Combustion Engineering, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 9, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 542 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Combustion Engineering , Inc., Power Systems Divi- APPENDIX
sion and James L. Hudson . Case 5-CA-7223
June 9, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On February 20, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Herzel H E Plaine issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed a memorandum in support of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's Decision
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein 2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Com-
bustion Engineering, Inc, Power Systems Division,
Windsor, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order, as so modified
1 In paragraph 1(b) substitute the words "In any
other manner" for "In any like manner "
2 Substitute the attached notice for the notice ap-
pended to the Administrative Law Judge's Decision
' The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products Inc 91
NLRB 544 ( 1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (CA 3, 1951) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
2 In his recommended Order, the Administrative Law Judge uses the nar-
row cease-and-desist language, in any like manner," rather than the broad
injunctive language, `in any other manner, which we deem appropriate in
situations such as this where the Respondents unfair labor practices strike
at the very heart of the Act Accordingly, we shall order the Respondent to
cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon those rights
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found,
after a hearing, that we violated the National Labor
Relations Act, we have been ordered to post this no-
tice and abide by the following
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discipline
employees because they protest in concert with
fellow employees, or similarly seek protection or
other relief from our failure to keep the place of
employment free from abnormally dangerous
working conditions, or because they engage in
any other protected concerted activity under
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with the right of employees to engage in protect-
ed concerted activities, or refrain therefrom
Because the Board found that we unlawfully
discharged employees James Hudson, Larry
Bailey, James Fisher, Paul Urwin, Jack Wil-
liams , and Kenneth Williams because they had
engaged in protected concerted activities under
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act,
WE WILL give each of them backpay with interest
from the time of his discharge on January 6,
1975, until an appropriately determined time
thereafter related to the completion of the proj-
ect on which each was working
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC
DECISION
HERZEL H E PLAINE, Administrative Law Judge The
question in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully dis-
charged six of its boilermaker employees on a renovating
job in West Point, Virginia, because they engaged in pro-
tected concerted activities by leaving their work to protest
and seek relief from abnormally unsafe working condi-
tions, or whether Respondent lawfully discharged them for
engaging in an unauthorized work stoppage contrary to the
no-strike clause of the governing collective-bargaining con-
tracts
The complaint, filed on June 19, 1975 ,' alleges that
Respondent's discharge of the six employees on January 6,
1975, violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act (the Act) General Counsel's contention is that
the normally dangerous job of demolishing and removing
' On a charge filed on March 24 1975 by one of the discharged boiler
makers James L Hudson on behalf of himself and the other five dis-
charged employees-Larry R Bailey James S Fisher Paul E Urwin, Jack
L Williams and Kenneth E Williams
224 NLRB No 76
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC 543
the large metal screens and other parts constituting the in-
terior of a large precipitator that, in operation, was part of
a coal-fired boiler system for producing steam for genera-
tion of electric power, became abnormally dangerous,
within the meaning of Section 502 of the Act, on the night
of January 3 and early morning January 4 (a Saturday)
when two former fellow employees who quit and left the
job earlier on January 3 came back to the precipitator and,
with knowledge of Respondent, assaulted one of the six
boilermakers working on the night shift and threatened all
with further violence unless they also quit the job 2 The six
employees met with the night-shift superintendent and left
the jobsite a few hours before the normal quitting time on
their understanding that the superintendent acquiesced in
and agreed to their leaving in order to get the trouble and
danger off the job, and with the further understanding that
the six men would report back to work Monday, the next
working day When the six men reported back for work on
Monday, January 6, Respondent barred their admission to
the project and handed them dismissal notices, with pay-
checks for the previous week's work, on the ground that
they had voluntarily quit
Respondent does not contend that there was no danger
or abnormal danger in working conditions for the night-
shift workers at the precipitator when the belligerent in-
truders were present and brought the work to a halt, but
does contend that the danger ceased before the six employ-
ees left the jobsite when the intruders moved out of sight
Respondent, who claims that it replaced the six employees
by the next working day, also argues, contrary to the Gen-
eral Counsel, that it neither gave permission for nor con-
doned the early leaving, and that there was no under-
standing that the jobs would be there for the six men on the
next working day
The case was heard on July 24 and 25 and September 25,
1975, at Charleston, West Virginia The delay of 2 months
in completing the hearing was caused by the absence from
the United States of Respondent's key witness, the night-
shift superintendent, Davenport
General Counsel and Respondent have filed briefs
Upon the entire record in the case,3 including my obser-
vation of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
Respondent is a Delaware corporation engaged at vari-
ous locations throughout the United States in the construc-
tion and renovation of boilers and other devices used in the
generation of electric power by electric utilities and other
companies
In this case, the site involved was the property of the
2 Sec 502 provides, in pertinent part `nor shall the quitting of labor by
an employee or employees in good faith because of abnormally dangerous
conditions for work at the place of employment of such employee or em-
ployees be deemed a strike under this Act "
s Largely in the third volume of the transcript of the testimony there were
some repetitive errors in transcription which are hereby corrected
Chesapeake Paper Company located in West Point, Virgin-
ia
In the calendar year preceding issuance of the com-
plaint, a representative period, Respondent purchased and
received in the State of Virginia goods valued in excess of
$50,000 from points outside the State of Virginia As the
parties admit, Respondent was and is an employer within
