to bargain with the Union as the
collective -bargaining representative of its employees in the
appropriate unit and , if an agreement is reached, embody
such agreement in a signed contract
In view of the nature and extent of the unfair labor
practices found herein which indicate Respondent ' s deter-
mination to interfere with its employees ' rights of self-
organization, it will be recommended that a broad cease-
and-desist order issue
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon
the entire record in this case, I reach the following
hours , and other conditions of work of Respondent's
employees in a unit described as follows
All employees of the Respondent 's field surveying and
engineering crews employed in the classifications of
instrument man, chairman , and party chief on the
Respondent's Page, Arizona, Navajo Power Generating
Station, but excluding all office clericals, guards,
watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act
5 The aforesaid unit was, and is , a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act, and any subsequent loss of such
status is the result of the Respondent' s unfair labor
practices heretofore found above
6 By refusing to bargain with the Union on and after
August 30, 1971, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act
7 By demoting in position and reducing the monthly
salary of J J Cloud, Joseph Klemer, and J Kent Cloud,
on or about November 12, 1971, because of their union
activity, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act
8 By constructively discharging J Kent Cloud on or
about November 19, 1971, and by discharging J J Cloud
on or about January 31, 1972, because of their union
activity, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act
9 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
10 The evidence does not support the allegation that J
J Cloud and J Kent Cloud were discnminatonly deprived
of overtime work and pay by the Respondent
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended
ORDER 15
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The Respondent, Bechtel Corporation , is an employ-
er engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act
2 The Union, International Union of Operating
Engineers , Local No 428, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 By granting a general wage increase on or about
August 18, 1971, by threatening to terminate the members
of the survey crews, and subcontract out the work if a
union came in, and by representing job promotion and
retention if the employees rejected the Union and the
absence thereof if the employees selected the Union, the
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act
4 In August 1971 and at all times since, the Union has
been the exclusive representative , with respect to wages,
Respondent , Bechtel Corporation , its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Unlawfully granting general wage increases to
influence employees to refuse to support and vote against
the Union
(b) Unlawfully threatening to discharge employees and
to subcontract work to influence employees to abandon,
refuse to support, and vote against the Union
(c) Unlawfully stating to employees for the purpose of
inducing them to abandon, refuse to support, and vote
against the Union, that the employees' opportunities of
advancement and tenure of employment with the Respon-
dent would be less with a union than without one
(d) Unlawfully refusing to bargain with the Union as the
representative of the employees in the unit herein found
appropriate , with respect to wages, hours, and other
conditions of employment
(e) Unlawfully discriminating against employees with
respect to their wages, hours, working conditions, and
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings its findings conclusions and Order and all objections thereto shall be
conclusions and recommended Order herein shall as provided in Sec deemed waived for all purposes
BECHTEL CORPORATION
tenure of employment because of their union membership
or activity
(f) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
to them by Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit found herein with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment , and, if an understanding is reached , embody such
understanding in a signed agreement
(b) Offer immediate reinstatement to J Kent Cloud as
instrument man and to J J Cloud as chamman without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges
and make them and Joseph Kleiner whole in the manner
set forth in the section of the Trial Examiner 's Decision
entitled "The Remedy "
(c) Notify the above-named employees, if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their
right to full reinstatement upon application , in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after
discharge from the Armed Forces
(d) 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 records and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
recommended Order
(e) Post at its premises at Page, Arizona, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix "16 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 28, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative , shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith 17
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED as to those allegations of
the complaint found to be without merit, as indicated in
this Decision herein , that such allegations be dismissed
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that objections to election
filed by the Union be sustained in part as previously found
herein, and that the election be set aside
16 In the event that the Board s 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 be changed to read
Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board
is In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed this provision shall be modified to read
Notify the Regional Director for Region 28 in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith
APPENDIX
989
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which all parties had the opportunity to
present their evidence , it has been decided that we violated
the law and we have been ordered to post this notice We
intend to carry out the order of the Board and abide by the
following
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers, Local No 428,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , by dis-
charging, laying off , or in any other manner discrimi-
nating against employees in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of
employment
WE WILL NOT unlawfully threaten our employees
with reprisals or promise them benefits in order to
induce them to vote against unionization , or to increase
wages for that purpose
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the
aforesaid Union as the exclusive representative of our
employees in the appropriate unit noted below with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
conditions and terms of employment , and if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement
All employees of Bechtel Corporation's field
surveying and engineering crews employed in the
classifications of instrument man, chamman, and
party chief at the Employer 's Page, Arizona,
Navajo Power Generating Station , but excluding
all office clericals, guards, watchmen , and super-
visors as defined in the Act
WE WILL offer immediate reinstatement to J J
Cloud and J Kent Cloud and will pay them backpay,
as provided in the Board 's Decision and Order
WE WILL pay backpay to Joseph Kleiner as provided
in the Board's Decision and Order
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
right to form and join unions , to engage in concerted
activities for their mutual aid or protection, and to
engage in collective bargaining through their represent-
ative chosen in accordance with the provisions of the
National Labor Relations Act
BECHTEL CORPORATION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
We will notify immediately the above- named individuals, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement , upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act
990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by mg this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
anyone directed to the Board's Office, 207 Camelback Building,
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days 110 West Camelback Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85013,
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, Telephone 602-261-3717
or covered by any other material Any questions concern-