the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in com-
merce and in operations affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Ship Builders, Forgers, and Helpers, and its Locals 45
(Richmond, Virginia) and 667 (Charleston, West Virginia),
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act
II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Business Operation
Beginning in December 1974, through January and Feb-
ruary 1975, Respondent was engaged in the repair of the
coal-fired boiler and renovation of the connected precipi-
tator on the property of the Chesapeake Paper Company
(Chesapeake) at West Point, Virginia Also involved in the
work (though not directly involved in the case) was a com-
pany called Research-Cottrell
According to Respondent's construction manager of the
project, William (Sam) Stewart, Respondent began work
on December 2, 1974, and completed the work on Febru-
ary 24, 1975 This was the period of time used by the day
shift working on repair of the boiler The day shift working
on renovation of the precipitator ran from December 23,
1974, to February 11, 1975
On the boiler repair, there was also a night shift, which
ran from December 15, 1974, to January 29, 1975, and on
the precipitator renovation, there was a night shift that ran
from December 30, 1974, to January 24, 1975 (There was
no verification of any of these dates by books or records )
This case is concerned with the work of the night shift on
the precipitator renovation
According to Manager Stewart, there was a total of 140
employees on the whole project, of whom 28 employees
worked on the precipitator, 14 on the day shift and 14 on
the night shift Respondent obtained its employees through
local union hiring halls, said Stewart, and in the case of
boilermakers obtained almost all from Local 45 of Rich-
mond, Va In connection with the work on the precipitator,
Local 45 apparently did not have enough boilermakers in
its immediate jurisdiction to send, and called for men from
its sister Local 667 in Charleston, West Virginia, located
400 miles from the Chesapeake jobsite
As a result, the night shift on the precipitator renovation
began on the night of December 30, 1974, with 10 of the 14
men from the Charleston, West Virginia, area In this con-
nection, the Charleston boilermakers drove the 400 miles in
several cars to the Chesapeake job, and stayed during the
week at a local motel
The night shift on the precipitator began at 5 30 p in
and ran to 3 30 am, or 10 hours per night, 5 days per
week, Monday through Friday, totaling 50 hours per week
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A boilermaker, said boilermaker employee Hudson, is a
man of many parts including welder, rigger, and mechanic
The initial work for the boilermakers in the renovation of
the precipitator was in the nature of demolition, i e clear-
ing out all of the interior parts, mostly metal, of this large
wholly enclosed building, preparatory to installing a new
interior for doing the work of the precipitator
B Description of the Working Premises
The precipitator is a windowless building 90 feet wide,
60 feet long, and 60 feet high, the bottom of which sits 10
feet off the ground The precipitator is an environmental
protection device, connected to the boiler Its function is to
remove the fly ash and other impurities from the gases
emitted by the boiler before the gases are discharged to the
atmosphere through the stack The interior of the precipita-
tor is sectioned into three working bays, in which were
hung huge metal screens or curtains, made of 1/4-inch
steel rods going through 2-inch pipe, and strung with elec-
tric wires, the screens spaced at close intervals and hanging
from the top of the bay to within 2 or 3 feet of the floor
The electric wires were held in place by cast-iron weights
weighing 15 to 20 pounds each, shaped like and called milk
bottles, attached to and hanging from the lower ends of the
wiresjust above the floor In operation, the steel screens or
curtains were charged by the electric wires, causing the fly
ash and other impurities in the gases moving from the boil-
er through the precipitator to cling to the screens At timed
intervals, heavy metal rapper bars would hit or agitate the
screens and knock the clinging impurities down from the
screens to the "wet bottom" floor of the precipitator where
a flow of water carried off and discharged the impurities,
while relatively clean gases were emitted to the atmosphere
through the stack
The renovation contemplated removal of all of the inte-
rior equipment of the precipitator-the screens or curtains
of steel rods and pipes, the electric wire suspensions, the
milk bottle weights, and the rapper bars-originally in-
stalled about 1965-66, to be replaced by new equipment
The removal was essentially a removal of the materials as
scrap, and this was accomplished by cutting three 3-feet-
by-10-feet oblong openings in the floor of the three bays
and lowering the removed material to the ground through
the openings in the floor The smaller materials, such as the
weights and bars, were removed first, then the large steel
screens were cut into smaller sections, which were lowered
through the floor openings to the ground The cutting of
the screens was done with acetylene torches for which the
hoses bringing in the fuel were introduced into the precipi-
tator through the oblong floor openings, and ran in various
directions on the floor and about the bays Access from the
ground to the floor of the precipitator was by ladder placed
in the corner of each of the floor openings There were no
protective railings around the floor openings and ladders
because, said Manager Stewart, railings would block the
lowering of the large pieces of material that w ere being cut
for removal
The men worked in all parts of the precipitator from up
high to the floor and thence to and from the ground There
were many tools spread about in the interior of the precipi-
tator, including 12-pound wrecking bars, 18-inch spud
wrenches with sharp lower ends, and acetylene torches and
hoses, some of the scrap material rested temporarily on the
floor of the precipitator before being taken out and, until
fully cut and removed, there were whole screens and parts
of screens suspended in the precipitator with lots of sharp
jagged edges, according to employee Hudson and others
On the ground beneath the floor openings were heaps of
scrap from the cut-up rods and other materials that had
been lowered from the precipitator, and of course, as the
testimony indicated, these materials presented many sharp
jagged edges The area was roped off and posted with
"danger" signs The floor of the precipitator was wet and
slippery Lighting was required day and night, and was
supplied by long stringers of lights in each of the bays All
of the workers were supplied with and required to wear
safety clothing and equipment
C Supervision, Control of Jobsite
In overall charge of Respondent's repair and renovation
work for Chesapeake was the construction manager, Wil-
liam (Sam) Stewart Stewart worked in the daytime and
said that he usually stayed on for a brief period after the
night shift came on
In charge of the night shift, both for the boiler and preci-
pitator, was Erection or Construction Superintendent Perry
(Dave) Davenport According to Manager Stewart, Super-
intendent Davenport was completely in charge and had
full authority, without consulting Stewart, to hire and to
fire
Assisting Superintendent Davenport in his supervision
of the night shift was erector Lou Purin
All three men were admitted supervisors within the
meaning of the Act
In addition, immediately in charge of the night shift
crew on the precipitator was Foreman Battle
The jobsite was Chesapeake's property, an enclosed site,
with access through two controlled gates, a main gate and
a construction gate Control of the gates and patrolling the
property was handled by Chesapeake's security guards,
and access of employees and workers to the site was sup-
posedly by badge identification at the gates The patrolling
of the property was by cars using radio communication,
according to Superintendent Davenport However, as Su-
perintendent Davenport's testimony and the events of Jan-
uary 3 and 4, 1975, indicated, control at the gates and the
patrolling was lax and at times nonexistent
D Union Representation and Contracts
Respondent's hiring of, and dealings with, the boiler-
makers was through the Richmond Local 45 The stewards
on the job were Local 45 representatives, and the Charles-
ton Local 667 men had no separate representation4
The governing labor contracts for the boilermakers were
4 At the commencement of hearing, the parties stipulated that Local 45
and Respondent had refused to arbitrate Respondents denial of employ-
ment to employee Hudson and the five other Charleston men (identified in
fn 1, supra) on January 6 1975
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC 545
the agreement with Local 45 (Exh R-la), in which article
20 made provision for safety measures, and article 1(c)(H)
provided that there shall be no illegal strikes, work stop-
pages, or lockouts, and the agreement with the Interna-
tional Brotherhood (Exh R-lb), in which article 22 provid-
ed for safety measures, and article 24 provided that there
shall be no lockouts and that the Union shall not approve
or condone illegal work stoppages of employees covered by
the agreement and will make every effort to enforce com-
pliance by local unions and individual employees
E Events on the Night Shift of January 3-4, 1975
The 10 Charleston employees on the night shift crew for
the precipitator in the week beginning Monday, December
30, 1974, were James Hudson, Larry Bailey, James Fisher,
Paul Urwin , Danny Riffee , Kenneth (Gene) Williams, Jack
Williams, Romey Kelly, Curtis Sampson, and Dan Malik 5
According to Manager Stewart's testimony , as reported
to him on Saturday , January 4 , by Superintendent Daven-
port, employees Kelly and Sampson had dropped their
brass 6 about 8 30 p in on Friday , January 3 , and left the
premises , apparently quitting their jobs, though there was
no testimony on the circumstances of their leaving
About 15 minutes after the so-called lunch or dinner
break (it ran from 10 30 to 11 p m) on Friday night, Janu-
ary 3, Superintendent Davenport fired employee Dan Ma-
lik for having gone out to his break 10 minutes early and
returned 15 minutes late, according to Davenport Malik
was given his paycheck and apparently left the premises
About 45 minutes later , at approximately 12 midnight,
notwithstanding the supposed security at the jobsite gates,
Kelly and Sampson came on to the premises and into the
precipitator area They climbed the ladder into the first bay
of the precipitator where employees Hudson and Fisher
were working Hudson was working at the floor level near
the unprotected floor opening and Fisher was working at
the top of the bay about 50 feet above the floor level, look-
ing straight down , he said According to Hudson (and the
other witnesses , including Superintendent Davenport, who
saw them either simultaneously with, or immediately after,
Hudson's first encounter), Kelly and Sampson obviously
had been drinking, were belligerent and menacing as a re-
sult, but were quite able to articulate their demands and to
move about with celerity They demanded that employee
Hudson leave the job, saying that all of the Charleston men
were going to leave the job because Respondent had fired a
brother (Malik) Hudson said no, let Perry Day (Local 45's
business agent) handle it Whereupon Kelly took off his
coat, handed it to Sampson, said to Hudson, "I 'm going to
whip your goddam ass if you don't leave," and took a
swing at Hudson Kelly was a husky muscular man (6 feet
5 The first five employees named above were the General Counsel's wit-
nesses in the case However employee Riffee was not involved in the dis-
charge of January 6 because during the week he had sought and obtained
from Respondent a reduction in force' layoff, in effect voluntarily termi-
nating his employment at the week s end on the night of January 3-4
6 The equivalent of clocked out In lieu of a timeclock for recording
check-in and checkout times the boilermakers used brass identification
plates which they picked up from and dropped with the timekeeper as they
checked in and checked out each day
3 inches tall, weighed 240 pounds, largest man on the job),
"a horse" of a man, with a reputation as a fighter Hudson
grabbed Kelly, defensively holding on and asking him not
to do this, saying "we've been friends " They separated,
and Kelly asked, where is Fisher Hudson pointed to the
ceiling of the bay and said, up there Kelly shouted to Fish-
er, who said he had seen Kelly take a swing at Hudson, to
get his "goddam ass down here" they fired our brother
Malik Fisher made his way to the ground by moving over
from his perch to a stairway outside the precipitator that
led to the ground
Meantime Kelly and Sampson abruptly left the first bay,
descending the ladder leading to the ground, moved quick-
ly to the second bay and up its ladder through the large
floor opening to the floor level Employee Hudson fol-
lowed them hoping, he said, to keep trouble from arising
He observed from the ground that in the second bay, four
of the Charleston men were working-Paul Urwin, Larry
Bailey, Jack Williams, and Kenneth (Gene) Williams
According to employees Hudson, Urwin, and Bailey,
Kelly and Sampson came into the second bay shouting
with great profanity that the Charleston men had to leave
the job because Malik had been fired, or they'd be whip-
ped The four Charleston men in the bay were working at
or about the floor level, with Jack Williams on a ladder 8
feet above the other three When Jack Williams asked what
was "coming off," Kelly ordered him off the ladder or he'd
whip his ass Jack Williams complied Kenneth (Gene)
Williams, standing a few feet from the floor hole, made a
comment indicating he might not leave, whereupon Kelly
handed his coat to Sampson and started after Williams,
who quickly scooted down the ladder to the ground and
out of sight Employees Urwm, Bailey, and Jack Williams
descended to the ground and joined employees Hudson
and Fisher, as Kelly and Sampson hollered that they want-
ed them off the job
Meanwhile Superintendent Davenport and his assistant,
Erector Purin, had been present at the precipitator while
most if not all of this tumult took place Employee Hudson
testified that he saw Davenport close by the floor opening
of the first bay when Hudson came down the ladder and
that Davenport was in a position to see and hear what went
on Employee Bailey testified that he saw Davenport and
Purin close to the foot of the second bay when he (Bailey)
came down the ladder Manager Stewart testified that Dav-
enport reported later in the day (Saturday, January 4) that
he and Lou Purin had gone to the precipitator and had
heard Kelly and Sampson threaten bodily harm to the men
if they did not leave the project immediately, and specifi-
cally heard Kelly say belligerently they were going to leave
the project or he would personally whip their ass Finally,
Superintendent Davenport, in his testimony, acknowl-
edged, but with less directness than apparently told to his
superior, his awareness of the eruption of violence and
threat of more violence as it was happening
Superintendent Davenport claimed that Research-
Cottrell's erector, Mike Severias, came running for him as
he and Erector Purm were in the boiler area, telling them
there was trouble and fighting, hollering and cussing, at the
precipitator According to Davenport, Severias, in response
to a question, told him this was not play but a real fight, he
546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had observed it from the start Davenport and Purin hur-
ried over to the precipitator Davenport said they saw some
of the men who, when asked what was the problem, said
this was something he had to handle He looked into one of
the bays and said he saw Hudson and Kelly, the latter with
coat in hand, looking like he had been drinking, his hair
mussed Davenport said that without saying anything he
then started to look into the next bay and was stopped by
Sampson who told him to get the men their money, they
were not going to work on a job where their brother em-
ployee had been fired for discipline Again, according to
Davenport, he said nothing but went back to his office
At his office, said Superintendent Davenport, he talked
to Chesapeake's manager-coordinator, Hanes, and both
tried to find security guards but there was no response
They then went to the main gate looking for security
guards and there were none there After a 5- to 10-minute
wait someone from security was located by radio but, as
Davenport stated, no one from security ever did come
Davenport returned to his office, located in a trailer that
served as office and toolshed, and found Kelly outside,
who was joined shortly by Sampson Davenport went in
and asked Hanes to call the local police or sheriff Erector
Purin was there and Night-Shift Precipitator Foreman Bat-
tle was also there Davenport testified that Foreman Battle
was the first man to leave the precipitator when the trouble
started and made no attempt to get security help As he
emerged from the office portion of the trailer into the
toolshed, Davenport was confronted by Kelly and Samp-
son Kelly demanded that the Charleston men be given
their money, stating that they were leaving, that he would
see to that, and that if any one of them went back he'd
have to whip Kelly
Meantime five of the Charleston men had caucused out-
side the precipitator, discussed the possibility that Kelly
and Sampson would hurt someone on the job, decided they
had to talk about the situation with Superintendent Daven-
port, and proceeded to his trailer office Several of them,
including employee Hudson, walked into the trailer when
Kelly and Sampson were confronting Davenport with the
demand for paychecks and with the threat that Kelly
would physically prevent any Charleston man from going
back on the job
Kelly demanded to know of employees Hudson and
Fisher if they were going to leave the job, or did he have to
whip them, and they replied they did not know
Davenport, according to Hudson, told Kelly and Samp-
son that they had dropped their brass (punched out) and
quit earlier and could not be paid now, that none of the
others were quitting or asking for their money, and that no
checks would be issued He also told the two of them that
he had called the police and they had better leave They
left the immediate area, said Davenport, but it was clear
from his testimony that he didn't know then or thereafter if
and when they left the jobsite in the early morning of Janu-
ary 4, and, though the police arrived later and talked with
Davenport, it was also clear that Kelly and Sampson were
not apprehended and that Davenport and the Charleston
employees were aware that that was the case
Employee Hudson and his colleagues, Fisher, Bailey,
Urwin, and Jack Williams, talked with Superintendent Da-
venport just outside the trailer It should be noted that at
this point Davenport was quite aware that the Charleston
employees were scared of Kelly and what he and his com-
panion Sampson might do, and Davenport so reported to
Manager Stewart later that day (see also Stewart's testimo-
ny to this effect) Davenport was also aware that his super-
visory colleagues, Erector Punn and Foreman Battle, were
shaken and scared, and Davenport also had reported that
circumstance later in the day to Stewart As Davenport
testified, Manager Stewart was amused, but Davenport
stated indignantly (in his testimony, and apparently also to
Stewart) that he didn't share Stewart's amusement, that he
was concerned for the men because they were scared, he
was concerned that Kelly and Sampson had been able to
come on and be on the job illegally, and he was concerned
about what could possibly happen
On their part, the Charleston employees were not only
fearful of the violence of Kelly and Sampson, but were also
concerned and embarrassed, said Superintendent Daven-
port, by the conduct of the two, as a bad reflection on all of
the Charleston employees, according to Davenport, they
made clear to him both their fear and concern that the
violence could recur that night, and that it would be better
to move the "trouble off the fob " They testified that they
had avoided, and preferred to assure avoiding, fighting
with Kelly and Sampson not only because of the danger
but also because fighting on the job, whether engaged in
rightly or wrongly, in their experience meant discharge for
all participants Manager Stewart confirmed that such a
rule applied and would have applied to them
According to employee Hudson and his fellow employ-
ees, Fisher, Bailey, and Urwin, Superintendent Davenport
told them it was all right for them to leave, not to worry
about a thing, that he appreciated their taking the trouble
off the job, and to be back Monday Davenport assured us,
said Hudson, that our jobs would be there when we got
back Monday Hudson replied that they would drop their
brass and go to the change shanty Davenport replied, said
Hudson, drop your brass, it's o k, don't worry about a
thing
According to Hudson, he and his fellow employees, ex-
cept Fisher, went over to the change shanty where they
picked up their dinner buckets-they came to and from the
job in work clothes, they said Employee Fisher stayed be-
hind because he had no lunch bucket and, while waiting,
Davenport said to him, according to Fisher, that he didn't
blame the men for leaving On the way back from the
change shanty, as the men passed the trailer office again
before leaving the jobsite, Superintendent Davenport,
Erector Purin, Foreman Battle, and Chesapeake's Manag-
er-Coordinator Hanes walked over to them, said Hudson
and his fellow employees, Bailey and Urwin (Jack Williams
was with them, his brother Kenneth (Gene) Williams had
left separately), and Davenport said to the five of them, not
to worry about a thing, he would have done the same as
they were doing, he appreciated the good work they were
doing, and he was looking for them back on the Monday
night shift Bailey and Urwin testified that Erector Purin
joined Davenport in the compliments and assurances, and
Bailey said that handshakes were exchanged
Employee Riffee, whose last night of work this was be-
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC 547
cause of his requested layoff (see In 5, supra), and who had
come to the trailer office to get his paycheck from Superin-
tendent Davenport, testified that he was present while
these conversations between Davenport and the Charles-
ton men took place, both inside and outside the trailer He
confirmed that Hudson expressed the view that the trouble
could be kept down better if the Charleston men left, that
Davenport agreed and said that in their place he would do
the same thing, that he complimented them on their work,
asked if they were coming back Monday and, when they
said yes, shook hands with them None of them asked for
checks or pay, said Riffee (employee Hudson testified simi-
larly) Riftee testified that he then walked back into the
trailer and Davenport gave him his paycheck
Superintendent Davenport, in his testimony, differed
with the Charleston men on two main points Prefacing the
differences with the statement that he tried to get them
back on the job to finish the shift that night and then go
home to Charleston to get things squared away and come
back to the job Monday, Davenport contended, first, that
he did not give them permission to leave early Saturday
morning before the shift ended, and, second, that he did
not inquire if, or obtain their assurances that, they were
coming back Monday (He also said that he didn't obtain
any indication that they were not coming back on Mon-
day )
I do not accept as true Superintendent Davenport's two
contentions, because of intrinsic contradictions in his testi-
mony and because the after-occurrmg circumstances bear
out the Charleston men rather than Davenport Among
other things, Davenport said that he didn't ask the Charles-
ton men if they were coming back on Monday because he
was trying to get them back on the job the night of Friday-
Saturday, if they had gone back to work, then, he said, he
would have approached every man to make sure all were
going to return Monday' Moreover, as Davenport testi-
fied, he told Manager Stewart, possibly later on Saturday
and definitely on Monday, that he expected some of the
Charleston men to return to the job, as they did on Mon-
day Further, Davenport conceded that he did not warn
the Charleston men, in the discussion of their alleged refus-
al to finish the Friday-Saturday shift, that if they left early
their jobs would not be there on Monday 8
While the Charleston men denied that Superintendent
Davenport insisted that they resume working the night of
January 3-4, former employee Danny Riffee, the only
7 A step which would appear to have been quite unnecessary since he
admitted knowing they had not lost interest in the job in contrast to the
need to ascertain whether they were coming back Monday if they were
refusing to finish the prior shift
s Perhaps of considerable significance, in what appears to have been
Davenport's molding the testimony, was his need as a loyal employee to
preserve an appearance of harmony with Manager Stewart though there
was an apparent clash Davenport had the benefit of reading all of the
testimony in the case (except witness Riffee s rebuttal testimony) before he
testified and, as appears infra, his superior, Manager Stewart although he
sought at the hearing to give the appearance of approval had in fact been
critical of Davenport's handling the case took it away from him over the
weekend, and reversed the assurance that the Charleston men thought they
had that they would retain their Jobs when they reported Monday night see
infra, sec F Though other supervisors and persons were present when Dav-
enport talked to the Charleston men on January 3-4, Respondent called
none of them other than Davenport to testify
close-to-neutral person privy to the conversations, testified
that in the discussion Davenport asked if they would stay
to the end of the shift, that the Charleston men, in particu-
lar Hudson, said it would be better to keep the trouble
down if they left, that Davenport agreed, saying in your
place I'd do the same thing, and asked if they were coming
back Monday, and the men said yes
In my view this represents the bare bones of the essen-
tials of that discussion 9
F The Events of January 4-6, 1975
The Charleston men left the jobsite about 1 a in on Sat-
urday morning, January 4, and drove the 400 miles home
to Charleston that day After leaving, there was no commu-
nication between them and Respondent or the Union on
that day or Sunday or Monday, and on Monday, January
6, the six of them-Hudson, Bailey, Fisher, Urwin, and the
two Williams brothers-drove the 400 miles back from
Charleston to West Point They came to the Chesapeake
jobsite shortly before 5 30 p in in their work clothes, they
testified , for the start of the night shift However, at the
gate they were barred from entering by the security guards
and told to wait Though Manager Stewart and Superinten-
dent Davenport were fully aware of the Charleston men at
the gate, neither went out Instead, Stewart sent the two
union stewards for the day shift and the night shift (the
latter identified as Bill Fern), and Erector Joe Osler of Re-
search-Cottrell, who handed the six men their paychecks
for the previous week with discharge slips indicating that
they had quit The Charleston men were told that they had
no jobs, according to employee Hudson, and when he pro-
tested that Superintendent Davenport had told them to be
back for work on Monday at the regular time, Osler
claimed that he had talked for them to Manager Stewart to
no avail
Turning back to Saturday morning, January 4, Manager
Stewart testified that early in the morning between 3 and 4
a in Superintendent Davenport had wakened him by a
phone call to his motel and given him a detailed report on
the early evening quitting of the job by Kelly and Samp-
son, the firing of Malik, the return of Kelly and Sampson
threatening bodily harm if the other Charleston men did
not leave the project, the men's leaving in a manner indi-
cating their fear of the bodily harm threatened and (ac-
cording to Stewart) not intending to come back, and a re-
quest by Davenport (said Stewart) for nine replacements
for the start of the Monday night shift
Superintendent Davenport, who, when testifying had
read and was familiar with Stewart's testimony, contra-
dicted Stewart, said that he did not call Stewart at night or
early morning but left a written report in the log book for
91-ending verity to it is Superintendent Davenports testimony that
though he said he sought to encourage the men to stay he also knew they
were concerned that Kelly and Sampson would create violent trouble Dav
enport was in no position to offer them assurance that Kelly and Sampson
would not return to the precipitator again that night and he gave none
because there was no information on their whereabouts and Davenport was
fully aware of the absence of security at the gates and on the premises In
addition to the situation on January 3-4 to which he testified he testified
generally that the two gates were not always manned by guards and at the
main gate people could walk through without badges
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Stewart to read when he arrived for the morning shift Sat-
urday, and called Stewart between 8 and 9 a in (Saturday,
January 4) to give a further report 10 Moreover, Davenport
testified, it was in this late morning call that he said he
discussed with Stewart the need for additional men for the
Monday night shift, that he asked Stewart to get hold of
Union Business Agent Perry Day at Richmond to ask for
seven (not nine) men and to get in touch with the Charles-
ton local to ascertain the situation with the Charleston
men Davenport advised Stewart he expected some of the
Charleston men back Stewart did not ask Union Agent
Day to inquire and Day did not inquire about the Charles-
ton men, said Davenport, and Stewart confirmed this fact
in his testimony According to Davenport, on the Saturday
night (January 4) shift, Stewart told Davenport that Union
Agent Day had indicated the names of three or four new
men who would be available for the Monday night shift
(contradicting Stewart's testimony that by then he had al-
ready been assured by Day of nine men) In my view
Davenport's testimony on these events and conversations,
as between him and Stewart, was more accurate Indeed
the indication is that Stewart was shading the truth in order
to justify his repudiation of Davenport's handling of the
situation on the night of January 3-4
What Superintendent Davenport did not know on the
morning of Saturday, January 4, after the end of the Janu-
ary 3-4 night shift, was that Respondent Manager Stewart
had been called upon by, and met with, Chesapeake's plan-
ner in charge of the renovation project, Howard Bull Ac-
cording to Stewart, Bull told him that the Chesapeake peo-
ple were very disturbed with the Friday night incident, and
that they could brook no delay in meeting the deadline for
putting the units in operation Stewart claimed that, while
Bull did not demand that he fire anyone, he assured Bull
that the situation would not continue, that he had ordered
replacements for all of the Charleston men on the precipi-
tator night shift, and that the new men would be in Mon-
day night (January 6)
Whether or not Chesapeake's planner Bull had asked for
removal of all of the Charleston men from the night shift, it
is clear that Manager Stewart reached the conclusion in the
course of the discussion with Bull that this was what he had
to do 11 Although Superintendent Davenport was suppos-
edly completely in charge of the night shift and of its hir-
ings and firings, Stewart relieved him of command in the
matter of discharging and replacing the Charleston men (as
Davenport testified), and did not even give him the oppor-
tunity to talk with them when they reported for work and
were halted at the Chesapeake gate in the late afternoon of
January 6 Davenport testified that he would have liked to
talk to them, and if he had had the chance would have put
10 When the logbook report was called for at the hearing Superintendent
Davenport testified that it had been destroyed at the end of the job but that
Manager Stewart had directed him several days after the incident , following
discussion with Stewart and others , to write another report for the home
office, which Davenport said he did without benefit of the log report or
other notes
ii Which accounts for Stewart s moving forward the alleged timetable of
communications from Davenport on Saturday, January 4 to make it appear
that nine replacements had been ordered by Stewart and promised by
Union Agent Day before Stewart talked to Bull early Saturday
them back to work after calling Union Business Agent Day
to "reinstate" them But, said Davenport, Stewart vetoed
this suggestion, saying, no, they walked off the job and
caused a work stoppage, they quit Stewart then told him,
said Davenport, that the Chesapeake people were upset
with the West Virginia men
According to Manager Stewart when employees leave
the job, with or without permission, they are not entitled
to, and do not receive, their paychecks for any moneys
owing them at the time but must wait until the next pay-
day, when they can collect in person or have the checks
mailed In this case, payday for the Charleston men would
have been Friday, January 10, he said Stewart claimed
that from what he had been told by Superintendent Daven-
port he had no reason to expect that any of the Charleston
men would report for work Monday night, January 6 He
sought to explain having the paychecks ready for the six
Charleston men when they appeared Monday night, by an
alleged telephone call from Night-Shift Union Steward Bill
Fern to Stewart's bookkeeper, Sellers, about 3 p in on
Monday, January 6, in which Fern supposedly asked Sell-
ers if the Charleston men could pick up their paychecks if
they came to the jobsite gate at 5 30 p in Stewart testified
he said yes, and had the checks prepared, and sent to the
gate when the men appeared there Notwithstanding his
several discussions with Davenport beforehand, Stewart
claimed not to have known that if the men were coming to
the plant only for their paychecks they were making an
800-mile round trip drive from West Virginia for that pur-
pose
I do not credit this testimony of Manager Stewart His
story about the alleged phone call from Union Steward
Fern for the paychecks has not an iota of corroboration
from anyone else who testified, or from any event Respon-
dent did not call as witnesses Sellers or Fern or Union
Business Agent Day who were available to it through em-
ployment or business relationships The Charleston men
denied there were any communications by them or to them
with the Union or its agents, including Fern, between the
time the men left the jobsite on January 4 and returned on
January 6 There was no evidence of any such communica-
tions The evidence was that they had made no requests for
money Stewart was not a reliable witness, and not above
invention, as some of his conflicts in testimony with his
associate, Davenport (supra), have indicated I am persuad-
ed that the alleged phone call from Fern was an invention
by Stewart in an attempt to conceal the fact that he knew
beforehand (from Davenport) that the Charleston men
were coming back from West Virginia on Monday for
work, and that, well before they returned on Monday, he
had reversed Davenport's assurance that their jobs would
be there
Other actions and conversations of Manager Stewart
confirm that he took deliberate advance steps to reverse
the assurance by Superintendent Davenport of continued
employment for the Charleston men on their return on
January 6 Employee Hudson and his colleagues testified
that, on January 6, the six of them came to the Jobsite Just
before 5 30 p in in their usual work clothes and work
boots and with their identification badges, which they had
retained when they left the previous Saturday morning
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC 549
The Chesapeake guards were at the gate and prevented
their entry, stating that they would have to wait at the gate
for the combustion engineering people Obviously, Stewart,
as had Davenport, expected their return, and had ordered
this measure to prevent their entry to the premises
When the Charleston men were told by Osler and the
two union stewards that they no longer had jobs and were
handed their discharge slips and paychecks, the Charleston
men left the gate but returned shortly thereafter asking if
they could see Manager Stewart In response, Stewart came
out to the guard gate 12 A conversation between at least
three of the men and Stewart ensued Employees Urwin
and Fisher testified that Urwin asked Stewart what had
happened, and Stewart replied, said Urwin and Fisher, that
he had had a meeting with the paper company (Chesa-
peake) and that, because the paper company said the
Charleston men had created a work stoppage and did not
want them on the job anymore, he had gone along with the
paper company and dropped them Stewart did not affirm
or deny this part of the conversation, but said that the
conversation comprised mainly the request of the men, in
view that they had not quit, that he change the "quit" in
their discharge notices to "reduction in force" so that they
could collect unemployment compensation Stewart replied
he could not do it, that replacements had already been
hired, and if he changed the notices he would jeopardize
his own position Urwin and Hudson asked why had he
replaced them when they had been assured by Superinten-
dent Davenport and Erector Purin that they were doing a
good job and were wanted back on Monday Stewart re-
plied, according to Urwin and Hudson, that the matter was
out of Davenport's and Purin's hands, that he was in
charge, and that was the way it was going to be In the
course of the discussion, the talk turned to Romey Kelly
and to some of the events of the night of January 3-4 As
Urwin and Fisher testified, Stewart was critical of
Davenport's handling of the outbreak of the violence and
of his way of dealing with Kelly and Sampson, and de-
scribed how he would have dealt with them Stewart con-
ceded that he talked of this to the Charleston men and that
he would have handled the matter differently from the way
Davenport had done
G The 8(a)(1) Finding
In my view, on the night of January 3-4, 1975, when the
six Charleston employees temporarily stopped working and
addressed themselves to Respondent's superintendent in
charge, they were protesting to Respondent, and seeking its
protection against, the violence inflicted and the danger of
further violence by the two former employees and trespass-
ers on the job Respondent had not provided the employ-
ees adequate protection against the violence and danger
and was not in a position, certainly that night, to assure
them protection against a recurrence, and did not offer
them any such assurance 13
12 Stewart claimed that the Charleston men were not in work clothes, but
also admitted that it was dark and raining and he did not particularly notice
their clothes I do not credit his claim
13 Respondent cannot escape its responsibility for such protection be
cause the jobsite owner (Chesapeake) had undertaken the protective func-
In seeking the relief, the Charleston employees were en-
gaged in protected concerted activities under the Act, and
discharges by Respondent because they engaged in such
protected activities would normally violate Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act N L R B v Washington Aluminum Company,
Inc, 370 U S 9 (1962)
However, under the collective-bargaining contracts gov-
erning the relationships between these employees and Re-
spondent, the employees had renounced work stoppage or
strike as a means of protesting, or obtaining relief for, a
grievance Nonetheless, if the employees temporarily quit
their labor "in good faith because of abnormally dangerous
conditions for work at the place of employment," their
conduct was not a strike or work stoppage, as provided in
Section 502 of the Act, and they were not engaged in an
illegal work stoppage under their contracts that would just-
ify discharge without violating Section 8(a)(1) 14
There is thus an initial question whether, by an objective
standard,15 there existed abnormally dangerous conditions
for work at the precipitator on the night of January 3-4
From the description of the interior of the precipitator
and of the work and method used to demolish it (supra, sec
B), there was no question that the working conditions were
normally dangerous The demolition had run only 5 days
and was nowhere near completion
Moreover, as Respondent recognized in its brief and
does not now contest, adding to the scene the presence of
two belligerent, partly inebriated intruders (Kelly and
Sampson), bent on forcing the Charleston men by violence
to leave the job, made what was dangerous abnormally
dangerous The wet slippery floors of the bays, the large
unprotected openings in the floors, the hanging metal
screens and materials , some cut and jagged and in stages of
removal, piles of the sharp-edged and pointed metal debris
on the ground near the floor openings and some of it scat-
tered about the floors, and throughout the bays acetylene
torches and their hoses criss-crossing the floors, tools in-
cluding wrecking bars and pointed wrenches, all about,16
and the workers in various precarious locations some on
high perches in the precipitator, others on ladders, and still
others at or near the unprotected floor openings-could
have become a scene of carnage if either or both intruders
persisted in or recommenced the violence initially begun
by assaulting and menacing several of the employees, as
described in section E, supra
tion and failed As Superintendent Davenport testified , Respondent was
well aware before January 3 and painfully aware on the night of January 3
that Chesapeake was not doing an adequate job to secure the premises
against trespassers
14 As pointed out in Clark Engineering and Construction Company v Unit
ed Brotherhood of Carpenters etc, 510 F 2d 1075, 1079-80 (C A 6 1975)
notwithstanding a no-strike clause in the labor contract , Sec 502 protects
employees individually from employer retaliation including discharge
when they quit work in good faith because of exposure to abnormally dan-
gerous working conditions
15 Meaning whether the actual working conditions shown to exist by
competent evidence, might in the circumstances reasonably be considered
abnormally dangerous Redwing Carriers, Inc, 130 NLRB 1208, 1209 (1961)
See also Gateway Coal Co v United Mine Workers, 414 U S 368, 386
(1974)
16 Manager Stewart testified that the tools or the 15- to 20-pound "milk
bottles lying about could have been picked up by Kelly or Sampson to beat
up the others
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Superintendent Davenport recognized the wisdom of,
and approved, the hasty retreat of the Charleston workers
from the precipitator as a means of initially blunting an
outbreak of full scale violence He recognized that the
Charleston workers were frightened and that his supervi-
sors were equally if not more frightened 17 Davenport, too,
was scared of the consequences if violence on the premises
was not averted There was no question on the part of the
night-shift supervision and employees alike that the preci-
pitator had become an abnormally dangerous place to
work so long as the intruders were on or able to return to
the jobsite 1
While Superintendent Davenport would have liked to
have the Charleston men resume and finish the few re-
maining hours of the night shift in the early morning of
January 4 after the two intruders moved out of sight when
told police would be coming, he could not and did not
offer assurance against the return of the intruders, and he
recognized the wisdom of employee Hudson's suggestion
that it was safer to move the "trouble" off the job by the
Charleston workers leaving then, going back to Charleston
for the weekend, and returning on the next workday, Mon-
day Davenport expressed himself accordingly, and the ac-
tion of the employees in seeking relief was amicably settled
in that manner
Thus, Respondent's discharge of the six Charleston em-
ployees not only repudiated the consummated settlement
but was in disregard of Section 502 of the Act, and violated
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act N L R B v Knight Morley Corp,
251 F 2d 753, 759 (C A 6, 1957), cert denied 357 U S 927
(1958) In this connection neither Section 502, nor the leg-
islative history, limits the kind of danger that may be con-
sidered abnormal, and danger at the place of employment
from violence and threat of violence are well within the
reach of Section 502, see Redwing Carriers, supra, 130
NLRB 1208, 1209 19 And see N L R B v Leslie Metal Arts
Co, 509 F 2d 811 (C A 6, 1975), holding that employees
are entitled to protection against threats of physical vio-
lence and other acts of harassment (in that case of a fellow
employee), and that when an employer's failure to main-
tain order rose to the point of threatening employee safety,
concerted activity by employees in protest of the
employer's failure was protected activity which was insured
against interference under Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
17
Manager Stewart in his own investigation learned directly from others
such as Night Steward Bill Fern that Fern had been threatened with vio-
lence by Kelly and was frightened by him
18 While some of the evidence contained expressions in subjective terms
the awareness of and concern with the abnormal danger was manifest in
overt actions by both supervisors and employees such as Foreman Battle
and employee Williams running from the precipitator employee Hudson s
actions to divert the intruders and Superintendent Davenport s frantic and
unavailing efforts to obtain security guard protection and later police asses
tance
19 While the Board, contrary to the trial examiner, in Redwing found that
there was inadequate proof of the violence, it recognized that Sec 502 could
be applicable with adequate proof The case was later reconsidered and
disposed of by the Board on still another ground Redwing Carriers 137
NLRB 1545 (1962) In affirming the Board in Teamsters Local 79 v
NLRB 325 F 2d 1011 (C A D C 1973) cert denied 377 U S 905 (1964)
the court noted that in its second order the Board had not found in haec
verba that no abnormally dangerous conditions existed
Moreover, on the Charleston employees' return to work
January 6, Respondent's repudiation of Superintendent
Davenport's express permission to the Charleston employ-
ees to leave the job just before the shift ended in the early
morning of January 4, and treatment of the leaving as an
illegal walkout, was a pretext for their discharge (apparent-
ly to placate Respondent's client Chesapeake), and thereby
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Morrison Railway Sup-
ply Corporation, 191 NLRB 487, 490 (1971) 20
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By discriminatorily discharging employees James Hud-
son, Larry Bailey, James Fisher, Paul Urwin, Jack Wil-
liams, and Kenneth Williams on January 6, 1975, because
they engaged in protected concerted activities, Respondent
has committed an unfair labor practice within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act The unfair labor practice af-
fects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act
THE REMEDY
It will be recommended that the Respondent shall
(1) Cease and desist from its unfair labor practice, and
from in any like manner infringing upon the rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act
Because the project on which the six discriminatees were
working has been completed and a reinstatement order
would be meaningless , it shall
(2) Give to the discriminatees , former employees James
Hudson, Larry Bailey , James Fisher , Paul Urwin, Jack
Williams, and Kenneth Williams, backpay from the time of
their discharge to an appropriately determined time there-
after related to the completion of the project on which they
worked , the backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis
as set forth in F W Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
approved in N L R B v Seven - Up Bottling Co, 344 US
344 (1953 ), with interest at 6 percent per annum as provid-
ed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716 (1962),
approved in Philip Carey Mfg Co v NLRB , 331 F 2d
720 (C A 6, 1964), cert denied 379 U S 888
Because there is no current place of employment, Re-
spondent shall
(3) Mail a copy of the notice provided for herein to each
of the six discriminatees and to Local 45 and Local 667 of
the Union
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, there is hereby issued the following recommended
20I would also agree with General Counsel that even if there were some
question that Superintendent Davenport gave express permission to the
Charleston employees to leave early on January 4, his total conduct that
night resulting in the mutual understanding between him and the men that
they would return for work January 6 (witness their driving 400 miles to
comply with the understanding ) was a condonation or waiver of any impro-
priety in their having left early and for that reason the discharges for the
early leaving after they had returned to the job would have violated Sec
8(a)(I) of the Act Brandy Helicopter Corp 135 NLRB 1412 1413 1418
(1962) Bentex Mills 213 NLRB 296 (1974)
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC 551
ORDER21
Respondent, Combustion Engineering, Inc, Power Sys-
tems Division, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or other discipline of employees who in
concert with fellow employees protest, or seek protection
or other relief from, Respondent's failure to keep its place
of employment free from abnormally dangerous working
conditions, or who engage in other protected concerted ac-
tivity under Section 7 of the Act
(b) In any like manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed under Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Make whole each of the six former employees, James
Hudson, Larry Bailey, James Fisher, Paul Urwin, Jack
21 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
Williams, and Kenneth Williams, in the manner set forth
in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy," for
any loss of earnings incurred by them as a result of their
discharge on January 6, 1975
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to ascertain the backpay due under the terms of this
Order
(c) Mail to each of said six former employees and to
Local 45 and Local 667 of the Union a copy of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix" 22 Immediately upon
receipt of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 5, the Respondent shall cause
the copies to be signed by one of its authorized representa-
tives and mailed as provided herein
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith
22 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 b)
Order of the National Labor Relations Board' shall read `Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board"